But MS says that apps are the last big thing and social networking is the future. Sour grapes?

And if most apps aren't used often, is this a problem?

Please comment

http://m.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/sep/09/microsoft-move-away-app-centric?cat=technology&type=article

I hadn't realised android had overtaken apple in app quantity to be honest.

I've always thought it was a silly figure to base "bragging rights" on though as on both stores 90% of apps are pointless rubbish.

Most users will have a couple of hundred apps (Max). Beyond that there couple be a billion apps and it would make little difference.

The 500,000 figure is specifically for iPhone apps. Add in iPad specific apps and the figure for the whole iOS ecosystem is 650,000, as of June this year.

I don't think it's sour grapes from MS; they are just coming at it from a different approach.

i'm pretty sure 500,000 of them are for making fart noises.

it's a pretty subtle distinction as a user you only need the apps you want. but who knows what you're going to want.

it's great that their are half a dozen apps in android that allow plumbers to calculate radiator sizes. it's a potentially useful app even if not for me.

the headline number of apps is BS though. there must be a way of calculating the number of active apps or something. apps that have been downloaded by more than 1 in 100,000 of the user base.

you can't add them like that. surely. if the apps are device specific then there is less user choice not more.

Interesting to see the breakdown of how many apps available in each market and language. Whilst this headline number of total apps is large, there may well be countries where WP could overtake Android or iOS if certain languages haven't received a lot of attention.

That's why Apple say there are 500,000 for the iPhone, while the total number of apps in the app store is 650,000, of which 225,000 are enhanced for the iPad.

(That means there are 75,000 hybrid apps that work on the iPhone but are also optimised for iPad, and 150,000 that are iPad-only)

The 600,000 Android figure is for the total number of apps available across all devices, so why shouldn't that figure be used for iOS devices? Surely it's not a like for like comparison otherwise?

A lot of apps will largely be replaced by shortcuts to high quality mobile websites, HTML5 etc. These will work on any device, saving development time.

Some will still use local processing, e.g. offline apps, but increasingly there will be more Chromebook style solutions.

The idea of an app for every website you use will look infantile in a few years.

I think it is great that both apple and Android have so many apps. Choice is great. I recently wanted an app to backup my phone, and I enjoyed reading about and testing several before picking the one I liked best. 500K, 600K or a million doesn't really make much difference, as long as the 100-200 apps you need are available.

MS need to improve their app availability. If they think they are unimportant, they are mistaken. Social networking might be the next battlefield, but they will not even be part of the war if they can't convince people they have a healthy app market.

I have a lit of apps that I rarely use. Torch, train times, games, etc. I could uninstall them, but why should I? I might need them one day and they do no harm.

I think the author wouldn't write that people own a lot of books they rarely read but it is a very similar situation.

I find it infantile now.

things like the IMDB app. **** off, just make your website work properly on my ****ing phone.

There are thousands of Apps on the iOS App Store that have never been downloaded.

The same is true of most online services - Kindle Store, Spotify, iTunes Store, Google Play Store etc.

IMDb pissed me off. How many time do I have to click "No thanks" before they accept that I don't want their app?

"Well he's said no seventy eight times in a row, seventy nine might be different!"

It is owned by Amazon now.

Its sort of horrifies me that collaborative information from movie buffs then gets owned by a mega corp.

Long live wikipedia.

I didn't know this. It is very bad news.

Amazon have owned IMDb since 1998.

I like the idea of volunteer and collaborative projects. Its a shame they couldn't afford the fees to run their servers, but I understand the commercial realities of life.

Long live Wikipedea!

There becomes a point where the number of apps is irreplaceable anyway. iOS and android are at that critical mass now. It's like arguing over windows having more apps than osx!

That's still a very valid argument in some circles. Look at gaming on both platforms. osx has a tiny fraction, its barely suitable as a gaming platform.

Hasn't mobile gaming overtaken handheld consoles? Fast processors and GPUs on smartphones, large distribution network and customer base make them quite attractive for devs.

<throws grenade>

How come Apple have so many apps? I though they kept pulling them off there store?

<grenade explodes>

lol

I'd struggle to name 2 handheld consoles, so I expect so.

Advertising and online purchases were not so big back then. It would pay its way quite easily these days and be worth millions.

I guess we are lucky Apple did not buy it. I would shudder at the though of having to install iTunes to view it.

I prefer to use the IMDB app, the mobile website works fine but the app is easier to use.

well i know. but they could make the website easier to use.

More doesn't necessarily mean better.