Android News
Android Users Need to Take Ownership of Their Role [OPINION]
July 15, 2010 | by Jorge Parrales
Android Apps, Paid apps
It was just two weeks ago that AndroidGuy writer Chuck Falzone issued a call to Android users to take the Paid App Pledge. The pledge seemed to have two purposes: To support Android development and to change the perception of its consumers. What resulted was a discussion within the Android community as to whether or not the pledge is a good thing. I’m not here to convince you one way or another. I personally took the pledge because I agree with the outsider perspective.
We are cheap. Inexcusably so.
Just a couple of days ago, Metago pushed out an update to the hugely popular Astro File Manager application, and it was received with a wildly varying degree of intensity. The update brought ads to the free application and an option to purchase the “Pro” key, which would remove the ads. In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that there has been a strong number of users who were not upset by the addition of ads and so far, a couple thousand others have gone ahead and purchased the Pro version. Unfortunately, there has been a noticeable number of users who have expressed outrage at the audacity of the developer to try to make a living off of his product.
Metago is certainly not the first developer to integrate ads into their free application, and they won’t be the last. But because of the popularity of this app, the response seems to be more palpable. Consequently, I am sitting here wondering why Android users have come to expect a free ride to the top of the mobile industry. Why do we champion the Android OS to anyone who will listen, and pick fights with iPhone fanboys over whose phone is better, then turn around and spew anger to developers who charge us $3 or $4 for an ad-free experience? Why do we refuse to pay for products that are clearly worth our dollars?
Despite what they try to tell you, professional athletes don’t play at the pro level just for the love of the game. See how many of them would continue to play for 30k per year. Even Steve Jobs, who clearly loves his role, would walk away from Apple if they asked him to be the face of the company for free. Similarly, developers are not obligated to code for us simply because they love to code. Some of them can and do, and kudos to them for that. But the vast majority of these guys are working out of their homes with no funding and have to devote hours of free time on top of what they already do for a living in order to put out the great products that we are seeing in the Android market. They deserve some payoff, whether it comes through ad revenue or through paid downloads, or any other method. If an application isn’t worth the money, you don’t have to buy it.
We pay for cable, because we want more options than the few [ad-supported] channels we get. And if we want more channels, we pay more money. We will even pay an extra $10/month for one, single premium channel. We pay to add accessories (applications) to our cars. We pay for a certain number of minutes and text messages on our cell phone plans. We pay for the added convenience and service of a sit-down restaurant. When we buy groceries, the salaries of the employees are built in to the cost of the products we are purchasing. Do I need to go on?
I wanted to see if I was wrong; perhaps Android users were no more demanding than–dare I say it–iPhone users? So I got in touch with Chris Fagan of Froogloid.com. These guys have brought three great applications to the Android Market, two of which also have a paid version. About two months ago, they took their most successful Android app, Key Ring, to the iPhone App Store. I asked Chris whether or not there was a noticeable difference in the attitude of consumers on the different platforms, and his response came without hesitation. iPhone users are much more willing to pay for apps or to deal with applications that implement advertising. When they find a product that makes their life easier or more enjoyable, they are happy to pay for it.
As a proud member of the Android community, I don’t like the fact that this is one area where the iPhone is indubitably winning. The fact that ads now appear at the bottom of my screen when I open Astro has not suddenly made it any less useful to me. Is my user experience a little bit less favorable? Yes, of course it is. But the product is still top-notch and it is still free. I went ahead and paid for the Pro version this morning because I prefer an ad-free experience. I also want great developers like Metago and Froogloid to know that I support their work, because that is what will motivate them to continue innovating the great products they already deliver to us.
It’s time for Android users to take ownership of their role. We are not leeches. We are consumers of the best mobile operating system in the world. The best OS deserves the best applications, and it’s our job to make it worthwhile for the best developers to bring those apps to us.
