Why Android is a Better Platform for Startups than iOS(medium.com)
medium.com
Why Android is a Better Platform for Startups than iOS
https://medium.com/@pents90/the-story-of-appchat-and-why-android-is-a-better-platform-for-startups-than-ios-6d0847427fb1
46 comments
> Most sources I find online show a big discrepancy between expected app revenue from the iOS and Android worlds, so developing a for-profit app on Android first seems a little iffy to me.
This is somewhat self-fulfilling. There are very few developers of paid apps that put equal time and effort into developing both on iOS and Android and release paid apps on both platforms (instead of freemium on one)[0].
Of those that do, many simply make one or the other (usually the Android one) either a simple web view shim, or a naive port of the app design from the opposite platform, which usually looks as bad as you'd expect it would.
So in the end, it's not surprising that some companies report dramatically better sales on iOS than on Android. It's not very straightforward to compare them, because they're essentially shipping two different products, one on each platform.
[0] I'm only talking about paid apps for which app revenue (including in-app purchases) is the primary business model. In other words, Facebook and Twitter would not count here, since they make their money off of advertising.
This is somewhat self-fulfilling. There are very few developers of paid apps that put equal time and effort into developing both on iOS and Android and release paid apps on both platforms (instead of freemium on one)[0].
Of those that do, many simply make one or the other (usually the Android one) either a simple web view shim, or a naive port of the app design from the opposite platform, which usually looks as bad as you'd expect it would.
So in the end, it's not surprising that some companies report dramatically better sales on iOS than on Android. It's not very straightforward to compare them, because they're essentially shipping two different products, one on each platform.
[0] I'm only talking about paid apps for which app revenue (including in-app purchases) is the primary business model. In other words, Facebook and Twitter would not count here, since they make their money off of advertising.
Now this I can agree with. It's basically impossible to truly compare the two platforms' all-around profitability. The 'right' answer for any particular enterprise is to do proper research and decide whether Android or iOS is a better market-fit for their product. All the same, it's hard to escape the reputations each platform has, and it's usually not sensible for an individual business to go against the grain just to level the playing field.
> All the same, it's hard to escape the reputations each platform has, and it's usually not sensible for an individual business to go against the grain just to level the playing field.
Quite the opposite. If it's true that Android users' reputation for being less willing to pay is undeserved (or overstated), then that means that the market is probably undersaturated. That means it would be to their advantage to target Android users.
In general, business stand to make more money where they can identify the markets that are being overlooked by others, not by competing in the same markets that others are already targeting.
Quite the opposite. If it's true that Android users' reputation for being less willing to pay is undeserved (or overstated), then that means that the market is probably undersaturated. That means it would be to their advantage to target Android users.
In general, business stand to make more money where they can identify the markets that are being overlooked by others, not by competing in the same markets that others are already targeting.
identify the markets that are being overlooked by others
10 years ago we were told not to write software for the huge Windows market because Mac owners buy software unlike those cheap PC users.
10 years later we keep getting told not to write software for the huge Android market because iPhone owners buy apps unlike those cheap Android users.
10 years later we keep getting told not to write software for the huge Android market because iPhone owners buy apps unlike those cheap Android users.
According to some, the Google Play store is now grossing more money than Apple’s App Store. But on a per-downloader basis, it looks like the average iOS user is way more likely to spend money on any particular app than an Android user. So if you’re after users who spend money, it seems like a no brainer.
But I have no idea if this same dynamic applied to the PC/Mac days.
But I have no idea if this same dynamic applied to the PC/Mac days.
Money per user seems an odd metric to optimize for in the software world where you can duplicate your product infinitely for free.
There are software sales situations when that makes sense, bespoke enterprise software etc. but not phone apos as far as I can tell.
There are software sales situations when that makes sense, bespoke enterprise software etc. but not phone apos as far as I can tell.
I think it's important when you're trying to advertise your product. If there is a marginal cost for each set of eyeballs you can attract, then you'll probably want to start with the richest set of eyeballs.
Or you have non-trivial per-user costs: servers, bandwidth, support.
That's true, though to a large extent, the cost of those eyeballs is relative to the value of them. Android ads cost less because they convert less. So it's really about which platform has the highest ROI.
But aren't there almost double the number of Android user's out there than iOS users?
Any idea on how many of those are low end devices sold to users who just want a phone and have no interest in the play store?
I just get the feeling that looking at averages of the entire platform in this instance can be misleading as there are different types of users.
