iPad 2, Verizon iPhone took wind out of Android's sail with developers
The launch of the iPad 2 and Verizon iPhone helped Apple's iOS take away some developer support from Google's Android platform, according to a new report.
The number of new project starts on Android from developers dropped from a 36 percent share in the first quarter of calendar 2011 to a 28 percent share in the second quarter, according to the latest data from Flurry Analytics. The information comes from about 20,000 applications that featured Flurry Analytics and were added between January and June of 2011.
The figures suggest that the release of the iPhone on Verizon and the launch of the iPad 2, Apple was able to reverse the advance of Android developer momentum. It represents the first time in a year that the trends have reversed.
Android's losses in new product starts were Apple's gains. The iPhone went from a 54 percent share in the first quarter of 2011 to a 57 percent share, while the iPad increased from 10 percent to 15 percent with a boost in developer interest.
The loss in developer support for new projects, at least according to Flurry, comes as activation of new Android devices continues to surge. In June, Google Vice President of Engineering Andy Rubin revealed that there are now more than a half-million Android devices activated every day, and that number is growing at 4.4 percent worldwide.
But while numerous signs point to the fact that Android devices, available in multiple form factors and configurations from numerous hardware makers, are setting the pace in the mobile industry, Apple is still the dominant player when it comes to mobile applications. The iOS App Store is the largest of its kind, with 425,000 applications, of which 100,000 are natively optimized for the iPad.
Users also download more applications on iOS devices than with the competition. Earlier this month, Apple revealed that it had reached a new milestone with more than 15 billion applications downloaded by users, a number that continues to grow at a rate of one billion per month.
Applications, particularly paid ones, are a crucial element to Apple's success with iOS. Various reports have found that it is much easier for developers to sell applications on Apple's App Store, while software for Android is more likely to be free and supported by advertising.
One analysis from earlier this week concluded that the average iOS user owns about $100 worth of content per Apple device, via purchases made through iTunes and the App Store. It was said that users' investment in software makes it increasingly difficult for them to justify switching to a competing platform, like Android, where they would need to reacquire those applications.
Offering his own take on the data, Flurry's Charles Newark-French said that despite Android's rapidly growing user base, Google needs to improve the layout of the Android Market and drive adoption of Google Checkout for simple payment processing if it wants to compete with Apple's App Store.
"Further, the development community is concerned about the rising cost of deploying across the Android installed base, due to the double whammy of OS and store fragmentation," he wrote. "With developers pinched on both sides of the revenue and cost equation, Google must tack aggressively at this stage of the race to assure that Apple doesn't continue to take its developer-support wind."
The number of new project starts on Android from developers dropped from a 36 percent share in the first quarter of calendar 2011 to a 28 percent share in the second quarter, according to the latest data from Flurry Analytics. The information comes from about 20,000 applications that featured Flurry Analytics and were added between January and June of 2011.
The figures suggest that the release of the iPhone on Verizon and the launch of the iPad 2, Apple was able to reverse the advance of Android developer momentum. It represents the first time in a year that the trends have reversed.
Android's losses in new product starts were Apple's gains. The iPhone went from a 54 percent share in the first quarter of 2011 to a 57 percent share, while the iPad increased from 10 percent to 15 percent with a boost in developer interest.
The loss in developer support for new projects, at least according to Flurry, comes as activation of new Android devices continues to surge. In June, Google Vice President of Engineering Andy Rubin revealed that there are now more than a half-million Android devices activated every day, and that number is growing at 4.4 percent worldwide.
But while numerous signs point to the fact that Android devices, available in multiple form factors and configurations from numerous hardware makers, are setting the pace in the mobile industry, Apple is still the dominant player when it comes to mobile applications. The iOS App Store is the largest of its kind, with 425,000 applications, of which 100,000 are natively optimized for the iPad.
Users also download more applications on iOS devices than with the competition. Earlier this month, Apple revealed that it had reached a new milestone with more than 15 billion applications downloaded by users, a number that continues to grow at a rate of one billion per month.
Applications, particularly paid ones, are a crucial element to Apple's success with iOS. Various reports have found that it is much easier for developers to sell applications on Apple's App Store, while software for Android is more likely to be free and supported by advertising.
One analysis from earlier this week concluded that the average iOS user owns about $100 worth of content per Apple device, via purchases made through iTunes and the App Store. It was said that users' investment in software makes it increasingly difficult for them to justify switching to a competing platform, like Android, where they would need to reacquire those applications.
Offering his own take on the data, Flurry's Charles Newark-French said that despite Android's rapidly growing user base, Google needs to improve the layout of the Android Market and drive adoption of Google Checkout for simple payment processing if it wants to compete with Apple's App Store.