Many of the Android users, include myself, adopted Android because of its close ties to the open source community. I personally use Ubuntu personally and professionally, and the entire operating system, almost every application I use, and every single package on the Ubuntu repository is 100% free and open source. The only proprietary Linux package I use is WingIDE, which is still bundled with the source code. Coming from that more egalitarian software society to the proprietary, corporate world on Android has been a little tough to stomach. I'm not saying I don't pay for apps; in fact, I've paid for several (NewsRob Pro, Twidroid Pro, and Power Manager come to mind). But it's just disappointing to me that the free software culture of Linux and GNU isn't really there on Android, aside from a handful of notable (and excellent) exceptions like K9 Mail. There's also something to be said about the fact that these developers, including Google, are standing on the shoulders of giants. Giants who give away their code. Linux, GNU, even Java (sort of) are all free, open source, and used by developers trying to make a buck. Apple's popular Xcode IDE is merely a wrapper around GNU tools and WebKit is in fact a fork of KHTML from the KDE project. At the risk of repeating myself, I'm not saying developers shouldn't have the option to charge for their apps. But I wish they'd consider the fact that their lives are made better by the tens of thousands of developers who give it away, and maybe they should reciprocate that kindness instead of trying to make a quick buck. Food for thought. -Ken My recent post How to split a string csv-style in Python
Good thoughts, Ken. I appreciate you sharing them. Still though, while Android itself is an open-source software, most of the applications are not. The few open-source applications that do exist in the market ARE free AND ad-free. We can't expect to have so many application options if we want every application to be open-source as well. These are people that are trying to make a living with their trade. They have to pay just to be able to publish their apps in the market. The code they use to create their own apps is proprietary, not open-source.
Ken, As someone who runs a website for a living I can't disagree with your overall point more. Despite the fact that thousands of people developed the coding languages for websites before I began to learn how to create one, I still went out and put in the effort to create it in a specific way to my liking. I then put in more and more work each day to keep it working the way that my visitors approve of. The creators of these apps may have not come up with the exact code language they use, but they did create something new and mostly continue to add work to their original idea (app). They should be rewarded for that, be it by getting paid via advertisements in the app or by selling that app.
That. And most Open Source software is in fact developed by paid developers. KDE, Gnome, etc. are where they are because corporations like RedHat, Oracle, Suse, etc. paid developers to work on them. Same goes for a lot of stuff in the Kernel. Also, Apple too KHTML and developed webKit out of it. But who did that? Developers that got paid by Apple. Open Source is a good thing for a lot of us, but it works only because companies invest money. not because everybody sits at home coding away happily for our enjoyment. They DO make a living with that. And this is a business modell not possible with mobile Apps.
I wasn't at all upset with the notion that there would be an ad supported version. What bugged me, and apparently a number of others, is that I don't like ads period and don't want them on the apps that I use. The problem initially with the Astro update was that there was no pro option with ads removed. So, choice, the hallmark of the Android OS, was taken away. Want our app? Too bad for you, it's going to have ads in it, was how it appeared initially. They've since brought out a pro version which I am happy to pay for.
Agreed, Dev should have released the pro version at the same time as the add version. I personally would have paid for it long ago if there would have been that option instead of the constantly having to update an expired beta that was doing everything I wanted.
I think everybody should pay for more apps, including myself. And I'd love for more of the apps to include ads actually. I think it would make the ad supported process more viable. Though I can't help but point out that Steve Jobs basically DOES work for free. His salary is $1. With no thousands or millions after that. Though there are obviously other perks in there like stock options and increasing the value of his current stocks…
FYI, Getting millions in stock options is not working for free. Don't be fooled by the hype!
