Game Developers Scaling Back Android Efforts as iPhone Continues to Dominate

[MorphingDragon]

Except that's not the case at all. App phones have been around since before the iPhone and Apple has less market share than Blackberry. So they are not even close to a monopoly.



Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems. Using cash from Windows/Office sales to buy exclusivity deals for the Xbox to try and gain monopoly status in the console market would be anti-trust violations.

A law degree doesn't mean squat if you don't understand the markets you are talking about.

WhoTF would've actually bought an Xbox if it wasn't rushed out a year b4 the PS3... apart from Halo Drones. EPIC said in an interview that the first 360 prototypes wouldn't actually be able to play GOW at all.

 

[Cleverboy]

I believe you meant to say, "Gameloft is NOT saying..." those things.
Just that they're scaling back for now.
?

Yes. Sorry. I meant "NOT" saying.

~ CB

 

[Cleverboy]

Well I think the issue here might be that you guys are trying to make sense out of a VERY contradictory message from this company - which is what he was trying to say.

What I'm saying makes perfect sense. The REAL problem (no offense) is that you have NO explanation and can't offer one.

What if Gameloft issued a statement that they where scaling down development on the iPhone platform, then a few days later said "We are excited for the new iPhone 3GS and are already developing new exciting games!" Even if the company was scaling back development, by announcing it to the public it presents a message that it is not worth the time developing Android games, and then they turn around and say "Get ready for our new Android games!"

IF BOTH statements were press releases, you'd be right. If however ONE statement was to an investors conference, and noted that even though there is a lot of "hype" around Android, they (along with other developers perhaps too reticent to say so publicly) are being responsible by scaling back development... it would make COMPLETE sense.

Here's what I agree with... the timing is poor.

That's it. But a press release and a statement at an investors conference are two different things. The ONLY thing that makes the statement at the investors conference newsworthy are sites that capitalize on bad news for competing platforms. Other than that... we would ONLY hear about the press release. Android "fan" sites would avoid the news like the plague, because the ONLY response open would be to try to pressure Gameloft into ignoring its financials (which would be silly). The news more embarrassing than Pre's recent Profile backup problems (being reported by a Pre website), because any viable solution to poor sales and scaled back developer interest... #1.) ruins the perception of momentum with the Droid. #2.) represents a profound conflict of interest between people who like "open" and "free" and those who just want a marketplace that doesn't seem "poisoned" somehow.

Given the nature of news today, this is a PR faux pas the company will have to deal with, especially if a nosy news hound corners them and brings the question up. For instance, a reporter might ask a spokesperson:

REPORTER: "So, in a recent press release, you talk about being excited for Android's future, yet an investor conference statement by your CFO says you're scaling back development in Android, because the Android marketplace is not as profitable as the iPhone. How do you reconcile those two statements?"

GAMELOFT SPOKESPERSON: "Well, we definitely want consumers to know that Gameloft is thrilled with the diversity of platforms we develop on, and we will continue our commitment to getting our games to as many consumers as we can. However, its important to note that ongoing investment decisions are more a reflection of the financial climate and not our enthusiasm. As platforms like Android grow, our games will continue to push the envelope, only tempered by our ability to justify our costs to develop them. We get lots of questions about our development focus from investors, especially when new devices go onsale and investors want to know what they can expect. Rather than risk giving the impression that we're favoring certain platforms blindly, our intent was to outline the substantial challenges faced by developers and why consumers will continue to see greater focus on one platform versus another."

It really doesn't make any sense. Not that this is anyone's fault besides the company itself. Definitely puzzling, and I'm not sure what they could have hoped to gain by doing this.

Hopefully my little skit helps you with that. It would be like Microsoft saying how much MORE money they make developing for Windows, than for the Mac... except that Microsoft still makes LOTS of money on the Mac (while Android developers in a similar iPhone/Android position aren't likely making much money at all).

I will say this one more time, and hopefully this note will be immortalized.

ANDROID MARKETPLACE IS THE LARGEST SOFTWARE RENTAL SYSTEM IN EXISTENCE.

If you delete your app within 24 hours, you, as a customer, do not get charged for it. This is absolutely bonkers and few people in Android Marketplace will make substantial revenue until this situation changes. Most small apps at 99 cents, do not provide much value, some only fleeting value. There is a high incentive for people to try things out on Android, and either delete it, or use something to pirate the application by "rooting" their phone. I find these questions about Android Market disturbing, and if their is an "opposite" to "secret sauce" (present in the App Store) then Android Marketplace has a "secret poison".

http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Android+Market/thread?tid=2114f73d5db3877b&hl=en

Rajesh.S - Top Contributor - 2/17/09

What prevents an user from downloading apks and data by manually means and installing a paid app without paying?

