With the coming of the “Jesus Pad” (see previous post) Apple is threatening to shake things up yet again.  This time it’s not the smart phone world that’s in for a rattling but the much larger world of personal computing.  As mentioned in my previous post, apps are going to be a big thing on the iPad (Obviously.  What good is an iPad with no apps).  Developers have some big decisions to make about how they are going to create and sell their apps in the coming months.

Apple is providing developers with a couple different ways to get their apps out to the iPhone/iPod and iPad.  Each has it’s own advantages/disadvantages along with a different set of benefactors and beneficiaries as well.  Below I will describe what developers’ options will be along with their implications.  First a couple definitions for those less word inclined individuals (like myself.  I needed to look these up to not get them confused).

Benefactor: one that gives aid, especially financial aid.

Beneficiary: one that receives a benefit.

Universal Binary

A universal binary is a single application that will run on the iPhone/iPod Touch and the iPad.  Mac users are more than likely familiar with universal binaries because they have been prevalent the last few years as the switch to Intel processors was occurring.  Universal binaries had both an old-style Power PC and a new-style Intel build of the same application.  The difference between Mac universal binaries and iPhone/iPod – iPad universal binaries is that developers were not stuck in the roll of benefactor for them.  The application was identical for each architecture and the price was the same when selling either architecture.  The same is not at all true for the current universal binaries on iPhone/iPod – iPads.

Benefactors: Developers

Beneficiaries: Apple and Users

Universal binaries have a number of difficulties for developers both from a programming perspective and a financial perspective.  Creating a a universal binary requires a developer to spend the time to create a single application that will look great on both the iPhone and iPad.  The screens for each of these devices is such a world of difference that there can really be slim to zero asset reuse.  To take advantage of the iPad’s larger screen gestures will be different, images will need to be redone and new features added.  Essentially a second application needs to be created.  Some work can be saved in reusing code between the two formats but a large portion of code will need to be different if it is going to take advantage of the iPad’s feature set.  All this takes time and it is not a trivial change to add features and full redesign an apps UI.  Not to mention bug testing and making sure everything works as planned for both formats.

So how does this benefit users?  Well, they just got 2 applications for the price of one.  Developers will have to keep the price at iPhone levels if they want to get any sales.  If developers raised the prices of universal binaries they would see far less sales than a similar iPhone only application with a lower price tag.  Users also benefit in that it is just so easy to have a single app that will magically work on an iPhone and iPad.

Apple benefits because they get some more app sales and this could possibly even push users to front some cash for an iPad.  What if users found a whole bunch of apps that they love on the iPhone and the iPad versions are already payed for.  They might be swayed to purchase an iPad if they are on the fence.

Universal Binary

Huh?  Didn’t we just read about universal binaries in the last section?  You are not mistaken.  You did.  Here is a different and far less likely way the universal binary game can go.

Benefactors: Users (sometimes)

Beneficiaries: Developers and Apple

In this model, developers charge a higher price for universal binaries than they would have for an iPhone application alone because they took a lot more time to stick an iPad application in there.  Why are users the benefactors then?  What if you are user who doesn’t own an iPad an you will only be using the application on your iPhone?  Why should you pay for the extra iPad features that you will never use?  If things went this route (which I really doubt they will after the iPhones race to $0.99) iPhone app prices will end up being higher and a lot of people will be paying for a built in iPad application they may never use.

Separate iPhone/iPod Touch and iPad Binary

This is the opposite of a universal binary.  A separate application would be made for the iPhone/iPod Touch and the iPad.  Code can still be shared between the applications but there will be 2 distinct products for sale in the App Stores.

Benefactors: Users (kind of, but not really)

Beneficiaries: Apple and Developers (kind of, but not really)

This model makes application development easier on the developer.  There is no need to pack two apps in one package that can share next to nothing UI related with each other.  The benefactors and beneficiaries in this case really aren’t playing the roles.  Users can be perceived to be the benefactors because they have to purchase two applications even though it is the same thing (in their eyes).  This is a mistaken perception.  Developers had to make two separate applications.  The iPad version didn’t magically create itself.  It took time, dedication, new assets and a whole new UI.  New features were added to take advantage of the iPad.  Developers deserve to get paid for their work.  Let’s say you went to an art gallery and saw two amazing paintings that looked very similar but one was a bit smaller.  If you bought the smaller one would you expect to get the bigger one with it for free?  Of course not so let’s drop this expectation with iPhone and iPad apps before it event happens.  Support your artist and you will get even more amazing work from them in the future.

Conclusion

It is readily apparent that Apple is always the beneficiary.  Whichever model a developer chooses Apple is going to get a piece of the pie.  I’m going to venture a guess and say Apple wants developers to make universal binaries.  Universal binaries have the greatest benefit to them because they offer the potential temptation for users on the fence about purchasing an iPad (or iPhone) a bit of a push to do it.  It may not be much but if it turns out to be enough in just a small percentage of cases that is another hardware purchase for Apple.

Developers are going to have to be very careful about how they proceed.  They shape the prices of applications in the App Store and they pretty much blew it with the race to $0.99 for iPhone apps.  I can only imagine the quality of an application that is a universal binary selling for a dollar.  It can’t be good.  Not for users and not for developers.  If developers put some quality time into iPad ports of their apps they will be a superior experience for users and users won’t mind fronting a bit more money for them.  On the other hand, if developers take the quick route and don’t fully rethink and redesign their applications then users will not want to buy them and they certainly won’t want to pay more for them.  What I would like to see from Apple is some way to link separate iPhone and iPad apps together on the SKU level.  I would like to see them offer a discount program so that if a user buys an iPhone app and wants to buy the same app on the iPad they get a price reduction.  A system like this would benefit everyone:  users would get kick-ass ports of their favorite iPhone apps for a discount and developers would have a reason to spend some quality time on the development of the iPad port to really make it stand out.

Developers have a need to be responsible with this process.  If an iPad port isn’t much more work (think most games if they just use higher resolution textures or only have a few simple changes) then a universal binary at a fair price is in order.  Granted, a universal binary is not an option if the iPad version of a game has a large amount of changes that took significant work to do.  I wouldn’t expect to pay the price for a PSP game when I am buying a PS3 game.