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."
Isn't this the same app that was "pay to win"(pay for the app, then pay another $6 to win, then pay more, and if you do anything that causes a loss in data on your phone, you get screwed out of everything) and people just said: "screw you and shove it up your pie hole." Pretty sure it was.
Om, nomnomnom...
Last summer I interviewed at a startup that was trying to hire 4 people to work on a collaborative mobile game. I got an offer but didn't take the job, but the lead architect said they were targeting iOS and not Android because of the piracy situation on Android. The money is on the iOS side. We can all guess about the reasons, but that's the simple reality.
I'm needing chest waders after hearing his excuses.
Sure, being a mediocre at best title isn't an excuse for "stealing" it- but in the same vein, even with fairly SOLID DRM in Google's Store model, he couldn't cut it and blames piracy (I want to see PROOF before I buy his "piracy" excuse...).
This is just bullshit spin. Seriously
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Piracy exists on every platform that ever had any relevant level of market share...
Windows does nothing to hinder application piracy for instance.
Piracy popularises the platform, and what would you rather have, 10% of a million users, or 90% of a thousand users? Some will pay, some won't, and those who don't usually wouldn't have anyway, but on the other hand they are increasing your user base, viewing your ads and have now heard of your company and may well recommend your apps to their friends, some of whom may well buy them.
Windows succeeded largely because both it and the applications running on it could be pirated. If it was not possible to pirate windows, then a significant proportion of the world would be running something else, either linux or something else that they can pirate. Were that the case, MS would have significantly less influence over the market, their paying customers would be less locked in and a lot of those who buy software would be using alternatives too.
MS pretty much owe their existence to piracy... Bill Gates even admitted he would prefer users to run a pirated windows than a competitor.
So do Adobe, if everyone who pirated photoshop used something else then it would have a lot less mindshare.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Fuck you, control freak asshole. If you want to sell your products then you need to provide a compelling case to your customers. Otherwise, you need to accept that your shit will be pirated and you need to figure out if what you are selling covers your cost. And if you're feeling real insecure, figure out your own security system.
But don't go saying that I need to be treated like the enemy by my own property. My property is mine and will do as I say. You are welcome to have your software on my property, but it isn't going to bow to your demands and fulfill your wishes.
Mat Gemmell is an authoritarian asshole who hates that people are free to do with on their Android devices. I bet he hates PCs with a burning fury and would prefer I have no freedom whatsoever. I bet he's pissed that I can choose not to buy his software. Fuck him.
Heh or maybe just more androind slamming by apple fanboys, look at his code page.
Android appeals mainly to two huge groups of people: 1) the tech savvy folks who like an open platform, but also know how to pirate software and to 2) people who are looking for a bargain.
Really? So there are no Android users in between these two extremes? 10,000,000 people have bought the Galaxy S3 which is an expensive phone. You are trying to say that all of those people are tech savvy people who "know how to pirate software"? Millions of people bought the S2 in its heyday. Are you saying the same thing about those people? And if it's all about the tech nerds buying the expensive Androids why aren't they all just getting Galaxy Nexus's since that's the one with the unlockable bootloader out of the box. Android appeals mainly to two huge groups of people: 1) the tech savvy folks who like an open platform, but also know how to pirate software and to 2) people who are looking for a bargain.
Now that we've explored your hypothesis and found it lacking, has it occurred to you that there are actually people out there that walk into a phone shop with plenty of money to spend, look at the options available including Blackberry, iPhone, Windows, etc. and then *gasp*, decide to buy Android because they like it? If that hasn't occurred to you then maybe you should have a look at your biases.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
It's true. Android isn't popular because it's "open", it's popular because after the iPhone launch handset manufacturers were clamouring for an OS to compete with it, and Google just happened to have Android under development and told everyone "Here, you can use this. It's free." The handset manufacturers clamped onto it because it meant they didn't have to go to the trouble of developing their own modern mobile OS.
If Microsoft, or even Palm, had had their shit together at the time, Android may have just been a niche OS today. But they didn't, so here we are.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
I feel sorry for you.
