Slashdot Mirror
App Developer: Android Designed For Piracy
Following news this week of a game developer who turned the Android version of a game free because of piracy concerns, software developer Matt Gemmell has written a lengthy post explaining why he thinks Android apps are laboring under a broken business model. "People have to get paid. There has to be a revenue stream. You can’t reliably have that revenue stream if the platform itself and the damaged philosophy behind it actively sabotages commerce. If you want a platform to be commercially viable for third-party software developers, you have to lock it down. Just like in real life, closing the door and locking it helps make sure that your money remains yours. Bad behaviour has to be more difficult than good behaviour - and good behaviour means paying for your software." He also has some harsh arguments about some of the assumptions and philosophies underpinning the an industry built on an open platform. "Nerds like to say that people care about choice at that level. Nerds are wrong. Nerds care about choice, and nerds are such a tiny minority of people that nobody else much cares what the hell they think. Android is designed with far too much nerd philosophy, and open is gravy to those people because it’s synonymous with customization. ... Open is broken as a money-making platform model, unless you’re making the OS or the handsets. Most of us aren't doing that."
Windows as a platform, at least until Vista/7/8, did nothing to enforce app piracy. That was left purely to the developer. App development was as open as could be - MS imposed no restrictions on distribution and left DRM and similar to the application developer.
Can the author of this editorial kindly explain why there are numerous profitable applications for Windows, during the XP era?
"Nerds like to say that people care about choice at that level. Nerds are wrong. Nerds care about choice, and nerds are such a tiny minority of people that nobody else much cares what the hell they think."
I think this guy just sold me my first Android phone. Also:
"If you want a platform to be commercially viable for third-party software developers, you have to lock it down."
Yeah, because no one ever could figure out a way to make money selling Windows software.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
I don't see _why_ all work should be compensated, is the notion of someone developing software for fun --instead of say, watching TV-- really that far-fetched?
The moron (and you) is conflating open source and piracy... which is moronic.
The whole blog post is so.... morony.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
And you suggest that it being a poor game is a good reason to pirate it?
I'm suggesting that there's a relative cause and effect to poor business decisions, this is more so true with software than physical goods. People are more likely to pirate something, especially if they feel they're getting reamed over, and reamed over hard. Especially by a developer who's out for an extra hard screw-over.
Om, nomnomnom...
I see, I would probably buy another game instead but I guess that's just me.
Oh Gosh, "Open" is broken as a money-making platform model!
This isn't an attack on Android, it's an attack on anything open-source, anything that gives the user the slightest bit of control or freedom. Yes, we are much better off in a completely locked down ecosystem where we can't even change the default browser, where you had best hope the owners of said ecosystem don't decide to compete with their own app that does a similar thing, or you'll get wiped off the one-and-only app store without a care or an explanation from them.
Yes, I'm blatantly talking about Apple here. However, I don't mean to sound like I'm ragging on iOS, or Apple in general, I'm merely pointing out that the opposite end of the spectrum has its own set of issues as well.
Android does have a piracy problem, but it stems mostly from a single tickbox that allows you to install apps that don't come from Google, the same tickbox that lets you install alternative app stores that don't necessarily have the same limitations or guidelines as the Play Store. If you take away that tickbox, I'm not sure the ecosystem will benefit more than it will be hampered.
Plenty of developers seem to be raking in the money on Android, they just use a different approach than they do on iOS. Instead of "Pay up front and be done with it", it's more "Get it free and supplement with in-app purchases" or "ad supported". Angry birds did the latter, Dead trigger (the one the "Piracy" reference was made about earlier this week) did the former. Their app is getting a lot of press, I will be interested to see just how well they do now.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
I see, I would probably buy another game instead but I guess that's just me.
I'd agree, and so would I. Then again, I'd also expect a developer to be up front and honest with me to. Rather than trying to throw a hissy fit in front of the world, then trying to blame piracy. I remember we've seen this monster with a variety of topics before too. In most cases, piracy isn't the monster under the bed, eating children. Now if he'd given the game away free, then sold the things in game. No one would have made a stink over it. Plenty of people make money off their games like that.
Heck, plenty of MMO's do that.
Om, nomnomnom...
make apps good enough to pay for? I hear a lot about piracy on cell phones, I don't see a lot of evidence of it. I know a lot of people with android phones, I've never really seen any of them pirate an app, even those who regularly pirate software on their PC or whatever. Why? Because most apps aren't worth pirating. I have a handful of apps that I've paid for because they're valuable and unique enough for me to do so. Most I don't, because most apps are so simple, even if there is a good paid app available there is almost certainly a free app that is just as good. Sure I could pay for a nice alarm clock or twitter manager, but I could also download one of the hundreds that are available for free or are supported by ads. Adding a tirade about "nerds" just makes me think this guy maybe should have taken a few minutes to breath before writing this up. If you want me to take your opinion seriously, how about not insulting me throughout?
In addition to a lot of the arguments being made here against Mr. Gemmell's rationale, he's not even thinking creatively about the alternative ways a revenue stream could be generated. Case in point: I just played a Flash game yesterday that shows a video ad while loading. The ad unlocked additional features of the game for that playthrough.
But Mr. Gemmell doesn't consider developing new, innovative possibilities like this. He just wants the cash, and will happily use the "locking down" of other peoples' machines on a widespread basis to achieve this. Where's the "locking down" of the property rights that are supposed to come with buying something, like an Android? If it's my device, why wouldn't I have root? It would be apropos if Mr. Gemmell made enough money to buy a car, only to have it stolen within the first couple of weeks.
