7 ms·

MLB.com CEO: iOS users more likely to purchase content than Android users

52 points by anderzole 16y ago

jeffclark 16y ago
I consider myself pretty high on the chart of "technology-savvy" and trusting when it comes to payment on the Internet. But for some reason, I won't pay for something inside the Android store. I know Google's behind it and that my stuff is probably safe. But there's just something inherintly shady about the Android store that I can't put my finger on. I know it's irrational, but imagine how someone who hasn't created apps feels.
- timtadh 16y ago
  I agree 100%. However, I tried the amazon app store and instantly felt better at actually spending money. Somehow it just "feels" less shady. This is probably all irrational and the Amazon store most likely doesn't address the real issues with the Google run store. But at the same time, I know the next time I want to look for an app, I will go to Amazon first.
  - easyfrag 16y ago
    Maybe it has to do with the fact that people aren't used to giving money to Google where they are more likely to have a trusted customer-vendor relationship with Amazon. That being said Google is a well-known and trusted brand so I think something else might be at play here psychologically. Perhaps the public perception of Google's products as being "free" (to them) somehow increases the barrier to becoming a paid customer. I have not an ounce of evidence to indicate that but I think it could be an interesting topic with big implications for the startup community.
    - chc 16y ago
      I don't think it has anything to do with people's feelings about Google. Based on the Android owners I know, people who don't make that association strongly seem to respond the same way. The store itself just feels sketchy. I'm pretty sure it's mainly a design issue, although the fact that the iPhone store started off with high-quality stuff while Android Market was seeded with crapware also hurts the perception.
  - akashs 16y ago
    Great point, I'd second that. Could even be due to the fact that Google is used to taking money from businesses, not consumers. Amazon and Apple, consumer-focused companies, probably know how to do a better job at getting us to spend our cash from all their other experience.
- Macha 16y ago
  My guess (not having used the Amazon store however) is that Android's permissions system is hurting it. Why does that app need location and full network access? So you become suspicious. And so on. While on iOS its automatically given full rights apps get, apart from location, which it asks for at runtime, not install time. So while the iOS app has as much ability to start feeding data home, the fact that the Android app is forced to admit it uses network access leaves us more suspicious. It doesn't help that many apps have a perfectly legitimate purpose for that network access, to download and display ads.
  - gte910h 16y ago
    Actually if you use certain frameworks without good reason in the Apple App Store, you get rejected.
  - metageek 16y ago
    It's a reasonable guess, but it would apply to free apps, too. (Even more, in fact, since they're usually ad-supported, which means they require Net access and probably your location.)
- muhfuhkuh 16y ago
  "But for some reason, I won't pay for something inside the Android store." It could be one of several things, which would actually vary from person to person, but all leading to paltry returns for _most_ Android developers vs. iOS. 1) The "perceived value" proposition - To a user, Google is "the search engine" and Android "the mobile OS", but they're both free to use. In a consumer's mind, why wouldn't then _everything_ else, including the Marketplace apps, be free. It doesn't help matters that Rovio's runaway blockbuster cultural gamechanger shared timesink app Angry birds is free on Android (albeit with ads). 