Is there some signature or some mechanism in place to prevent piracy of paid apps?
Say if one person pays and downloads what other than legal binding prevents him/her from redistributing.
What prevents it from getting installed in a g1/adp1 that didn't pay for the app?

rbassous2 - 2/27/09
it works as long as you are not root
(ie: it doesn't work)
I kept asking google to provide some kind of deviceID for people who bought the App, so the app can authenticate them
they never bothered answering..

http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Android+Market/thread?tid=1d4d0b7df8ac88b3&hl=en

Nyll - 10/30/09
I am increasingly seeing cancelled orders due to customers requesting a refund after purchasing my app. This mostly happens within a few minutes after purchasing the app, sometimes even in the same minute! I refuse to believe this is because the customer genuinely didn't want the application, not when it happens within less than a minute. I have a free version of the same app on the market, which is fully functional but with a timed expiry. There is no reason for customers to buy the full version if they just want to evaluate it, they can do that with the free version.

Extremely biased Android supporters (as opposed to any other form of Android supporter) seem oblivious to this very distinct PROBLEM, and its going to severely affect the amount of software people get going forward.

Nyll - 10/30/09
I really believe this policy is unfair towards devs. Apart from the piracy issue, there are many users who just abuse it. Seriously, I read a comment left on a popular game - it got a 5 star rating and the user said something along the lines of "Great game, but only kept me entertained for 1 hour, so refund". Where else would you get something like this? You wouldn't ask for a refund at the movies because it only lasted for 90 minutes, would you?

Maybe we should keep pretending this isn't a problem and people can wonder why developer investment and developer enthusiasm continue to diverge so sharply for one platform.

~ CB

 

[Cleverboy]

Here's another interesting blog post by Android developer Larva Labs:
http://larvalabs.com/blog/iphone/android-market-sales-follow-up/
Among some other gripes and observations about the latest revision to Android Marketplace, I thought this was interesting:

Refunds and Piracy

The Android Market has an extraordinarily lax refund policy. Apps can be returned for a full refund within 24-48 hours. The official limit is 24 hours, but it seems possible to refund an app within up to two days in some cases. This would make sense for expensive, involved productivity apps; if the user is unsatisfied with the product, paid good money for it but won’t be using it, then a refund is warranted. However, for many fun apps and simple games, the user isn’t expected to get more than a day or so of use out of it. Note that these simple/fun apps are still a completely valid thing for which to charge money! They still require effort to develop and fill an important niche for users. For example, if my plane is delayed and I get a solid two hours of enjoyment from a $3 jumpy game, I shouldn’t be able to refund it 24 hours later. Compare to a movie; it costs $10 at least for a measly 2 hours of entertainment, no refunds! The result of this policy is that an entire category of apps and games (many that do very well in the iTunes App Store) are not valid on Android from a business perspective. Many developers report a >50% return rate, while still maintaining high ratings in the Market, suggesting that users are just getting their fun out of the apps without paying for them. Our return rate is fairly modest at ~16%, but we have purposely avoided apps that may be susceptible to higher return rates.

Piracy is another problem. The iPhone has its own piracy scene with jail-broken phones, but extraordinary effort and maintenance is required, relegating jail-broken users to a minority. On Android, the user must simply flip a switch in the settings to enable the installation of apps from other sources, then download apps from torrents, etc. It is unclear how many sales are lost due to piracy, but this could be a contributing factor to the low Market sales.

Another term being used this holiday season in the retail marketplace, is "casual fraud". It's perpetrated by consumers who are well within their rights to take advantage of store "policies" to get for "free" what they would otherwise have paid for. Usually, this is the big screen TV on game night, or the video camera for a special event that gets returned the following day. Does it mean the device wasn't worthwhile to own? No, it just means the policy is allowing for fraudulent usage. I think this is TRULY damaging the Android Marketplace.

~ CB

 

[ChazUK]

Hmm... You've bought some interesting stuff up about the Android Marketplace there Cleverboy that I hadn't even contemplated.

Whenever I used to buy apps on my iPod Touch and then iPhone I'd always research the app properly or wait for an extensive amount of reviews to come in. Unless I was able to meet one of those criteria I wouldn't even touch it as it would mean I was out of pocket with a subpar application on my phone.

On Android Marketplace I feel safer (as a consumer) with the 24hour window for a refund but I can completely see that if someone develops a 99c quick game with little replay value that the temptation to play it, then ask for the refund would be there. (Personally I wouldn't do this but I expect many do)

On the iPhone if you pay for your 99c game and play it then finish it in a few hours you've rewarded the developer for the game. These small games are similar to playing games in an arcade where you pay for credits and get to play for a short while (imo) with the added bonus that you can replay it at will.

