Exactly! I'm not interested in Android precisely because I cannot sell nor buy Android apps from my country. There is also very little demand from clients (compared to iOS).
The problem for Google is that people from Romania have been able to buy and sell iOS apps since 2008 or so.
I do desktop Java apps on OSX so it would actually have been a smoother transition to do some Android coding on the side, but I learned Objective-C instead. Then I bought iOS gear for testing so I really don't see myself doing an Android app very soon or buying an Android device.
The International market seems to be a big problem: it's semi-amusing to read a new announcement and then look into the specifics to learn it is US-only or for a very limited subset of countries (the last ones I looked at were Amazon Kindle developer program, Amazon's new Android AppStore).
What limitations are there now? I live in the Czech republic and I believed that paid apps would not be available there, but in the last week, I was able to buy anything I wanted, via google checkout, without any problems. Perhaps I've missed something.
The marketplace is terrible for discovering new content. The absence of anything like "top selling new apps this week" means scrolling through pages and pages of the same old stuff.
You just described appbrain.com Sure, it's not Google's baby but it's still a hell of a lot better than the Market. It's been my go-to place for new apps for a few months now.
as far as I can tell from the quotes, no curator is going to implemented, it seams a simple speculation from appleinsider. I might be very wrong but to me seems like a statement that google is strengthening his efforts started with the market itself to kick out out-of-term-of-service apps. Not only malicious, see apps like kongragate, that was considered an alternative android market and so was pulled; it is no more in the market, this doesn't mean you cannot install it your way, legally and easily.
Maybe someone from google is reading this: PLEASE ALLOW THE REST OF THE F*ING WORLD TO SELL APPS.this is killing me here in Romania. I have 3 cool, good looking games (angry birds competitors), just sitting and waiting.
That's one thing I've never got - the market has been out, what, years now and still they haven't bothered to sort out selling in other countries. What gives? Google is a giant multinational and even if there are legal issues, that's the reason they have a huge team of lawyers.
There is probably an opportunity cost because you aren't releasing the games as soon as possible. You might consider entering into some sort of deal with somebody that is able to publish your game or make an US (or whatever country is allowed) entity.
Of course, this is much too complicated/expensive than it would be if Google would do their part.
I'm also from Romania and this lack of support from Google is the reason I've only done iOS apps.
i've explored that road actually, and it's not really possible. Besides having a US/UK/[other allowed country] account, they also require you to have an actual address in that country. There have been several developers who have been publishing paid apps for other people and they got their accounts banned.
Incorporating into US/UK wouldn't be possible without having some registered address there so I assume you meant having an US bank account as a person living in Romania -- I understand why they would ban that.
But I doubt they would ban your US entity from publishing -- it's just another company.
Hey, why not do the same thing that the guys of Angry Birds did putting ads on your games? I strongly suggest you to try this at least with one of them and see how it goes.
So first it took over a year for us in Sweden to get paid apps.
Then it turns out that there is some bug which prevents "google for my domain"-users from buying Android-apps. Google Checkout with the same account works on a regular computer but not on my phone even though all other features work.
So I have to create yet another GMail address and associate my credit card with it just so I can buy apps which I've been to lazy to do.
Result: I've bought apps on my iPod touch which I never use but not once single a Android app even though I've used Android since the launch of the first dev-phone (2008).
Their recent fancy-pants redesign made everything prettier, slower, more cluttered and added almost no new functionality.
One of the devs had the nerve to post about how clever the resolution-independent swoosh at the top was. In my head I was yelling "stop fiddling with that and fix the frikkin search!"
Indeed, the app-store is very un-googly at the moment. Google made their name in search by providing the highest quality results, that's certainly not the case with the app-store.
The one thing I like about the new market is that it recovers from install hangs much better.
Often I get apps that download 100% and just sit there doing nothing (i.e. not moving into install phase). In the old market the only thing that would work was to cancel the the entire install and try again (i.e. re-download the app from scratch) until it worked. With the new market, leaving that app's page and coming back seems to deliver a reliable kick in the ass to the process when it's frozen. That alone is worth any annoyances. For everything else, there's appbrain.
Google should give up and license others to run competing Android app stores. Then someone will figure how to do international app sales and curate Android apps.
I believe there is an essential factor which isn't being articulated; the different demographics and psychology of android phone purchasers vs. iphone purchasers. I think Apple attracts a large portion of the "eager to spend money on technology" customer base. If you are someone who is eager to spend a lot of time playing with your phone, you are likely to buy an iphone. If you want smartphone functionality but are not inclined to make a hobby of your phone use, you are likely to buy an android phone. I love my android phone, but I am simply not interested in spending additional money on applications, and no matter how good app store search and discovery is and no matter how painless payment is, I can't imagine any phone application I would be interested in purchasing.