It's important to pay for apps but iphone users will pay for *anything. * Why bother making an intense 3D game or Office app when you can make a ton of money selling a flashlight app or a simple 2D game that you can finish in a day or 2?
iPhone users are fools, easily parted with their money. Android users are less likely to be a fool, in my opinion, because the decision to buy an android phone started with something truly magical – an educated decision (something Apple frowns upon I hear). The root cause for Android selling fewer paid apps is not because the users are cheap. One fundamental reason is that games are a huge part of the paid apps for the iPhone, and Android seriously lacks any quality games, as in, those worth paying a dime for. Only a fool would pay for any of the stupid papi-games etc. Another is that the ad based system seems more useful in Android, and many of the good utility apps are ad driven. The competition in this area is pretty high. There are also a large number of beginning developers and enthusiasts trying their hand at popular apps, which lends to free and ad supported apps. I think this is because the cost of entry is low, and you don't have to own a mac to do it. Bottom line, build a quality app that has demand, and people will pay for it. Create a lite version with ads and 80% of the functionality, you're going to satisfy like 99% of peoples needs and cannibalize all your sales. Create a trial version and people won't understand, and accuse you of bait and switch. Just build it, and put a fair price on it. And at the end of the day, don't compare it to the apple store, because those fools will pay a dollar to hear a fart. No joke.
Well said! However, there are a ton of apps out there that do basically the same thing but with minor differences that can make a huge difference. Because of this, we need lite or trial versions to decide if it is the correct app for our particular use. I buy all of the apps that I keep for use that have a pay version. I do watch the comments to be sure that the newest paid version is working correctly before I purchase.
That's a good point. Long term comparison is a bit of a pain. For instance, I still can't decide if I like ES File Explorer or Astro better. ES has a better SMB implementation, but Astro has a cool space manager and throws in a nifty image viewer that is much peppier than using gallery. You also sort of underscore a shortcoming in the market – that fact that it is not well advertised that any paid app that you uninstall within 30 days gives a full refund.
I really don’t understand the big deal about ads. Some of them are silly (AT&T ad on my Droid), but otherwise they’re unobtrusive and don’t affect my use of the app at all. If I had to wait 5 seconds before I could do anything, or it paused to show me a splash screen, then I’d take issue and uninstall immediately. Trying to make a buck off your work should be expected, and as long as you’re not obnoxious about it, encouraged.
It's really a double edged sword dealing with paid and unpaid apps. Would you rather spend $1.00 on an app that is a cool game or interfaces with exchange or would you rather spend it listening to Homer Simpson belch? I have a few paid apps in my corral, and would always gladly pay for an app if there was a real need for them.
Guess what? Users don't like ads. I'll say it again. Users. Don't. Like. Ads. Some developers think that by having an ad-supported version and a pro version they are somehow appeasing the masses by offering a "choice". I think they're wrong. You're offering your real version of your app and you're offering a terrible version of your app that has a distasteful feature tacked on. Follow me here. It's like Nike offering two versions of the same shoe. One is the great quality basketball shoe you know and love. The other shoe is FREE, and is THE EXACT SAME SHOE, but also smells like dog farts and emits sounds of monkeys humping while you walk. Guess which one the public will love to hate. Putting ads in your app is like making the fart-smelling, monkey-humping version of your awesome basketball shoe. Sure, it's free, but you soiled it by adding a feature that users HATE. My point is that ads are a flawed way of making your app "free". It's actually another version that's inferior and people will hate on it for that. And rightly so. The solution? My opinion is that you should either not offer a free version at all, or make your pro version so much better than the free one that people will want to upgrade. But whatever you do, don't make the fart-smelling, monkey-humping free version of your app and whine when people hate it.
Not all users HATE ads. Would I like it if I never had to see one again and it didn't cost me money to do so? Sure. That would be great. But that isn't reality and the sooner people figure that out, the better. Can you imagine what cable/satellite would cost if there were absolutely no commercials? Either more than most of us make in a week or not much at all because there would be no channels to choose from because it couldn't support itself. As someone who lives off of less than $600 a month (yes, I am employed, just self employed and not making a ton of money), I have to choose to spend my money very wisely. If it means I pay $5-15 for an app with no ads or I get the same functioning app with ads for free, I will take the app with ads every day. I can easily make due that way and it truly doesn't bother me one bit. You use the internet every day. There are ads all over the place, including this very site. Does it detract from your use of this website because there are ads on it?
