If by "win" you mean "be in the top 5 grossing", there may be some meat here. But it would be surprising for an independent anything to break into the top 5 grossing in any market, software or otherwise, in a few years.
But if by "win" you mean "earn a comfortable living and possibly modest riches" then I doubt this thesis has any legs at all.
The irony that the top developers started as indie developers for the most part, and simply grew their business with successful products seems to be lost on the author.
Assuming that that's true (idk if it is), they were there first, when offerings were more limited and the big wigs hadn't gotten in. My little hypothetical appstore game isn't going to compete with offerings like Angry Birds into which probably many man-years have gone in already. OP's point is that it's harder to get in NOW.
When is this ever not the case? It's harder to own land now than it was when the government was giving it away for free. That in no way makes it impossible to own land, and no one says stupid things like "Why people can't win the land grab in America".
Build a good product, it will sell. Build an innovative product that scratches the itch of millions and you get onto the top 5 list.
What I see far too often is developers passing off a derivative or poorly executed idea, and complaining that the marketplace is the problem. It's not.
I don't see why you're looking at it as an either-or case. I'm sure there are plenty of poorly executed ideas in the marketplace, but that doesn't invalidate my point. To use your land analogy, it's now just getting more and more expensive to buy land in America - just as it's getting more and more expensive (in terms of cost and effort) to put out an application that meets the market's increasingly higher standards.
I'm not saying something is WRONG with the market, I'm making an observation about the state of the market.
There are a million apps, and only 5 people that can 'win' the app store at any time. To say it's more difficult to rocket to the top is an inane and obvious observation. It has nothing to do with indie development, it's about the fact that there are 5 top spots for one million apps. By definition, 99.999995% aren't going to win, regardless of whether they are indie or not.
XL Recordings is a true independent label. It is not owned by a major record label, even indirectly. That's the definition of independent that is used within the music business.
Just because they're incredibly successful, doesn't make them not an independent label. Changing the definition of "indie" to exclude XL makes the claim that 'indies aren't successful' a simple tautology.
>Just because they're incredibly successful, doesn't make them not an independent label. Changing the definition of "indie" to exclude XL makes the claim that 'indies aren't successful' a simple tautology.
Perhaps, but has the benefit that it keeps the definition of "indie" as "not a big marketing and sales behemoth" intact.
And that's more to the essense of being "independent" than "doesn't belong to a major record label".
If we're to accept incredibly succesful, large selling artists, big marketing as "independent", then what does distinguish major and indie record labels? Simply that it's not a conglomerate?
Actually, it states this: "The boundaries between major and independent labels, and the definitions of each, differ from commentator to commentator" in the link.
But if by "win" you mean "earn a comfortable living and possibly modest riches" then I doubt this thesis has any legs at all.