I don't really recognize the "eager to spend money" category - I've bought a fair amount of apps for my iPhone and iPad (mostly games for the iPad at the prompting of my 12 year old son) - the main reason I end up buying stuff is because it is so easy to do and the prices are generally so low that they are almost literally "sweetie money".
I think you're on to something, but I think "willingness to spend" might be more accurate than "eager to spend".
I don't think it has anything to do with making a hobby out of phone use, either. Plenty of android users are eager to tweak & tinker & install & play around with their phones. They're just tight-fisted with their money, that's all.
It seems to be a bit like linux users who — spoiled by the ability to freely download and install something that will do almost anything — wouldn't think to open their wallet to pay for software, no matter how good.
Edit: iOS isn't immune to this kind of user, either. Just check out app reviews complaining about having to pay 1/5th what people would spend on coffee for an app. But the existence of tightwads isn't as bad a problem as an absence of paying customers. Android is like The Cheapskate Channel: all tightwads, all the time.
"It seems to be a bit like linux users who — spoiled by the ability to freely download and install something that will do almost anything — wouldn't think to open their wallet to pay for software, no matter how good."
I think this is not accurate. I recently purchased the 'Humble Indie Bundle 2' games package which was available for all platforms. This was offered on a 'pay what you want' basis and, after deciding how much you would pay and purchasing the games, they provided some very interesting data:
In this case (maybe it's unusual?) Linux users were willing to (voluntarily) fork out more cash for these games than either Windows or Mac users. Perhaps it's because payment wasn't strictly necessary or something, I don't know. I suspect that Linux users, as a community, are closer to the software-development community, so when good software is made (without a bunch of insulting DRM) at a reasonable price, they're more than happy to pay for it.
"I suspect that Linux users, as a community, are closer to the software-development community, so when good software is made (without a bunch of insulting DRM) at a reasonable price, they're more than happy to pay for it."
Well the utter and complete non-existence of any commercial software on Linux (yes I know about Oracle...), and the spectacular failure of anyone trying to make any (who here remembers Corel's ill-faited WordPerfect for Linux attempt, or Loki games?) are devastating proof that the exact opposite is true.
(I guess one could argue that 2$ is the 'reasonable price' for any and all software, but that's just closing one's eyes to the economic realities of the software industry).
I mean let's not beat around the bush: Linux users don't pay for software in any sizable amount. Plunking down a few bucks for some games once every decade doesn't count. I like Linux as much as the next guy and I've used it since 1998, but the extremists (at the FSF and elsewhere) that have managed to somehow convince a large enough portion of Linux users that paying for software is somehow a moral issue (I mean, seriously?) have killed 90% of the market in that area. Yes I know that a few companies left and right make a few cents on 'support' and other such frolicking in the margin, but Red Hat is the only one who has managed to make any serious money from Linux itself (as opposed to some others who have found a sound and cheap platform on it to build their product offerings on, those seem to do OK with it)..
I see it as more like: Linux users will not pay for something when they're forced to pay for something, but when they don't have to pay for something, they're more likely to pay for it than other groups are. (Most still won't if they don't have to, but some will, in a much higher percentage than users from more mainstream OS's).
I think they're also much more likely to do without than to pirate. Of course, it's easy for people to rationalize piracy in their head -- it has DRM, it's too expensive, the company is evil, et cetera. But I think Linux users are much more likely than other operating system users to do without rather than pirate.
OTOH, OSX users are probably more likely to pay for things than do without.
I don't think the Android/iOS ecosystems have shaken out enough to make broad generalizations yet.
Myself, I'm definitely a "Linux" style user. I've purchased a few Android apps, but all of them have very usable free editions. Typically, all the paid version does is remove the advertising. Removing advertising is not worth $5 to me, but I sometimes buy the premium version anyways.
Some may be unwillingness to pay, but when it comes to user experience, proprietary apps (paid or not) have never fit in that well either. Long before "app stores" became common on other platforms, users of at least Debian-based distributions (and a few others) have been grabbing most of their software from an appstore-like interface from their distro: you click on the app in synaptic and it installs, configures, and someone is responsible for ensuring it plays nice with the rest of the system. Similar story for, say, FreeBSD ports.
If you want software not in the repository, it is usually a much worse user experience. You get some static binary with a .sh install script, which wants to install in /opt/ or something, doesn't add itself to the distro's menu system, doesn't integrate with the settings manager, your default browser, etc., and generally is a pain in the ass. Even true for no-money proprietary apps, e.g. getting icc on my system was a lot more annoying than getting gcc or llvm on it, at least last time I tried.
