I don't know how many times I've seen an Android app for $0.99 and the same iPhone app for $1.99. Or the Android app being free while the iPhone app is $0.99. iPhone developers may be making more money, but I wonder if iPhone users are getting fleeced some of the time, because of the "prestige" status.
I think more iPhone users would rather pay for a product and not have ads, then to get free apps.
I don't know what the percentage of apps are actually more expensive, I know there are a lot of free apps on iOS, but I'm sure there is a lot more where people will pay $.99 for ad free.
I know Google is charging more for the better version of Google Maps, which I won't pay for. I refuse to give them money.
I don't know how many times I've seen an Android app for $0.99 and the same iPhone app for $1.99. Or the Android app being free while the iPhone app is $0.99. iPhone developers may be making more money, but I wonder if iPhone users are getting fleeced some of the time, because of the "prestige" status.
"prestige" status as the reason? I know know about that.
What apps are the exact same where the ad free iOS version costs more than the ad free Android version? Just curious.
DED was citing market research. Seriously, it was just that information from market research in the article that I'm referring to and citing you for anything is far more pointless at least DED has market research on that article, where's yours?
DED was citing IDC (and himself) in that article to form his assumptions. Allow me to cite a source which states that IDC is full of it and you may start to see just one of the reasons why citing DED is rarely a good idea (hint, look at the author).
DED was citing IDC (and himself) in that article to form his assumptions. Allow me to cite a source which states that IDC is full of it and you may start to see just one of the reasons why citing DED is rarely a good idea (hint, look at the author).
Give me specifics to compare and I'm not going to waste my time trying to read two different articles relating different information. I don't have that much time to do this.
What I can tell you is that ALL market research companies have metrics that are either good metrics to use to arrive at certain assumptions and some don't. I look at the trends on my own, I have other sources like this that I look at to see what's going on..
Now, don't try to act like Dvorak is a reliable source. He's written some stupid articles in his career. BTW, I used to read Dvorak faithfully as early as the mid 80's around the time when the Mac first hit the market and his articles were sometimes full of shit back then. I got off reading his articles faithfully since he got worse over the years. Every once in a while he manages to squeeze out an article that actually makes sense, but it's rare. Just like most journalists.
I look at the raw numbers. What I hate is when they make assumptions based on numbers from one quarter that reflect a down turn in Apple sales on a specific product line when they are in the transition of releasing a new product.
What happens EVERY single time Apple gets ready to release a new product, their sales take a nose dive because everyone knows that a new product is getting ready to be announced, so sales drop off. In terms of the iPad and iPhone sales, they will take a nose dive in the Sept quarter and then spike back up during the following two quarters. But some of these analysts take the low Sept quarter numbers and speculate doom and gloom for Apple and then they don't really explain that this happens EVERY single product release. The Sept quarter is ALWAYS Apple's worst quarter, just like December quarter is always Apple's best quarter.
Either way, you haven't proven anything other than you are now becoming like other journalists. A waste of my time.
Sometimes DED and others use specific data and arrive at a reasonable assumption and sometimes they don't.
But you seem to just categorically dismiss DED regardless. Well, I don't think he's off base all of the time, sometimes he is and sometimes he isn't. Dvorak is RARELY correct in his assumptions, he's been writing off Apple for the past decade and I don't know about you, but Apple turned from barely surviving to becoming the biggest success story in the Personal Computer industry and it looks as though they remain a success story for the time being.
I don't see Android as a success story as much as others do with regards to their entire business. Market share, they have done a decent job, but with over 30 companies spitting out anywhere between the cheapest piles of crap to more expensive units, I would think they would do well from a market share standpoint, but if you look at the profits these companies are making that are directly related to product/s/w sales, they really aren't doing that well. Google STILL makes most of their money from the Search site ad revenues. and most of the Android OEMs, other than Samsung actually make any profit or anything I would consider decent. That, to me, is not being successful any company can BUY market share. But BUYING market share isn't running a successful business.
But in terms of deriving that iOS is better for developers than Android was fairly straightforward. S/W developers have a better chance of making more revenues than developing for Android. That was clear.
Give me specifics to compare and I'm not going to waste my time trying to read two different articles relating different information. I don't have that much time to do this.
What I can tell you is that ALL market research companies have metrics that are either good metrics to use to arrive at certain assumptions and some don't. I look at the trends on my own, I have other sources like this that I look at to see what's going on..
Now, don't try to act like Dvorak is a reliable source. He's written some stupid articles in his career. BTW, I used to read Dvorak faithfully as early as the mid 80's around the time when the Mac first hit the market and his articles were sometimes full of shit back then. I got off reading his articles faithfully since he got worse over the years. Every once in a while he manages to squeeze out an article that actually makes sense, but it's rare. Just like most journalists.
I look at the raw numbers. What I hate is when they make assumptions based on numbers from one quarter that reflect a down turn in Apple sales on a specific product line when they are in the transition of releasing a new product.
What happens EVERY single time Apple gets ready to release a new product, their sales take a nose dive because everyone knows that a new product is getting ready to be announced, so sales drop off. In terms of the iPad and iPhone sales, they will take a nose dive in the Sept quarter and then spike back up during the following two quarters. But some of these analysts take the low Sept quarter numbers and speculate doom and gloom for Apple and then they don't really explain that this happens EVERY single product release. The Sept quarter is ALWAYS Apple's worst quarter, just like December quarter is always Apple's best quarter.
