I don't know. Does a lower power phone means < Android 2.1?? I don't think so as I don't believe that the hardware requirements have really changed much from 1.5 to even 2.3.
In the US, the only major phone that's not on 2.0+ is the Motorola CLIQ XT, and that's not even because of hardware reasons. On Mar 17, 7:11 am, "Jonas Petersson" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2011-03-16 23:45, Zsolt Vasvari wrote: > > > I also have 2 versions, a free and a paid version. > > > The free version is showing that 1.5 + 1.6 = 7.4% vs. 2.4% for the > > paid version. While I am no statistician, I believe this cannot be > > right. > > Well, examining the stats for my own apps, I see a fair correlation that > the people willing to pay for apps are those who have the more expensive > phones which in turn means that they typically run 2.2+. > > I guess it boils down to: people with more money spend more. Simple? > > I don't know about sales stats anywhere but around here (Sweden) there > are about 60 Android models available, and sorting those by popularity > (very simple in my Prisjakt/PriceSpy app) you find that none of the top > half runs 1.x - in fact only seven in the top half runs 2.1 - everything > else is 2.2+. > > My free apps have around 7% 1.x (the older apps somewhat more, newer > somewhat less). Obviously, living in Sweden means it was not really > possible to buy OR sell apps until about 6 months ago, so this affects > my stats. > > My take on this: I think it makes fair sense. > > Best / Jonas -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