True, it's a major pain to distribute software in object code form on Linux. The many package systems, moving target libraries, C++'s lack of a standardized ABI; they all make it hard. Originally my previous post had a long-winded ramble on the many evenings I wasted downloading the 25 or whatever many it were parts of WordPerfect, assembling them to the right places, fixing issues with libraries, ... It was most certainly not end-user ready, but the user base at that time was composed of people who could theoretically have managed the technical parts, but just weren't willing to pay (that includes myself).
But since you bring up Debian, they were the first with a fully functional and well-working package system that automatically downloaded packages etc., it worked (still does, probably) great. But the Debian community was ('is', maybe, I don't know the current state of affairs) so infused with the Free mantra that any for-pay software to be distributed through them would be politically unthinkable. Yes there are practical issues with distributing binaries that you can't recompile yourself and yes I know about non-free, but there is downright hostility to encouraging, fostering or even enabling a for-pay Linux software ecosystem in the Debian world (elsewhere too, it's just an example). I subscribed to some Debian mailing lists for a while 7 or 8 years ago, and on the non-technical lists most of the traffic seemed to be about if this or that package was Free enough to be worthy of inclusion in Debian! I mean it's OK, they all have the right to do what they want, who am I to tell people what not to. And one person isn't the next one and when there are 10 nerds in a room there are 11 opinions on anything, I know; my point is, let's stop claiming that Linux users would pay if only there was no DRM, or ease of use, or better quality, etc. etc.; let's just all face the facts and say that the culture is generally hostile to the idea of paying for software, that binary-only software is a second rate citizen, looked down upon to the point of contempt, and that no software company has enough cloud to change this.
All of the above is OK, if that's what people (other people) in large enough amounts want. Those who don't will go elsewhere, it's a (mostly) free world. But let's also be honest about the fundamentals. I've deluded myself for 10 years with the Free Software mantra and used the same tired arguments - we're being held down by The Man, next year will be the Year of Linux on the Desktop, there's real money to be made in support and training and customization, etc.; the reality is simply the opposite. (I guess that's why I'm railing so hard on this now, just like ex-smokers are the most obnoxious anti-smoking "activists" - I guess it's the self-loathing after a major disillusion of realizing you've been wrong on something you had strong beliefs about for a sizable amount of time :) )
> Well the utter and complete non-existence of any commercial software on Linux...
Linux (I'm thinking of just the kernel itself here, but it's true of the whole GNU platform as well) has plenty of "commercial" software running on it. That is, it has plenty of software that people were paid to write, because it is supporting the business functions of many organizations. If "commercial" software is software that is purchased -- software that people are paid to write -- then GNU and Linux have no lack of commercial software.
They do have a dearth of software that is paid for by one particular business model: restricting copying in order to charge a fee. You are right that the FSF and many others consider this particular business model to be unethical. But don't confuse that particular business model with the practice of paying for software, which the FSF has no problem with and actually encourages. [1]
Please don't insult my and other reader's intelligence by playing definition games. There is no way an even only semi-informed reader could misunderstand that by 'commercial software', I and others replying to me meant 'software written by companies or individuals with the purpose to sell this software to others, under the conditions that these others cannot distribute or modify the software, and whose source of income rely on this non-redistribution so that they can charge others too; in this way spreading the cost of development over all users rather than making the first users of a specific feature pay the full amount for it".
In all common usage, "paid software" is "software that the user paid for in order to get the right to use it", and not "someone was paid to write it". Firefox is not "paid software" or "commercial software" because some dude at Mozilla.org got paid for writing parts of it. I'm not "confusing" anything here, I'm perfectly aware of software business models, how they relate to open source, the FSF's stance on them, etc. If I had to qualify all words I use each and every time, rather than assume that readers can make a reasonable contextual interpretation of words, a 2-paragraph post would have to start with 10 paragraphs of definitions, assumptions, assumed pre-conditions etc. Your post is a schoolbook example of the hard core FSF disciple's propaganda strategy: focusing on semantic minutiae, making things that are 100% clear in any reasonable reader's mind opaque and ambiguous, using emotionally-laden words like 'open', 'free', 'restricting' so as to associate Free software with the words with generally positive connotations and those with negative with other software, to get gullible people to subscribe to their idiosyncratic world view. I'm not even sure why I got suckered into replying at all, I guess I'm just gullible too, maybe just in another way.
It's hard to draw conclusions about the desktop Linux market since it's so vanishingly small.
I'd happily buy games for Linux. But I don't normally buy games at all; I buy maybe one a year. If I'm a typical case, a company could produce a game and fail financially even though they've captured most of the market.
How many Windows users actually buy software at all aside from games? I think most of the commercial software used legitimately by people is either bundled with their PC or paid for by their companies.
Since most games don't run on linux, most linux users don't buy software. Yes, Loki tried to make that work but gamers are very fickle and want the latest and greatest games as soon as they are available on Windows. Without direct support from the game producers and release dates/features comparable to the Windows platform, linux games won't take off. It's a chicken-and-egg problem and it won't change since most serious gamers run Windows as well as linux.