Any idea on how many of those are low end devices sold to users who just want a phone and have no interest in the play store?
I just get the feeling that looking at averages of the entire platform in this instance can be misleading as there are different types of users.
There are more than 5x as many Android users than iOS users.
Users? sure, customers?... probably not.
It probably did, but the scale was vastly different. Most metrics give iOS a 30-40% market share depending on how they count it, but there's no measure that give MacOS more than 15% at the most with around 5% being the most common 10 years ago.
The marketplace was also vastly different - when Apple was at its peak the market was physical, boxed copies had to be shipped to stores or via mail order. Now the respective stores give access to the entire market with one upload.
The other major differentiator is the number of users likely to download an app in the first place. Stats are very hard to get, but the general feel is iPhone users are much more likely to install apps, with a lot of Android users just buying the cheapest phone.
There's a lot of money in both markets though, so picking one is really a matter of where your company can ship first.
The marketplace was also vastly different - when Apple was at its peak the market was physical, boxed copies had to be shipped to stores or via mail order. Now the respective stores give access to the entire market with one upload.
The other major differentiator is the number of users likely to download an app in the first place. Stats are very hard to get, but the general feel is iPhone users are much more likely to install apps, with a lot of Android users just buying the cheapest phone.
There's a lot of money in both markets though, so picking one is really a matter of where your company can ship first.
According to some the Earth is less than 6k years old, but that doesn't make them any less wrong, kind of like what you just said.
App Annie shows that of all revenue from paid app downloads, Apple accounts for 70% of it, which is up from 60% in 2014.
App Annie shows that of all revenue from paid app downloads, Apple accounts for 70% of it, which is up from 60% in 2014.
As a vendor do you care more about the number of people who use your product or how much money you're making?
[deleted]
Did anyone ever credibly suggest that developers should ignore the huge Windows market? About 12 years ago, Joel Spolsky was saying quite the opposite, that Windows was the only platform that mattered, given the failure of write once, run anywhere.
Credible(?) Gruber practically did:
http://daringfireball.net/2002/09/on_joel_on_software
>> In fact, I think Spolsky is wrong about nearly everything in his article.
>> Let’s divide computer users into two groups — people who think computers are fun, and people who just happen to use a computer. Which group do you think buys more software (even including all the Linux nerds in the first group)? Which group do you think most Mac users are in?
>> Don’t get me wrong, the Windows software market is much larger than the Mac market, and there are millions more Windows nerds than Mac nerds — if you’re trying to sell into big corporations, write for Windows. I’m not even arguing anything silly, like that Mac users, on average, are smarter than their Windows counterparts. (Although I will link to this.) All I’m saying is this: amongst computer users who actually buy software, Mac users comprise a signficantly larger chunk than 4 percent. Significantly.
>> Mac users value attention to detail and intuitive, consistent, attractive interfaces. Developers who share these values would do well to create software for the Mac, where they are likely to be rewarded handsomely for their efforts. Developers who would prefer to program more features with less attention to detail should not.
>> In fact, I think Spolsky is wrong about nearly everything in his article.
>> Let’s divide computer users into two groups — people who think computers are fun, and people who just happen to use a computer. Which group do you think buys more software (even including all the Linux nerds in the first group)? Which group do you think most Mac users are in?
>> Don’t get me wrong, the Windows software market is much larger than the Mac market, and there are millions more Windows nerds than Mac nerds — if you’re trying to sell into big corporations, write for Windows. I’m not even arguing anything silly, like that Mac users, on average, are smarter than their Windows counterparts. (Although I will link to this.) All I’m saying is this: amongst computer users who actually buy software, Mac users comprise a signficantly larger chunk than 4 percent. Significantly.
>> Mac users value attention to detail and intuitive, consistent, attractive interfaces. Developers who share these values would do well to create software for the Mac, where they are likely to be rewarded handsomely for their efforts. Developers who would prefer to program more features with less attention to detail should not.
Gruber was right. I don't think it's relevant to the handheld market. The non-hacker Android users I know are simply too cheap to buy iOS devices, so probably not a great target market if you want people to buy your app. And the hackers won't pay for anything they think they can write it themselves.
(There are some non-hacker persons who buy Android on software freedom principles, but it's a very small crowd.)
(There are some non-hacker persons who buy Android on software freedom principles, but it's a very small crowd.)
So, you should be "Android first" with an app that could never be written on iOS? Yes, I'd say that makes sense.