I don't think I've ever met a designer (web, print, app, you name it) that has looked at their design and thought, "You know what would make this look/work/function better? Ads." Ads lower the quality of the product. You'd be hard pressed to argue that. Ads during television lower the quality of the experience. Ads on a web site lower the viewing experience. The prevalence of ad-blocking solutions is a great indicator of whether people want ads or not. (DVR's, AdBlock Plus extensions, etc.) You say not all users hate ads, but I'd argue that a large enough majority of users do that it's not something you can dismiss and ignore. To answer your specific question, do the ads detract from my use of this website? No, because I use an ad-blocker. I don't see the ads because I don't want them detracting from my viewing experience. Millions of other users of ad-blocking plugins agree with me.
Dylan, I think you should probably support the websites that you constant. Especially ones that you frequent. Do advertisements ever make the site look better? Nope. But without them, most websites wouldn't exist at all. So no, ads absolutely don't lower the quality of the product, they enhance it because they allow the author to continue authoring. While over the course of a month, you may only load (if you disabled ABP on this site) 150-300 ads. Given the current ad rates, that may only be $0.75-2.00 depending on the ads themselves. Ad's don't pay much at all. But every little bit helps. It is why I would urge you and others who use ad blockers to disable them on websites that you do enjoy and frequent. Every little bit helps.
I really want to avoid coming across as a troll here. I actually want a discourse on this, so please keep in mind I may bring up some thoughts here I might not entirely agree with myself, simply to play devil's advocate. First off, a part of me wants to agree with you and say I would like to support the sites I frequent. Another part of me also says, "Why should I put up with ads? I don't like them and I don't want to look at them." That same part also says, "Isn't this a method of 'voting with my wallet'?" I'm telling advertisers that ads are not how I want to be told about your business. How else would I let them know? Asking to turn on ads for sites I support is like asking people, "Please watch all the commercials on the episode of Lost you recorded on your DVR last night." Why would people do that? To support the show? I truly and honestly don't know a single person who would watch all the commercials "just to support the show" if they had a choice to watch them without. So while I understand the need for sites to make money, I personally think ads are a losing battle in the long run and will always be on the wrong side of a good user experience. Turning off ads is a way of making that statement and standing behind it. Yes, it may mean some sites I go to will not make as much money, but it also may mean that the more clever and innovative sites will explore new, more user-experience-friendly options for making money.
You pay for the DVR to fastforward through the commercials though. The DVR is from a company (in most cases at least) that PAYS the channels to begin with, so they are getting some of your money anyways. As for ads being a losing battle in the long run…. I just can't see that being true. With as much out there in terms of places to go to get whatever it is you are getting from a website, people just aren't going to pay subscriptions for 99% of the things they use the internet for. Ads are really the only way to go in terms of still getting paid for what you do unless you charge for content and as already noted, for 99% of the things people use the internet for, people won't pay for it.
A bit dramatic, are we? You said that one of your (suggestive) solutions is to "…make the pro version so much better than the free one that people will want to upgrade." I think that your burning desire to "kill" ads would be a pretty good reason to upgrade.
