Angry Birds developer says Apple will be No. 1 for a long time
An executive at Rovio Mobile, the developer of the best-selling iPhone game "Angry Birds," said that Apple will be the number one platform for developers for a long time, calling the Android ecosystem fragmented.
Peter Vesterbacka, Rovio Mobile's "Mighty Eagle," affirmed Apple's continued dominance during an interview with Tech N' Marketing earlier this week.
Since its release in December 2009, Rovio Mobile's "Angry Birds" iPhone game has become a global phenomenon. The game had a slow start, but eventually took off, reaching 50 million downloads across platforms. According to Vesterbacka, "Angry Birds" has remained at number one on Apple's App Store "longer than anybody else."
The game's characters have become so iconic that some Wall Street analysts have begun using the birds as a symbol for the burgeoning profitability of the mobile app market.
When asked how he viewed "the various mobile OSes in regard to the future of mobile technology," Vesterbacka replied, ?Apple will be the number one platform for a long time from a developer perspective, they have gotten so many things right. And they know what they are doing and they call the shots."
Moving on to Android, Vesterbacka stated that Android's fragmentation problems are not a device issue, but an ecosystem one. "Android is growing, but it?s also growing complexity at the same time. Device fragmentation not the issue, but rather the fragmentation of the ecosystem," he said.
With many different shops, many different models and "the carriers messing with the experience again," Android is becoming chaotic for Vesterbacka, who called it "open, but not really open, a very Google centric ecosystem."
In November, Rovio apologized for problems with the release of "Angry Birds" on Google's Android mobile OS. "Despite our efforts, we were unsuccessful in delivering optimal performance," the company said.
Rovio released the Android version of "Angry Birds" as a free ad-based app ealier this year, calling it "the Google way." According to Vesterbacka, "paid content just doesn?t work on Android."
During the interview, Vesterbacka agreed with recent comments from Apple CEO Steve Jobs about development difficulties on Android. "Steve is absolutely right when he says that there are more challenges for developers when working with Android," he said.
According to Vesterbacka, developers will eventually figure out how to work within the Android ecosystem, but "nobody else will be able to build what Apple has built, there just isn't that kind of market power out there."
Peter Vesterbacka, Rovio Mobile's "Mighty Eagle," affirmed Apple's continued dominance during an interview with Tech N' Marketing earlier this week.
Since its release in December 2009, Rovio Mobile's "Angry Birds" iPhone game has become a global phenomenon. The game had a slow start, but eventually took off, reaching 50 million downloads across platforms. According to Vesterbacka, "Angry Birds" has remained at number one on Apple's App Store "longer than anybody else."
The game's characters have become so iconic that some Wall Street analysts have begun using the birds as a symbol for the burgeoning profitability of the mobile app market.
When asked how he viewed "the various mobile OSes in regard to the future of mobile technology," Vesterbacka replied, ?Apple will be the number one platform for a long time from a developer perspective, they have gotten so many things right. And they know what they are doing and they call the shots."
Moving on to Android, Vesterbacka stated that Android's fragmentation problems are not a device issue, but an ecosystem one. "Android is growing, but it?s also growing complexity at the same time. Device fragmentation not the issue, but rather the fragmentation of the ecosystem," he said.
With many different shops, many different models and "the carriers messing with the experience again," Android is becoming chaotic for Vesterbacka, who called it "open, but not really open, a very Google centric ecosystem."
In November, Rovio apologized for problems with the release of "Angry Birds" on Google's Android mobile OS. "Despite our efforts, we were unsuccessful in delivering optimal performance," the company said.
Rovio released the Android version of "Angry Birds" as a free ad-based app ealier this year, calling it "the Google way." According to Vesterbacka, "paid content just doesn?t work on Android."
During the interview, Vesterbacka agreed with recent comments from Apple CEO Steve Jobs about development difficulties on Android. "Steve is absolutely right when he says that there are more challenges for developers when working with Android," he said.
According to Vesterbacka, developers will eventually figure out how to work within the Android ecosystem, but "nobody else will be able to build what Apple has built, there just isn't that kind of market power out there."
Comments
Android, the software, is free. The software isn't Google's product. Its users' eyeballs on ads and clickthroughs to their advertisers' products are what Google is selling. That's Google's business model, plain and simple.