I ran Windows for years before I switched to linux and I don't think I bought any software for Windows except for games and antivirus updates.
I also have an Android phone and have only bought one app in the year I've had it. I only want a smart phone to do certain things - calls, texts, emails, GPS, maps, etc. - and most of that is handled well enough by Google's built-in apps. There are some free apps I use on a regular basis but most are either non-essential or provided by a web site I use (like Last.fm or Pandora). If the non-essential apps cost money, I wouldn't pay for them because I can live without things like wifi analyzers.
Well, I imagine most Android users prefer GPL-licensed software, which is overwhelmingly also free as in beer. I know I do. CyanogenMod and FLOSS cover the majority of what I need from a phone-computer-thingy. For instance, I needed some GPS / navigation - OsmAnd and OpenGPS tracker. OsmAnd even allows download of vector data for entire countries and POI databases. Or, you need a timed photo taking application? rrTimeLapse does the job. In most cases, these applications are less cluttered and with saner UI than the flashier paid versions. I would pay, however, for certain applications - such as the excellent Thinking Space mind mapping software (which has a free ad-supported version with very lax limitations), or Titanium Backup. But in my part of Europe I can't pay for apps in the Market. Maybe they should look into fixing that.
the different demographics and psychology of android phone purchasers vs. iphone purchaser
This maybe was true 6 months ago. It isn't true now. Android buyers today are the mainstream, many of whom are paying as much for their handset, and as much on their contract, as the iPhone equivalent. They are competitive choices, and there is no longer any clear demographic difference between buyers.
You don't sell 300,000+ handsets a day targeting the geek demographic. My brother and his girlfriend, who I thought were the pinnacle of the iPhone demographic, I was recently shocked to find got a HTC Desire Z and a Galaxy S, despite their other household devices being an iPad and an iPod Touch. I had no part in that decision as I keep my evangelism in the online world.
As an Android buyer I've only purchased three applications in my history with the devices: WeatherBug Pro, a top-rated racing game that I then returned, and NFL's Game Center.
Am I cheap? Quite the opposite: My steam catalog is stuffed to the gills, and all of my music is legally owned (on top of a rdio subscription).
I want to spend money on Android apps. I want Angry Birds to have a pay version so I don't have to worry about my kids accidentally clicking on ads during play.
So why don't I spend more?
Not only is the market app terrible (the lack of decent heuristics being the biggest deficiency), as a long-time Android booster I will openly say that the majority of Android applications suck just as strongly. It's getting better, but in general it's still quite a gamble if you're getting something decent or not, and I can't imagine the 15 minute window has improved confidence levels.
It isn't always the app's fault, either. The racing game I mentioned seemed decent enough, but the constant garbage collection of the platform made it a pause-filled, unpleasant experience. This, of course, is one of the things that the slow-to-come 2.3 release (remember when the purpose of buying the Nexus One was supposedly fast releases?) aims to solve.
I actually felt guilty returning that app because it wasn't really the fault of the app's developers, but it made it unplayable.
The NFL application I only bought after actually seeing it on the NFL.com webpage. I had found it in the market search previously, but didn't buy it because there is no guarantee that "NFL Enterprises" is actually NFL Enterprises, or if it's some guy calling himself that. The Market also needs, optionally, something like Authenticode/vendor verification. I would not in a million years trust a purported bank application independently discovered on the Android market because there are zero guarantees.
To link myself, I talk about the market here - http://blog.yafla.com/Android_22_Engravings_and_the_Google_N..., the core takeaway being that the Market needs the ability to link a third-party rating authority. The biggest incentive for people to go through the buying process is the comfort that what they're getting is worth it. The current user review system offers no such confidence, usually offering up nothing but petty grievances and obvious shill accounts of the author's friends.
I'll take the Android model over the Apple model any day of the week, but there is an even better medium that would be ideal.
"You don't sell 300,000+ handsets a day targeting the geek demographic."
You are missing the GP's point. The majority of those 300k handsets are being sold to people who want a nice phone that can browse the web. They need a cell phone and, if it can do something else, great. It certainly doesn't mean they are cheap, just not focused on the same things.
One the flip side, the majority of Apple's 350k iOS devices are bought by people who are buying the whole package, including the app marketplace.
What that means is a large difference in app purchasers. Sure, the demographics are the same, but the market segments are VERY different.
EDIT: Too early to do math. Fixed my numbers of iOS devices sold.
No I'm not. I'm strongly disagreeing with that point.
The consumer who walks out of the store with an iPhone could just as likely have walked out with a Galaxy S, and vice versa. The applications angle of Android is very heavily promoted, so creating a caricature of a consumer that only wants to casually use it isn't valid.