2) The blatant, flagrant, rampant, money-maker shaking heaps of copyright theft and IP violations that make it to the top of the Marketplace lists. It makes the whole thing feel like a grey market bazaar in old Morocco or Bangkok - just sketchy as all hell. How could I entrust my credit card with a service that allows GPL violators and copyright flouters to rise to the _very tippy top_ of the charts? I mean, alot of that has changed since Google started putting the screws on very obvious scofflaws like Nintendo emulator game ROM packs, Star Wars weapon simulators, and famous rapper soundboards. But the die may be cast for some of the old-school adopters. 3) The weird availability - Android phone users had to pirate Marketplace apps from day one if they didn't come from the US. Now they're expected to _pay_ for stuff? Sorry, but once you've told them it's free, it's free for a loooong time. Hell, Napster all taught us way back that music "wanted to be free". It's taken over a decade for paid music to come back into some semblance of making any money; coincidentally, it's via Apple's iTunes.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- yalogin 16y ago
  I bought a Nexus one recently and while browsing for apps on the market saw many apps just listing every keyword from the dictionary in their description to get some keyword juice. Its similar to the keyword list you find in CL ads. Of course it turns you off that app but also does not make you feel good about the store itself.
uptown 16y ago
The iOS MLB app (especially the iPad variety) is probably my favorite. The Android MLB app is probably my least favorite. It's just ugly ... only does a fraction of what the iOS app does, and provides very little beyond what you can get for free from any number of other sports or baseball apps. People will pay for quality. Right now, the Android app isn't anywhere near what I'd consider a quality app.
- mey 16y ago
  Additionally, if you read the fine print, the android app only works with certain phones, this isn't clearly indicated and a friend ran into this last weekend while on vacation.
- naner 16y ago
  Is this MLB.com's fault, limitations of Android, or both?
  - usaar333 16y ago
    What limitations would there be on Android, relative to to iOS? I can just think of in-app purchases.
    - macrael 16y ago
      While perhaps limitation is a strong word, it is clear that the development environments/tools/api's for the two platforms are very different. Is it not possible that one is simply better suited to producing high quality apps than the other?
      - joebadmo 16y ago
        That's a diversion from the original point that iOS users are more willing to pay for apps. Whether it's easier to develop high quality apps for whichever platform, the fact that the iOS app is higher quality is an important factor when that makes the comparison invalid.
shuchton 16y ago
How about there is no Honeycomb version of At Bat, but there is an iPad and iPhone/iPod version. Basically, they don't support Android the same way they support iOS. I have both and iPad and a Xoom, but I only purchased the iPad version because there is no Honeycomb version.
- j79 16y ago
  I'm curious: Do you find you use the iPad more because of that one app? Or, is the iPad strictly used for At Bat, and the rest of your time (email, browsing, etc.) used on the Xoom? I know Apple likes to advertise how many apps they have, but you're the first person that I've seen who has claimed to purchase hardware based on app availability...
  - shuchton 16y ago
    I think most people would choose hardware based on App availability. So, for baseball, absolutely. The iPad has a better tablet version of At Bat 11. In more general terms, I'm still figuring my use patterns out. I've had the iPad since it came out in Mar 2010. I've had a Xoom since the WiFi model came out in Mar 2011. To be as objective as possible, I'd still tell my non tech savvy friends and family to go with the iPad. The whole experience (not just hardware specs) is smoother. Right now, the Xoom is fun, but a lot of what I use the iPad for is not available yet. Netflix, Hulu, and Zinio are all either not working at all or require hacks. I thrive on figuring out how to make that stuff work, but my parents do not. Since this is a post about MLB, I'll leave my deeper thought on the subject for a later post.
    - j79 16y ago
