Some Claim Android App Store Worse Than iPhone's

eldavojohn writes "If you think the iPhone app store is the only mobile game store suffering an exodus, some game publishers claim Android's app store isn't much better, for a different reason — it doesn't generate much revenue. In fact, French game developer Gameloft (which owes 13% of its profits to iPhone game sales), said, 'We have significantly cut our investment in Android platform, just like... many others. It is not as neatly done as on the iPhone. Google has not been very good to entice customers to actually buy products. On Android nobody is making significant revenue. We are selling 400 times more games on iPhone than on Android.' So the trade-off seems to be more sales but an annoying approval process, versus a lack of sales promotions and no annoyance around approval. It seems that those in it for money will opt for iPhone, and those in it for distribution will opt for Android. Or maybe someone will get it right one of these days?"

Comments

Who'd have thunk it?

[seanadams.com]

It seems that those in it for money and distribution will opt for iPhone, and those in it for neither will opt for Android.

FTFY. But seriously, did these developers make ANY effort to size the market on each platform before making their decision?

I can totally understand why some developers have problems the iphone approval requirements. But its positively daft to make a business decision on only that basis and then be surprised later to discover that your prospective customers simply do not care. Surprise! They prefer a unified, tightly controlled, non-sucky smartphone experience even at the expense of some interesting apps.

Personally I'd go a step further. I would give up EVERY SINGLE THIRD PARTY APP not to have to go back to the Treo that my iPhone replaced. Maybe Android has come a long way since then but for the first time I am actually happy with my phone and not motivated enough to find out.

Re:Who'd have thunk it?

[eln]

Exactly. A mobile phone, even a smart phone, is far more of an appliance (or a game console) than a standard computer is, and you will lose if you try to treat it like a computer. Apple understands this and offers a uniform experience with a tightly controlled OS and tightly controlled applications available through a simple and easy to use app store interface. Developers only have to develop for one set of hardware requirements, and can fully take advantage of that piece of hardware.

Android, on the other hand, is an open platform designed to work on a wide variety of devices. This means that developers have to design their apps for the lowest common denominator of all these devices, or create different versions for each device depending on its capabilities. This means they can't effectively take advantage of advanced features or greater available resources in the high end phones, because they'll lose out on all of the potential customers with the lower end models. This is much more akin to developing for PCs rather than consoles.

If people saw their phones as personal computers, Android's model would be more successful. However, it doesn't seem to fit in with how most people use their phones. It will find purchase among the small segment of the market that enjoys endlessly tinkering with their gadgets, or philosophically oppose closed designs enough to forgo the iPhone, but the majority of the population will continue to flock to the iPhone.

Re:Who'd have thunk it?

[bobcat7677]

Yes, well said. Based on the sketchy news reports I have seen, there are at least 30 million Iphones out there now while there are only about 1 million android devices so far. I think that gap will start to narrow with the introduction of the Droid phone and Verizon's accompanying ad campaigns. But dev for android should be considered investment in the future at this point, not a source of instant riches.

Re:Who'd have thunk it?

[Lemmy Caution]

The Android app store sells less because it is dominated by a culture of "free" (as in beer) and the Apple app store is not. I run Android and wish it would do well, but if I were designing games, I would not target the Android if my model was to make money by selling games. If I were Zynga, Playfish, or Playdom, however, using the "Freemium" model, I'd be all over the Android. Look at Ian Bogost's article describing the ridiculousness of people asking for refunds for 99 cent games as an indication of how hard it is to make money selling games on mobile platforms.

(Gamers, look at the future of gaming: it is Farmville, and you created it through your cheapness, greed, and immaturity.)

Re:Who'd have thunk it?

[mjwx]

Exactly. A mobile phone, even a smart phone, is far more of an appliance (or a game console) than a standard computer is

This is exactly what Android is trying to change.

You may not be old enough to remember but I am. About 20 years ago the PC market was the same as the mobile market is today, Hardware, Software and service were tightly integrated and came from a single provider (this is called Vertical Integration), then along came this upstart company founded by a Harvard drop-out called Microsoft who had developed this product called Windows 3.1 and then had the audacity to sell the software separate from the hardware, the software also ran on generic hardware so multiple vendors could produce hardware and the OS provided a consistent framework for applications. Win 3.1 opened up the hardware market, killed the vertical integrators and created competition. Even Linux owe's its success to the market created by Win 3.1. Apple may have made the first popular PC but it was Windows 3.1 that put the PC on every desk in the world.