Now we await the posters who claim it’s a lie and how iOS is crap. to chime in.
As was the case with Windows I think a lot more variety and functionality will be cranked out on the Android place, with a lot of piracy, bad UI and the like. iOS will have a great UI, innovative apps and people will actually pay and support the developers, but new functionality will have to wait for UI to catch up and make it simple, as well as approval from the top.
A buddy of mine showed me the Angry Birds game on his new Galaxy S and it was pretty impressive.
Can you elaborate. I thought it was the exact same game.
I worked with a friend of mine who wanted to put one of my apps on Android. The amount of effort needed to just get a half- useful looking UI astonished me. The simulator was absolutely pathetic in terms of execution speed. And, the first phone we tried the app on failed, because it didn't properly support Bonjour networking (driver issue for that brand of phone).
It was just awful, and I wouldn't try it again. Some of the rules you have to follow due to the fact that the memory card is removable make the work you have to do kind of silly, for example.
None of this will slow the proliferation of Android devices, of course. Because the carriers don't care about any of this - they just want your two year (or whatever) contract. They don't want a consistent experience - they want "their" experience. They don't want you using the phone doing games, which might cause data usage on their network... they want you to just make phone calls, and to shut up and pay too much for texting.
Android will be a success because Windows Mobile (prior to 7) sucks, they don't like RIM lock-in, and they don't like Apple lock-in. But that doesn't make it "good". It just makes it "passable".
What I think it *does* mean, however, is that the development community will coalesce around iOS, because the work is easier, and there is an actual chance you can get paid.
This doesn?t bode well for Android.
Now we await the posters who claim it?s a lie and how iOS is crap. to chime in.
Why doesn't it "bode well"? Android is not iOS, it is poised to be totally different. As the dev said, it's about "google's way", and that is ads. The real question is, how much are these ads worth? 10 cents per download? 1 cent? 50? I don't have a clue.
If the difference between the iOS price that devs can put on the iDevices and the ads revenue that devs can cope in android is too much, android must compensate in sheer numbers.
It probably will, in due course. iPhone will always remain in the top market, but the market will expand outrageously to the bottom, with 80 bucks android phones without subsidies next year. This means that dumbphones will be substituted by these 80 bucks smartphones. The iPhone will be left at the top (where it enjoys being), and android will be the biggest share os.
So Angry Birds, for instance, can probably have much more eyeballs in android in 2011 or 2012 than individual buys on the iPhone and / or iPod.
Either way, this shows that the first OS that devs will invest in is iOS, and android will always be the second choice, at least for the next one two years. But android will have most apps that appear in iOS. This because it is much more hard work to come up with the app itself than porting to android (and for the extra eyeballs, it is worthy).
You don't make money with free apps.
IOS might develope on Android if they thought there was money to be made. However as mentioned free Apps don't make money and Android is not the place to be for developers.
So theres nothing inherently wrong with paid apps on Android, just that Google need to pick up the slack with the Market. Both Tweetdeck and now Rovio have stated that device fragmentation is manageable.
If you want to make money, sell to the cream of the crop: iOS users.
You don't make money with free apps.
Ummm, read much? Rovio has stated that they're on track to make 1 million dollars a month by the end of the year in ad revenue from Angry Birds on Android. Don't make any money on free apps, right..
You might want to read this article: http://www.intomobile.com/2010/12/03...on-ad-revenue/
"Though both models generate revenue, the ad-based model is preferable to the paid app model, according to Rovio.One deciding factor is updates which are necessary to keep fans nterested in the game. With iOS, updates are available for free to those who already purchased this app. All revenue for Rovio is generated on this first purchase only. With Android, revenue is generated*throughout the life of the game ? from the original version and through all future updates advertising is present. revenue is generated*throughout the life of the game"
Android may well be an ugly duckling, but don't delude yourself that it isn't and won't increasingly be an attractive platform for deveopers.
The chief problem is Android Market only supports paid apps in 32 countries, compared to the App stores 90, and I think this is Rovios main complaint. If you go the paid route, there are customers willing to buy but are unable to, meaning you have to take sell to them via other channels. Not to mention the rare sporadic problems with purchasing/installing apps.