Your shoe analogy was ridiculous. It's actually more like Nike releasing a shoe for free WITH their logo on them. They also offer a shoe without their corporate branding, but you have to a premium, because you're no longer doing free advertising by wearing their logo around. "Sure, it's free, but you soiled it by adding a feature that users HATE. " Hey, buy the #$%!ing app if you don't want the ads! This is a non-issue! I for one love the "choice" to buy "a terrible version of your app that has a distasteful feature tacked on"
Your analogy doesn't work because the reality is backwards. The same two shirts, one with and without the nike logo, will sell for two widely different prices. Guess which one is more. (Hint: it's the one with the Nike logo.) In the real world the premium price goes to the one with the corporate branding. Look at Abercrombie & Fitch if you want an extreme example. You know, I'm not saying people shouldn't buy the premium app if they don't want ads. What I'm saying is that ad-supported versions are a bad alternative to the paid app. The developer wants to get paid with both versions of the app. I'm saying that trying to do that with ads is a bad way to go. It's a worse user experience using a method of revenue generation that has consistently been shown to piss off or annoy a large percentage of users. I'm simply choosing to take the viewpoint of, "No thanks, I don't want ads as part of my life." I feel no "obligation" to make someone else's business model work. Being told I need to artificially support someone else's business model sounds a LOT like the RIAA, except in this case when the consumer takes their ball and goes home and won't support your business model, you don't get to blame piracy.
Ads on phones are literally why Android exists. Google is a media company. It entered this market because they saw where it was going. I dislike ads myself, but welcome to the real world. Someone's got to pay for this. I was a 'free' Astro user, got the 'upgrade', then purchased the ad free version because I use the program all the time. I admit, though, there's an element of 'bait and switch' here, although I'm reasonably certain the software author didn't do *anything* like that deliberately, it comes off that way. I found it a little irritating, but still coughed up the money. I think that's why there's so much outcry. Same thing happened with NewsRob(I also bought that, I use it every day). Personally, I think a better option would be to end-of-line the program – no further updates, use as-is, and release a new version with new features in a pay and non-pay version. That way, new users know they're investing in something that will get bug fixes and new features, since otherwise they could just stick with the old version for nothing.
I can't see any problem with being compensated for your work, period. Those who charge are usually independent developers that are just looking for a few bucks to get by – seems as reasonable as the prices. Larger corporations on the other hand shouldn't charge anything, but that's just a personal opinion rooted in good marketing tactics. Open source does not mean free, it means accessibility.
cool article, I like your opinion and enjoyed eading the comments as well… nice read, I think that I need to purchase some of my daily used apps as well.
In my experience most free/open source projects are not completely altruistic. The most popular open source software is monetized either by its creator or others. Android is monetized by Google through ads; Firefox through the search box; WordPress by website designers; Apache by website hosters; Eclipse by programmers. All these projects are free because the people that are using them and creating them are making money around them in a indirect manor. All of these techs also tend to disrupt the market, by commoditizing the software to a price of zero. In the physical market goods are hard to drive the price to zero, but in software it is quite common. Most Android apps are not platforms. My app, Smart Lock (shameless plug), is currently not a platform and so I charge a small amount for it. If in the future I decided that Smart Lock would be a good platform (perhaps for ads) then the price might be driven to zero, especially in a competitive market.
I pay for apps that increase the usability of my handset, add functionality and make life more enjoyable… give us quality and an easy way to find & pay and I don’t see why the app ecosystems wouldn’t be as profitable as apples.
I expect most of the software I need to run the phone to come with the phone and be of good quality. If you release an ad-less, free version of an app and then install ads via an "update" later on that pisses me off. I'm perfectly willing to pay for an app that is fully featured and useful (I paid for EasyTether, it flat out works and I paid more than a dollar.) That said, most of the apps I've tried are incomplete or of poor quality. Sorry, that's just how it is.
"Why do we refuse to pay for products that are clearly worth our dollars?" Because they aren't worth our money? If they were we'd pay for them after all. The reality is, most paid apps just aren't very good. And most of them are no better than the free alternatives that exists on the market. Why pay for an app that may be buggy, doesn't support my language, or is overburdened with cute graphics when their free competition is as good or better? And whatever happens, I will never pay money to a developer simply to perk them up, when that means essentially rewarding them for substandard work. You want my money? Offer an app that is clearly better than the alternatives, an app that is of actual interest to me. That has yet to happen. What I see is a vast sea of low-rate developers trying to leech bucks off people with crappy soundboard apps. If those people make a single buck, then that's one dollar too many. I'm not an Android user because of some fight with iPhone. I'm not particularly interested in phone market share as a race. If the iPhone remains the second most popular smartphone, and if iPhone users pay more for their apps then that's fine by me.
