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..
"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.
If you are arguing that Android's ad based model is better and makes more money than Apple's paid model, you are not making an argument that is based on any logic.
Apple and Android have both paid apps and ad based apps.
The only real difference is paid apps on Android can be stolen.
If Rovio or any other developer, like Rovio, finds that ad based apps makes more money, then they will stop developing or very selectively pick paid apps.
Also, please note that Android users have rooted their phones to install ad blockers. Not good for anyone looking into ad based model for making money on Android.
"they know what they are doing and they call the shots"
Folks, this is the key quote. And it's what I've been thinking ever since the iPhone got an app store. There are only two companies in the smartphone market today -- apple and microsoft -- that truly are computer platform companies (ie, companies that "know what they are doing and call the shots").
To be a platform company, you need multiple competencies. You can't be a one trick pony. You've got to be able to do software, hardware (or if not doing the hardware yourself, understand it very, very well), marketing, R&D, and developer support. You also need to make sure your platform interfaces with other platforms well. It's a big complicated hairy mess and there aren't many companies with a track record of doing that successfully over the long haul.
Google and RIM are both one trick ponies. The only difference between them is that Google's pony is incredibly profitable. But they still have yet to really do anything outside of search that's anything more than a hobby. If it weren't for Microsoft's implosion leaving a huge demand for a non-Apple platform, Android wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is today.
As the years pass, I think we will see Microsoft slowly supplant Android as developers and customers alike grow weary of Google's amateur hour performance. We will settle down into what I wish the PC world had been -- a fairly stable split of the market between MS and Apple. Two very different business models that enables competition at the platform level. A far better outcome than platform monopoly, in my humble opinion.
I see Android as developing into the new feature phone. That is, the vast majority of new customers to the platform are just getting what is being pushed, by advertising and at the time of sale, and don't know or care much about what the OS is capable of beyond what the phone does out of the box.
That's a problem for developers, because the big numbers for Android come at the expense of having a particularly motivated user base. If the phone has a useable browser and does email text and chat, it's all good. After all, it's likely the customer came into the store just looking to replace a dumb phone. Why bother with a lot of apps?
Look at how Android and iOS are marketed. iOS (both iPhone and iPad) ads are all about apps and functionality. Android ads are all about attitude and bluster. Android is marketed like the Razr, as a matter of style and bling, with a little spec swagger thrown in. iOS is marketed as a cool new world of things you can do while on the go. I think that says a lot about how Apple and Android handset makers view their respective customer base.
Now, being the default feature phone OS means huge sales, but it also means most people are going to be using those handsets for little more than browsing, email and texting. That's great for Google, but not so great for devs. Sure, a few top games might have breakout sales, but my impression is that the average Android user now is just happy to have the stuff that came with the new phone, regarding it as huge upgrade from that old Samsung clamshell.
There will always be savvy Android users that seek out the best hardware, customize their handsets and install a lot of apps. But will there be enough, compared to the former "just a phone" crowd that have been transformed into "just a browser" Android users, to keep a thriving developer community alive?
If you are arguing that Android's ad based model is better and makes more money than Apple's paid model, you are not making an argument that is based on any logic.
I'm not arguing anything, merely repeating comments made by Rovio - that the ad-based model is preferable from their standpoint. Why they chose that model on Android and the paid-app model on iOS is anyone's guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
The only real difference is paid apps on Android can be stolen.
And once again, Android is being faulted for something iOS is equally guilty of. Not only can paid apps be stolen on iOS, but it's far easier to do so thanks to Hackulous's Installer.
A constructive argument is impossible when you guys continually sling mud at Android when your beloved iOS is knee deep in it as well.
Considering the average contract is 2 years, and customers can't upgrade until 20 months or so into it, it's in a carrier's best interest to keep them happy for at least those 20 months with their current device.
Carriers make next to NO money on full retail phones, especially if someone is going from a Droid to a Droid 2. So no, it doesn't benefit the carriers, AT ALL to make a phone obsolete after only 12 months (or less). Not only will this create unrest with the customer base, but it will also make them start calling in constantly trying to get their upgrade date pushed forward.
When you upgrade a US contract, they don't tack 2 years onto your existing contract, they RESET it so it ends 2 years from that day. This means if you get an upgrade after only 6 months, that company is giving you 2 year pricing for only 6 months more of additional service. That makes no business sense whatsoever.