That is something that Google has to address as you've shown that the developers who develop little fun games (pocket god springs to mind) could end up losing out.

Interesting stuff! Thanks for posting it.

 

[Cleverboy]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 1.5; en-gb; HTC Hero Build/CUPCAKE) AppleWebKit/528.5+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Mobile Safari/525.20.1)
Android must be more deseirable for the OEMs as it straight off the bat makes a saving on some R&D. Less licencing costs will also lead to cheaper handets or higher profit.

Exactly. It's a huge blow to Windows Mobile. Moreover, Chrome OS is a significant threat to Windows 7 on Netbooks going forward... though, it may be a while to see the affect it will have. As TomTom and Garmin are learning... its VERY hard to feel encouraged when your newest competitor is leveraging its MASSIVE & UNIQUE intellectual property resources to release an innovative competing product for free.

Moving symbian to opensource seems to be a knee jerk reaction to Android (why would they have paid for symbian licences when android is free?) so having the biggest smartphone OS go to an open source model, Google must be doing something right wih Android. Microsoft are probably too stubborn to open Windows Mobile so that will slowly decline.

Not just stubborn, its antithetical to their business model to make their code "open". Security through obscurity. Were hackers to have access to the underpinnings of legacy behind Windows Mobile, it seems plausible that more 0-day threats would begin popping up long before patches could be deployed.

I liked my iPhone (and my iPod touch before that) and I'm now loving my Android based hero. The only way I can see it is that things will only get better for owners of either platform as they mature and as others jump on the Android bandwagon it'll be Microsoft and Symbian who suffer most, not Apple.

Android doesn't have to eat away at the iphone, there is still plenty of other marketshare for it to eat into and the two platforms can coexist quite nicely imo.

I agree. Being a bonehead, I'd registered iPhoneWar.com sometime ago (along with its non-trademark infringing "myPhoneWar.com" counterpart), and then let the domain name drop (and my blog along with it). --Nonetheless, it was about the business of detailing the scale and shape of this ongoing "warefare" characterized by the iPhone's arrival. Regarding the shape of the Google vs. Apple smartphone OS skirmish... this "conflict" is a huge diversionary tactic in the greater confrontation.

Google Android has repeatedly been said to be positioned to steal marketshare from RIM and Windows Mobile... NOT Apple. The reason why is detailed in the specific make-up and composition of each company's strengths, intent and focus. Google pursued its Android strategy specifically to combat the fear that a company like Microsoft would gain traction and BLOCK Google from their platform. The closest Apple has come to "blocking" Google from the iPhone, is the row over Google Voice, but more significantly, rumors that they talked with Ad Mob before Google acquired them. Other than this, Apple and Google's relationship has been almost lurid (Google being the power behind Maps, the default Search engine in Mobile Safari, and the most prolific creator of Web and Native apps including the amazing Google Earth and Google Mobile).

Many people continue to fail to understand how there is an invisible line of demarcation between what Apple is doing and what Google is doing in the mobile sector. While Microsoft has gotten into search and information services (one of Google's specialties) RIM has generally lagged behind technologically and hasn't provided Google with the kind of traction it is seeing in the unique iPhone OS platform with its use of the Webkit rendering engine. Microsoft's history of muscling out competition from its platform like Netscape or Google has been very disturbing. It's been said that Eric Schmidt learned from his work at Sun that leveling the playing field has been the best way of fulfilling on Google's goal of being able to search the world's information.

Were Google inclined to withhold its technology from Apple, in order to promote the Android platform, Apple would have to be worried. Instead, it is more a question of how much access Apple wishes to give Google to its users. Apple wants to create great devices and Google wants unfettered access to users. In the end, these missions dovetail very nicely. It's only the pathway to accomplishing these goals that causes complications and overlapping interests.

~ CB

 

[CWallace]

Were Google inclined to withhold its technology from Apple, in order to promote the Android platform, Apple would have to be worried.

That being said, since Google makes their money off selling advertisements and user demographic data, they would be unlikely to want to cut off such a large userbase like the iPhone. Google needs users to support their revenue model, which is why they offer their applications and datasources on so many platforms.

I personally agree with you that Android's primary goal is to stake Windows Mobile through the heart once and for all, now that iPhone has pinned it to the ground on it's back. As you noted, by doing so they prevent Microsoft from doing to mobile operating systems what they did to PC operating systems, even though Microsoft so far has stumbled continuously and poorly in their attempts to do so over the past decade-plus.