Either way, you haven't proven anything other than you are now becoming like other journalists. A waste of my time.
Sometimes DED and others use specific data and arrive at a reasonable assumption and sometimes they don't.
But you seem to just categorically dismiss DED regardless. Well, I don't think he's off base all of the time, sometimes he is and sometimes he isn't. Dvorak is RARELY correct in his assumptions, he's been writing off Apple for the past decade and I don't know about you, but Apple turned from barely surviving to becoming the biggest success story in the Personal Computer industry and it looks as though they remain a success story for the time being.
I don't see Android as a success story as much as others do with regards to their entire business. Market share, they have done a decent job, but with over 30 companies spitting out anywhere between the cheapest piles of crap to more expensive units, I would think they would do well from a market share standpoint, but if you look at the profits these companies are making that are directly related to product/s/w sales, they really aren't doing that well. Google STILL makes most of their money from the Search site ad revenues. and most of the Android OEMs, other than Samsung actually make any profit or anything I would consider decent. That, to me, is not being successful any company can BUY market share. But BUYING market share isn't running a successful business.
But in terms of deriving that iOS is better for developers than Android was fairly straightforward. S/W developers have a better chance of making more revenues than developing for Android. That was clear.
Dvorak didn't right the article dismissing IDC, DED did. That was the point I was making, which you seemed to have missed. I probably should have been more clear instead of just dropping a hint. DED is not a good source to cite when trying to back up an argument.
I don't know how many times I've seen an Android app for $0.99 and the same iPhone app for $1.99. Or the Android app being free while the iPhone app is $0.99. iPhone developers may be making more money, but I wonder if iPhone users are getting fleeced some of the time, because of the "prestige" status.
It's not so much about being fleeced, but more about charging what the market will bear.
Take the game "Meltdown" as an example. It costs $2 in IOS, but is free for Android. However, the Android version has been deliberately gimped in terms of gold and experience gain rate. You need to buy an IAP to restore those rates to be on par with those on IOS. While the game offers other IAPs, I have been able to complete it without needing to buy them.
The developer's rationale for this is because piracy is so rampant on Android that they don't expect enough people to pay for their game if it weren't free. So the only way is to offer it for free to increase install base, than "pray" that users will be charitable and buy the IAP. The ironic thing is that cracked versions of the game (replete with infinite gold and max level) are already available online anyways, so it's ultimately a lose-lose scenario for them.
On the other hand, the profitability of the IOS app store have brought us quality apps like fantastical, tweetbot and omnifocus. I guess that at the end of the day, if you want quality apps, you have to be willing to pay for it (and demonstrate that you are willing to pay). They aren't that expensive either. Nor am I rich (an elementary school teacher here, albeit one without family commitments), but I am okay with spending a few dollars here and there to try out interesting apps. Heck, I spend much more on a meal at Macdonalds here!
We are developers of a pretty popular app which costs about $13. One of the things we're strongly looking at is making the app free, but with restrictions. No ads. Its more of a demo/trial than anything else. Not Freemium. Then if the person likes it, they can use IAP to buy it.
The idea is to move the purchase from the initial "Buy" button in the App store, to after you've tried the app.
My point here is that I think its the way apps are going to move forward because Apple isn't giving us a trial option. Many other apps like Evernote and Dropbox are also free and make their money from subscription services. That's how you get top grossing with it being free.
We are developers of a pretty popular app which costs about $13. One of the things we're strongly looking at is making the app free, but with restrictions. No ads. Its more of a demo/trial than anything else. Not Freemium. Then if the person likes it, they can use IAP to buy it.
The idea is to move the purchase from the initial "Buy" button in the App store, to after you've tried the app.
My point here is that I think its the way apps are going to move forward because Apple isn't giving us a trial option. Many other apps like Evernote and Dropbox are also free and make their money from subscription services. That's how you get top grossing with it being free.
Maybe you and others can get Apple to put in the hooks to do a 30 day trial or something like that. FWIW, I was evaluating s/w for a USB DAC system I put together and there are about 5 major companies that make the s/w and they all have free trial versions which is really nice. These are OS X based apps. The only problem is they only give a 14 day trial period and it's not always enough time to do a proper evaluation. I ended buying several of them because I found that they all do something the other doesn't do and from time to time I prefer to use one vs the other. Plus, each of them put out updates and add additional features. But I'm kind of settling between three of them and learning a lot about what features are useful, what isn't, etc. I wish I could go to Apple and sit down with their iTunes unit and get them to incorporate a lot of this stuff to make their s/w not require add-on s/w for us audio freaks that are into high res audio.
But, i guess the only thing WE (you, I and anyone else), is submit are desires through the www.apple.com/feedback site and hope they add the features we want. I know it's not a waste of time doing it, but sometimes we have to be that squeaky wheel to get some oil.
I appreciate the fact that you don't want to do the ad based free apps. Some of them get real annoying in how it's done.
But, i guess the only thing WE (you, I and anyone else), is submit are desires through the www.apple.com/feedback site and hope they add the features we want. I know it's not a waste of time doing it, but sometimes we have to be that squeaky wheel to get some oil.