If you look internationally, you'd see that even in areas where phones are generally unsubsidized and untouched, phones still typically get software updates only to fix bugs and not update OS versions. Hardware makers make a KILLING if people buy new phones. This is one of the reasons apple forced ATT to give the early upgrade pricing on iOS devices. Sure, att takes a hit, but apple gets the full cut. Smart of them.
The real issue here isn't carriers (per se) it's our fixation as a culture on getting cheap products on contract. You can bet if contracts didn't exist like they do now (no equipment subsidies) other hardware makers would care more about updating their software.
As it stands now, they can do whatever they want when it comes to software upgrades because the carrier's will take all the blame. If people actually bought their devices from Samsung, Motorola, Apple, etc. And those companies tried obsoleting hardware early, they'd hear about it.
What planet are you living on? This is exactly the position that carriers have historically taken, and what has actually been happening until Apple broke the mold. (And is still the only one to have done it almost completely.) And as to carriers trying to obsolete hardware - again ROFLOL - how about how they have crippled devices (that have already built in functionality) so that consumers can't access the full capabilities of the device (Verizon historically being the worst offender)?
Rovio estimates that by the end of this year, they'll make (on average) 1 million dollars a month from their Android app. They haven't (as far as I know) released hard numbers about it, but likely they will.
There are other cases though of developers making more money from their ad based apps than they do from the premium ad free versions. Paid apps give much higher revenue up front, but it's once and done and people expect you to continuously update it. (more work, no additional income). Compared to an ad based model where you make less money up front (none) you'll continue making money from that customer for as long as they have the application.
Take angry birds.. You buy it for $1. Or you can get the free ad supported option, which nets them no initial revenue. When they release an update, for those premium users, you get it basically for free, whereas the ad supported users are going back into the app (more eyeballs infront of the ads) giving additional revenue.
The real question is, how much time does it take the average customer to generate $1 in ad revenue for a company, and also how many people are playing angry birds because it's free and wouldnt pay for it otherwise.
No - they'll continue to make money as long as you continue to USE the application, not have it. There in lies the rub as people get bored with apps very quickly, and at a buck or two a pop, have no problem buying new ones on a whim.
What planet are you living on? This is exactly the position that carriers have historically taken, and what has actually been happening until Apple broke the mold. (And is still the only one to have done it almost completely.) And as to carriers trying to obsolete hardware - again ROFLOL - how about how they have crippled devices (that have already built in functionality) so that consumers can't access the full capabilities of the device (Verizon historically being the worst offender)?
Every us carrier is infamous for crippling their devices. Period. Verizon had some of the better known lawsuits, but they're not the "worst" offender more than one type of water is wetter than the next.
And apple broke the mold of PHONE MAKERS. Again, carriers can ONLY get you to sign new contracts every 2 years. It's hardware makers who make a killing if you get phones earlier than that.
It is not in the carrier's best interest to obsolete hardware before 2 years is up. Again, show me where this is not the case when you look at HOW CONTRACTS WORK.
If you really think a carrier is making a killing by giving you a 600 phone for 200 every year when you signed for 2 years.. you got another thing coming.
No - they'll continue to make money as long as you continue to USE the application, not have it. There in lies the rub as people get bored with apps very quickly, and at a buck or two a pop, have no problem buying new ones on a whim.
and again, if someone has an ad supported app and an update comes out, they open it and continue to generate revenue. Paid apps as large initial payout and that's it.
So those developers either need to make the upfront cost high enough to subsidize future development, or make "sequels" to charge for the new content.
don't really get this debate. both iOS and Android obviously have a solid market future as Apple and Google keep pushing them forward, however they do. Apple in the profitable high end and Android in the generic OEM/telco commodity market.
the real questions are whether RIM can hang on to its profitable enterprise niche, whether Nokia will find a way out of its current tailspin, whether Windows Phone can get any significant market share back (by making a deal with Nokia probably), and whether the other hopefuls like HP/Web OS can get a foothold at all.
for us consumers, the question is really how the respective ecosystems evolve and add more to our lives. Apple's iOS/iTunes, Google's cloud, RIM's enterprise services, MS' Live, and Nokia's Ovi effort. what Apple did accomplish was dramatically bringing down the price of apps across the board - now for everyone.
for developers, no matter how you look at it or whatever platform, there are a lot of possibilities today for independents that did not exist three years ago. and we are witnessing a burst of creativity as a result. which is a very good thing.
of course you can react to the attitudes of each company. that's fun! Apple is brilliant but arrogant. Google is clever but phony ("open" yeah sure). MS and RIM both total BS CEO's. Nokia fumbling ... plenty of material for comments there ....
and again, if someone has an ad supported app and an update comes out, they open it and continue to generate revenue. Paid apps as large initial payout and that's it.
