Poll: paid iPad app

[A. Smith]

Accordance treats the iPadOS app as an extra large iPhone app even though the iPad is laptop grade hardware. I, for one, am willing to pay a premium for a dedicated, full featured iPad app. What about you?

[Kristin]

Hi @A. Smith,

I originally wasn't going to respond since I am not a huge iPad user (not for Accordance anyway). But since no one has responded yet, here are my two cents: Personally, I wouldn't pay for it. As we have seen with syncing being a feature of v.14, something being paid for does not actually make it come faster. Additionally, if Accordance advertises that once you buy it you can download it onto multiple platforms (which is the case, and should be the case), it seems unreasonable for people to start paying for something which is advertised as part of the basic program (as it should be). So it seems like improvements to the iPad is more like a feature request, or frankly, even a bug report if it is just not working right.

On a side note, I don't know a lot about the industry, but everything I have seen the past few years, Apple seems to be increasingly blurring the computer and iPad, I think with the hope of apps only being needed to be created once. If I am even sort of correct about that, it seems like it would be in the best interest for Accordance also to improve the iPad capabilities in preparation for weird things Apple does in the future (and maybe get rid of the corruption issues also).

[A. Smith]

1 hour ago, Kristin said:

Hi @A. Smith,

I originally wasn't going to respond since I am not a huge iPad user (not for Accordance anyway). But since no one has responded yet, here are my two cents: Personally, I wouldn't pay for it. As we have seen with syncing being a feature of v.14, something being paid for does not actually make it come faster. Additionally, if Accordance advertises that once you buy it you can download it onto multiple platforms (which is the case, and should be the case), it seems unreasonable for people to start paying for something which is advertised as part of the basic program (as it should be). So it seems like improvements to the iPad is more like a feature request, or frankly, even a bug report if it is just not working right.

On a side note, I don't know a lot about the industry, but everything I have seen the past few years, Apple seems to be increasingly blurring the computer and iPad, I think with the hope of apps only being needed to be created once. If I am even sort of correct about that, it seems like it would be in the best interest for Accordance also to improve the iPad capabilities in preparation for weird things Apple does in the future (and maybe get rid of the corruption issues also).

Heh. Good point re paying for v14. I’ve got opinions, but I won’t share them rn. 
 

Re iPad. Blurring the line re hardware, yes. But not software. And I don’t think they will. iPad is just good enough that MacBook users want one but not good enough they generally replace their MacBook with one. Two sales instead of one. 

[MacMan]

I use both as well. And, yes, the limitations on the iPad version can be very frustrating. So, now I have a technical question, what language is the base for Accordance? In order to accomplish what is suggested above, the program would need to be written in Swift--unless they somehow did that as part of the Unicode upgrade. As a non-programmer (but with a son-in-law programmer), I can only imagine how much time and man-power that project would take. Plus, I am not sure that Swift is a mature enough language to do everything Accordance requires.

 

Does anyone know the answer to this question?

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

5 hours ago, MacMan said:

Does anyone know the answer to this question?

 

I do but I wouldn't share it publicly without permission from our programmers. They can chime in or DM you if they wish to discuss anything further on that front.