So it’s basically: “I failed at X so you shouldn’t be doing X”
The most charitable reading is roughly: “Don’t assume users will like/use your app just because it exists. Heavily consider whether the functionality you provide is a good fit for the context of a mobile application.”
I’d say “consider if the functionality you need is available in an HTML5 app, and if there’s a better way to get revenue than the App Store(s)”
I’ve bought probably 250 - 300 apps since I first got onto the iOS bandwagon. I hardly use any of them, except for one class of app.
The ones I do use, are purely music-making apps: synthesizers, effects, drums, music-stuff in general.
I think the iOS revolution has been mediocre for phones, okay for gaming, but just great - almost amazing - for music-making apps, playful creativity, and so on. I think that the areas where iOS rules, and really generates revenues for developers, is where you turn the device into an instrument of some variety. Where it really is an instrument, and not just a dumbed-down PC; i.e., if your app is more embedded, you stand more of a chance of people taking the device out somewhere and using it.
I don’t just mean musical instrument - but instrument itself, as in the hardware is in some way directly applied to a real-world, interactive problem. Where Birdly failed for me as an app, is that it just took too much work to get into it - if the app developers considered the problem more like how a cash-register or midi-sequencer user might want to interact with data, perhaps there would be more interest. However as it stands, using Birdly is more like reading a book.
And thats another thing I think is not working in strictly-App developers favors: like any book, apps require an investment to get started. Most Apps - like most Books - never get the user interested beyond the first page, if at all. Multi-Page apps don’t seem to do so well ..