Again, there's a huge problem with the all-encompassing classification that you are giving to Android apps. There are a TON of apps that are worth paying for. Those are the apps that the question was about.
adds, what ADS? lol, i havent even noticed, and if they can get a chunk of change by me simply using thier great product and not having to pay out of my pocket, so be it. i personally dont even notice them, because idont have time to sit and stare at them and worry about bitching about them or if i want them or not, i needed to use the product and when i can afford it ill pay for it, but its great to be able to use it free while i can.
One the one hand, I don't like promising or pledging to spend a certain amount on apps per a certain amount of time and I refuse to pay for an app that I do not believe to be worthy of my money. On the other hand I have a serious problem with those who seem to see anyone who wants money for an app as being "greedy." We should be willing to pay a reasonable price for good apps. I do think that the price of most of the apps that I've been willing to pay for has been very reasonable. I will not pay money to an app developer just so I can say I'm an Android supporter. I have paid and will continue to pay for good worthwhile software. For those of you who put out crapware, I not only will not pay.. I likely will not allow the trash to even stay on my phone long. Nuff said.
I took the 30 day free trial through Sprint for the EVO because my poor MotoQ9c ended up in a pop bath. That's a Windows based smartphone and I paid for most of my apps on that. I'm fine with paying on the Android and would much rather do that than have to watch annoying ads across the bottom of whatever I have open. That's why I use AdBlocker Plus on Firefox. If I wanted the ads all the time, I'd go back to IE.
Darned thing cut off the last of my post. I'll pay. I have no problem with it.
But I don't pay for desktop apps either, for the most part. I won Office 2010 legitimately for free in a Twitter contest, Windows 7 Pro cost me only $30 via a student promotion and Evernote is $45/year. Everything else I use on my home PC costs exactly $0. I don't see why this should be any different on my smartphone. No one's forcing devs to crank out free apps.
I can only speak about why I am hesitant to pay for apps. I am new to Android and a MAC FanBoy. I own everything Apple all except their precious golden child iPhone. I have certain standard and a must have list for owning a smart phone. In which the iPhone never address for me to make that leap. 1) Removable Battery 2) Removable memory 3) High mega pixel camera with flash 4) A size that will fit comfortably in my hand, iPhone to small and too dainty me. That list above was bigger in the beginning, Apple address some issue in the new iPhones. I bought my first smart phone the HTC Evo after waiting for one that address all my needs. Not to mention at the right price plan. My HTC Evo is a phone that I am loving so far, works great with all my MAC programs that I need it to work with. iTunes, iPhoto, iCal, Address Book. All my about 30 family members have iPhone for years, so took a great deal of restraint for me to not get one. What I like about the app purchasing process on Apple is when buying an app it stays on your iTunes. So if ever you got a new iPhone it's all their to get reloaded on to your new iPhone. Where does my Android apps live if I ever bought a new Android? or if my HTC Evo needed to be reset? Will I have to buy an HTC to get my purchase apps? How secure is the Android Market Place from crazy malware apps? I guess until Android creates a safe web market place where I can go to see review and buys apps. I will have to depend on apps that is sold on iTunes, then see if I can find the same developers in the Android market place. I just feel that Apple inc. review what apps are good and safe for the consumers. I will feel comfortable in knowing if it's go enough to be sold on iTunes store then it good enough for me to buy. I am sure I am not the only one that feels like this.
As far as upgrading to a new phone, your app purchases are tied to your google account and stored on Goggle's servers so any Android phone that you log into with your Google email will start downloading not only your paid apps but the free ones too. So you don't really need to worry about ever buying apps over again. As far as malware goes if the app has been out for a couple of months and none of the comments are calling it malware then it's a good bet that it's not. The only apps that I would be really suspicious of are something that I would need to put financial information into, like a banking app. In that case I would check there website to see if they are putting or the app themselves. Otherwise what kind of information can they really get off your phone, maybe some password if they are clever.