I've personally talked with Apple App Store folks at each of the WWDCs since 2008 requesting trials. We've also talked to Phil and also submitted bug reports to Apple's RADAR system. At this point, I'm tired of waiting and I don't expect it to happen.
I've personally talked with Apple App Store folks at each of the WWDCs since 2008 requesting trials. We've also talked to Phil and also submitted bug reports to Apple's RADAR system. At this point, I'm tired of waiting and I don't expect it to happen.
Yes, it does suck - but you know anytime you're in business something is going to suck. Just find a way to work around it and do whats best for the customer as much as you can (without going under).
The fear that I have is that if we go try-before-you-buy, its going to look like "Freemium" because that's what so many games do. We're not a game, but when I first mentioned this to my beta group of 300 people - it was shot down immediately because they heard the word "free". Once I described the process: yes, its free, and you can try the app and it will be very restricted (since last I asked, Apple won't allow us to do a timed trial of all features), but its purpose will be a trial/demo. Once you buy - its yours. No different from if you bought it outright. Once they heard that, they were enthusiastic. But that messaging is hard.
If Apple would just support a built-in trial…there would be none of this confusion.
----
Now back to this topic - I should add that we also have an Android app. It does sell a lot less than iOS. One reason? Android users want iOS apps. Not just as in the app itself, but they want iOS looks, iOS feel, iOS animations, iOS everything - on Android. So we're redoing our Android app to look more like our iOS app. Its obviously a ton of work - worth it in the end I hope - and if you look at most Android apps they are junk compared to iOS because to have that same level of polish is dramatically more work.
Yes, it does suck - but you know anytime you're in business something is going to suck. Just find a way to work around it and do whats best for the customer as much as you can (without going under).
The fear that I have is that if we go try-before-you-buy, its going to look like "Freemium" because that's what so many games do. We're not a game, but when I first mentioned this to my beta group of 300 people - it was shot down immediately because they heard the word "free". Once I described the process: yes, its free, and you can try the app and it will be very restricted (since last I asked, Apple won't allow us to do a timed trial of all features), but its purpose will be a trial/demo. Once you buy - its yours. No different from if you bought it outright. Once they heard that, they were enthusiastic. But that messaging is hard.
If Apple would just support a built-in trial…there would be none of this confusion.
----
Now back to this topic - I should add that we also have an Android app. It does sell a lot less than iOS. One reason? Android users want iOS apps. Not just as in the app itself, but they want iOS looks, iOS feel, iOS animations, iOS everything - on Android. So we're redoing our Android app to look more like our iOS app. Its obviously a ton of work - worth it in the end I hope - and if you look at most Android apps they are junk compared to iOS because to have that same level of polish is dramatically more work.
Do you think you'll have the same level of sales on both platforms if they both looked/acted the same?
I always wondered, how do you get people to know about the app? Word of mouth, some acknowledgement from a journalist that actually reviews and likes you app? internet/print Advertisements? What ways do you promote the app and what do you think is the most successful way to promote it?
Yeah, the app I compared is a very popular app and the Android version looked similar as much as it could, but it just sucked in terms of how to use the app. I was using on my iPhone and I was trying to tell a friend to download it on his Android (Gingerbread) and he downloaded it and I was trying to show him how to use it and I for the life of me couldn't get the damn thing to do what is so freaking easy on the iOS version. It was frustrating. I went back to my iPhone relieved I didn't buy an Android phone. That was one of my first experiences with an Android phone. And this was SUPPOSED to be a pretty easy app to use. I actually felt dumb i couldn't get the Android version to do something that simple. For the iOS app, it was freaking so easy, I thought it would be the same thing. Apparently it wasn't. Maybe they've changed that, but when you have that kind of experience using another platform, you kind of don't want to use it ever again. I had a similar experience with a friend's S3 when they had just been released. I was trying to do something that on an iPhone was simple and straightforward, but on the Android phone, it felt like I was pulling teeth with a pair of tweezers. That was strike 2 with Android. I was using a friend's Note II, thinking that maybe that's improved. WRONG assumption. That interface with a stylus is not a good experience. It's actually a joke. The screen does NOT respond well and I see my friend constantly trying to get the screen to respond and he ends up doing the same gesture with his stylus and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I've seen him get almost violently pissed off at the thing. I'm sorry, but you couldn't pay me enough money (well unless it's 8 to 10 digits not including the decimal) to switch to Android. Horrible experience. I actually TRIED to actually like it and I just couldn't. Yeah, it's got some great eye candy, but that stuff gets old quick. There was a great utility for checking connection speed, etc. that was really cool that's not on iOS, I forget the name of the app, but that's probably the only app on the Android platform that I've seen that I would like on the iPhone. don't know if the developer will ever do it, but if they did, I would gladly pay for it. It was a very useful app.
Do you think you'll have the same level of sales on both platforms if they both looked/acted the same?
I always wondered, how do you get people to know about the app? Word of mouth, some acknowledgement from a journalist that actually reviews and likes you app? internet/print Advertisements? What ways do you promote the app and what do you think is the most successful way to promote it?
There was a great utility for checking connection speed, etc. that was really cool that's not on iOS, I forget the name of the app, but that's probably the only app on the Android platform that I've seen that I would like on the iPhone. don't know if the developer will ever do it, but if they did, I would gladly pay for it. It was a very useful app.
