Slashdot Mirror
Android's "Flea Market" Needs Urgent Attention
andylim writes "According to Barry O'Neil, ex-President of Namco Bandai Network Europe, Google needs to understand that a constantly evolving 'beta' product doesn't cut it. It has to learn from the mistakes of the Java business in order to save Android. 'If Google is to present a threat to the Apple App Store ecosystem, it needs to address discovery and purchasing as a matter of urgency, or abandon control and hand over the entire management of the Android Market to carriers, OEMs and trusted publishers.'"
I'm sorry, but does android really need saving? I see more and more and more android based phones every day.
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
I use the Android app market, and I find what I need. I think the Apple App Store is more plagued with marketers vying for positioning in the vaunted "Top 75" than in any other fashion. How about letting me sort by "5 stars"? Anybody?
I'm not sure I want anyone except the community "in charge" of what gets bubbled up in each category.
I ahve sent several emails, and posted on the form.
There online market SUCKS.
I have a G1. it's running Google android OS. It is fully integrated with Google.
Why can't I go to android.com and do a search for apps?
Yes, a Google site and you can't search for market apps.
http://www.android.com/market/
Not searchable. I'm sorry, what is Google's core business?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Google needs to understand that a constantly evolving 'beta' product doesn't cut it
You mean like Gmail, Chrome, and a ton of other products that people use while in beta? Android's main strength is that it is open, cutting edge and changeable. A crappy interface or design on Windows Mobile is going to be slow to change, a crappy interface or design in Android is going to be quick to change.
Don't want something -slightly- unstable? Get a BlackBerry and its outdated architecture. Want something that is going to be nearly the same from beginning to end? Get an iPhone, but don't expect stability.
I had a Windows Mobile phone for a bit, it crashed so often I went back to my "dumb" phone before getting an Android handset that rarely crashes.
Android is doing the most things right at the moment. Windows Mobile is screwing customers by not offering software upgrades, Apple is screwing customers by not allowing them to use their apps, BlackBerry simply is a crappy environment to code for, and despite how much Palm wants WebOS to gain marketshare, it simply isn't happening.
Oh and never, ever allow OEMs, carriers or "trusted publishers" to take over app markets, otherwise you screw your customers even more. I don't want my carrier telling me what I can and can't have on my phone, same with OEMs and I don't want a "trusted publisher" removing all competition to their product.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Lets think about this, carriers love to nickle and dime you to death, hate anything that gets in the way of this, and only wish to allow enough function to sell stuff. The LAST thing the droid needs is the carriers getting involved. All I want from my carrier is fast reliable service. Some of my least technical friends have droids and after a few days of hating them they come to love them.
No sir I dont like it.
But some companies pretend they are not.
But maybe the author is right, and evolving betas do fail. Like GMail, Firefox, Chrome, GNU/Linux, they were all public evolving betas, and they all failed. Ah, wait, they didn't They are very successful, and keep gaining market-share every day.
Off course, other software that wasn't ever in public beta state, like Windows, Oracle, Photoshop, was successful. Ah, wait, they were Public betas too, just the companies behind them pretended they weren't. And they failed and succeeded at the same rate as the other more honest approaches.
All software evolves, and all software goes through a very long Beta period. Changing the label doesn't really change anything.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Allow sorting and filtering by rating. Problem solved. Let the community filter out the crap.
You *can* search the Android Market from your PC, without having an Android phone.
1. download the Android SDK
2. start an Android Emulator, this gets you a virtual phone that uses your PC's internet connection
3. load the Android Market application on to the Emulator
4. Open the Android Market application
5. Search the Android Market
This is not an easy process. But, I have done it, and it works.
Right you are! All of the handset makers using Android would just love to cater to a couple of thousand nerds who would rather spend an hour looking for a free solution than spend 5 minutes and 99 cents downloading a commercial one. Surely, those economic mavens rejoice at the pen-protector-and-taped-glasses set instead of the teenager with dad's credit care. A customer that thinks the best part of the day is installing some obscure patent free codec is worlds more important that somebody that wants to spend ten dollars and watch a movie.
I find your ideas fascinating but definitely do not want to subscribe to your newsletter (besides, it's free - right?)
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I think the biggest problem with the Android market at the moment is its somewhat limited availability. You can't purchase apps in Sweden for example, and there are quite a good number of Android users here. Naturally, thats also going to skew the numbers that the article is using. You can't expect Android phones to have the same number of apps-purchased-per-phone, when a large amount of phones don't actually have that access to begin with. I think thats the point that the article is trying to make, although it doesn't do a very good job at it.
... and hand over the entire management of the Android Market to carriers, OEMs and trusted publishers.
Wait, is this guy implying that carriers are to be trusted publisher? They have tighter sphinxes than Apple does - how would this help consumers reach applications when phones purchased via said carriers disable functions on the phones they resell, just to charge extra money to re-enable them? (e.g. charging extra monthly fees so that their consumers can use GPS on their phones- which does not require any interaction with the cell towers, let alone the phone company!)
How convenient to forget that, with the arrival of Apple Appstore, the typical price of apps & games for mobile phones was lowered approximatelly by an order of magnitude.
One that hath name thou can not otter
How can he draw this conclusion? What about the possibility (as OP suggested) that Android users are simply less likely to pay for apps? I know I personally VERY rarely will buy one (I've paid for 8 in the 2 years I've been running Android)... What about the fact that Android has a 24 hour return policy whereas the iPhone doesn't let you return once you purchase (Which makes me question if out of the iPhone's more purchases how many are actually used continuously)... While I do think the app needs some tweaking (Different sorting, better category functionality, tagging, and a web front end), it's by no means appallingly poor... I think the target audience and company culture is the reason it's not as successful at sales (and that's not a bad thing for the ecosystem)...