      Very interesting! Thanks for the reply!
amitraman1 16y ago
This applies to apps too. Here my simple logic. Android phones are available for free from carriers. Thus, the typical Android buy is more price sensitive. They are more likely to choose free content & apps. iPhone customers don't get FREE iPhones. They are willing to pay $200+ for a phone and contract. Their willingness to pay for apps & content is higher than Android users. Just look at Angry Birds. It's FREE on the Android store, but charged for on the iOS store.
- jrockway 16y ago
  Just look at Angry Birds. It's FREE on the Android store, but charged for on the iOS store. But it's 99 cents on the Amazon Android store: http://www.amazon.com/Rovio-Mobile-Angry-Birds-Ad-Free/dp/B004SBQGHS/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1301937710&sr=8-7 http://www.amazon.com/Rovio-Mobile-Angry-Birds-Ad-Free/dp/B0...
  - chc 16y ago
    Maybe I've missed it, but has Amazon actually released any sales numbers from its store? So far, it seems to me like little more than a curiosity. The difficulty of installation alone will rule out most customers.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      Isn't that true of anything? "Why would people trust Amazon to run their data center?" "Why would people wait for books to be shipped when they could just go to the bookstore?" Fact is, everything new and different is new and different at first. But that fades away quite quickly.
      - chc 16y ago
        Sorry, I think the way I backed into my point has confused you. I'm not saying, "Amazon's store is new and different. Why would people use it?" What I mean to say is: "I don't have any reason to believe many people are currently using Amazon's store. It seems unlikely. Since (as far as we can tell) this store is currently not successful, and its lack of success is quite possibly due to factors other than price, its pricing doesn't reveal much about what people are willing to pay." And that is not true of everything.
mhb 16y ago
Why the Amazon App store is revolutionary by Matt Maroon: http://mattmaroon.com/2011/03/31/why-the-amazon-app-store-is-revolutionary/ http://mattmaroon.com/2011/03/31/why-the-amazon-app-store-is...
j79 16y ago
My dad, who is far from being technically-savvy, owns an iPhone (a Christmas gift from my brother and I to our parents.) He wasn't a fan of the phone at first. Too complicated, too hard to make calls, etc. However, something amazing (considering my dad's, uh, "technological capabilities"...) happened a few weeks ago. He calls me up and asks about his "iTunes password" and whether he had ever set that up. I told him, "yeah we did, and it's probably your e-mail password." He tries it and it works. I asked him what he needed that for and he replies "I've reached my five song limit for Shazam and want to upgrade." I was kind of blown away by this. Here is my dad, who can't get drag & drop right, upgrading his free version of Shazam with an in-app purchase. An app, I honestly didn't think he would use that much but found enough value in it, he wanted to pay for the full version... After that, I walked him through finding more apps on the App store. I warned him though. "The one click purchase makes it easy to go crazy."
- Kylekramer 16y ago
  While iOS is a smooth experience, I honestly cannot tell what is the substantial difference from Android. Both have the same enter credit card information once, one click purchasing from now on experience. Beyond the pretty small group of people who don't like giving Google more info/don't trust Google as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, what is so much better about iTunes than Google Checkout?
  - fleitz 16y ago
    It's not the tech that makes it better it's the people, as an app developer it's easier to make money on the Apple ecosystem than Google. If I can't make a profit I'm not going to produce for that platform. Apple's marketing message appeals to a set of consumers who want to buy stuff digitally. Apple has done a bunch of work for me, whereas it's hard to monetize the marketing message of 'open platform'
    - Kylekramer 16y ago