"Further, the development community is concerned about the rising cost of deploying across the Android installed base, due to the double whammy of OS and store fragmentation," he wrote. "With developers pinched on both sides of the revenue and cost equation, Google must tack aggressively at this stage of the race to assure that Apple doesn't continue to take its developer-support wind."
Comments
They need to keep this up by increasing the frequency of iOS hardware releases, which appears to be what they're doing. Major hardware releases every 6 months instead of every year. Keep these pie graphs right around 3/4 or 4/5ths new development for iOS for the next year or 2 and Android will cease to be viable competition.
And frankly, to the common consumer, the apps make the device.
But if you're going to bother with a tablet, particularly since your phone can presumably already do all of the above, you're going to be looking for something more. Apple and some Apple only devs have taken the trouble to make some really, really nice apps for the iPad, which not only look and function really well but allow you to do more.
If Android can't attract high quality developers to the tablet market, who are willing to make some sizable investment to provide functionality beyond a Twitter app or bare bones drawing program, Android tablets will come to be seen as second rate, not because of the hardware, but because of the software. And, of course, that becomes a vicious circle with poor software choice repressing sales and low sales discouraging development.
They need to keep this up by increasing the frequency of iOS hardware releases, which appears to be what they're doing. Major hardware releases every 6 months instead of every year.
No. One a year is plenty. They sell every one they can build, they don't need to introduce a new model mid-year. Not to mention it would steal the spotlight from their other products. Apple has hits every quarter.
The only thing I'd like sped up, is the frequency of iOS (and OS X) software updates.
Once again Google's cavalier attitude towards IP is biting their ass.
I just found it funny that this morning I read on 9to5google.com a post with the following headline...
WhitePages prioritizes Android over Apple?s long approval process (UPDATE: Google Ventures, too)
versus AI's headline...
iPad 2, Verizon iPhone took wind out of Android's sail with developers
Where the post states WhitePages as saying...
"Now that Android has become the leading mobile platform in the US and other key markets around the world, developers are taking notice and some no longer prefer releasing their apps on iOS first, followed by Android. For some, it?s a question of Android?s installed user base, the pace of the platform?s growth and the fact that ad-supported free model on Android matches the App Store?s 99-cent economy. For others like WhitePages, the decision comes down to cutting out a middleman in order not to be forced to spend time, resources and money on a lengthy approval process.
According to Ina Fried over at the Wall Street Journal?s All Things D blog, WhitePages? new Localicious app will be released on Android first. Apple?s approval process ?is just too difficult to time a launch around?, Fried writes, noting the iPhone maker?s stringent approval process had delayed the launch of a reverse phone lookup app from WhitePages for two months, a far cry from the Apple-advertised ?95 percent of the apps are approved in two-weeks time?. WhitePages? op-chief Kevin Nakao tells the blog:
I think we are going to see a lot of people start to ship Android first. You cant be held hostage. Marketing an application becomes increasingly important given the number of apps that are being published. Since apps can still get tied up in the iOS approval process, it makes this marketing planning almost impossible."
So we have the 'He Said, She Said'... Well, I still love you iOS!
/
/
/
So we have the 'He Said, She Said'... Well, I still love you iOS!
Actually if you look at it the two are completely compatible. One report says 3/4 of developers use iOS primarily or only. Another report says 'some' developers prefer Android.
Conclusion: Some is around 25%
Where the post states WhitePages as saying...
"Now that Android has become the leading mobile platform in the US and other key markets around the world, developers are taking notice and some no longer prefer releasing their apps on iOS first, followed by Android. For some, it?s a question of Android?s installed user base, the pace of the platform?s growth and the fact that ad-supported free model on Android matches the App Store?s 99-cent economy. For others like WhitePages, the decision comes down to cutting out a middleman in order not to be forced to spend time, resources and money on a lengthy approval process.
According to Ina Fried over at the Wall Street Journal?s All Things D blog, WhitePages? new Localicious app will be released on Android first. Apple?s approval process ?is just too difficult to time a launch around?, Fried writes, noting the iPhone maker?s stringent approval process had delayed the launch of a reverse phone lookup app from WhitePages for two months, a far cry from the Apple-advertised ?95 percent of the apps are approved in two-weeks time?. WhitePages? op-chief Kevin Nakao tells the blog:
I think we are going to see a lot of people start to ship Android first. You cant be held hostage. Marketing an application becomes increasingly important given the number of apps that are being published. Since apps can still get tied up in the iOS approval process, it makes this marketing planning almost impossible."
So we have the 'He Said, She Said'... Well, I still love you iOS!
/
/
/
Funny how Android fans only seem to be able to point to Smartphones as the platform thrust. Android (OS) is NOT the leading mobile platform. iOS is when you factor in iPod Touch and iPad sales not to mention Apple TV ;-)
I don't care if a company ships on Android first. iOS is where the masses that actually pay for software reside.