Perhaps you should switch careers to something you enjoy doing.
I'm guessing most of the full time developers reading /. also do some programming for fun. Perhaps because they really want to have a certain type of application, or because they think they have an idea that'll make them rich. Maybe because they read about some algorithm and would like to have a go at it themselves or just because they enjoy the act of creating something new. Some even program for fun because they enjoy being part of a community. There are probably dozens of other reasons why people develop code in their spare time. But most of all; there joy of doing something is in itself reason enough to do it.
I feel sorry for you if you lost your passion for development and became a soulless office drone.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I have been playing with computers (and writing programs) for well over 30 years. I have my own small business that has nothing to do with computers. Computers are my hobby; if I made it into my job then what would I do for fun?
Right now I'm reading and experimenting with OO programming (GTK, actually), something that I've never really looking into until just a couple of weeks ago, and it's a whole new world compared to the stuff that I've done before.
It's fascinating, it's fun and I like it. So yes, there are people who code for fun.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
He conflates the two. Whether it's deliberate or out of ignorance, I can't tell.
That's precisely his problem. He wants users to be trapped similarly to how they are on iOS, where nothing runs without Apple's approval. He wants the platform to serve his interests first and foremost, with the user constrained to a narrow envelope.
An understatement. But yes, basically all of this. Sadly, he'll probably dismiss all of the discussion on Slashdot with a "stupid neckbeards" like he does in his article.
I dunno. I think this boils down more to the fact that Apple users in general are more willing to pay for things that Windows users expect to get for free. I don't think that "open" versus "closed" really has anything to do with it.
Game developers didn't seem to have any trouble making money for similarly "open" platforms before. Android isn't any more "open" than what game developers have been dealing with for 30 years. There seems to be some confusion about just what kind of "open" we're talking about here.
Perhaps people that aren't as prone to spend money to impress others are just less likely to blow it in general.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I remember this same kind of thing happened back in the old days. There was this one operating system that later had a GUI laid on top of it called Windows. It seemed like everything was pirated including the OS itself. Anyway it completely hampered the industry. The incentive to write software was destroyed by piracy as more floppies were copied than paid for. The industry went into a downward spiral and nearly collapsed several times over the last few decades. The software industry hobbles along today and hardly anyone has even heard of Windows and nobody makes any money off of it.
BTW the same thing happened in the music and movie industries. Ever since the introduction of cassette tapes for both audio and video the industry has struggled to stay afloat. We see this mostly as budgets and revenues for music and movies continue to shrink.
Okay that was a little sarcastic but I think the doomsday view of piracy is a little overboard. Every industry has shrinkage when it comes to products. The is partially caused by damage to product, sometimes shelf-lives, but mostly theft. In some areas it can be more than 5%/month and physically removes the product from your possession in addition to the time to buy/use/display that product.
So where do we go from that. Well a store takes precautions to limit factors of shrinkage but only so far. They don't frisk customers down but they may tag everything and try to put sensors by the doors. This is marginally effective. Difficult to remove packaging also helps to reduce theft but annoys customers. Stores also take their shrinkage into consideration when calculating overhead. If 5% of your product evaporates you have to make up for it in your prices.
Now how can we apply this to software. Well some precautions can be taken but they generally aren't very effective. It only takes one person out of billions to figure it out and share it. So you have to weigh the costs of implementing copy restrictions which includes the man-hours to develop that code and the inconvenience to paying customers. The shrinkage rate needs to be taken into consideration. Software shrinkage would be unsustainable if you actually lost product every time but you don't. There is opportunity costs but no costs associated with replacing the product.
It's sort of a mix between shrinkage and market penetration. What software are you creating? What is the piracy rate for that type of software? If there's a possible market of 10,000,000 people and similar products suffer a 90% piracy rate then you better plan on having at most 1,000,000 people when planning costs. If it's not worth it, then it's not worth it. It'll be okay. Some companies will make money and some won't. Maybe think of it as advertising costing 90% of your revenue.