What that means is nearly an order of magnitude difference in app purchasers.
What data is that derived from? It's worth noting that the iPhone is very strongly skewing towards free apps as well.
As an aside, where did the "1.3M" come from? Apple's recently quarterlies put the daily iOS device sales in the 350,000 range.
"Google also hopes to negotiate carrier billing agreements with scores of regional mobile providers, allowing users to buy apps and bill them to their mobile account."
Hopes...? Implementing this (and extending the coverage of paied apps) will completely change the market. No need to signup for any additional service and to have a credit card (in Europe/rest of the world not as diffused as in the US). If their objective is really to increase the sales, this should be the most important thing to do and that needs more people working on, not updating the market site (although changes are needed).
but don't forget Google makes a lot of cash from advertising on free apps.
They own Admob and Google Mobile Ads so have a good chunk of the Android advertising market.
If an app gets purchased Google makes 30% of the sale, but with advertising they make between 15-35% for the lifetime of the app.
Google has this idea in its head that the world should be html and web based. It wants a big server infra-structure and almost non-existent clients, because it IS a big server infrastructure. Google wants to be the platform that everyone is building on top, and take away the thick clients.
Now, unfortunately for them, things don't seem to be swinging that way. The chrome app store is a bust, chrome-os is not working and people by far prefer the native apple app store, and the native apple apps to the server based offerings.
However, google seems to not be paying attention to that. For their business, it would make so much sense if everything were running "in the cloud". That's what they would love, because they have the scale and opportunity to own this market.
So they cripple Android app-selling, such that people don't bet too heavily on 'owned' native apps. They are trying to buy time till cloud based apps become more prevalent - which frankly, is a really really long time from now.
Everything I've seen from Google is that they're agnostic on native vs web apps. They're happy as long as you're using Google services and looking at Google ads.
I've a friend whose company released a decent quality branded App on the Market recently. It was backed by a good amount of advertising/marketing and was pitched at the correct demographic.
Thats week one with a big marketing push..we see at least that amount per day for our paid branded apps, and they have been around over a year and receive no marketing spend.
I'm pretty sure the sales will drop off, like any iOS app.
They've had their chance here, fancy Android phone, most frustrating experience with a phone since trying out a Samsung about three years ago (I hear they've since cleaned up their act).
Absolutely terrible battery life, most frustrating user interface I've ever seen and a very rickety touch screen, next to impossible for me to type out a message with any speed (fat fingers I guess).
I've passed it on to my s.o. who is pretty happy with it, I'm back to a very cheap nokia. Buying an Iphone is not an option because I don't want to support apple's mobile department as long as they're not going to drop their weird app-store terms.
Never even got around to getting an android devkit before moving on.
I would gladly buy apps if I had space on my phone. Thanks to the crippling 512mb on my Nexus One I get to spend every 3rd day cleaning my phone (despite the fact that half my apps are already running off SD.)
One thing that Apple has that Google doesn't seem to have is an affiliate program. Affiliates get %5 of app sales (or other iTunes sales) by driving traffic to the store. This provides a funding mechanism to incentivize people to make discovery tools.
I'm kinda impressed with the number of third party discovery tools for android, but I think that ecosystem would be more robust, and less of the burden on google, if they provided a monetization method for good app discovery.
Apple just partnered with LinkShare and other providers of the service. Seems Google could do the same thing.
Sounds like an excuse for their lame marketplace which paid apps are not available in many countries. They do not make it easy for developers of paid apps. Why are they not happy? They are cornering app developers into free app+ advertising model (eg AngryBirds) and they should be very happy with the fat AdMob dollars.
I'm surprised nobody is talking about Google moving to a curated model. I'm obviously comfortable with it, since I'm an iPhone owner; how do you Android people feel about it? That was supposed to be a major differentiator between the two marketplaces.
They aren't moving to a curated model, just beefing up the team that enforces the Terms and Conditions. Probably overdue given the growth of the market.
All I want, and it's not too hard, is to separate free from paid apps, then apps from games, then be able to rank them by number of downloads or average rating.
For search, AppBrain seems to have that pretty nailed down. (Actually the AppBrain app is miles better than the crappy one from Google).
69 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] threadThe problem for Google is that people from Romania have been able to buy and sell iOS apps since 2008 or so.
I do desktop Java apps on OSX so it would actually have been a smoother transition to do some Android coding on the side, but I learned Objective-C instead. Then I bought iOS gear for testing so I really don't see myself doing an Android app very soon or buying an Android device.
The International market seems to be a big problem: it's semi-amusing to read a new announcement and then look into the specifics to learn it is US-only or for a very limited subset of countries (the last ones I looked at were Amazon Kindle developer program, Amazon's new Android AppStore).
don't believe the "we're working hard to add more..." bs at the bottom, that list has been the unchanged for a long while now.