Is it just me, or is this just another article written by someone who wants to be heard? How many articles have we seen about how Adroid's going to fail, and this is wrong with it, and that's wrong with it...? Yet as time goes on, it gets stronger and stronger. While I do think there's a lot that needs to be worked on, it's not going anywhere anytime soon regardless of what any of these blog writers think...
JMHO...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
Right you are! All of the handset makers using Android would just love to cater to a couple of thousand nerds who would rather spend an hour looking for a free solution than spend 5 minutes and 99 cents downloading a commercial one
First, I would consider that an insightful (if sarcastic) comment. And Apple has done well with understanding that.
That said, you've totally missed the point. Google doesn't give a shit if Namco, or even Verizon, can make a buck on their phone. Google only cares that Google can make a buck on their phones, and so far in their history, they have done so precisely by catering to their most valuable nonmonetary resource - "a couple of thousand nerds who would rather spend an hour looking for a free solution", or better yet, write their own and thus make the product more valuable to both geeks and non-geeks alike.
You can't buy 100% of the applications on any android phone. For example on my wife's Motorola Backflip she can't get Google Goggles. Sit right next to her on the same network using a different Android phone we can download it. Other applications such as Facebook and Pandora are resolution limited and won't work on certain phones. Now you can argue that its up to the developers to make applications that work across the board but perhaps it should be a requirement for getting listed on the Android store. Either way, I currently have 2 Android phones in my house and an iPhone3GS. The iPhone is the one that I use the most.
A highlighted set of apps and games available in Android Market.
I think you just proved his point - the things that are difficult on the iPhone are the nerdy sorts of things that you and I might want to do, but which most people really don't. People ask me for technical advice all the time, and I've never been asked how to print from a phone.
Look, it was 200 years ago that Adam Smith worked out that not everybody's good at everything. Clearly they need to outsource the search to someone who's good at it. Like, I dunno, Google?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Apple wins this one. I'm sorry, but the AppStore is far more polished and suitable for business use.
iPhone/AppStore:
- Daily reports, with regional totals for downloads and updates.
- Five screenshots for your apps
- Keyword search
- Large app descriptions
- Descriptions for app updates
- Semi-opaque approval process, but it's getting better and tools are moving many of the code-level stoppers to dev visible before submission.
- iTunes. For as many things that have been bolted onto it, it's better than nothing, and gets the job done.
- Up to date SDK with current examples on all major code paths, and iTunesU access to the Stanford iPhone Dev course.
Android:
- No reporting aside from a total download and currently installed count. (Yes, your android device phones home and lets Market know that app hasn't been deleted)
- Two screenshot max (Pet peeve: zero or two screens... one isn't permitted.)
- No keyword search
- 325 character app description
- No update descriptions, you get to fit them in the above.
- No approval, aside from the $25 to register on Market.
- No access to your app reviews, unless you're on the handset.
- SDK docs are up to date, but can be annoyingly sparse or wrong in spots. What examples there are often down-rev, hiding on the net and using deprecated APIs. Alas, it's a common fault in OSS: the code is the fun bit, the docs and examples aren't so much fun. They're often quickly written, are terse or flat out wrong.
The biggest problems I have, aside from the search problem, are the seemingly arbitrary limits on things, and the last of any meaningful web side to Market. It really feels like Market is someone's 20% project.
That may be true, but there's something that you forgot as well. Apps have existed on the iPhone since just a few months after the release. Before saurik's Cydia really took off, we had installer.app. Before the SDK, there were programmers who reverse-engineered how to do stuff. Labyrinth and Tap Tap Revolution were launch titles in the App Store...but only because they were being released for free before Apple made an official distribution channel. For extra fun, the early versions of TTR used to let you use your own songs, make your own tap patterns and upload/download them, and compete with other players.
The first paid app I can recall that was available for the iPhone that was available through the unofficial distribution channels was SwirlyMMS, and it does a stellar job at handling MMS traffic. The distribution model was later integrated into Cydia.
Also, consider the nature of the apps being released. While WinMo may have been a gold mine for Microsoft in the consumer realms, it made inroads in niche markets of industry. When I worked for Staples, we had inventory scanner guns that ran a terminal emulation app on WinMo that interacted with our AS/400 inventory system. While the WinMo version and the iPhone version are close in price ($25 for WinMo, $29 for iPhone with a free Lite version), the lack of a barcode scanner makes it nearly useless for warehouse and inventory management on the iPhone. Similarly, the last time I got my oil changed at Wal-Mart, the serviceman used a WinMo scanner to check my car in for service.
The reason I bring this up isn't to bash the iPhone or glorify WinMo, but because the apps being written for WinMo are generally geared toward industrial and professional users for whom it is justifiable to spend more money on an app that greatly aids running their business. At the same time, the price point of WinMo apps are similar to the market needs, so a low-volume, high-margin sale is effective, thus yielding a chicken-and-egg problem in the consumer market. The iPhone apps lend themselves to being impulse buys by an average consumer, and average consumers have been paying $2-$3 for ringtones and $5 for games on their phones for years. While I'll agree that the prices have come down quite a bit, I'll guess that part of it is that phone models in years past had only a handful of games to pick from, and at that they were only available from Verizon/ATT/TMo/Sprint. When you're going up against 100,000 other apps, you have to have one amazing app to price yourself anywhere on the right side of the bell curve.