      Again, I think this argument applies to a Hacker News crowd, not the general population. I have seen plenty of Android marketing and I can't remember a single mass market ad that touted openness beyond saying that it runs Flash. Of course, Google employees have said things to that effect, but that is directed to a separate smaller audience. You won't find that on the sides of buses or on TV. I'd be surprised if more than 10% of Android users know it is open source or even made by Google. I'm trying to find the root of why iOS is more profitable for paid apps. In this particular case, I think it is overcharging for a fairly weak app, but I know this is a larger trend which I can't ascribe to an open platform bias.
apress 16y ago
Be careful about generalizing too far from the MLB experience. As has been discussed over and over, the Android experience for video locked down by DRM is sorely lacking. iOS has a single unified video DRM scheme while different carriers and handset makers seem to be going different ways on Android. Hence, the MLB app's video is only available for 11 phones so far, there's no official Netflix client for any yet and so on. The fact that MLB makes 5 times more from iOS users is partially explained by the fact that all iOS users can buy the app but only a small portion of Android users. However, not sure that should apply to the entire spectrum of apps. Rovio has said it's making the same on both platforms and the Pocket Legends folks say they make more on Android. Not to say that Android is equal to iOS in app monetization, which it's surely not, but there are signs that it's catching up in some segments. Video, however, is not one of those areas.
MatthewPhillips 16y ago
MLB.tv is the only subscription service (that I'm aware of) that charges for the app as well. And they do it inconsistently. I paid I think $120-$130, somewhere in that range, for MLB.tv, however I need to pay an additional $15 to get it on my Android phone and an additional $15 to get it on my iPad. However on Roku I pay no additional cost for the app, and on the web I pay no additional cost. I bought the iPad app because I felt I would be more likely to use it, when laying in bed and such. On the phone I would probably only use it in rare situations and so it's just not worth it for me. Is any one aware of another subscription that has this type of price model?
- nomad2986 16y ago
  This is exactly my issue with the At Bat app. I already pay for MLB.tv which plays video in Flash and I have a flash capable Android phone. I don't understand why I should have to pay extra for the app just to watch video. However, last time I checked I was blocked from watching content on my phone.
  - uptown 16y ago
    Unless I'm missing something, even with an MLB.tv subscription, the Android app doesn't provide that feature.
zmmmmm 16y ago
Wait ... he says he gets 5 x the sales on iOS but then drops this line: > MLB recently expanded the number of supported handsets from 6 to 11 So out of literally hundreds of Android handsets on the market they supported 6?!!?! And they wonder why their Android sales are not very good? Am I missing something here?
lojack 16y ago
I recently switched from iPhone to an Android and I am definitely less willing to pay for apps. To me its all about the pricing. Going through a list of apps on the first page of the android market I see prices of: $8.05, $7.99, $2.89, $0.99, $9.99, $14.26, $5.99, $2.99. A random selection from the iTunes app store: $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $4.99, $2.99. To me, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one, a $3 app is 20x more expensive than a $1 app. There are few iPhone apps that cost more than $1 and its rare to find one more than $5. This pricing makes me feel like the android marketplace is a huge ripoff, so there is almost no chance of me buying an app for $15. When I buy an app that sucks on the iPhone market I only lose $1 which in turn makes me feel better about future purchases.
- Andys 16y ago
  Funny, thats the same argument ("feels like a ripoff") that stops me buying Apple hardware.