I'd like a feature where I surf on the web and select apps, and later that day I press a "Sync" button of sorts and get the apps.
They tackle everything with algorithms, why not this problem?
The last two paragraphs are full of fud, BTW
Of course, this is much too complicated/expensive than it would be if Google would do their part.
I'm also from Romania and this lack of support from Google is the reason I've only done iOS apps.
But I doubt they would ban your US entity from publishing -- it's just another company.
So I have to create yet another GMail address and associate my credit card with it just so I can buy apps which I've been to lazy to do.
Result: I've bought apps on my iPod touch which I never use but not once single a Android app even though I've used Android since the launch of the first dev-phone (2008).
One of the devs had the nerve to post about how clever the resolution-independent swoosh at the top was. In my head I was yelling "stop fiddling with that and fix the frikkin search!"
Often I get apps that download 100% and just sit there doing nothing (i.e. not moving into install phase). In the old market the only thing that would work was to cancel the the entire install and try again (i.e. re-download the app from scratch) until it worked. With the new market, leaving that app's page and coming back seems to deliver a reliable kick in the ass to the process when it's frozen. That alone is worth any annoyances. For everything else, there's appbrain.
I don't think it has anything to do with making a hobby out of phone use, either. Plenty of android users are eager to tweak & tinker & install & play around with their phones. They're just tight-fisted with their money, that's all.
It seems to be a bit like linux users who — spoiled by the ability to freely download and install something that will do almost anything — wouldn't think to open their wallet to pay for software, no matter how good.
Edit: iOS isn't immune to this kind of user, either. Just check out app reviews complaining about having to pay 1/5th what people would spend on coffee for an app. But the existence of tightwads isn't as bad a problem as an absence of paying customers. Android is like The Cheapskate Channel: all tightwads, all the time.
I think this is not accurate. I recently purchased the 'Humble Indie Bundle 2' games package which was available for all platforms. This was offered on a 'pay what you want' basis and, after deciding how much you would pay and purchasing the games, they provided some very interesting data:
http://i.imgur.com/Cn5vX.jpg
In this case (maybe it's unusual?) Linux users were willing to (voluntarily) fork out more cash for these games than either Windows or Mac users. Perhaps it's because payment wasn't strictly necessary or something, I don't know. I suspect that Linux users, as a community, are closer to the software-development community, so when good software is made (without a bunch of insulting DRM) at a reasonable price, they're more than happy to pay for it.
Well the utter and complete non-existence of any commercial software on Linux (yes I know about Oracle...), and the spectacular failure of anyone trying to make any (who here remembers Corel's ill-faited WordPerfect for Linux attempt, or Loki games?) are devastating proof that the exact opposite is true.
(I guess one could argue that 2$ is the 'reasonable price' for any and all software, but that's just closing one's eyes to the economic realities of the software industry).
I mean let's not beat around the bush: Linux users don't pay for software in any sizable amount. Plunking down a few bucks for some games once every decade doesn't count. I like Linux as much as the next guy and I've used it since 1998, but the extremists (at the FSF and elsewhere) that have managed to somehow convince a large enough portion of Linux users that paying for software is somehow a moral issue (I mean, seriously?) have killed 90% of the market in that area. Yes I know that a few companies left and right make a few cents on 'support' and other such frolicking in the margin, but Red Hat is the only one who has managed to make any serious money from Linux itself (as opposed to some others who have found a sound and cheap platform on it to build their product offerings on, those seem to do OK with it)..
I think they're also much more likely to do without than to pirate. Of course, it's easy for people to rationalize piracy in their head -- it has DRM, it's too expensive, the company is evil, et cetera. But I think Linux users are much more likely than other operating system users to do without rather than pirate.
OTOH, OSX users are probably more likely to pay for things than do without.
I don't think the Android/iOS ecosystems have shaken out enough to make broad generalizations yet.
Myself, I'm definitely a "Linux" style user. I've purchased a few Android apps, but all of them have very usable free editions. Typically, all the paid version does is remove the advertising. Removing advertising is not worth $5 to me, but I sometimes buy the premium version anyways.
If you want software not in the repository, it is usually a much worse user experience. You get some static binary with a .sh install script, which wants to install in /opt/ or something, doesn't add itself to the distro's menu system, doesn't integrate with the settings manager, your default browser, etc., and generally is a pain in the ass. Even true for no-money proprietary apps, e.g. getting icc on my system was a lot more annoying than getting gcc or llvm on it, at least last time I tried.