No, even if our app looked and acted identical, it wouldn't sell the same. Probably a lot closer as our Android sales have kept going up and up, but at our price point Android is simply a much harder sell.
How do we get people to know about the app? We've been in the business since 2000 - a long time. Frankly the best way is to get talked about on sites like this one. People tend to be more apt to want to buy apps that are recommended by other people. Makes sense to me The hard part is being talked about. Also ads work, sometimes. People don't like them, but they do work. In my own experience the right ads can give you 25% of your sales, but the best is to get positive journalistic mention. That can easily boost you 100% or more.
As an example, when we put a booth at MacWorld Expo, there are two reasons:
a) Get feedback from people - right there, right now. Nearly priceless.
b) Talk to journalists in person. Make the pitch.
----
So I'm interested - tell me about that connection speed app. I use SpeedTest.net which I always thought was great. What did you find so good about the Android one?
No, even if our app looked and acted identical, it wouldn't sell the same. Probably a lot closer as our Android sales have kept going up and up, but at our price point Android is simply a much harder sell.
How do we get people to know about the app? We've been in the business since 2000 - a long time. Frankly the best way is to get talked about on sites like this one. People tend to be more apt to want to buy apps that are recommended by other people. Makes sense to me The hard part is being talked about. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Also ads work, sometimes. People don't like them, but they do work. In my own experience the right ads can give you 25% of your sales, but the best is to get </span>
positive journalistic mention. That can easily boost you 100% or more.
As an example, when we put a booth at MacWorld Expo, there are two reasons:
a) Get feedback from people - right there, right now. Nearly priceless.
b) Talk to journalists in person. Make the pitch.
----
So I'm interested - tell me about that connection speed app. I use SpeedTest.net which I always thought was great. What did you find so good about the Android one?
I can't for the life of me know what the app was called. I use speedtest, but I always get depressed when I use because my current ISP sucks.
I'll see if I can look it up somehow. It's been on one of those top android apps to have back a couple of years ago.
No, even if our app looked and acted identical, it wouldn't sell the same. Probably a lot closer as our Android sales have kept going up and up, but at our price point Android is simply a much harder sell.
How do we get people to know about the app? We've been in the business since 2000 - a long time. Frankly the best way is to get talked about on sites like this one. People tend to be more apt to want to buy apps that are recommended by other people. Makes sense to me The hard part is being talked about. Also ads work, sometimes. People don't like them, but they do work. In my own experience the right ads can give you 25% of your sales, but the best is to get positive journalistic mention. That can easily boost you 100% or more.
As an example, when we put a booth at MacWorld Expo, there are two reasons:
a) Get feedback from people - right there, right now. Nearly priceless.
b) Talk to journalists in person. Make the pitch.
----
So I'm interested - tell me about that connection speed app. I use SpeedTest.net which I always thought was great. What did you find so good about the Android one?
Oh, i tried to look up the app, but whatever I found doesn't look like the version that I saw, but I THINK (not 100%) that the app was called Amped. It's a wifi analysis tool. I had to look around for a while to job my memory, it's been several years since I first saw it, I remember that it was a cool app and that it wasn't available on iOS at the time. That's all I remembered, but I THINK that's the app I liked. I haven't used I just have someone that works at Verizon that checks their cell towers and he showed me a cool utility app 2 years, but I haven't bumped into him in almost 2 years and don't have his email/cell phone number to call him up.
Now back to this topic - I should add that we also have an Android app. It does sell a lot less than iOS. One reason? Android users want iOS apps. Not just as in the app itself, but they want iOS looks, iOS feel, iOS animations, iOS everything - on Android. So we're redoing our Android app to look more like our iOS app. Its obviously a ton of work - worth it in the end I hope - and if you look at most Android apps they are junk compared to iOS because to have that same level of polish is dramatically more work.
That happens with all platforms, some just have more junk than others. It's like the old saying with Windows, yeah, Windows has a ton of apps, but only a small handful of good ones.
I've used some Windows apps that were just awful generic user interface. I think getting someone that understands not only the right functionality of the app, but also having good UI design is hard to find. Lots of apps on the market just don't have good UI and that can make what should be a great app suck. Then there is the easy to use, but lacks features, or just plain buggy and hasn't had a lot of attention to testing the product and fixing the problems.
I'm wrestling with that on OS X with a media player app and it's the same or even worse on Windows when setting up a Computer based media server. It's disheartening, but that's what goes on, some platforms are just better or worse at it than others.
But I look at the OS first, what drives me away from Android is that it's just seems like a bunch of people brainstorming ideas, throwing them out, but not much attention to the important things like ease of use, consistency, etc. etc. What SHOULD be easy isn't. I don't want to have a computer device where just to use seems like a never ending game to confuse the user. I don't have enough patience for that. I just want to turn the device on, use it, and then turn it off and when I need to use it, it's easy and I have the functionally i need right there. Android is just too messy from a UI standpoint. Lots of eye candy to entertain someone, but that's not why I buy a smartphone or tablet.
Comments
I don't know how many times I've seen an Android app for $0.99 and the same iPhone app for $1.99. Or the Android app being free while the iPhone app is $0.99. iPhone developers may be making more money, but I wonder if iPhone users are getting fleeced some of the time, because of the "prestige" status.