Which is actually better for the developer in the long run anyway? $4 one time? Or getting whatever small amount they get from the ads that are in the free app that you use every day? Just a thought. Ads dont bother me because they keep the apps free.
This is a very good question. I can't speak in terms of phone advertising because I simply don't know what it pays. But I can speak in terms of a website as an example. Lets say that a typical user of my website that I run visits the site 3 times a day (to read and interact with other users) and visits 3 pages each visit with 3 ads on each page. That means that 1 user is loading 27 ads per day, over 365 days that means that user would load in a single year, 9855 advertisements. To make it easy, lets just assume $1 per 1000 ads (that is how my advertising gets broken down, I get paid X amount per 1000 ads loaded). That means over the 1 year, my typical user would be earning me just under $10 a year. It is an interesting situation for companies/people to attempt to figure out. If you start off charging, will anyone notice your work and buy your app? If you start off with ads, will people avoid it because of them? What is the ideal price point where it makes sense to charge for the app instead of using ads and charging nothing for the app? Does that price still make sense for the customer? There is a whole lot that goes into the decision of just deciding between a fee based app and a free app with ads. It isn't an easy one and no answer is going to make everyone happy.
We don't need to be shamed, pushed in to or annoyed into paying for an app. The open source community is an inseparable part of the Android platform. One aspect of the Open Source philosophy is that people are doing this for the benefit of everyone in ways that aren't in way tied to earning a quick buck. This doesn't exclude the ability to get paid for work when it comes to open source, but it does open the door for something other than that. Monetizing apps, especially the really basic core functional ones like Astro, is starting on the road to cheapening the relationship with the technology in the same way that we are all already way too familiar with when it comes to many other aspects of our lives. I've bought several (maybe up to 10) Android apps, and I do so completely irregardless of the ads on the screen… I do so only if the app is novel and I want to support the developer. This isn't because of being annoyed into this act due to ads on my phone, but because I'm thankful for the work put into the app. On the other hand there are many developers who are willing to work on projects and ensure they are made into the best possible app for its purpose by choosing to make it open source. This isn't about collecting shiny monies, this about making something awesome and getting a reward that is in many ways more beneficial and all too uncommon in our accepted forms of social exchange today. There will always be people who are going to push against the monetization of some things, especially when open source is involved. If history is any indication, then monetization for some things means monetization for all things, and monetization also means increased price put on that commodity over time, which means it will become more and more exclusive and less accessible to the average person. If you want the Android platform to be the most successful mobile platform, then you better make sure the majority of people across this world can afford to have a similar experience on these devices as those people who can afford to spend a buck (or $2 or $3) on this platform's most functional applications. My prediction is that Astro is going the way of the dodo… an open source android file browser will be available soon. The same thing holds true for any other app that provides a core functionality which attempts to charge for use under the threat of being annoyed by ads.
Good article and I agree that users should support Android developers. I don't like ads but please don't tell me that you don't have a choice. I have an HTC phone, for two months now, and the included apps and widgets have actually saved me good deal of money. Still, I spent €10 on FBReader – yes, it's a free app – I made a donation, and $1.99 on a game. The point here is that I am happy to spend money on a good app as I agree that we should support our Android developers.
its just a phone, not a religion. if its going to be successful and be a viable alternative to the iphone and RIM it just needs to work. don't as your customers, who already pay exorbitant prices at a degree of risk just to use it to do anything over and above what they need/want to do. i'll buy aps when i want to, but mostly i'm looking for free alternatives. when I get annoyed with yours, i'll go buy or find a better one. I got enough problems that my phone helps me solve. it shouldn't be one of them. now quit preaching and tell me what is coming next.