52 points by anderzole 16y ago

I consider myself pretty high on the chart of "technology-savvy" and trusting when it comes to payment on the Internet. But for some reason, I won't pay for something inside the Android store. I know Google's behind it and that my stuff is probably safe. But there's just something inherintly shady about the Android store that I can't put my finger on. I know it's irrational, but imagine how someone who hasn't created apps feels.

timtadh 16y ago
I agree 100%. However, I tried the amazon app store and instantly felt better at actually spending money. Somehow it just "feels" less shady. This is probably all irrational and the Amazon store most likely doesn't address the real issues with the Google run store. But at the same time, I know the next time I want to look for an app, I will go to Amazon first.
- easyfrag 16y ago
  Maybe it has to do with the fact that people aren't used to giving money to Google where they are more likely to have a trusted customer-vendor relationship with Amazon. That being said Google is a well-known and trusted brand so I think something else might be at play here psychologically. Perhaps the public perception of Google's products as being "free" (to them) somehow increases the barrier to becoming a paid customer. I have not an ounce of evidence to indicate that but I think it could be an interesting topic with big implications for the startup community.
  - chc 16y ago
    I don't think it has anything to do with people's feelings about Google. Based on the Android owners I know, people who don't make that association strongly seem to respond the same way. The store itself just feels sketchy. I'm pretty sure it's mainly a design issue, although the fact that the iPhone store started off with high-quality stuff while Android Market was seeded with crapware also hurts the perception.
- akashs 16y ago
  Great point, I'd second that. Could even be due to the fact that Google is used to taking money from businesses, not consumers. Amazon and Apple, consumer-focused companies, probably know how to do a better job at getting us to spend our cash from all their other experience.
Macha 16y ago
My guess (not having used the Amazon store however) is that Android's permissions system is hurting it. Why does that app need location and full network access? So you become suspicious. And so on. While on iOS its automatically given full rights apps get, apart from location, which it asks for at runtime, not install time. So while the iOS app has as much ability to start feeding data home, the fact that the Android app is forced to admit it uses network access leaves us more suspicious. It doesn't help that many apps have a perfectly legitimate purpose for that network access, to download and display ads.
- gte910h 16y ago
  Actually if you use certain frameworks without good reason in the Apple App Store, you get rejected.
- metageek 16y ago
  It's a reasonable guess, but it would apply to free apps, too. (Even more, in fact, since they're usually ad-supported, which means they require Net access and probably your location.)
muhfuhkuh 16y ago
"But for some reason, I won't pay for something inside the Android store." It could be one of several things, which would actually vary from person to person, but all leading to paltry returns for _most_ Android developers vs. iOS. 1) The "perceived value" proposition - To a user, Google is "the search engine" and Android "the mobile OS", but they're both free to use. In a consumer's mind, why wouldn't then _everything_ else, including the Marketplace apps, be free. It doesn't help matters that Rovio's runaway blockbuster cultural gamechanger shared timesink app Angry birds is free on Android (albeit with ads). 2) The blatant, flagrant, rampant, money-maker shaking heaps of copyright theft and IP violations that make it to the top of the Marketplace lists. It makes the whole thing feel like a grey market bazaar in old Morocco or Bangkok - just sketchy as all hell. How could I entrust my credit card with a service that allows GPL violators and copyright flouters to rise to the _very tippy top_ of the charts? I mean, alot of that has changed since Google started putting the screws on very obvious scofflaws like Nintendo emulator game ROM packs, Star Wars weapon simulators, and famous rapper soundboards. But the die may be cast for some of the old-school adopters. 3) The weird availability - Android phone users had to pirate Marketplace apps from day one if they didn't come from the US. Now they're expected to _pay_ for stuff? Sorry, but once you've told them it's free, it's free for a loooong time. Hell, Napster all taught us way back that music "wanted to be free". It's taken over a decade for paid music to come back into some semblance of making any money; coincidentally, it's via Apple's iTunes.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
yalogin 16y ago
I bought a Nexus one recently and while browsing for apps on the market saw many apps just listing every keyword from the dictionary in their description to get some keyword juice. Its similar to the keyword list you find in CL ads. Of course it turns you off that app but also does not make you feel good about the store itself.

uptown 16y ago

The iOS MLB app (especially the iPad variety) is probably my favorite. The Android MLB app is probably my least favorite. It's just ugly ... only does a fraction of what the iOS app does, and provides very little beyond what you can get for free from any number of other sports or baseball apps. People will pay for quality. Right now, the Android app isn't anywhere near what I'd consider a quality app.

mey 16y ago
Additionally, if you read the fine print, the android app only works with certain phones, this isn't clearly indicated and a friend ran into this last weekend while on vacation.
naner 16y ago
Is this MLB.com's fault, limitations of Android, or both?
- usaar333 16y ago
  What limitations would there be on Android, relative to to iOS? I can just think of in-app purchases.
  - macrael 16y ago
    While perhaps limitation is a strong word, it is clear that the development environments/tools/api's for the two platforms are very different. Is it not possible that one is simply better suited to producing high quality apps than the other?
    - joebadmo 16y ago
      That's a diversion from the original point that iOS users are more willing to pay for apps. Whether it's easier to develop high quality apps for whichever platform, the fact that the iOS app is higher quality is an important factor when that makes the comparison invalid.

shuchton 16y ago

How about there is no Honeycomb version of At Bat, but there is an iPad and iPhone/iPod version. Basically, they don't support Android the same way they support iOS. I have both and iPad and a Xoom, but I only purchased the iPad version because there is no Honeycomb version.