I think more iPhone users would rather pay for a product and not have ads, then to get free apps.
I don't know what the percentage of apps are actually more expensive, I know there are a lot of free apps on iOS, but I'm sure there is a lot more where people will pay $.99 for ad free.
I know Google is charging more for the better version of Google Maps, which I won't pay for. I refuse to give them money.
I don't know how many times I've seen an Android app for $0.99 and the same iPhone app for $1.99. Or the Android app being free while the iPhone app is $0.99. iPhone developers may be making more money, but I wonder if iPhone users are getting fleeced some of the time, because of the "prestige" status.
"prestige" status as the reason? I know know about that.
What apps are the exact same where the ad free iOS version costs more than the ad free Android version? Just curious.
DED was citing market research. Seriously, it was just that information from market research in the article that I'm referring to and citing you for anything is far more pointless at least DED has market research on that article, where's yours?
DED was citing IDC (and himself) in that article to form his assumptions. Allow me to cite a source which states that IDC is full of it and you may start to see just one of the reasons why citing DED is rarely a good idea (hint, look at the author).
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/16/the-curious-case-of-idc-gartner-strategy-analytics-pc-phone-tablet-data-on-apple
DED was citing IDC (and himself) in that article to form his assumptions. Allow me to cite a source which states that IDC is full of it and you may start to see just one of the reasons why citing DED is rarely a good idea (hint, look at the author).
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/16/the-curious-case-of-idc-gartner-strategy-analytics-pc-phone-tablet-data-on-apple
Give me specifics to compare and I'm not going to waste my time trying to read two different articles relating different information. I don't have that much time to do this.
What I can tell you is that ALL market research companies have metrics that are either good metrics to use to arrive at certain assumptions and some don't. I look at the trends on my own, I have other sources like this that I look at to see what's going on..
http://barefigur.es
Now, don't try to act like Dvorak is a reliable source. He's written some stupid articles in his career. BTW, I used to read Dvorak faithfully as early as the mid 80's around the time when the Mac first hit the market and his articles were sometimes full of shit back then. I got off reading his articles faithfully since he got worse over the years. Every once in a while he manages to squeeze out an article that actually makes sense, but it's rare. Just like most journalists.
I look at the raw numbers. What I hate is when they make assumptions based on numbers from one quarter that reflect a down turn in Apple sales on a specific product line when they are in the transition of releasing a new product.
What happens EVERY single time Apple gets ready to release a new product, their sales take a nose dive because everyone knows that a new product is getting ready to be announced, so sales drop off. In terms of the iPad and iPhone sales, they will take a nose dive in the Sept quarter and then spike back up during the following two quarters. But some of these analysts take the low Sept quarter numbers and speculate doom and gloom for Apple and then they don't really explain that this happens EVERY single product release. The Sept quarter is ALWAYS Apple's worst quarter, just like December quarter is always Apple's best quarter.
Either way, you haven't proven anything other than you are now becoming like other journalists. A waste of my time.
Sometimes DED and others use specific data and arrive at a reasonable assumption and sometimes they don't.
But you seem to just categorically dismiss DED regardless. Well, I don't think he's off base all of the time, sometimes he is and sometimes he isn't. Dvorak is RARELY correct in his assumptions, he's been writing off Apple for the past decade and I don't know about you, but Apple turned from barely surviving to becoming the biggest success story in the Personal Computer industry and it looks as though they remain a success story for the time being.
I don't see Android as a success story as much as others do with regards to their entire business. Market share, they have done a decent job, but with over 30 companies spitting out anywhere between the cheapest piles of crap to more expensive units, I would think they would do well from a market share standpoint, but if you look at the profits these companies are making that are directly related to product/s/w sales, they really aren't doing that well. Google STILL makes most of their money from the Search site ad revenues. and most of the Android OEMs, other than Samsung actually make any profit or anything I would consider decent. That, to me, is not being successful any company can BUY market share. But BUYING market share isn't running a successful business.
But in terms of deriving that iOS is better for developers than Android was fairly straightforward. S/W developers have a better chance of making more revenues than developing for Android. That was clear.
Give me specifics to compare and I'm not going to waste my time trying to read two different articles relating different information. I don't have that much time to do this.
What I can tell you is that ALL market research companies have metrics that are either good metrics to use to arrive at certain assumptions and some don't. I look at the trends on my own, I have other sources like this that I look at to see what's going on..
http://barefigur.es
Now, don't try to act like Dvorak is a reliable source. He's written some stupid articles in his career. BTW, I used to read Dvorak faithfully as early as the mid 80's around the time when the Mac first hit the market and his articles were sometimes full of shit back then. I got off reading his articles faithfully since he got worse over the years. Every once in a while he manages to squeeze out an article that actually makes sense, but it's rare. Just like most journalists.
I look at the raw numbers. What I hate is when they make assumptions based on numbers from one quarter that reflect a down turn in Apple sales on a specific product line when they are in the transition of releasing a new product.
What happens EVERY single time Apple gets ready to release a new product, their sales take a nose dive because everyone knows that a new product is getting ready to be announced, so sales drop off. In terms of the iPad and iPhone sales, they will take a nose dive in the Sept quarter and then spike back up during the following two quarters. But some of these analysts take the low Sept quarter numbers and speculate doom and gloom for Apple and then they don't really explain that this happens EVERY single product release. The Sept quarter is ALWAYS Apple's worst quarter, just like December quarter is always Apple's best quarter.