But since you bring up Debian, they were the first with a fully functional and well-working package system that automatically downloaded packages etc., it worked (still does, probably) great. But the Debian community was ('is', maybe, I don't know the current state of affairs) so infused with the Free mantra that any for-pay software to be distributed through them would be politically unthinkable. Yes there are practical issues with distributing binaries that you can't recompile yourself and yes I know about non-free, but there is downright hostility to encouraging, fostering or even enabling a for-pay Linux software ecosystem in the Debian world (elsewhere too, it's just an example). I subscribed to some Debian mailing lists for a while 7 or 8 years ago, and on the non-technical lists most of the traffic seemed to be about if this or that package was Free enough to be worthy of inclusion in Debian! I mean it's OK, they all have the right to do what they want, who am I to tell people what not to. And one person isn't the next one and when there are 10 nerds in a room there are 11 opinions on anything, I know; my point is, let's stop claiming that Linux users would pay if only there was no DRM, or ease of use, or better quality, etc. etc.; let's just all face the facts and say that the culture is generally hostile to the idea of paying for software, that binary-only software is a second rate citizen, looked down upon to the point of contempt, and that no software company has enough cloud to change this.
All of the above is OK, if that's what people (other people) in large enough amounts want. Those who don't will go elsewhere, it's a (mostly) free world. But let's also be honest about the fundamentals. I've deluded myself for 10 years with the Free Software mantra and used the same tired arguments - we're being held down by The Man, next year will be the Year of Linux on the Desktop, there's real money to be made in support and training and customization, etc.; the reality is simply the opposite. (I guess that's why I'm railing so hard on this now, just like ex-smokers are the most obnoxious anti-smoking "activists" - I guess it's the self-loathing after a major disillusion of realizing you've been wrong on something you had strong beliefs about for a sizable amount of time :) )
Linux (I'm thinking of just the kernel itself here, but it's true of the whole GNU platform as well) has plenty of "commercial" software running on it. That is, it has plenty of software that people were paid to write, because it is supporting the business functions of many organizations. If "commercial" software is software that is purchased -- software that people are paid to write -- then GNU and Linux have no lack of commercial software.
They do have a dearth of software that is paid for by one particular business model: restricting copying in order to charge a fee. You are right that the FSF and many others consider this particular business model to be unethical. But don't confuse that particular business model with the practice of paying for software, which the FSF has no problem with and actually encourages. [1]
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
In all common usage, "paid software" is "software that the user paid for in order to get the right to use it", and not "someone was paid to write it". Firefox is not "paid software" or "commercial software" because some dude at Mozilla.org got paid for writing parts of it. I'm not "confusing" anything here, I'm perfectly aware of software business models, how they relate to open source, the FSF's stance on them, etc. If I had to qualify all words I use each and every time, rather than assume that readers can make a reasonable contextual interpretation of words, a 2-paragraph post would have to start with 10 paragraphs of definitions, assumptions, assumed pre-conditions etc. Your post is a schoolbook example of the hard core FSF disciple's propaganda strategy: focusing on semantic minutiae, making things that are 100% clear in any reasonable reader's mind opaque and ambiguous, using emotionally-laden words like 'open', 'free', 'restricting' so as to associate Free software with the words with generally positive connotations and those with negative with other software, to get gullible people to subscribe to their idiosyncratic world view. I'm not even sure why I got suckered into replying at all, I guess I'm just gullible too, maybe just in another way.
I'd happily buy games for Linux. But I don't normally buy games at all; I buy maybe one a year. If I'm a typical case, a company could produce a game and fail financially even though they've captured most of the market.
Since most games don't run on linux, most linux users don't buy software. Yes, Loki tried to make that work but gamers are very fickle and want the latest and greatest games as soon as they are available on Windows. Without direct support from the game producers and release dates/features comparable to the Windows platform, linux games won't take off. It's a chicken-and-egg problem and it won't change since most serious gamers run Windows as well as linux.
I ran Windows for years before I switched to linux and I don't think I bought any software for Windows except for games and antivirus updates.
I also have an Android phone and have only bought one app in the year I've had it. I only want a smart phone to do certain things - calls, texts, emails, GPS, maps, etc. - and most of that is handled well enough by Google's built-in apps. There are some free apps I use on a regular basis but most are either non-essential or provided by a web site I use (like Last.fm or Pandora). If the non-essential apps cost money, I wouldn't pay for them because I can live without things like wifi analyzers.
This maybe was true 6 months ago. It isn't true now. Android buyers today are the mainstream, many of whom are paying as much for their handset, and as much on their contract, as the iPhone equivalent. They are competitive choices, and there is no longer any clear demographic difference between buyers.
You don't sell 300,000+ handsets a day targeting the geek demographic. My brother and his girlfriend, who I thought were the pinnacle of the iPhone demographic, I was recently shocked to find got a HTC Desire Z and a Galaxy S, despite their other household devices being an iPad and an iPod Touch. I had no part in that decision as I keep my evangelism in the online world.
As an Android buyer I've only purchased three applications in my history with the devices: WeatherBug Pro, a top-rated racing game that I then returned, and NFL's Game Center.