So those developers either need to make the upfront cost high enough to subsidize future development, or make "sequels" to charge for the new content.
I think you're missing his point. If I no longer USE the application then it doesn't matter how many future updates come out. I've either deleted the app from my phone or simply don't run it anymore. Accepting/downloading an update doesn't run the app, therefore no ad revenue generated.
and again, if someone has an ad supported app and an update comes out, they open it and continue to generate revenue. Paid apps as large initial payout and that's it.
So those developers either need to make the upfront cost high enough to subsidize future development, or make "sequels" to charge for the new content.
Any update to cut the rope is not going to get me playing it as I am done with it. I still see games as not working with this model. You either finish them, get stuck or move on to a better game. A real version 2 ( a la civ 2 ) might get me interested again.
Rovio estimates that by the end of this year, they'll make (on average) 1 million dollars a month from their Android app. They haven't (as far as I know) released hard numbers about it, but likely they will.
There are other cases though of developers making more money from their ad based apps than they do from the premium ad free versions. Paid apps give much higher revenue up front, but it's once and done and people expect you to continuously update it. (more work, no additional income). Compared to an ad based model where you make less money up front (none) you'll continue making money from that customer for as long as they have the application.
Take angry birds.. You buy it for $1. Or you can get the free ad supported option, which nets them no initial revenue. When they release an update, for those premium users, you get it basically for free, whereas the ad supported users are going back into the app (more eyeballs infront of the ads) giving additional revenue.
The real question is, how much time does it take the average customer to generate $1 in ad revenue for a company, and also how many people are playing angry birds because it's free and wouldnt pay for it otherwise.
In App purchases.
Holiday versions eg halloween, christmas.
All provide an extra revenue stream as do updated titles Real Racing 2, NOVA 2, Hero of Sparta 2 etc.
btw regarding Angry Birds the obtrusive ad in the top right corner of the Android version almost makes some levels unplayable.
The point is that Google is allowing the carriers almost complete control. The only bone they are throwing is that if you are geeky enough and talented enough to mess around with your hardware then you can do stuff with it.
I'm probably more anti-censorship than anyone, but a little bit of censorship is not the same as taking away almost all the freedoms of the customer.
Clearly, you've never used an Android phone, or if you have, you're totally blinded by your zealousness. Carriers have almost complete control on Android? They take away almost all the freedoms of the customers? WHAT?!??!?
The only thing the carriers do with Android phones is pre-install a bunch of crap apps. You can ignore them, use any number of utilities to hide/disable them, or with a simple root, you can remove them completely. Beyond that, carriers don't control the phone at all - you're free to install whatever you want, from wherever you want, and you can replace major UI components of the OS with ones that suit your tastes and needs (without needing to root). Carriers don't control much, and that's one of Android's attractions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
Apple on the other hand, while taking all this over the top criticism for the "gilded cage," actually changed the equation quite substantially. The consumer has total freedom and different freedoms from the situation in the 90's with two exceptions. First, the carrier still has control over the contract, (although you can buy contract free phones in most countries). Secondly, Apple will censor any non-Christian kind of imagery or anything perceived to be un-American in the Apple store.
This whole statement is patently absurd. You start by saying the Apple customer has total freedom, and finish by admitting that Apple can and does censor what can be done with/to the phone based on their own subjective standards of morality. That, my friend, is not freedom, not even close. That's like saying the Taliban provides it's subjects total freedom, with the one exception of requiring them to live strictly within sharia law.
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
Which planet are you living on? Developers get about 5 cents a click through. Are you suggesting that people who play angry birds will actually click through 20 million times a month consistently? Do you know anyone at all who actually clicks on ads?
They'll make 2 or 3 percent of that through ads per month, at best.
Which planet are you living on? Developers get about 5 cents a click through. Are you suggesting that people who play angry birds will actually click through 20 million times a month consistently? Do you know anyone at all who actually clicks on ads?