Apple could accelerate this by making their iOS developer program free. I've never fully understood the $99 charge to get your app into the App Store. I understand it probably helps them offset the costs of hosting and distributing your software, but if they really wanted to knock Google developer support down a notch or two more, that would be a good way to go.
If you can't afford $99 then you probably shouldn't be developing apps for my $700. If "I' have more money at my disposal than a developer then that's a shame.
Where the post states WhitePages as saying...
"Now that Android has become the leading mobile platform in the US and other key markets around the world, developers are taking notice and some no longer prefer releasing their apps on iOS first, followed by Android. For some, it?s a question of Android?s installed user base, the pace of the platform?s growth and the fact that ad-supported free model on Android matches the App Store?s 99-cent economy. For others like WhitePages, the decision comes down to cutting out a middleman in order not to be forced to spend time, resources and money on a lengthy approval process.
According to Ina Fried over at the Wall Street Journal?s All Things D blog, WhitePages? new Localicious app will be released on Android first. Apple?s approval process ?is just too difficult to time a launch around?, Fried writes, noting the iPhone maker?s stringent approval process had delayed the launch of a reverse phone lookup app from WhitePages for two months, a far cry from the Apple-advertised ?95 percent of the apps are approved in two-weeks time?. WhitePages? op-chief Kevin Nakao tells the blog:
I think we are going to see a lot of people start to ship Android first. You cant be held hostage. Marketing an application becomes increasingly important given the number of apps that are being published. Since apps can still get tied up in the iOS approval process, it makes this marketing planning almost impossible."
So we have the 'He Said, She Said'... Well, I still love you iOS!
It may take longer to get your app approved on iOS.... but apparently it works. 500,000 apps made it in the store already.
And if they are so worried about not being able to have a firm launch date for a new app... why not get it approved... and just say "available now" when it's ready?
Apparently the WhitePages "Localicious" will be free app... from a large company who will be getting money through advertising. So yeah... put it out on any platform and it will make money.
But... if you're a small developer who's trying to make money from SELLING an app... iOS is still the way to go.
Actually if you look at it the two are completely compatible. One report says 3/4 of developers use iOS primarily or only. Another report says 'some' developers prefer Android.
Conclusion: Some is around 25%
And, according to this article, that number is falling rather than rising.
My guess is that it has nothing to do with iPad 2 and Verizon iPhone, but is rather due to the fact that developers have learned that they don't make any money on Android and it's a pain in the rear to develop for because of fragmentation.
Apple could accelerate this by making their iOS developer program free. I've never fully understood the $99 charge to get your app into the App Store. I understand it probably helps them offset the costs of hosting and distributing your software, but if they really wanted to knock Google developer support down a notch or two more, that would be a good way to go.
That's absurd. $99 gets you all the development tools you need and support. It's an insignificant charge to anyone who treats software development like a business - and is a very reasonable charge even for hobbyists.
Apple could accelerate this by making their iOS developer program free. I've never fully understood the $99 charge to get your app into the App Store. I understand it probably helps them offset the costs of hosting and distributing your software, but if they really wanted to knock Google developer support down a notch or two more, that would be a good way to go.
I think the $99 charge is mainly to prevent people spamming the approval department by continually signing up new accounts. I'm sure it helps offset the cost of some of developer support too. I think the only thing eliminating this fee will do is increase the number of fart apps.
I'm not here to dispute the article and the findings of Flurry or whatever.
I just found it funny that this morning I read on 9to5google.com a post with the following headline...
WhitePages prioritizes Android over Apple?s long approval process (UPDATE: Google Ventures, too)
versus AI's headline...
iPad 2, Verizon iPhone took wind out of Android's sail with developers
Where the post states WhitePages as saying...
"Now that Android has become the leading mobile platform in the US and other key markets around the world, developers are taking notice and some no longer prefer releasing their apps on iOS first, followed by Android. For some, it?s a question of Android?s installed user base, the pace of the platform?s growth and the fact that ad-supported free model on Android matches the App Store?s 99-cent economy. For others like WhitePages, the decision comes down to cutting out a middleman in order not to be forced to spend time, resources and money on a lengthy approval process.
According to Ina Fried over at the Wall Street Journal?s All Things D blog, WhitePages? new Localicious app will be released on Android first. Apple?s approval process ?is just too difficult to time a launch around?, Fried writes, noting the iPhone maker?s stringent approval process had delayed the launch of a reverse phone lookup app from WhitePages for two months, a far cry from the Apple-advertised ?95 percent of the apps are approved in two-weeks time?. WhitePages? op-chief Kevin Nakao tells the blog:
I think we are going to see a lot of people start to ship Android first. You cant be held hostage. Marketing an application becomes increasingly important given the number of apps that are being published. Since apps can still get tied up in the iOS approval process, it makes this marketing planning almost impossible."