Either way, you haven't proven anything other than you are now becoming like other journalists. A waste of my time.
Sometimes DED and others use specific data and arrive at a reasonable assumption and sometimes they don't.
But you seem to just categorically dismiss DED regardless. Well, I don't think he's off base all of the time, sometimes he is and sometimes he isn't. Dvorak is RARELY correct in his assumptions, he's been writing off Apple for the past decade and I don't know about you, but Apple turned from barely surviving to becoming the biggest success story in the Personal Computer industry and it looks as though they remain a success story for the time being.
I don't see Android as a success story as much as others do with regards to their entire business. Market share, they have done a decent job, but with over 30 companies spitting out anywhere between the cheapest piles of crap to more expensive units, I would think they would do well from a market share standpoint, but if you look at the profits these companies are making that are directly related to product/s/w sales, they really aren't doing that well. Google STILL makes most of their money from the Search site ad revenues. and most of the Android OEMs, other than Samsung actually make any profit or anything I would consider decent. That, to me, is not being successful any company can BUY market share. But BUYING market share isn't running a successful business.
But in terms of deriving that iOS is better for developers than Android was fairly straightforward. S/W developers have a better chance of making more revenues than developing for Android. That was clear.
Dvorak didn't right the article dismissing IDC, DED did. That was the point I was making, which you seemed to have missed. I probably should have been more clear instead of just dropping a hint. DED is not a good source to cite when trying to back up an argument.
Dvorak didn't right the article dismissing IDC, DED did.
What statement did DED make that dismissed IDC?
I thought Android phones had the highest return rate ¡
Physical phone returns because they sucked, maybe.
I don't know how many times I've seen an Android app for $0.99 and the same iPhone app for $1.99. Or the Android app being free while the iPhone app is $0.99. iPhone developers may be making more money, but I wonder if iPhone users are getting fleeced some of the time, because of the "prestige" status.
It's not so much about being fleeced, but more about charging what the market will bear.
Take the game "Meltdown" as an example. It costs $2 in IOS, but is free for Android. However, the Android version has been deliberately gimped in terms of gold and experience gain rate. You need to buy an IAP to restore those rates to be on par with those on IOS. While the game offers other IAPs, I have been able to complete it without needing to buy them.
The developer's rationale for this is because piracy is so rampant on Android that they don't expect enough people to pay for their game if it weren't free. So the only way is to offer it for free to increase install base, than "pray" that users will be charitable and buy the IAP. The ironic thing is that cracked versions of the game (replete with infinite gold and max level) are already available online anyways, so it's ultimately a lose-lose scenario for them.
On the other hand, the profitability of the IOS app store have brought us quality apps like fantastical, tweetbot and omnifocus. I guess that at the end of the day, if you want quality apps, you have to be willing to pay for it (and demonstrate that you are willing to pay). They aren't that expensive either. Nor am I rich (an elementary school teacher here, albeit one without family commitments), but I am okay with spending a few dollars here and there to try out interesting apps. Heck, I spend much more on a meal at Macdonalds here!
We are developers of a pretty popular app which costs about $13. One of the things we're strongly looking at is making the app free, but with restrictions. No ads. Its more of a demo/trial than anything else. Not Freemium. Then if the person likes it, they can use IAP to buy it.
The idea is to move the purchase from the initial "Buy" button in the App store, to after you've tried the app.
My point here is that I think its the way apps are going to move forward because Apple isn't giving us a trial option. Many other apps like Evernote and Dropbox are also free and make their money from subscription services. That's how you get top grossing with it being free.
We are developers of a pretty popular app which costs about $13. One of the things we're strongly looking at is making the app free, but with restrictions. No ads. Its more of a demo/trial than anything else. Not Freemium. Then if the person likes it, they can use IAP to buy it.
The idea is to move the purchase from the initial "Buy" button in the App store, to after you've tried the app.
My point here is that I think its the way apps are going to move forward because Apple isn't giving us a trial option. Many other apps like Evernote and Dropbox are also free and make their money from subscription services. That's how you get top grossing with it being free.
Maybe you and others can get Apple to put in the hooks to do a 30 day trial or something like that. FWIW, I was evaluating s/w for a USB DAC system I put together and there are about 5 major companies that make the s/w and they all have free trial versions which is really nice. These are OS X based apps. The only problem is they only give a 14 day trial period and it's not always enough time to do a proper evaluation. I ended buying several of them because I found that they all do something the other doesn't do and from time to time I prefer to use one vs the other. Plus, each of them put out updates and add additional features. But I'm kind of settling between three of them and learning a lot about what features are useful, what isn't, etc. I wish I could go to Apple and sit down with their iTunes unit and get them to incorporate a lot of this stuff to make their s/w not require add-on s/w for us audio freaks that are into high res audio.
But, i guess the only thing WE (you, I and anyone else), is submit are desires through the www.apple.com/feedback site and hope they add the features we want. I know it's not a waste of time doing it, but sometimes we have to be that squeaky wheel to get some oil.
I appreciate the fact that you don't want to do the ad based free apps. Some of them get real annoying in how it's done.