They'll make 2 or 3 percent of that through ads per month, at best.
Developers get about 5 cents a click through. Are you suggesting that people who play angry birds will actually click through 20 million times a month consistently? Do you know anyone at all who actually clicks on ads?
They'll make 2 or 3 percent of that through ads per month, at best.
Do you guys read at all?
The quote was directly from the article I linked to. Rovio themselves said that they are on track to make 1 million a month through ad revenue from Angry Birds on Android. That isn't just me talking, that's a statement from Rovio. Don't believe me, read the damn article dude.
Clearly, you've never used an Android phone, or if you have, you're totally blinded by your zealousness. Carriers have almost complete control on Android? They take away almost all the freedoms of the customers? WHAT?!??!?
The only thing the carriers do with Android phones is pre-install a bunch of crap apps. You can ignore them, use any number of utilities to hide/disable them, or with a simple root, you can remove them completely. Beyond that, carriers don't control the phone at all - you're free to install whatever you want, from wherever you want, and you can replace major UI components of the OS with ones that suit your tastes and needs (without needing to root). Carriers don't control much, and that's one of Android's attractions.
This whole statement is patently absurd. You start by saying the Apple customer has total freedom, and finish by admitting that Apple can and does censor what can be done with/to the phone based on their own subjective standards of morality. That, my friend, is not freedom, not even close. That's like saying the Taliban provides it's subjects total freedom, with the one exception of requiring them to live strictly within sharia law.
You're living in a fantasy world.
What about carrier locked bootloaders, you know the one's you have to wait for someone on XDA developers to get around for you.
Even then the early efforts have things like ability to make phone calls, use the camera, messaging etc missing.
So how many different phone models will XDA developers have the time to put in to crack?
For some of the less popular models you could be in for a long wait before you can jailbreak your Android phone.
btw regarding censorship, where's the x-rated porn themes in the Android market?
I went looking but there was none to be found, what "Sharia" dictatorship is this?
You have to go onto the Internet to find porn, just like an iPhone.
Comments
I heard very recently about iPhones selling for $50 at a nationwide retailer. So much for the "iPhone owners are elite" theory.
And here we have another troll that frequents this site. And another one that just doesn't get it.
AH, the trolls speak out with their nonsense.
And here we have another troll that frequents this site.
I can?t help but think I know who this poster used to be and feel a bit honored this name. I?m always happy to have ruffled a few feathers.
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.
If you are arguing that Android's ad based model is better and makes more money than Apple's paid model, you are not making an argument that is based on any logic.
Apple and Android have both paid apps and ad based apps.
The only real difference is paid apps on Android can be stolen.
If Rovio or any other developer, like Rovio, finds that ad based apps makes more money, then they will stop developing or very selectively pick paid apps.
Also, please note that Android users have rooted their phones to install ad blockers. Not good for anyone looking into ad based model for making money on Android.
http://androidcommunity.com/fans-of-...unch-20101228/
Folks, this is the key quote. And it's what I've been thinking ever since the iPhone got an app store. There are only two companies in the smartphone market today -- apple and microsoft -- that truly are computer platform companies (ie, companies that "know what they are doing and call the shots").
To be a platform company, you need multiple competencies. You can't be a one trick pony. You've got to be able to do software, hardware (or if not doing the hardware yourself, understand it very, very well), marketing, R&D, and developer support. You also need to make sure your platform interfaces with other platforms well. It's a big complicated hairy mess and there aren't many companies with a track record of doing that successfully over the long haul.
Google and RIM are both one trick ponies. The only difference between them is that Google's pony is incredibly profitable. But they still have yet to really do anything outside of search that's anything more than a hobby. If it weren't for Microsoft's implosion leaving a huge demand for a non-Apple platform, Android wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is today.
As the years pass, I think we will see Microsoft slowly supplant Android as developers and customers alike grow weary of Google's amateur hour performance. We will settle down into what I wish the PC world had been -- a fairly stable split of the market between MS and Apple. Two very different business models that enables competition at the platform level. A far better outcome than platform monopoly, in my humble opinion.
That's a problem for developers, because the big numbers for Android come at the expense of having a particularly motivated user base. If the phone has a useable browser and does email text and chat, it's all good. After all, it's likely the customer came into the store just looking to replace a dumb phone. Why bother with a lot of apps?
