4 ms·

Everything I've read to date suggests the Android user base is very different to the iOS user base. From a developer perspective, despite the enormous market s

Everything I've read to date suggests the Android user base is very different to the iOS user base. From a developer perspective, despite the enormous market share Android offers, it's users are reluctant to spend any money on software. The iOS user base on the other hand seems to attract users willing to spend money. I seriously doubt Android will be a viable platform for developers until this culture changes.

Steko 14y ago
Just because the returns are lower doesn't mean it's not viable. There are plenty of Android success stories. Even Angry Birds makes more money on Android than on iOS last I heard. One of the big challenges on Android is Google doesn't have many credit cards for Apps so right there non-free apps are in trouble. Android may have double the iOS market share but if they only have half as many credit cards their effective market share for paid apps is 1/4 their true market share. That's before you even look at customer demographics, etc.
- adabsurdo 14y ago
  What do you mean, "many credit cards for Apps"?
jarek 14y ago
An important category is apps which are not sold in the app store, and whose provider makes money in other ways, for example account subscriptions. 500px's is an example of such an app. I'm more than willing to believe Android users on average buy less apps than iOS users. But that just means different business models will succeed there.
- chii 14y ago
  i m just backseat driving here, but the fact that paid apps sell less on android is damning evidence for devs to not migrate across (or target it as the primary platform). A subscription based model is more demanding to maintain, vs a pay-once-app. You at least don't need a server to maintain subscriptions. Ditto with In app purchases (which also require you to maintain a server to keep track of who has paid for what).
  - jarek 14y ago
    For selling "just apps", subscription can definitely be not worth it. But a smartphone-app-centered business model is not the only thing that results in smartphone apps being made. My issue is with the general wording in the grandparent post, which seems to me to suggest Android isn't viable for all or most of developers overall. If you're looking to reach users of your non-app-centric service that you're looking to provide a free app for, targetting Android is a no-brainer if your service is aimed at demographic groups in which Android has sizeable or even plurality user adoption. That's most of them, but not all. Looking through apps on my devices (I'm one of the "cheap" Android users with zero paid apps), Flickr, Evernote, Mint.com, Opera, car2go, Skype, Starbucks, Kobo all stand out as quality apps that pay off for the developers in other ways.
nasalgoat 14y ago
One key factor people aren't taking into account is that there are non-phone versions of iOS devices, namely iPod Touches, which is a giant market that Android doesn't cover.

Steko 14y ago

Just because the returns are lower doesn't mean it's not viable. There are plenty of Android success stories. Even Angry Birds makes more money on Android than on iOS last I heard. One of the big challenges on Android is Google doesn't have many credit cards for Apps so right there non-free apps are in trouble. Android may have double the iOS market share but if they only have half as many credit cards their effective market share for paid apps is 1/4 their true market share. That's before you even look at customer demographics, etc.

adabsurdo 14y ago
What do you mean, "many credit cards for Apps"?

jarek 14y ago

An important category is apps which are not sold in the app store, and whose provider makes money in other ways, for example account subscriptions. 500px's is an example of such an app. I'm more than willing to believe Android users on average buy less apps than iOS users. But that just means different business models will succeed there.

chii 14y ago
i m just backseat driving here, but the fact that paid apps sell less on android is damning evidence for devs to not migrate across (or target it as the primary platform). A subscription based model is more demanding to maintain, vs a pay-once-app. You at least don't need a server to maintain subscriptions. Ditto with In app purchases (which also require you to maintain a server to keep track of who has paid for what).
- jarek 14y ago
  For selling "just apps", subscription can definitely be not worth it. But a smartphone-app-centered business model is not the only thing that results in smartphone apps being made. My issue is with the general wording in the grandparent post, which seems to me to suggest Android isn't viable for all or most of developers overall. If you're looking to reach users of your non-app-centric service that you're looking to provide a free app for, targetting Android is a no-brainer if your service is aimed at demographic groups in which Android has sizeable or even plurality user adoption. That's most of them, but not all. Looking through apps on my devices (I'm one of the "cheap" Android users with zero paid apps), Flickr, Evernote, Mint.com, Opera, car2go, Skype, Starbucks, Kobo all stand out as quality apps that pay off for the developers in other ways.

nasalgoat 14y ago

One key factor people aren't taking into account is that there are non-phone versions of iOS devices, namely iPod Touches, which is a giant market that Android doesn't cover.