Regardless of whether it would've been an option for this app, the same rules of reality apply to any other app: On Android reacting to user feedback can be done extremely quickly.
This is probably just their first android project and they had this realization and are eager to share it.
This is probably just their first android project and they had this realization and are eager to share it.
Why is being able to release a half-assed app which needs "x iterations daily" to the public suddenly something to brag about ? That's precisely why I respect App Store content more then on the Play Store, I expect app releases to be serious and not taking the users as beta testers.
I, on the other hand, like to be on the cutting edge.
That's been our experience. The move fast and break things approach works well on Android, and is disastrous on iOS. When updates are only possible every 2 weeks at best, it's more like move slowly and don't break anything or your ratings will tank.
>The move fast and break things approach
Sounds like something I want no part in.
Sounds like something I want no part in.
My 2 cents, considering Brazil, one of the biggest markets on the planet:
An iPhone here costs A LOT, and I mean A LOT of money. The iPhone 6 costs US$ 1129 and the iPhone 6 Plus costs US$ 1258.
Our minimum wage, in comparison, is US$ 254/Month. The average montly income on the country last year was around US$ 376.
Just those figures already show how is nearly impossible for most of us to have iPhones. Add to that our crime rate, and most of us that can afford one, won't dare to do it in risk of losing it.
It's sad that we see a lot of nice apps, some good ideas and we can't even test it. I believe it's the same for several countries around the world.
That said, if you really want your app to reach a global audience, support for Android is a no brainer. I find the "Android users buy less" excuse not really acceptable, because the marrket is much bigger.
And I don't see that scenario changing in Apple's direction, because Windows Phone is growing a lot on developing countries, and it's the second operating system is almost every south american country. In Colombia, Windows Phone already have 25% of the market share. In Brazil, 6%, while iOS have 4,7%.
An iPhone here costs A LOT, and I mean A LOT of money. The iPhone 6 costs US$ 1129 and the iPhone 6 Plus costs US$ 1258.
Our minimum wage, in comparison, is US$ 254/Month. The average montly income on the country last year was around US$ 376.
Just those figures already show how is nearly impossible for most of us to have iPhones. Add to that our crime rate, and most of us that can afford one, won't dare to do it in risk of losing it.
It's sad that we see a lot of nice apps, some good ideas and we can't even test it. I believe it's the same for several countries around the world.
That said, if you really want your app to reach a global audience, support for Android is a no brainer. I find the "Android users buy less" excuse not really acceptable, because the marrket is much bigger.
And I don't see that scenario changing in Apple's direction, because Windows Phone is growing a lot on developing countries, and it's the second operating system is almost every south american country. In Colombia, Windows Phone already have 25% of the market share. In Brazil, 6%, while iOS have 4,7%.
I never realized that Android has almost 90% market share here in Brazil. I wonder how many of those are low-end devices that don't just run the same apps that a quadcore, 2gb ram device runs.
I totally agree with the article except one thing: it's much much more a pleasant experience to code iOS app than Android, even without considering the fragmentation problem.
+1.
I love that the android store does not make you wait.
Having said that, I hate Android Studio, and Eclipse, and I hate the android simulator too.
It makes the development process slower, feels clunky.
To each their own, of course.
I love that the android store does not make you wait.
Having said that, I hate Android Studio, and Eclipse, and I hate the android simulator too.
It makes the development process slower, feels clunky.
To each their own, of course.
[deleted]
Hmm, I would not want to miss out on iOS users if I were testing an app. I'd have thought the App Store approval issues would lead to more people pushing mobile web apps. Plus, nothing updates as quickly as a web-app. Are people doing this?
The last time I tried to write any kind of app was 2 years ago, and at the time people were telling me that better mobile web apps and cross-platform tools like Phonegap were the future. Has this changed or is it still around the corner?
The last time I tried to write any kind of app was 2 years ago, and at the time people were telling me that better mobile web apps and cross-platform tools like Phonegap were the future. Has this changed or is it still around the corner?
I think it's eventually been acknowledged that the phonegap approach only really works for a certain subset of apps - those where information display is the primary goal, and UX and interaction aren't more important than fast development and just getting your app on as many devices as possible.
However if you're really aiming for the smoothest UX, there's still just a bit too much delay and kludginess with HTML5 controls in the browser/webview, and nothing will beat native application controls. I think that difference is pretty small now, for the vast majority of apps and what they need to do, but it definitely still exists.
