27 ms·

I believe there is an essential factor which isn't being articulated; the different demographics and psychology of android phone purchasers vs. iphone purchaser

I believe there is an essential factor which isn't being articulated; the different demographics and psychology of android phone purchasers vs. iphone purchasers. I think Apple attracts a large portion of the "eager to spend money on technology" customer base. If you are someone who is eager to spend a lot of time playing with your phone, you are likely to buy an iphone. If you want smartphone functionality but are not inclined to make a hobby of your phone use, you are likely to buy an android phone. I love my android phone, but I am simply not interested in spending additional money on applications, and no matter how good app store search and discovery is and no matter how painless payment is, I can't imagine any phone application I would be interested in purchasing.

arethuza 16y ago
I don't really recognize the "eager to spend money" category - I've bought a fair amount of apps for my iPhone and iPad (mostly games for the iPad at the prompting of my 12 year old son) - the main reason I end up buying stuff is because it is so easy to do and the prices are generally so low that they are almost literally "sweetie money".
thret 16y ago
These two were the clincher for me: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/01/google-translate-real-time/ http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/01/google-translate-real... http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/rush-poker-mobile/details http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/rush-poker-mobile/details
pohl 16y ago
I think you're on to something, but I think "willingness to spend" might be more accurate than "eager to spend". I don't think it has anything to do with making a hobby out of phone use, either. Plenty of android users are eager to tweak & tinker & install & play around with their phones. They're just tight-fisted with their money, that's all. It seems to be a bit like linux users who — spoiled by the ability to freely download and install something that will do almost anything — wouldn't think to open their wallet to pay for software, no matter how good. Edit: iOS isn't immune to this kind of user, either. Just check out app reviews complaining about having to pay 1/5th what people would spend on coffee for an app. But the existence of tightwads isn't as bad a problem as an absence of paying customers. Android is like The Cheapskate Channel: all tightwads, all the time.
- roadnottaken 16y ago
  "It seems to be a bit like linux users who — spoiled by the ability to freely download and install something that will do almost anything — wouldn't think to open their wallet to pay for software, no matter how good." I think this is not accurate. I recently purchased the 'Humble Indie Bundle 2' games package which was available for all platforms. This was offered on a 'pay what you want' basis and, after deciding how much you would pay and purchasing the games, they provided some very interesting data: http://i.imgur.com/Cn5vX.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Cn5vX.jpg In this case (maybe it's unusual?) Linux users were willing to (voluntarily) fork out more cash for these games than either Windows or Mac users. Perhaps it's because payment wasn't strictly necessary or something, I don't know. I suspect that Linux users, as a community, are closer to the software-development community, so when good software is made (without a bunch of insulting DRM) at a reasonable price, they're more than happy to pay for it.
  - pohl 16y ago
    I think those figures just show that the desperate Linux users were grateful for finally getting some mercy sex, as it were.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    "I suspect that Linux users, as a community, are closer to the software-development community, so when good software is made (without a bunch of insulting DRM) at a reasonable price, they're more than happy to pay for it." Well the utter and complete non-existence of any commercial software on Linux (yes I know about Oracle...), and the spectacular failure of anyone trying to make any (who here remembers Corel's ill-faited WordPerfect for Linux attempt, or Loki games?) are devastating proof that the exact opposite is true. (I guess one could argue that 2$ is the 'reasonable price' for any and all software, but that's just closing one's eyes to the economic realities of the software industry). I mean let's not beat around the bush: Linux users don't pay for software in any sizable amount. Plunking down a few bucks for some games once every decade doesn't count. I like Linux as much as the next guy and I've used it since 1998, but the extremists (at the FSF and elsewhere) that have managed to somehow convince a large enough portion of Linux users that paying for software is somehow a moral issue (I mean, seriously?) have killed 90% of the market in that area. Yes I know that a few companies left and right make a few cents on 'support' and other such frolicking in the margin, but Red Hat is the only one who has managed to make any serious money from Linux itself (as opposed to some others who have found a sound and cheap platform on it to build their product offerings on, those seem to do OK with it)..