Mr. Gemmell makes it sound only right for companies and developers to "protect" their [currently-only-imagined] profits, but it comes at the expense of the property rights of the users. So he argues for further inroads on users' access to their own machines, while attempting to make it seem natural, fair and just.
The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
Or more to the point. Piracy is a lot more apparent to a software developer that can't sell anything.
The thing that cheeses me off about the entire post is his dismissive about "nerds" as if they are the cause of all his "piracy" ills. First and foremost, market share IS a good indicator of what people want, and Android has that market share. Sure not any single phone manufacturer has Apple beat, but the PLATFORM of Android is eating iOS's lunch, relatively speaking, and continues to do so, in spite of the recent updates to the Apple handset line. I'm not knocking iOS as a platform... if people like it, people like it. But it seems to me that if this blogger was paying attention, he'd realize that people don't WANT a locked down DRM infested, closed and obnoxious to the paying customer platform. THAT is why they pick Android over iOS.
I'm sorry, but this guy's got a boner for iOS and thinks he can't do anything until Android is as locked down and "secure" as his preferred platform. That's not just delusional, but like we nerds say "WE don't CARE what you think."
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
No, I think he's suggesting that the writer is a self serving idiot who is clearly biased.
> Piracy is a lot more apparent to a software developer that can't sell anything.
Exactly. People with a product people want find ways to extract money from the transaction and laugh all the way to the bank. Losers whine about the unfairness of life.
Sorry, people made heaps of money selling games on the PC and piracy was and is rampant. Every pirated copy is NOT a lost sale. Every pirated copy isn't even a total loss if worked right.
Option one is a world of locked platforms with no piracy. It comes in two flavors, a Hell on Earth police state to enforce it or a land of skittles shitting unicorns that deosn't exist. Option two is what we have now and pretty much always have had, where piracy exists and is a problem but not an insurmountable one. Hollywierd is awash in cash despite the easy duplication of their wares. Multibillion dollar software houses were built on platforms where half or more of the players were running bootleg copies.
Democrat delenda est
What a jerk. He probably wants to eat food, buy a house, see a doctor, and raise a family. :-) Open source sharing is great with programmers, but with the rest of the world it's a one-way street.
The TFA is not arguing against open source, he's arguing against open platforms. He seems to have a problem with the fact that Android, for example, lets people sideload apps from outside the app store, which to him means that they can rip an app from one phone and install it on another without paying him.
In other words, he is basically complaining that Android gives users enough freedom that they can use it to engage in piracy. And advocates for iOS and other platforms which constrain all users on the grounds that they cannot possibly be allowed to do anything that might be used to undermine the ability of app developers (and the associated Apple cut) to make profit.
So, yes, he is a jerk. He thinks that his right to make money following a particular business model overrides my right to own a device where I retain full control. I sincerely wish him to go out of business.
I've read what the man has to say, and it really is as offensive as the summary makes it to be. He basically says that walled garden is a good thing because it prevents users from pirating apps, which is good for (his) business. He doesn't care that users are limited in many other legal activities as a side effect - he actually acknowledges it, but then immediately dismisses it as "something only nerds care about". In short, he really is that much of an asshole.
I judge coworkers on ability by what apps they have on their phone; it makes it a lot easier. :) (My phone makes calls. Only. Yeah, you can still get those.)
You sound like a condescending twat and I'm glad I don't work with you.
Don't forget "Area man constantly telling people he doesn't have a Facebook profile".
What?
I would suggest that the fact that it's so much more risky to steal physical goods has a lot more to do with it than any reamings people get, or fear they will get.
When people get reamed by some physical product (hehe), they don't go steal the next version of that horrible product. They don't go out and steal a similar product made by a competitor. They either take it back, or just make a pfffft sound and go buy something else, especially if that something costs a dollar. If you are lured into buying a shitty cup of coffee by one of those cardboard foldouts with a picture of coffee and a hot chick on it, do you vow to steal all coffee forever to retaliate against the purveyors of shitty coffee tricking people out of their hard earned Sackies?
Of course not. Why? Because you know you are much more likely to get caught and punished.
Even if you end up buying several cups of shitty coffee from multiple vendors, each time tricked by subliminal advertising, you are STILL only out several bucks. At that point most people come to realize that a one dollar cup of coffee tends to suck, and maybe look into buying bubble gum or something with that dollar instead.
A lot of us will steal in safer circumstances, though. Every coffee service with a donation box that I have ever encountered is chronically underfunded. I know many people that shoplifted as kids, and have vivid memories of edging out the record store with an LP pressed against my belly, while my buddies distracted the clerk. I did it until I got caught.... which was something I had assigned a very remote probability to up until then.
We pirate digital goods because we're pretty sure can get away with it. We can hide our nefarious doings with our constitutionally protected privacy. We goad powerful corporations into undermining our privacy to protect their interests, and it's a lot of time, money, and effort to fend them off. If they are successful, the penalty will have been much worse that a shoplifting bust, all so we can have dollar apps for free.
People will pirate pretty much anything, as long as there are people who are willing to crack and people who are willing to download. There's nothing you can do about it.
The scale of piracy, however, is highly dependent on the quality of the pirated version compared to the original. As long as you do everything you can to make your paying customers happy, there's no reason to worry. Business models based on DRM, DLC, etc. that do nothing except annoy your players, will see a higher piracy rate simply because you made the pirated version that much more better than what you sell.