j79 16y ago
I'm curious: Do you find you use the iPad more because of that one app? Or, is the iPad strictly used for At Bat, and the rest of your time (email, browsing, etc.) used on the Xoom? I know Apple likes to advertise how many apps they have, but you're the first person that I've seen who has claimed to purchase hardware based on app availability...
- shuchton 16y ago
  I think most people would choose hardware based on App availability. So, for baseball, absolutely. The iPad has a better tablet version of At Bat 11. In more general terms, I'm still figuring my use patterns out. I've had the iPad since it came out in Mar 2010. I've had a Xoom since the WiFi model came out in Mar 2011. To be as objective as possible, I'd still tell my non tech savvy friends and family to go with the iPad. The whole experience (not just hardware specs) is smoother. Right now, the Xoom is fun, but a lot of what I use the iPad for is not available yet. Netflix, Hulu, and Zinio are all either not working at all or require hacks. I thrive on figuring out how to make that stuff work, but my parents do not. Since this is a post about MLB, I'll leave my deeper thought on the subject for a later post.
  - j79 16y ago
    Very interesting! Thanks for the reply!

amitraman1 16y ago

This applies to apps too. Here my simple logic. Android phones are available for free from carriers. Thus, the typical Android buy is more price sensitive. They are more likely to choose free content & apps. iPhone customers don't get FREE iPhones. They are willing to pay $200+ for a phone and contract. Their willingness to pay for apps & content is higher than Android users. Just look at Angry Birds. It's FREE on the Android store, but charged for on the iOS store.

jrockway 16y ago
Just look at Angry Birds. It's FREE on the Android store, but charged for on the iOS store. But it's 99 cents on the Amazon Android store: http://www.amazon.com/Rovio-Mobile-Angry-Birds-Ad-Free/dp/B004SBQGHS/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1301937710&sr=8-7 http://www.amazon.com/Rovio-Mobile-Angry-Birds-Ad-Free/dp/B0...
- chc 16y ago
  Maybe I've missed it, but has Amazon actually released any sales numbers from its store? So far, it seems to me like little more than a curiosity. The difficulty of installation alone will rule out most customers.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Isn't that true of anything? "Why would people trust Amazon to run their data center?" "Why would people wait for books to be shipped when they could just go to the bookstore?" Fact is, everything new and different is new and different at first. But that fades away quite quickly.
    - chc 16y ago
      Sorry, I think the way I backed into my point has confused you. I'm not saying, "Amazon's store is new and different. Why would people use it?" What I mean to say is: "I don't have any reason to believe many people are currently using Amazon's store. It seems unlikely. Since (as far as we can tell) this store is currently not successful, and its lack of success is quite possibly due to factors other than price, its pricing doesn't reveal much about what people are willing to pay." And that is not true of everything.

mhb 16y ago

Why the Amazon App store is revolutionary by Matt Maroon: http://mattmaroon.com/2011/03/31/why-the-amazon-app-store-is-revolutionary/ http://mattmaroon.com/2011/03/31/why-the-amazon-app-store-is...

j79 16y ago

My dad, who is far from being technically-savvy, owns an iPhone (a Christmas gift from my brother and I to our parents.) He wasn't a fan of the phone at first. Too complicated, too hard to make calls, etc. However, something amazing (considering my dad's, uh, "technological capabilities"...) happened a few weeks ago. He calls me up and asks about his "iTunes password" and whether he had ever set that up. I told him, "yeah we did, and it's probably your e-mail password." He tries it and it works. I asked him what he needed that for and he replies "I've reached my five song limit for Shazam and want to upgrade." I was kind of blown away by this. Here is my dad, who can't get drag & drop right, upgrading his free version of Shazam with an in-app purchase. An app, I honestly didn't think he would use that much but found enough value in it, he wanted to pay for the full version... After that, I walked him through finding more apps on the App store. I warned him though. "The one click purchase makes it easy to go crazy."