zecg 16y ago
Well, I imagine most Android users prefer GPL-licensed software, which is overwhelmingly also free as in beer. I know I do. CyanogenMod and FLOSS cover the majority of what I need from a phone-computer-thingy. For instance, I needed some GPS / navigation - OsmAnd and OpenGPS tracker. OsmAnd even allows download of vector data for entire countries and POI databases. Or, you need a timed photo taking application? rrTimeLapse does the job. In most cases, these applications are less cluttered and with saner UI than the flashier paid versions. I would pay, however, for certain applications - such as the excellent Thinking Space mind mapping software (which has a free ad-supported version with very lax limitations), or Titanium Backup. But in my part of Europe I can't pay for apps in the Market. Maybe they should look into fixing that.
ergo98 16y ago
the different demographics and psychology of android phone purchasers vs. iphone purchaser This maybe was true 6 months ago. It isn't true now. Android buyers today are the mainstream, many of whom are paying as much for their handset, and as much on their contract, as the iPhone equivalent. They are competitive choices, and there is no longer any clear demographic difference between buyers. You don't sell 300,000+ handsets a day targeting the geek demographic. My brother and his girlfriend, who I thought were the pinnacle of the iPhone demographic, I was recently shocked to find got a HTC Desire Z and a Galaxy S, despite their other household devices being an iPad and an iPod Touch. I had no part in that decision as I keep my evangelism in the online world. As an Android buyer I've only purchased three applications in my history with the devices: WeatherBug Pro, a top-rated racing game that I then returned, and NFL's Game Center. Am I cheap? Quite the opposite: My steam catalog is stuffed to the gills, and all of my music is legally owned (on top of a rdio subscription). I want to spend money on Android apps. I want Angry Birds to have a pay version so I don't have to worry about my kids accidentally clicking on ads during play. So why don't I spend more? Not only is the market app terrible (the lack of decent heuristics being the biggest deficiency), as a long-time Android booster I will openly say that the majority of Android applications suck just as strongly. It's getting better, but in general it's still quite a gamble if you're getting something decent or not, and I can't imagine the 15 minute window has improved confidence levels. It isn't always the app's fault, either. The racing game I mentioned seemed decent enough, but the constant garbage collection of the platform made it a pause-filled, unpleasant experience. This, of course, is one of the things that the slow-to-come 2.3 release (remember when the purpose of buying the Nexus One was supposedly fast releases?) aims to solve. I actually felt guilty returning that app because it wasn't really the fault of the app's developers, but it made it unplayable. The NFL application I only bought after actually seeing it on the NFL.com webpage. I had found it in the market search previously, but didn't buy it because there is no guarantee that "NFL Enterprises" is actually NFL Enterprises, or if it's some guy calling himself that. The Market also needs, optionally, something like Authenticode/vendor verification. I would not in a million years trust a purported bank application independently discovered on the Android market because there are zero guarantees. To link myself, I talk about the market here - http://blog.yafla.com/Android_22_Engravings_and_the_Google_Nexus_One/ http://blog.yafla.com/Android_22_Engravings_and_the_Google_N..., the core takeaway being that the Market needs the ability to link a third-party rating authority. The biggest incentive for people to go through the buying process is the comfort that what they're getting is worth it. The current user review system offers no such confidence, usually offering up nothing but petty grievances and obvious shill accounts of the author's friends. I'll take the Android model over the Apple model any day of the week, but there is an even better medium that would be ideal.