So theres nothing inherently wrong with paid apps on Android, just that Google need to pick up the slack with the Market. Both Tweetdeck and now Rovio have stated that device fragmentation is manageable.
If somebody is buying a $250 phone (w/o contract) or under a BOGO offer they are not gonna pay more than $1 for a game, especially if they are not sure if the app/game runs on their budget devices well. Just my two cents.
Ummm, read much? Rovio has stated that they're on track to make 1 million dollars a month by the end of the year in ad revenue from Angry Birds on Android. Don't make any money on free apps, right..
You might want to read this article: http://www.intomobile.com/2010/12/03...on-ad-revenue/
"Though both models generate revenue, the ad-based model is preferable to the paid app model, according to Rovio.One deciding factor is updates which are necessary to keep fans nterested in the game. With iOS, updates are available for free to those who already purchased this app. All revenue for Rovio is generated on this first purchase only. With Android, revenue is generated*throughout the life of the game ? from the original version and through all future updates advertising is present. revenue is generated*throughout the life of the game"
Android may well be an ugly duckling, but don't delude yourself that it isn't and won't increasingly be an attractive platform for deveopers.
I agree with what you're saying, especially that ads can make money for a developer. However, there are only so many apps that can garner the eyeballs on a consistent basis, and goes with out saying (but I will), that there are only so many hours in a day.
I'm curious as to how many developers will be able to make this kind of money, and for how long before "the next must-have game/app" comes along and bites into their cake. Albeit, that cake is gonna be pretty damn big. Just sayin'.
"the carriers messing with the experience again,"
There you go. Nuff said.
Smartphones before iPhone:
-What you buy is what you get, nothing more. If a new version of the OS comes out, you have to buy a newer handset/extend your contract (Symbian, Winmo, etc)
-US carriers are in complete control on the software (crapware, no updates, etc). Not the OEM, not the software maker. Want that new phone with newer version of the OS? Well, extend you contract please.
Then Apple came in with the iPhone where:
-Apple, not the carriers, is the one in control of the OS.
-You get OS updates for at least the next version or two of the OS, straight from Apple.
US carriers were freaking out. They fear that if Apple set the trend, they will lost control of the handsets, and *gasps*, might have to compete by actually providing good service. This would've turned the US wireless market upside down. But voila, Google stepped in and rescued the carriers by giving them Android, for free!
With Android:
-Carriers are back in control of the handset's software.
-What you buy is generally what you get. Providing free OS update to old phones doesn't benefit the carriers nor the OEMs. Carriers want you to keep extending your contracts, and OEMs want to keep selling new handsets.
There you go. Thank you so much to Google for keeping the US wireless market stuck in the stone age where everything is back to the way it was, carrier controlled phones. Oh, and now Google is sleeping with Verizon and threw net neutrality under the bus. Again, good job Google! Oh I'm sure the fanboys love them so much that they keep supporting carrier controlled phones and defend the carriers.
There you go. Nuff said.
Smartphones before iPhone:
-What you buy is what you get, nothing more. If a new version of the OS comes out, you have to buy a newer handset/extend your contract (Symbian, Winmo, etc)
-US carriers are in complete control on the software (crapware, no updates, etc). Not the OEM, not the software maker. Want that new phone with newer version of the OS? Well, extend you contract please.
Then Apple came in with the iPhone where:
-Apple, not the carriers, is the one in control of the OS.
-You get OS updates for at least the next version or two of the OS, straight from Apple.
US carriers were freaking out. They fear that if Apple set the trend, they will lost control of the handsets, and *gasps*, might have to compete by actually providing good service. This would've turned the US wireless market upside down. But voila, Google stepped in and rescued the carriers by giving them Android, for free!
With Android:
-Carriers are back in control of the handset's software.
-What you buy is generally what you get. Providing free OS update to old phones doesn't benefit the carriers nor the OEMs. Carriers want you to keep extending your contracts, and OEMs want to keep selling new handsets.
There you go. Thank you so much to Google for keeping the US wireless market stuck in the stone age where everything is back to the way it was, carrier controlled phones. Oh, and now Google is sleeping with Verizon and threw net neutrality under the bus. Again, good job Google! Oh I'm sure the fanboys love them so much that they keep supporting carrier controlled phones and defend the carriers.