So we have the 'He Said, She Said'... Well, I still love you iOS!
/
/
/
And, as per my earlier post, we see that the app in question is yet another location aware/what's hot/social thing, which seems dominate whatever activity is happening in the Android app market.
Just fine for a phone, completely pointless on a tablet. At some point the Android community is going to realize that they're simply stuck in a phone ghetto, with everything revolving around chasing after whatever the latest startup is telling you you need to be "connected." Just look at the marketing-- it's all about social apps and media.
Meanwhile, tablets look poised to become the next computing paradigm, and the iPad is looking to dominate that space as completely as MS dominated the desktop paradigm. And, at some point, that's going to have an effect on phones as well, as iPad owners are far more likely to purchase an iPhone (if they haven't already) when it comes time to re-up.
I'm not here to dispute the article and the findings of Flurry or whatever.
I just found it funny that this morning I read on 9to5google.com a post with the following headline...
WhitePages prioritizes Android over Apple?s long approval process (UPDATE: Google Ventures, too)
versus AI's headline...
iPad 2, Verizon iPhone took wind out of Android's sail with developers
Where the post states WhitePages as saying...
"Now that Android has become the leading mobile platform in the US and other key markets around the world, developers are taking notice and some no longer prefer releasing their apps on iOS first, followed by Android. For some, it?s a question of Android?s installed user base, the pace of the platform?s growth and the fact that ad-supported free model on Android matches the App Store?s 99-cent economy. For others like WhitePages, the decision comes down to cutting out a middleman in order not to be forced to spend time, resources and money on a lengthy approval process.
According to Ina Fried over at the Wall Street Journal?s All Things D blog, WhitePages? new Localicious app will be released on Android first. Apple?s approval process ?is just too difficult to time a launch around?, Fried writes, noting the iPhone maker?s stringent approval process had delayed the launch of a reverse phone lookup app from WhitePages for two months, a far cry from the Apple-advertised ?95 percent of the apps are approved in two-weeks time?. WhitePages? op-chief Kevin Nakao tells the blog:
I think we are going to see a lot of people start to ship Android first. You cant be held hostage. Marketing an application becomes increasingly important given the number of apps that are being published. Since apps can still get tied up in the iOS approval process, it makes this marketing planning almost impossible."
So we have the 'He Said, She Said'... Well, I still love you iOS!
/
/
/
WhitePages makes no sense. You can release ad-supported free apps on the iPhone; I have plenty installed.
Reading between the lines, perhaps there is more to this, like there was with the publisher community crying foul about the 30% cut (it was about opt-in vs. opt-out of collecting user info). Perhaps this app doesn't meet Apple's requirements, so they're going to the "we all anything" Android Marketplace.
If you can't afford $99 then you probably shouldn't be developing apps for my $700. If "I' have more money at my disposal than a developer then that's a shame.
Wasn't arguing that. Regardless, history shows that plenty of great ideas come from hobbyist programmers and tinkerers. That $99 could be a significant barrier for that group.
That's absurd. $99 gets you all the development tools you need and support. It's an insignificant charge to anyone who treats software development like a business - and is a very reasonable charge even for hobbyists.
Not what I was saying. I agree with all that. Apple's competitors are giving that away for free and that's the point I'm getting at. If Apple wants to further take the wind out of the sails of Android development, they can remove the $99 fee.
I think the $99 charge is mainly to prevent people spamming the approval department by continually signing up new accounts. I'm sure it helps offset the cost of some of developer support too. I think the only thing eliminating this fee will do is increase the number of fart apps.
Not arguing the rationale behind the fee, just that it likely turns away a lot of hobbyists. Also, plenty of great ideas and apps have been created by hobbyists. They're not all out there making fart apps.
And, as per my earlier post, we see that the app in question is yet another location aware/what's hot/social thing, which seems dominate whatever activity is happening in the Android app market.
Just fine for a phone, completely pointless on a tablet. At some point the Android community is going to realize that they're simply stuck in a phone ghetto, with everything revolving around chasing after whatever the latest startup is telling you you need to be "connected." Just look at the marketing-- it's all about social apps and media.
Meanwhile, tablets look poised to become the next computing paradigm, and the iPad is looking to dominate that space as completely as MS dominated the desktop paradigm. And, at some point, that's going to have an effect on phones as well, as iPad owners are far more likely to purchase an iPhone (if they haven't already) when it comes time to re-up.
Well said!
I also believe. based on my own purchasing habits, that:
-- iPad apps tend to be more robust than iPhone/iPad apps
-- People will spend more on (and expect more from) iPad apps than iPhone apps
-- People will look for iPad apps that complement or replace corresponding apps on their pre-post-pc computers