Recent cross-platform frameworks like React native certainly seem to buy into the 'native is king' mindset by focusing on allowing you to write as much cross-platform shared code as possible, in a single language/framework, but accepting that you must, with some abstractions, write the final UI layer with the target device/platform in mind. I.e. more learn once, write for every platform, run on every platform than learn once, write once, run everywhere, which seems just as much a pipe dream on mobile devices as it ever was!
However if you're really aiming for the smoothest UX, there's still just a bit too much delay and kludginess with HTML5 controls in the browser/webview, and nothing will beat native application controls. I think that difference is pretty small now, for the vast majority of apps and what they need to do, but it definitely still exists.
Recent cross-platform frameworks like React native certainly seem to buy into the 'native is king' mindset by focusing on allowing you to write as much cross-platform shared code as possible, in a single language/framework, but accepting that you must, with some abstractions, write the final UI layer with the target device/platform in mind. I.e. more learn once, write for every platform, run on every platform than learn once, write once, run everywhere, which seems just as much a pipe dream on mobile devices as it ever was!
TestFlight improved this a lot last year and even more so this year with the bump to 6 external builds per day support and 2000 testers.
Note that only the initial major version will be reviewed on TestFlight but once that gets approved shortly, minor builds can be pushed without the reviews 6 times a day. It worked really well for us. Once we're happy with the build, it's one smooth process to push it to the app store.
Note that only the initial major version will be reviewed on TestFlight but once that gets approved shortly, minor builds can be pushed without the reviews 6 times a day. It worked really well for us. Once we're happy with the build, it's one smooth process to push it to the app store.
It still wouldn't have worked in the situation the article described, because their initial guess of who their users were was wrong. They posted on a forum, nobody liked it, but one of their users posted on another forum and it took off. TestFlight requires that you specify who the testers are, right?
A lot of the reason the web took off was exactly this kind of serendipity; a dev found an idea to be mildly interesting, posted a rudimentary v1, it's not useful for what the dev thinks it will be, but users (usually not the users the dev anticipated) find it useful for something else.
A lot of the reason the web took off was exactly this kind of serendipity; a dev found an idea to be mildly interesting, posted a rudimentary v1, it's not useful for what the dev thinks it will be, but users (usually not the users the dev anticipated) find it useful for something else.
We use the new Apple TestFlight, which enables iOS testing with 1000 users, and fast iterations.
For public apps, Apple offers expedited review for public bug fixes, and in my experience these are very fast, within 24 hours.
For public apps, Apple offers expedited review for public bug fixes, and in my experience these are very fast, within 24 hours.
Coming from the web, where we often ship hundreds of builds and variations for a production app in a single hour, “within a day” seems a little quaint.
Yup, most importantly android users just expect less, they really won't care if your app is slow, buggy, has poor UI, etc, it fits in with the rest of the platform.
Try harder, too obvious and people won't react
I wasn't really trolling... there are some great apps out there, but even those feel very broken, it's something about how the app scrolls and i think in combination with the screen feels on your fingers, it's like a steampunk phone, you know there's gears inside that might need oiling more regularly.
It's kinda like those make your own pasta places, you eventually realize that a chef is pretty good at figuring out what ingredients go together, sourcing high quality ingredients, etc. If you have a basic knowledge of food you can make pretty darn good pasta at a make your own pasta shop but will get blown out of the water by an italian grandmother.
You don't want to open your new pasta shop in an area with lots of grandmothers, if you aren't yet at the top of your game.
It's kinda like those make your own pasta places, you eventually realize that a chef is pretty good at figuring out what ingredients go together, sourcing high quality ingredients, etc. If you have a basic knowledge of food you can make pretty darn good pasta at a make your own pasta shop but will get blown out of the water by an italian grandmother.
You don't want to open your new pasta shop in an area with lots of grandmothers, if you aren't yet at the top of your game.
Yap, insulting all the users of a platform is not trolling, it is a high intelligent debate using the same old topics.
> but even those feel very broken, it's something about how the app scrolls and i think in combination with the screen feels on your fingers, it's like a steampunk phone, you know there's gears inside that might need oiling more regularly.
And more trolling
> but even those feel very broken, it's something about how the app scrolls and i think in combination with the screen feels on your fingers, it's like a steampunk phone, you know there's gears inside that might need oiling more regularly.
And more trolling
EDIT: Hi downvoter[s]. Is it taboo for me to bring up the aforementioned revenue discrepancy? As far as I know it’s real, and should be a consideration for anyone who’s trying to follow the money. I’d appreciate insights and discussion instead of anonymous downvoting.