Good point, but it is a choice between the devil and deep sea. Both models don't put the consumer in control. How exactly is Apple being in control better than the carrier? It is a tie-in / lock-down either way. At least we are thankful to Apple for giving us a better user experience while we are in a gilded cage.
Vesterbacka said "paid content just doesn?t work on Android." And that is no surprise at all. Google wants it that way.
Android, the software, is free. The software isn't Google's product. Its users' eyeballs on ads and clickthroughs to their advertisers' products are what Google is selling. That's Google's business model, plain and simple.
You know, you're right. But the problem with developing on the Microsoft Windows 7 Platform is all those pesky developers developers developers developers developers developers!
Good point, but it is a choice between the devil and deep sea. Both models don't put the consumer in control. How exactly is Apple being in control better than the carrier? It is a tie-in / lock-down either way. At least we are thankful to Apple for giving us a better user experience while we are in a gilded cage.
Well in one big way. The phone gets new features for 2-3 years after you purchased it.
If somebody is buying a $250 phone (w/o contract) or under a BOGO offer they are not gonna pay more than $1 for a game, especially if they are not sure if the app/game runs on their budget devices well. Just my two cents.
True, true. These Are the type of people that probably won't even use picture messaging capabilities but once every 3 months.
Bogo and Free phone customers are generally very cost-conciencious, and they find it difficult to find the value in value-added services-- data plan fees or similar. Or if they do have the services, the likelihood of removing the service before the end of contract seems higher.
But at the end of the day, I have to wonder if were doing a grave disservice to humanity in general by qualifying cheapskates to $90/mo rate plans so they can get a game with flying birds. Shouldn't they get back to work so they can afford the $200 iPhone with it?
Good point, but it is a choice between the devil and deep sea. Both models don't put the consumer in control. How exactly is Apple being in control better than the carrier? It is a tie-in / lock-down either way. At least we are thankful to Apple for giving us a better user experience while we are in a gilded cage.
The argument of being in "control" has been beaten like a rented mule.
The reason users enjoy the iPhone is that they don't mind (or don't care) about relinquishing low-level control to Apple. iPhone users have better things to do than to have absolute control and micromanage everything about their smartphone. They don't want to have to worry about whether an app is malicious. I for one am relieved that a company like Apple is undertaking a herculean effort to remove as much of the mundane tasks from their users. They recognize the joe-consumer does not want to be a sys-admin in order to work their handsets.
The reason Android users enjoy their phone is because they do have absolute control of their handset, presuming they are proficient enough to root it, and continue installing whatever Android OS updates come along. Android is geek nirvana, hence the Terminator-like commercials.
The problem is that the manufacturers of Android handsets and the wireless providers have ZERO incentive to continue providing 6-month-old handsets with updated OS upgrades. Manufacturers only make money on new handsets. Wireless folks want to sell a new phone to lock the users into another contract. Only the technically-proficient have the time to waste figuring a way around it. For everyone else, they simply buy a new handset, or attempt to do an over-the-air update for those few handsets that allow it and the result is they ruin their phone due to lousy firmware. The tech-tards lambast regular users as being too stupid for their inability to figure out their phones on a technical level, when the reality is they simply do not want to deal with it.
Keep up the good work Apple. Thank goodness that there are more "regular" users than the technical ones that think they know better what everyone else wants.
According to Vesterbacka, "Angry Birds" has remained at number one on Apple's App Store "longer than anybody else."
The game's characters have become so iconic that some Wall Street analysts have begun using the birds as a symbol for the burgeoning profitability of the mobile app market.
I highlighted why that sort of thing happens a little while ago and why it doesn't really show the App Store as the right way of doing things:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=115462
Apple said they have paid out $1b to developers but we don't know the revenue distribution. The majority of that seems to go to people who were featured on the front page.
http://www.bnet.com/blog/technology-...ose-money/5187
"the revenue distribution isn?t flat, so the big winners will make a lot of money and most apps will probably make next to nothing, suggesting that most apps as a business venture would actually lose money"
Angry Birds made $8m in revenue alone. If the top 200 apps receive similar amounts, there's your $1b and not much for the other 300,000+ apps.
Apple has certainly done a lot of things right and no one else has any better implementation but to make it fair for all developers to be judged by their work and not by how people have found the app, Apple should improve discoverability.