[uxp]

> Perhaps they need to focus more on operating within the constraints of the market rather than fighting against them.

It's also amusing to look at the number of Chrome Extensions that do the same exact thing as this app that exist on the Extension Webstore. Granted, making a native iOS app can be arguably more expensive than a Chrome plugin, but it also shows where the market is pointing for this particular niche. Not many people I know of would willingly purchase this app to solve a mobile http connection issue they normally would solve with a free plugin for their desktop browser, especially when it's going to be a rarely used utility.

I think a tiered approach would be a fantastic way to ease consumers into the product. Not only would these developers get a much larger install base, but it would also help the entire app store economy grow more accustomed to more expensive apps, countering the "race to the bottom" effect the author cites as a reason they charge the amount they do.

[JohnTHaller]

There's also the fact that iOS locks out 3rd party browsers... only permitting 3rd party 'skins' with UI over the hobbled mobile safari with JIT disabled. So, you can't even write a full extension that'll work properly on an iOS browser like it would on an Android browser.