Am I cheap? Quite the opposite: My steam catalog is stuffed to the gills, and all of my music is legally owned (on top of a rdio subscription).
I want to spend money on Android apps. I want Angry Birds to have a pay version so I don't have to worry about my kids accidentally clicking on ads during play.
So why don't I spend more?
Not only is the market app terrible (the lack of decent heuristics being the biggest deficiency), as a long-time Android booster I will openly say that the majority of Android applications suck just as strongly. It's getting better, but in general it's still quite a gamble if you're getting something decent or not, and I can't imagine the 15 minute window has improved confidence levels.
It isn't always the app's fault, either. The racing game I mentioned seemed decent enough, but the constant garbage collection of the platform made it a pause-filled, unpleasant experience. This, of course, is one of the things that the slow-to-come 2.3 release (remember when the purpose of buying the Nexus One was supposedly fast releases?) aims to solve.
I actually felt guilty returning that app because it wasn't really the fault of the app's developers, but it made it unplayable.
The NFL application I only bought after actually seeing it on the NFL.com webpage. I had found it in the market search previously, but didn't buy it because there is no guarantee that "NFL Enterprises" is actually NFL Enterprises, or if it's some guy calling himself that. The Market also needs, optionally, something like Authenticode/vendor verification. I would not in a million years trust a purported bank application independently discovered on the Android market because there are zero guarantees.
To link myself, I talk about the market here - http://blog.yafla.com/Android_22_Engravings_and_the_Google_N..., the core takeaway being that the Market needs the ability to link a third-party rating authority. The biggest incentive for people to go through the buying process is the comfort that what they're getting is worth it. The current user review system offers no such confidence, usually offering up nothing but petty grievances and obvious shill accounts of the author's friends.
I'll take the Android model over the Apple model any day of the week, but there is an even better medium that would be ideal.
You are missing the GP's point. The majority of those 300k handsets are being sold to people who want a nice phone that can browse the web. They need a cell phone and, if it can do something else, great. It certainly doesn't mean they are cheap, just not focused on the same things.
One the flip side, the majority of Apple's 350k iOS devices are bought by people who are buying the whole package, including the app marketplace.
What that means is a large difference in app purchasers. Sure, the demographics are the same, but the market segments are VERY different.
EDIT: Too early to do math. Fixed my numbers of iOS devices sold.
No I'm not. I'm strongly disagreeing with that point.
The consumer who walks out of the store with an iPhone could just as likely have walked out with a Galaxy S, and vice versa. The applications angle of Android is very heavily promoted, so creating a caricature of a consumer that only wants to casually use it isn't valid.
What that means is nearly an order of magnitude difference in app purchasers.
What data is that derived from? It's worth noting that the iPhone is very strongly skewing towards free apps as well.
As an aside, where did the "1.3M" come from? Apple's recently quarterlies put the daily iOS device sales in the 350,000 range.
Hopes...? Implementing this (and extending the coverage of paied apps) will completely change the market. No need to signup for any additional service and to have a credit card (in Europe/rest of the world not as diffused as in the US). If their objective is really to increase the sales, this should be the most important thing to do and that needs more people working on, not updating the market site (although changes are needed).
If an app gets purchased Google makes 30% of the sale, but with advertising they make between 15-35% for the lifetime of the app.
Whats that worth? about a billion a year or so... http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/advertising/7772.html
Now, unfortunately for them, things don't seem to be swinging that way. The chrome app store is a bust, chrome-os is not working and people by far prefer the native apple app store, and the native apple apps to the server based offerings.
However, google seems to not be paying attention to that. For their business, it would make so much sense if everything were running "in the cloud". That's what they would love, because they have the scale and opportunity to own this market.
So they cripple Android app-selling, such that people don't bet too heavily on 'owned' native apps. They are trying to buy time till cloud based apps become more prevalent - which frankly, is a really really long time from now.
The total number of paid week one sales?
68
I'm pretty sure the sales will drop off, like any iOS app.
Absolutely terrible battery life, most frustrating user interface I've ever seen and a very rickety touch screen, next to impossible for me to type out a message with any speed (fat fingers I guess).
I've passed it on to my s.o. who is pretty happy with it, I'm back to a very cheap nokia. Buying an Iphone is not an option because I don't want to support apple's mobile department as long as they're not going to drop their weird app-store terms.
Never even got around to getting an android devkit before moving on.
I'm kinda impressed with the number of third party discovery tools for android, but I think that ecosystem would be more robust, and less of the burden on google, if they provided a monetization method for good app discovery.
Apple just partnered with LinkShare and other providers of the service. Seems Google could do the same thing.
For search, AppBrain seems to have that pretty nailed down. (Actually the AppBrain app is miles better than the crappy one from Google).