Reading through the rest of the comments, I'd like to opine again, but this time on the subject of ads. Ad-creep is a societal and cultural problem. We have ads on TV, along the highway, at bus stops, in restaurant menus, and now on our phones, devices we supposedly own? That goes way too far. If we're going to surrender our sanity to advertising, let's at least have some transparency about it. Showing advertising should be a separate permission from "Full Internet Access" so I can make sure I never, ever install an app with ads. And I'm really hoping for a Google Maps alternative without the extremely obtrusive ads that are showing up on that app now. My recent post How to split a string csv-style in Python
I am all for the idea of paid apps, and there are quite a few that I'd be happy to fork over a few dollars for. Sadly Irish O2, which I am tied to, does not paid apps, so it simply won't let me. But hey, at least I don't go ranting and whining when someone add ads, even though I do of course prefer to do without them.
This is a very simple problem really. Iphone users are mostly old white rich guys. They don't just pay for iphone apps, they pay (and overpay) for most other things they buy in their lives. It's just a fact. Android can never beat iphone on this because simply put, those old white rich guys would never choose Android instead, because they believe that Apple's products give them higher social status. On the other hand, a lot of Android users (not majority, but certainly significant) buy Android phones because they want free apps. Why? Because they're poor. Again, it's just the way it is, when you're poor, you don't spend on discretionary stuffs like apps, especially when there's free alternatives (even though not as good as the paid ones). This problem will never be solved, just like Windows users are far less likely to buy softwares, while Mac users are far more likely to do so.
i haven't seen too many games worth paying for yet… i have an i phone touch and i purchased a ton of games… wheel of fortune plants vs zombies the creeps tetris(the real tetris on droid seems to be getting very bad reviews) rockband fieldrunners megatouch games civilization revolution etc… i do not see any games of this quality on the droid market…don't get me wrong there are a few games that are ok, and some might argue that the developers need more time to make some great games…but im not spending my money on games that are crap
Excellent article. I agree 100% I will use the free/add supported app until I decide if the app is worth it to me. When i use it daily or multiple times per week then it gets paid for, to show support to the developer and appreciation for making my Android better. There are times, when I am broke, that I will stay with the add supported or limited app for a while longer than I'd like but I am utterly happy that I am able to use the app and have the improved functionality to my phone that the app brings for free, to me, and the developer is still able to spend his time improving it and bring new ideas to the market. I think it is an excellent in-middle-ground for dev and consumer. When the flashing banner gets annoying, I slip into my change drawer and buy the pro/paid version and have no more ads. I thnk that Android is still appealing to new people.
We are getting a lot of first time smartphone buyers in the arena, they are still new to the idea. They will become assimilated and the world will become GREAT Android RULES! good job GOOGLE and keep up the awesome work DEVS. (Special request: As of now I LOVE absolutely LOVE my Droid X it rocks. However, it will fall behind the curve by the time I am able to upgrade. Can you please hack the encrypted bootloader and bypass the efuze? in the next 18 months
thanks guys!)
Ads are perfectly fine. As a developer, I find it unbelieveable that users of free apps are "angry" that the developer tries to get some means of payback for their many hours of development. As for buying apps, I particularly spend money on well designed 3D games for android. Those are by far the most difficult and time-consuming apps to create, and I feel sad when I see some of the numbers on some really quality games in the market. If you look at the one major difference between the iPhone app store and the android market, it is games. iPhone has tens of thousands of quality titles (and I mean QUALITY) – Android doesn't. That can change, but only when big time dev houses think they can at turn some sort of profit. That's the very reason why developers such as the folks who made 'words with friends' have no desire to code it for android. They don't think anyone will buy it.
I just can’t understand why you obliviate always so quickly the simple fact that still many countries do not have access to paid apps, because of stupid Google policy. The fact is that apps for iPhone can be bought in every single countries. I live in Belgium, the only way for me to buy apps is to root my phone and use MarketEnabler so I can fake I’m on another network. Next to this, I do buy many apps but for most of them, really, it’s time the developer works with some good UI designer. What I miss from my iPhone are really nicely polished applications.