Look at how Android and iOS are marketed. iOS (both iPhone and iPad) ads are all about apps and functionality. Android ads are all about attitude and bluster. Android is marketed like the Razr, as a matter of style and bling, with a little spec swagger thrown in. iOS is marketed as a cool new world of things you can do while on the go. I think that says a lot about how Apple and Android handset makers view their respective customer base.
Now, being the default feature phone OS means huge sales, but it also means most people are going to be using those handsets for little more than browsing, email and texting. That's great for Google, but not so great for devs. Sure, a few top games might have breakout sales, but my impression is that the average Android user now is just happy to have the stuff that came with the new phone, regarding it as huge upgrade from that old Samsung clamshell.
There will always be savvy Android users that seek out the best hardware, customize their handsets and install a lot of apps. But will there be enough, compared to the former "just a phone" crowd that have been transformed into "just a browser" Android users, to keep a thriving developer community alive?
If you are arguing that Android's ad based model is better and makes more money than Apple's paid model, you are not making an argument that is based on any logic.
I'm not arguing anything, merely repeating comments made by Rovio - that the ad-based model is preferable from their standpoint. Why they chose that model on Android and the paid-app model on iOS is anyone's guess.
The only real difference is paid apps on Android can be stolen.
And once again, Android is being faulted for something iOS is equally guilty of. Not only can paid apps be stolen on iOS, but it's far easier to do so thanks to Hackulous's Installer.
A constructive argument is impossible when you guys continually sling mud at Android when your beloved iOS is knee deep in it as well.
Considering the average contract is 2 years, and customers can't upgrade until 20 months or so into it, it's in a carrier's best interest to keep them happy for at least those 20 months with their current device.
Carriers make next to NO money on full retail phones, especially if someone is going from a Droid to a Droid 2. So no, it doesn't benefit the carriers, AT ALL to make a phone obsolete after only 12 months (or less). Not only will this create unrest with the customer base, but it will also make them start calling in constantly trying to get their upgrade date pushed forward.
When you upgrade a US contract, they don't tack 2 years onto your existing contract, they RESET it so it ends 2 years from that day. This means if you get an upgrade after only 6 months, that company is giving you 2 year pricing for only 6 months more of additional service. That makes no business sense whatsoever.
If you look internationally, you'd see that even in areas where phones are generally unsubsidized and untouched, phones still typically get software updates only to fix bugs and not update OS versions. Hardware makers make a KILLING if people buy new phones. This is one of the reasons apple forced ATT to give the early upgrade pricing on iOS devices. Sure, att takes a hit, but apple gets the full cut. Smart of them.
The real issue here isn't carriers (per se) it's our fixation as a culture on getting cheap products on contract. You can bet if contracts didn't exist like they do now (no equipment subsidies) other hardware makers would care more about updating their software.
As it stands now, they can do whatever they want when it comes to software upgrades because the carrier's will take all the blame. If people actually bought their devices from Samsung, Motorola, Apple, etc. And those companies tried obsoleting hardware early, they'd hear about it.
What planet are you living on? This is exactly the position that carriers have historically taken, and what has actually been happening until Apple broke the mold. (And is still the only one to have done it almost completely.) And as to carriers trying to obsolete hardware - again ROFLOL - how about how they have crippled devices (that have already built in functionality) so that consumers can't access the full capabilities of the device (Verizon historically being the worst offender)?
Rovio estimates that by the end of this year, they'll make (on average) 1 million dollars a month from their Android app. They haven't (as far as I know) released hard numbers about it, but likely they will.
There are other cases though of developers making more money from their ad based apps than they do from the premium ad free versions. Paid apps give much higher revenue up front, but it's once and done and people expect you to continuously update it. (more work, no additional income). Compared to an ad based model where you make less money up front (none) you'll continue making money from that customer for as long as they have the application.
Take angry birds.. You buy it for $1. Or you can get the free ad supported option, which nets them no initial revenue. When they release an update, for those premium users, you get it basically for free, whereas the ad supported users are going back into the app (more eyeballs infront of the ads) giving additional revenue.
The real question is, how much time does it take the average customer to generate $1 in ad revenue for a company, and also how many people are playing angry birds because it's free and wouldnt pay for it otherwise.
