[Android General] Falkner09:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...s-study/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

to summarize, the article claims that the iOS app store generates more revenue for developers because people are more likely to buy there.

problem is, this article, and others like it, ignore the glaring flaw in their reasoning: revenue from sales is not the only source of revenue for an app developer. ad based revenue models area ctually very lucrative, proof of this can be easily seen from Google's success, and Facebook's success: their entire business model is nothing but ad based revenue!

in fact, ad based revenue is more lucrative in the long term than sales are, because with app sales, the dev gets revenue once, the first time a person buys the app, and then nothing from that customer ever again. but with ad based models, the dev gets money every time a person uses the app, as they get they revenue from a pair of eyes watching the screen.

so then, why does the app store have lots of sales, when the Market has only few sales? what's the difference? the reason is, iOS is not always connected tot he internet, and therefore cannot always receive ads to display, or transmit back user data. true, the iPhone is always on, and the iPad is almost always used at home on a wifi connection, probably 80% of the time at least.

the problem here, is the iPod touch. it's a highly mobile device (thinner than even the iPhone) and has access to all the same apps. it's also very popular. so, any iOS app developer choosing between releasing a free app that's ad based, and a premium app, will have to consider all the millions of iPod users without an internet connection with which to transmit ads over. the dev would be unable to make any money from them, and even if ads were preloaded, there's no guarantee that the user would turn on the app when their wifi is on later to be able to send user data back, confirming the ads were actually seen (especially since it's an on the go device, so people aren't using it at home that much). so that would be millions of downloads the dev would never see money for, unless that person eventually gets an iPhone or iPad, and its a gamble whether they actually would, or when.

Android, however, doesn't really have that problem. there never really was an iTouch style Android device except for the Galaxy Player, which wasn't even available in America (the largest market) until about a month ago. on top of that, until Honeycomb debuted, Google restricted official installation of the Market app itself to only cellular equipped devices, so even if you buy one of those cheap craptablets from CVS pharmacy or Borders running Android 2.1, you can't download Market apps, and therefore aren't relevant to the dev's business model.

it's also worth pointing out here, that the ad based model is better for consumers, too. not only do they get the products for free, they also are more liekly to receive updates in the future. after all, the dev with an ad based model makes money when people continue to use the app. so if the dev updates his app regularly with new features and levels, the user is more likely to continue using/playing or start again after a lull. which means the deve gets more money all the time, and the user gets new entertainment or utility all the time, for no more cost or very little. No more buying sequel after sequel.

For example, look at Angry Birds. it was one game, and was successful as a premium app on iOS. 2 sequels were planned and released; around this time, it came to Android. and Rovio did something different: they released it for free, as an ad based app. and wouldn't you know it, after that happened, there were no more sequels. yet the levels keep getting added and added and added to each game. compared to the original levels in the first game, there are now probably enough levels to fill 10 or 15 games, yet they keep adding them to the same games. they do this every time people tend to finish the last level pack and stop playing, then they add another and it starts up again.