But, i guess the only thing WE (you, I and anyone else), is submit are desires through the www.apple.com/feedback site and hope they add the features we want. I know it's not a waste of time doing it, but sometimes we have to be that squeaky wheel to get some oil.
I've personally talked with Apple App Store folks at each of the WWDCs since 2008 requesting trials. We've also talked to Phil and also submitted bug reports to Apple's RADAR system. At this point, I'm tired of waiting and I don't expect it to happen.
I've personally talked with Apple App Store folks at each of the WWDCs since 2008 requesting trials. We've also talked to Phil and also submitted bug reports to Apple's RADAR system. At this point, I'm tired of waiting and I don't expect it to happen.
That's sucks.
Yes, it does suck - but you know anytime you're in business something is going to suck. Just find a way to work around it and do whats best for the customer as much as you can (without going under).
The fear that I have is that if we go try-before-you-buy, its going to look like "Freemium" because that's what so many games do. We're not a game, but when I first mentioned this to my beta group of 300 people - it was shot down immediately because they heard the word "free". Once I described the process: yes, its free, and you can try the app and it will be very restricted (since last I asked, Apple won't allow us to do a timed trial of all features), but its purpose will be a trial/demo. Once you buy - its yours. No different from if you bought it outright. Once they heard that, they were enthusiastic. But that messaging is hard.
If Apple would just support a built-in trial…there would be none of this confusion.
----
Now back to this topic - I should add that we also have an Android app. It does sell a lot less than iOS. One reason? Android users want iOS apps. Not just as in the app itself, but they want iOS looks, iOS feel, iOS animations, iOS everything - on Android. So we're redoing our Android app to look more like our iOS app. Its obviously a ton of work - worth it in the end I hope - and if you look at most Android apps they are junk compared to iOS because to have that same level of polish is dramatically more work.
Yes, it does suck - but you know anytime you're in business something is going to suck. Just find a way to work around it and do whats best for the customer as much as you can (without going under).
The fear that I have is that if we go try-before-you-buy, its going to look like "Freemium" because that's what so many games do. We're not a game, but when I first mentioned this to my beta group of 300 people - it was shot down immediately because they heard the word "free". Once I described the process: yes, its free, and you can try the app and it will be very restricted (since last I asked, Apple won't allow us to do a timed trial of all features), but its purpose will be a trial/demo. Once you buy - its yours. No different from if you bought it outright. Once they heard that, they were enthusiastic. But that messaging is hard.
If Apple would just support a built-in trial…there would be none of this confusion.
----
Now back to this topic - I should add that we also have an Android app. It does sell a lot less than iOS. One reason? Android users want iOS apps. Not just as in the app itself, but they want iOS looks, iOS feel, iOS animations, iOS everything - on Android. So we're redoing our Android app to look more like our iOS app. Its obviously a ton of work - worth it in the end I hope - and if you look at most Android apps they are junk compared to iOS because to have that same level of polish is dramatically more work.
Do you think you'll have the same level of sales on both platforms if they both looked/acted the same?
I always wondered, how do you get people to know about the app? Word of mouth, some acknowledgement from a journalist that actually reviews and likes you app? internet/print Advertisements? What ways do you promote the app and what do you think is the most successful way to promote it?
Yeah, the app I compared is a very popular app and the Android version looked similar as much as it could, but it just sucked in terms of how to use the app. I was using on my iPhone and I was trying to tell a friend to download it on his Android (Gingerbread) and he downloaded it and I was trying to show him how to use it and I for the life of me couldn't get the damn thing to do what is so freaking easy on the iOS version. It was frustrating. I went back to my iPhone relieved I didn't buy an Android phone. That was one of my first experiences with an Android phone. And this was SUPPOSED to be a pretty easy app to use. I actually felt dumb i couldn't get the Android version to do something that simple. For the iOS app, it was freaking so easy, I thought it would be the same thing. Apparently it wasn't. Maybe they've changed that, but when you have that kind of experience using another platform, you kind of don't want to use it ever again. I had a similar experience with a friend's S3 when they had just been released. I was trying to do something that on an iPhone was simple and straightforward, but on the Android phone, it felt like I was pulling teeth with a pair of tweezers. That was strike 2 with Android. I was using a friend's Note II, thinking that maybe that's improved. WRONG assumption. That interface with a stylus is not a good experience. It's actually a joke. The screen does NOT respond well and I see my friend constantly trying to get the screen to respond and he ends up doing the same gesture with his stylus and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I've seen him get almost violently pissed off at the thing. I'm sorry, but you couldn't pay me enough money (well unless it's 8 to 10 digits not including the decimal) to switch to Android. Horrible experience. I actually TRIED to actually like it and I just couldn't. Yeah, it's got some great eye candy, but that stuff gets old quick. There was a great utility for checking connection speed, etc. that was really cool that's not on iOS, I forget the name of the app, but that's probably the only app on the Android platform that I've seen that I would like on the iPhone. don't know if the developer will ever do it, but if they did, I would gladly pay for it. It was a very useful app.
Do you think you'll have the same level of sales on both platforms if they both looked/acted the same?
I always wondered, how do you get people to know about the app? Word of mouth, some acknowledgement from a journalist that actually reviews and likes you app? internet/print Advertisements? What ways do you promote the app and what do you think is the most successful way to promote it?