No - they'll continue to make money as long as you continue to USE the application, not have it. There in lies the rub as people get bored with apps very quickly, and at a buck or two a pop, have no problem buying new ones on a whim.
What planet are you living on? This is exactly the position that carriers have historically taken, and what has actually been happening until Apple broke the mold. (And is still the only one to have done it almost completely.) And as to carriers trying to obsolete hardware - again ROFLOL - how about how they have crippled devices (that have already built in functionality) so that consumers can't access the full capabilities of the device (Verizon historically being the worst offender)?
Every us carrier is infamous for crippling their devices. Period. Verizon had some of the better known lawsuits, but they're not the "worst" offender more than one type of water is wetter than the next.
And apple broke the mold of PHONE MAKERS. Again, carriers can ONLY get you to sign new contracts every 2 years. It's hardware makers who make a killing if you get phones earlier than that.
It is not in the carrier's best interest to obsolete hardware before 2 years is up. Again, show me where this is not the case when you look at HOW CONTRACTS WORK.
If you really think a carrier is making a killing by giving you a 600 phone for 200 every year when you signed for 2 years.. you got another thing coming.
No - they'll continue to make money as long as you continue to USE the application, not have it. There in lies the rub as people get bored with apps very quickly, and at a buck or two a pop, have no problem buying new ones on a whim.
and again, if someone has an ad supported app and an update comes out, they open it and continue to generate revenue. Paid apps as large initial payout and that's it.
So those developers either need to make the upfront cost high enough to subsidize future development, or make "sequels" to charge for the new content.
the real questions are whether RIM can hang on to its profitable enterprise niche, whether Nokia will find a way out of its current tailspin, whether Windows Phone can get any significant market share back (by making a deal with Nokia probably), and whether the other hopefuls like HP/Web OS can get a foothold at all.
for us consumers, the question is really how the respective ecosystems evolve and add more to our lives. Apple's iOS/iTunes, Google's cloud, RIM's enterprise services, MS' Live, and Nokia's Ovi effort. what Apple did accomplish was dramatically bringing down the price of apps across the board - now for everyone.
for developers, no matter how you look at it or whatever platform, there are a lot of possibilities today for independents that did not exist three years ago. and we are witnessing a burst of creativity as a result. which is a very good thing.
of course you can react to the attitudes of each company. that's fun! Apple is brilliant but arrogant. Google is clever but phony ("open" yeah sure). MS and RIM both total BS CEO's. Nokia fumbling ... plenty of material for comments there ....
and again, if someone has an ad supported app and an update comes out, they open it and continue to generate revenue. Paid apps as large initial payout and that's it.
So those developers either need to make the upfront cost high enough to subsidize future development, or make "sequels" to charge for the new content.
I think you're missing his point. If I no longer USE the application then it doesn't matter how many future updates come out. I've either deleted the app from my phone or simply don't run it anymore. Accepting/downloading an update doesn't run the app, therefore no ad revenue generated.
and again, if someone has an ad supported app and an update comes out, they open it and continue to generate revenue. Paid apps as large initial payout and that's it.
So those developers either need to make the upfront cost high enough to subsidize future development, or make "sequels" to charge for the new content.
Any update to cut the rope is not going to get me playing it as I am done with it. I still see games as not working with this model. You either finish them, get stuck or move on to a better game. A real version 2 ( a la civ 2 ) might get me interested again.
However we won't know for a year.
Rovio estimates that by the end of this year, they'll make (on average) 1 million dollars a month from their Android app. They haven't (as far as I know) released hard numbers about it, but likely they will.
There are other cases though of developers making more money from their ad based apps than they do from the premium ad free versions. Paid apps give much higher revenue up front, but it's once and done and people expect you to continuously update it. (more work, no additional income). Compared to an ad based model where you make less money up front (none) you'll continue making money from that customer for as long as they have the application.
Take angry birds.. You buy it for $1. Or you can get the free ad supported option, which nets them no initial revenue. When they release an update, for those premium users, you get it basically for free, whereas the ad supported users are going back into the app (more eyeballs infront of the ads) giving additional revenue.
The real question is, how much time does it take the average customer to generate $1 in ad revenue for a company, and also how many people are playing angry birds because it's free and wouldnt pay for it otherwise.
In App purchases.
Holiday versions eg halloween, christmas.