arethuza 16y ago

I don't really recognize the "eager to spend money" category - I've bought a fair amount of apps for my iPhone and iPad (mostly games for the iPad at the prompting of my 12 year old son) - the main reason I end up buying stuff is because it is so easy to do and the prices are generally so low that they are almost literally "sweetie money".

thret 16y ago

These two were the clincher for me: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/01/google-translate-real-time/ http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/01/google-translate-real... http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/rush-poker-mobile/details http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/rush-poker-mobile/details

pohl 16y ago

I think you're on to something, but I think "willingness to spend" might be more accurate than "eager to spend". I don't think it has anything to do with making a hobby out of phone use, either. Plenty of android users are eager to tweak & tinker & install & play around with their phones. They're just tight-fisted with their money, that's all. It seems to be a bit like linux users who — spoiled by the ability to freely download and install something that will do almost anything — wouldn't think to open their wallet to pay for software, no matter how good. Edit: iOS isn't immune to this kind of user, either. Just check out app reviews complaining about having to pay 1/5th what people would spend on coffee for an app. But the existence of tightwads isn't as bad a problem as an absence of paying customers. Android is like The Cheapskate Channel: all tightwads, all the time.

roadnottaken 16y ago
"It seems to be a bit like linux users who — spoiled by the ability to freely download and install something that will do almost anything — wouldn't think to open their wallet to pay for software, no matter how good." I think this is not accurate. I recently purchased the 'Humble Indie Bundle 2' games package which was available for all platforms. This was offered on a 'pay what you want' basis and, after deciding how much you would pay and purchasing the games, they provided some very interesting data: http://i.imgur.com/Cn5vX.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Cn5vX.jpg In this case (maybe it's unusual?) Linux users were willing to (voluntarily) fork out more cash for these games than either Windows or Mac users. Perhaps it's because payment wasn't strictly necessary or something, I don't know. I suspect that Linux users, as a community, are closer to the software-development community, so when good software is made (without a bunch of insulting DRM) at a reasonable price, they're more than happy to pay for it.
- pohl 16y ago
  I think those figures just show that the desperate Linux users were grateful for finally getting some mercy sex, as it were.
- roel_v 16y ago
  "I suspect that Linux users, as a community, are closer to the software-development community, so when good software is made (without a bunch of insulting DRM) at a reasonable price, they're more than happy to pay for it." Well the utter and complete non-existence of any commercial software on Linux (yes I know about Oracle...), and the spectacular failure of anyone trying to make any (who here remembers Corel's ill-faited WordPerfect for Linux attempt, or Loki games?) are devastating proof that the exact opposite is true. (I guess one could argue that 2$ is the 'reasonable price' for any and all software, but that's just closing one's eyes to the economic realities of the software industry). I mean let's not beat around the bush: Linux users don't pay for software in any sizable amount. Plunking down a few bucks for some games once every decade doesn't count. I like Linux as much as the next guy and I've used it since 1998, but the extremists (at the FSF and elsewhere) that have managed to somehow convince a large enough portion of Linux users that paying for software is somehow a moral issue (I mean, seriously?) have killed 90% of the market in that area. Yes I know that a few companies left and right make a few cents on 'support' and other such frolicking in the margin, but Red Hat is the only one who has managed to make any serious money from Linux itself (as opposed to some others who have found a sound and cheap platform on it to build their product offerings on, those seem to do OK with it)..

zecg 16y ago

Well, I imagine most Android users prefer GPL-licensed software, which is overwhelmingly also free as in beer. I know I do. CyanogenMod and FLOSS cover the majority of what I need from a phone-computer-thingy. For instance, I needed some GPS / navigation - OsmAnd and OpenGPS tracker. OsmAnd even allows download of vector data for entire countries and POI databases. Or, you need a timed photo taking application? rrTimeLapse does the job. In most cases, these applications are less cluttered and with saner UI than the flashier paid versions. I would pay, however, for certain applications - such as the excellent Thinking Space mind mapping software (which has a free ad-supported version with very lax limitations), or Titanium Backup. But in my part of Europe I can't pay for apps in the Market. Maybe they should look into fixing that.

ergo98 16y ago

the different demographics and psychology of android phone purchasers vs. iphone purchaser This maybe was true 6 months ago. It isn't true now. Android buyers today are the mainstream, many of whom are paying as much for their handset, and as much on their contract, as the iPhone equivalent. They are competitive choices, and there is no longer any clear demographic difference between buyers. You don't sell 300,000+ handsets a day targeting the geek demographic. My brother and his girlfriend, who I thought were the pinnacle of the iPhone demographic, I was recently shocked to find got a HTC Desire Z and a Galaxy S, despite their other household devices being an iPad and an iPod Touch. I had no part in that decision as I keep my evangelism in the online world. As an Android buyer I've only purchased three applications in my history with the devices: WeatherBug Pro, a top-rated racing game that I then returned, and NFL's Game Center. Am I cheap? Quite the opposite: My steam catalog is stuffed to the gills, and all of my music is legally owned (on top of a rdio subscription). I want to spend money on Android apps. I want Angry Birds to have a pay version so I don't have to worry about my kids accidentally clicking on ads during play. So why don't I spend more? Not only is the market app terrible (the lack of decent heuristics being the biggest deficiency), as a long-time Android booster I will openly say that the majority of Android applications suck just as strongly. It's getting better, but in general it's still quite a gamble if you're getting something decent or not, and I can't imagine the 15 minute window has improved confidence levels. It isn't always the app's fault, either. The racing game I mentioned seemed decent enough, but the constant garbage collection of the platform made it a pause-filled, unpleasant experience. This, of course, is one of the things that the slow-to-come 2.3 release (remember when the purpose of buying the Nexus One was supposedly fast releases?) aims to solve. I actually felt guilty returning that app because it wasn't really the fault of the app's developers, but it made it unplayable. The NFL application I only bought after actually seeing it on the NFL.com webpage. I had found it in the market search previously, but didn't buy it because there is no guarantee that "NFL Enterprises" is actually NFL Enterprises, or if it's some guy calling himself that. The Market also needs, optionally, something like Authenticode/vendor verification. I would not in a million years trust a purported bank application independently discovered on the Android market because there are zero guarantees. To link myself, I talk about the market here - http://blog.yafla.com/Android_22_Engravings_and_the_Google_Nexus_One/ http://blog.yafla.com/Android_22_Engravings_and_the_Google_N..., the core takeaway being that the Market needs the ability to link a third-party rating authority. The biggest incentive for people to go through the buying process is the comfort that what they're getting is worth it. The current user review system offers no such confidence, usually offering up nothing but petty grievances and obvious shill accounts of the author's friends. I'll take the Android model over the Apple model any day of the week, but there is an even better medium that would be ideal.