There was a great utility for checking connection speed, etc. that was really cool that's not on iOS, I forget the name of the app, but that's probably the only app on the Android platform that I've seen that I would like on the iPhone. don't know if the developer will ever do it, but if they did, I would gladly pay for it. It was a very useful app.
No, even if our app looked and acted identical, it wouldn't sell the same. Probably a lot closer as our Android sales have kept going up and up, but at our price point Android is simply a much harder sell.
How do we get people to know about the app? We've been in the business since 2000 - a long time. Frankly the best way is to get talked about on sites like this one. People tend to be more apt to want to buy apps that are recommended by other people. Makes sense to me
The hard part is being talked about. Also ads work, sometimes. People don't like them, but they do work. In my own experience the right ads can give you 25% of your sales, but the best is to get positive journalistic mention. That can easily boost you 100% or more.
As an example, when we put a booth at MacWorld Expo, there are two reasons:
a) Get feedback from people - right there, right now. Nearly priceless.
b) Talk to journalists in person. Make the pitch.
----
So I'm interested - tell me about that connection speed app. I use SpeedTest.net which I always thought was great. What did you find so good about the Android one?
I can't for the life of me know what the app was called. I use speedtest, but I always get depressed when I use because my current ISP sucks.
I'll see if I can look it up somehow. It's been on one of those top android apps to have back a couple of years ago.
No, even if our app looked and acted identical, it wouldn't sell the same. Probably a lot closer as our Android sales have kept going up and up, but at our price point Android is simply a much harder sell.
How do we get people to know about the app? We've been in the business since 2000 - a long time. Frankly the best way is to get talked about on sites like this one. People tend to be more apt to want to buy apps that are recommended by other people. Makes sense to me
The hard part is being talked about. Also ads work, sometimes. People don't like them, but they do work. In my own experience the right ads can give you 25% of your sales, but the best is to get positive journalistic mention. That can easily boost you 100% or more.
As an example, when we put a booth at MacWorld Expo, there are two reasons:
a) Get feedback from people - right there, right now. Nearly priceless.
b) Talk to journalists in person. Make the pitch.
----
So I'm interested - tell me about that connection speed app. I use SpeedTest.net which I always thought was great. What did you find so good about the Android one?
Oh, i tried to look up the app, but whatever I found doesn't look like the version that I saw, but I THINK (not 100%) that the app was called Amped. It's a wifi analysis tool. I had to look around for a while to job my memory, it's been several years since I first saw it, I remember that it was a cool app and that it wasn't available on iOS at the time. That's all I remembered, but I THINK that's the app I liked. I haven't used I just have someone that works at Verizon that checks their cell towers and he showed me a cool utility app 2 years, but I haven't bumped into him in almost 2 years and don't have his email/cell phone number to call him up.
Now back to this topic - I should add that we also have an Android app. It does sell a lot less than iOS. One reason? Android users want iOS apps. Not just as in the app itself, but they want iOS looks, iOS feel, iOS animations, iOS everything - on Android. So we're redoing our Android app to look more like our iOS app. Its obviously a ton of work - worth it in the end I hope - and if you look at most Android apps they are junk compared to iOS because to have that same level of polish is dramatically more work.
Some would argue that many Android apps suck because they seem like they were ported from iOS instead of designed specifically for android/holo, and retain elements that are generally frowned upon in the android world, such as hard-coded sharing providers, static splash screens, on-screen back buttons, etc. See for example (http://www.geek.com/mobile/ios-app-ports-guarantee-androids-future-in-second-place-1480565/) and (http://blog.iangclifton.com/2013/03/30/the-negative-impact-of-ios-on-android/).
Some would argue that many Android apps suck because they seem like they were ported from iOS instead of designed specifically for android/holo, and retain elements that are generally frowned upon in the android world, such as hard-coded sharing providers, static splash screens, on-screen back buttons, etc. See for example (http://www.geek.com/mobile/ios-app-ports-guarantee-androids-future-in-second-place-1480565/) and (http://blog.iangclifton.com/2013/03/30/the-negative-impact-of-ios-on-android/).
That happens with all platforms, some just have more junk than others. It's like the old saying with Windows, yeah, Windows has a ton of apps, but only a small handful of good ones.
I've used some Windows apps that were just awful generic user interface. I think getting someone that understands not only the right functionality of the app, but also having good UI design is hard to find. Lots of apps on the market just don't have good UI and that can make what should be a great app suck. Then there is the easy to use, but lacks features, or just plain buggy and hasn't had a lot of attention to testing the product and fixing the problems.
I'm wrestling with that on OS X with a media player app and it's the same or even worse on Windows when setting up a Computer based media server. It's disheartening, but that's what goes on, some platforms are just better or worse at it than others.
But I look at the OS first, what drives me away from Android is that it's just seems like a bunch of people brainstorming ideas, throwing them out, but not much attention to the important things like ease of use, consistency, etc. etc. What SHOULD be easy isn't. I don't want to have a computer device where just to use seems like a never ending game to confuse the user. I don't have enough patience for that. I just want to turn the device on, use it, and then turn it off and when I need to use it, it's easy and I have the functionally i need right there. Android is just too messy from a UI standpoint. Lots of eye candy to entertain someone, but that's not why I buy a smartphone or tablet.