I'm sure the Apple II fanboys said the same thing about Win 3.1 as the iphone fanboys are saying about Android, that different hardware would make the platform too inconsistent. It didn't turn out that way with Win 3.1. An OS can sit on a variety of hardware and maintain consistency, Linux and Windows are living proof of this. Android is attempting to separate the vertical integration monopolies of the mobile phone market and frankly, its about damn time as this needs to happen to the mobile phone/service industries.

We are already seeing the phone HW market start to open up as non-phone technology companies like Acer, Asus and Nvidia are producing mobile phones running Android, not to mention non phone products like the Barnes and Noble "Nook" ebook reader.

Perhaps ..

[OzPeter]

.. at the moment the difference in sales is due to market segmentation based on who is buying each type of phone?

If you are a trendy game player you are buying the iPhone and games for it, but if you are an Android user you care less for games and more about being "free" ??

Some claim chocolate ice cream better then vanilla

[Kenja]

But I still say eat which ever you personally like.

Re:Why not both?

[maccodemonkey]

Sure, if porting over was free... But the reality is that porting an iPhone app to Android requires moving all your iPhone C code to Java, targeting non multitouch devices, targeting devices with different screen sizes and resolutions, and another round of testing... You'd have to hire a second engineering team. What Gameloft seems to be saying is they can hire a dozen engineers to make X number of dollars on Android, or they can take those same engineers and make 400 times X on the iPhone. Economically, it makes no sense for them to keep engineers on Android when those same engineers could be put to work to make 400 times as much money on the iPhone.

Lets see where this stands in 2 quarters

[system1111]

With the Droid out and the recent marketing push in terms of Verizon dollars behind it I think this might look a little different down the road a bit.

Re:Market share

[mlts]

There are a lot fewer Android phones than iPhones, plus there is one thing people forget:

If you distribute code for Apple's platform, you have to go through the App Store. If you want to distribute code for Windows Mobile and Android, you can just send the user a file. The Android and WM app stores are more of clearinghouses (similar to Handango), as opposed to a central choke point.

So, factoring out pirated apps, Apple's Store shows essentially all the apps that go from developers to customers. Other platforms, the app stores might be used for commercial distribution, but other apps don't need to be. So, even if Android had the same marketshare as Apple's ther app store would always show fewer apps because people are free to use other ways to get from them to their users.

Android without a phone plan?

[tepples]

If you are a trendy game player you are buying the iPhone and games for it, but if you are an Android user you care less for games and more about being "free" ??

Another thing to consider: iPhone is to Android phone as iPod Touch is to what?

How this tripe get modded up is beyond me.

[mjwx]

Granted, what I'm saying is also anecdotal

This is cancelled out by this.

That's called anecdotal. It doesn't prove anything

You seem to throw around the word FACT a lot but you don't actually provide a single fact, link or corroborating evidence. Nothing, no link, not even a dubious link, all you've done is capitalise the word "fact" in the hopes of making your anecdotal tripe sound authoritative and frankly it doesn't work.

Allow me to explain why a US$0.99 app is not successful on the Android marketplace, because the functionality provided by the vast majority of $0.99 applications is barely worth the price tag. This isn't the killer though, the killer is that there is for every 1 US$0.99 application there are 3 free applications that provide the same functionality. If you want to look at success in the Android marketplace look at things like the exchange client "Touchdown" by Nitrodesk. This application is US$25 to buy but they are targeting business users (who are more likely to pay as its easier an they have more disposable currency) and they provide a product that is vastly superior to anything else on the market.

Here this thing, I'm going to say it again "and they provide a product that is vastly superior to anything else on the market". This is the best way to get ahead in any market, be better, be worth the price you're asking as the majority of paid applications are not worth the price they are asking. But it seems easier to blame the bogeyman called piracy then admit that your program is not worth what you're asking for it. The simple fact is that Android users don't really need to pirate anything as there is almost always a free app that provides the same level of functionality.

Your refusal to accept fact doesn't change the facts.

Just because you call your opinions fact doesn't make them facts.