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...
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!
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.
People are casually forgetting that Google introduced the option to DRM your apps with Jelly Bean and beyond. This is a problem that has essentially been fixed, especially as manufacturers roll out the new version of Android (which is the real problem with Android: that might never happen in the case of many phones). It's a year out probably before lots of people are actually running Jelly Bean, but the process has begun.
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.
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
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
We need a follow up to, "Area Man Constantly Telling People He Doesn't Own a Television", "Area Man Constantly Telling People He Doesn't Own a Smartphone".
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.
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 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'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 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.
I guess we can call the new Microsoft shills Metro-sexuals.