Kylekramer 16y ago
While iOS is a smooth experience, I honestly cannot tell what is the substantial difference from Android. Both have the same enter credit card information once, one click purchasing from now on experience. Beyond the pretty small group of people who don't like giving Google more info/don't trust Google as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, what is so much better about iTunes than Google Checkout?
- fleitz 16y ago
  It's not the tech that makes it better it's the people, as an app developer it's easier to make money on the Apple ecosystem than Google. If I can't make a profit I'm not going to produce for that platform. Apple's marketing message appeals to a set of consumers who want to buy stuff digitally. Apple has done a bunch of work for me, whereas it's hard to monetize the marketing message of 'open platform'
  - Kylekramer 16y ago
    Again, I think this argument applies to a Hacker News crowd, not the general population. I have seen plenty of Android marketing and I can't remember a single mass market ad that touted openness beyond saying that it runs Flash. Of course, Google employees have said things to that effect, but that is directed to a separate smaller audience. You won't find that on the sides of buses or on TV. I'd be surprised if more than 10% of Android users know it is open source or even made by Google. I'm trying to find the root of why iOS is more profitable for paid apps. In this particular case, I think it is overcharging for a fairly weak app, but I know this is a larger trend which I can't ascribe to an open platform bias.

apress 16y ago

Be careful about generalizing too far from the MLB experience. As has been discussed over and over, the Android experience for video locked down by DRM is sorely lacking. iOS has a single unified video DRM scheme while different carriers and handset makers seem to be going different ways on Android. Hence, the MLB app's video is only available for 11 phones so far, there's no official Netflix client for any yet and so on. The fact that MLB makes 5 times more from iOS users is partially explained by the fact that all iOS users can buy the app but only a small portion of Android users. However, not sure that should apply to the entire spectrum of apps. Rovio has said it's making the same on both platforms and the Pocket Legends folks say they make more on Android. Not to say that Android is equal to iOS in app monetization, which it's surely not, but there are signs that it's catching up in some segments. Video, however, is not one of those areas.

MatthewPhillips 16y ago

MLB.tv is the only subscription service (that I'm aware of) that charges for the app as well. And they do it inconsistently. I paid I think $120-$130, somewhere in that range, for MLB.tv, however I need to pay an additional $15 to get it on my Android phone and an additional $15 to get it on my iPad. However on Roku I pay no additional cost for the app, and on the web I pay no additional cost. I bought the iPad app because I felt I would be more likely to use it, when laying in bed and such. On the phone I would probably only use it in rare situations and so it's just not worth it for me. Is any one aware of another subscription that has this type of price model?

nomad2986 16y ago
This is exactly my issue with the At Bat app. I already pay for MLB.tv which plays video in Flash and I have a flash capable Android phone. I don't understand why I should have to pay extra for the app just to watch video. However, last time I checked I was blocked from watching content on my phone.
- uptown 16y ago
  Unless I'm missing something, even with an MLB.tv subscription, the Android app doesn't provide that feature.

zmmmmm 16y ago

Wait ... he says he gets 5 x the sales on iOS but then drops this line: > MLB recently expanded the number of supported handsets from 6 to 11 So out of literally hundreds of Android handsets on the market they supported 6?!!?! And they wonder why their Android sales are not very good? Am I missing something here?

lojack 16y ago

I recently switched from iPhone to an Android and I am definitely less willing to pay for apps. To me its all about the pricing. Going through a list of apps on the first page of the android market I see prices of: $8.05, $7.99, $2.89, $0.99, $9.99, $14.26, $5.99, $2.99. A random selection from the iTunes app store: $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $4.99, $2.99. To me, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one, a $3 app is 20x more expensive than a $1 app. There are few iPhone apps that cost more than $1 and its rare to find one more than $5. This pricing makes me feel like the android marketplace is a huge ripoff, so there is almost no chance of me buying an app for $15. When I buy an app that sucks on the iPhone market I only lose $1 which in turn makes me feel better about future purchases.

Andys 16y ago
Funny, thats the same argument ("feels like a ripoff") that stops me buying Apple hardware.