All provide an extra revenue stream as do updated titles Real Racing 2, NOVA 2, Hero of Sparta 2 etc.
btw regarding Angry Birds the obtrusive ad in the top right corner of the Android version almost makes some levels unplayable.
The point is that Google is allowing the carriers almost complete control. The only bone they are throwing is that if you are geeky enough and talented enough to mess around with your hardware then you can do stuff with it.
I'm probably more anti-censorship than anyone, but a little bit of censorship is not the same as taking away almost all the freedoms of the customer.
Clearly, you've never used an Android phone, or if you have, you're totally blinded by your zealousness. Carriers have almost complete control on Android? They take away almost all the freedoms of the customers? WHAT?!??!?
The only thing the carriers do with Android phones is pre-install a bunch of crap apps. You can ignore them, use any number of utilities to hide/disable them, or with a simple root, you can remove them completely. Beyond that, carriers don't control the phone at all - you're free to install whatever you want, from wherever you want, and you can replace major UI components of the OS with ones that suit your tastes and needs (without needing to root). Carriers don't control much, and that's one of Android's attractions.
Apple on the other hand, while taking all this over the top criticism for the "gilded cage," actually changed the equation quite substantially. The consumer has total freedom and different freedoms from the situation in the 90's with two exceptions. First, the carrier still has control over the contract, (although you can buy contract free phones in most countries). Secondly, Apple will censor any non-Christian kind of imagery or anything perceived to be un-American in the Apple store.
This whole statement is patently absurd. You start by saying the Apple customer has total freedom, and finish by admitting that Apple can and does censor what can be done with/to the phone based on their own subjective standards of morality. That, my friend, is not freedom, not even close. That's like saying the Taliban provides it's subjects total freedom, with the one exception of requiring them to live strictly within sharia law.
You're living in a fantasy world.
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
Which planet are you living on? Developers get about 5 cents a click through. Are you suggesting that people who play angry birds will actually click through 20 million times a month consistently? Do you know anyone at all who actually clicks on ads?
They'll make 2 or 3 percent of that through ads per month, at best.
Which planet are you living on? Developers get about 5 cents a click through. Are you suggesting that people who play angry birds will actually click through 20 million times a month consistently? Do you know anyone at all who actually clicks on ads?
They'll make 2 or 3 percent of that through ads per month, at best.
He's repeating what Rovio said.
Which planet are you living on?
Apparently a different one from you.
Developers get about 5 cents a click through. Are you suggesting that people who play angry birds will actually click through 20 million times a month consistently? Do you know anyone at all who actually clicks on ads?
They'll make 2 or 3 percent of that through ads per month, at best.
Do you guys read at all?
The quote was directly from the article I linked to. Rovio themselves said that they are on track to make 1 million a month through ad revenue from Angry Birds on Android. That isn't just me talking, that's a statement from Rovio. Don't believe me, read the damn article dude.
Which isn't extreme.
( I am assuming the 5c per click is accurate)
Clearly, you've never used an Android phone, or if you have, you're totally blinded by your zealousness. Carriers have almost complete control on Android? They take away almost all the freedoms of the customers? WHAT?!??!?
The only thing the carriers do with Android phones is pre-install a bunch of crap apps. You can ignore them, use any number of utilities to hide/disable them, or with a simple root, you can remove them completely. Beyond that, carriers don't control the phone at all - you're free to install whatever you want, from wherever you want, and you can replace major UI components of the OS with ones that suit your tastes and needs (without needing to root). Carriers don't control much, and that's one of Android's attractions.
This whole statement is patently absurd. You start by saying the Apple customer has total freedom, and finish by admitting that Apple can and does censor what can be done with/to the phone based on their own subjective standards of morality. That, my friend, is not freedom, not even close. That's like saying the Taliban provides it's subjects total freedom, with the one exception of requiring them to live strictly within sharia law.
You're living in a fantasy world.
What about carrier locked bootloaders, you know the one's you have to wait for someone on XDA developers to get around for you.
Even then the early efforts have things like ability to make phone calls, use the camera, messaging etc missing.
So how many different phone models will XDA developers have the time to put in to crack?
For some of the less popular models you could be in for a long wait before you can jailbreak your Android phone.
btw regarding censorship, where's the x-rated porn themes in the Android market?
I went looking but there was none to be found, what "Sharia" dictatorship is this?
You have to go onto the Internet to find porn, just like an iPhone.