I think that the mobile application space in terms of applications for open mobile platforms like Android will evolve in much the same way that software has evolved in other spaces. Meaning, a need is discovered by users of a mobile device. This need either gets so well known that a developer eventually jumps on it independently or a company recognizes the potential of the need and decides to risk development of the software to sell to users in return for fulfilling the need.
I think trying to anticipate needs before there is a market is very risky and so to your point, perhaps developers are waiting to see what needs arise when the marketplace takes off. I don't think it will be a provider problem with the open platforms, but providers would stand to become the 800 lb gorillas in the market and as such could discourage independent development. i.e. there is already a word processor app provided by Sprint so why would I build one. On the issue of target audience, I think this is a very key question. There has been a lot of hype that mobile devices are the next laptops which means that as the technology gets better and cheaper, the devices become like white boxes with little to no margin in the device itself. My question is will this really happen? Won't there always be users who just want a phone and don't use the device for anything else? Will that matter? Is the target younger users who already can text message faster just using their thumbs than I can using all my fingers? I agree that a healthy ecosystem is critical. In Google can provide developers with tens of millions of devices then I would like to believe there will be a viable economy around the development of applications for those devices. Cary On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:10 PM, TTT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh, I don't think the marketplace is a bad thing at all. I totally > agree that you don't want to be searching through a regular Google web > search for mobile apps as a user. As a developer I agree that it would > be a hassle to maintain an e-commerce site and that's why handango.com > exist. That still leaves us scratching our heads about adoption rates > with the current model (as you ask) and consequently what new model > might work better for developers to make a little dough. > > Some thoughts on why the current model doesn't work: > - Have users demonstrated a true need for any of these apps? i.e. do > they do something they can't already do on their phone and which the > *must* do? Games are probably a good exception here. > - Does the problem lie on the developer side, because the best > developers with the best ideas see that there's no money to be made, > so they don't bother creating great apps? > - Is it a platform issue with not enough mobile users in the target > market actually having a device capable of downloading content? > -> That asks the follow-up question, what IS the target market? > - Is it a provider problem, because you might be locked into just > getting stuff from your carrier? > > I don't really have any answers, but I'd be happy do discuss this. > Building a sufficient ecosystem around Android is pretty important to > getting users to engage with their devices and to a lesser extent also > adopt the system in the first place (although that's controlled by the > carriers for now.) Giving developers a sustainable model to make apps > is important and $10M contests won't be the way to do it in the > future. > > Looking forward to any an all comments. > > Tim > > On Mar 21, 3:56 pm, "Cary Harper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > lol, dog pile! I agree that my example was overly simplified and thank > you > > for the correction regarding the ad bid system. > > > > Let's tackle the problem from another direction. > > > > Why have adoption rates been low historically for mobile applications? > > Why do you believe users buying directly will work? > > Doesn't that means the developer has to maintain a web site (ecom, > secure > > content delivery, site updates, product upgrades, etc.), drive traffic > to > > it, and covert traffic to sales? That seams like a lot more work to me. > > > > If I search for "Friend Finder" on Google I have to compete with dating > > services and porn sites for the top spots, in a dedicated mobile app > > marketplace I just have to compete with other Friend Finder > applications. > > How is that a bad thing? > > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:58 AM, TTT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Cary, > > > > > That's a logical calulation, but your assumptions are flawed. I think > > > Google (or anyone else) will charge a lot more than $100 to be at the > > > top of a page with 1 M unique visitors. That's a CPM of $0.0001. > > > Furthermore, Google's model is CPC, so you'd have to bid for clicks. > > > The minimum bids will be at least $0.15 or $0.20 and the winning bids > > > will probably be many times that, because there'll always be suckers > > > that think they can make money by spending money on ads. You'll then > > > need to convert those clicks into app sales. As much as I hope Google > > > will find ways for the developers to make money, your model's > > > economics unfortunately don't work. Google is the only one that makes > > > money in that scenario. > > > > > Again, I don't mean to sound negative about it, but I'm concerned that > > > adoption rates for third-party mobile applications have historically > > > been less than stellar (save for Google Maps maybe) and the only model > > > I see out there is the user buying apps directly. That just doesn't > > > excite me, because it hasn't worked historically and I don't see why > > > Android will be a greater success than Symbian, Windows or Blackberry > > > (which all have developer toolkits). > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > Tim > > > > > On Mar 21, 2:10 pm, "Cary Harper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If Google provides the market place and assuredly a huge number of > users > > > > that no one individual developer could attract, then you have the > > > potential > > > > to market and sell your application. By market, I mean placing ads, > > > running > > > > promotions, doing press releases, attending trade shows, etc, etc. > > > > > > Let's do some math to illustrate the point: > > > > 1) Google provids a web marketplace for developers that draws in 1 > > > million > > > > unique visitors a day > > > > 2) You pay Google $100/day to have an ad on the home page of the > > > marketplace > > > > 3) You charge users $10 for your application > > > > 4) If just .001% of those users see your ad and purchase your > > > application, > > > > your gross daily revenue would be $1,000 each day, minus the cost of > the > > > ad > > > > ($100/day) and minus any cut that Google takes (say 30%) which makes > > > your > > > > net revenue $690/day = roughly $251,850 a year. > > > > > > Not too bad for one guy writing an application. If its a > development > > > shop > > > > then you would need better numbers to make it viable, but the model > > > still > > > > holds. > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:01 AM, TTT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Cary, > > > > > > > Thanks for your reply. The long tail is the fundamental premise > > > > > underlying many internet business models. The prime example and an > > > > > absolute cash machine is Google AdSense. However, while it's a > > > > > worthwhile theory, the long tail only makes sense when you've > truly > > > > > found a way to serve the market AND make money doing so. It's > obvious > > > > > that developers are serving the long tail with all these apps, but > my > > > > > question remains: how do they plan to make money off their > efforts? > > > > > > > Even if you market the hell out of an app (and probably spend not > only > > > > > time, but $$$ to do so) how do you get a return on your > investment? > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 12:52 am, "Cary Harper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > You should read the article, "The Long Tail". ( > > > > >http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html) > > > > > > > > The basic concept is that the broader and more numerous the > audience > > > > > > becomes, the more diversity that can be supported economically > in a > > > > > > marketplace, and the Internet has made this possible. So, as > more > > > and > > > > > more > > > > > > Internet enabled devices and platforms get into the hands of the > > > general > > > > > > public, there will arise more and more demand for applications > for > > > those > > > > > > devices, which will support a wide diversity of selection. > > > > > > > > So, to apply that to the case of the Android marketplace and > > > application > > > > > > developers. The developer will have to believe that either they > > > have a > > > > > > killer app that will be in the top 2% (unlikely) or that > Google's > > > > > partners > > > > > > that have signed up to be apart of the Andriod initiative will > have > > > a > > > > > large > > > > > > enough and broad enough audience to provide economic viability > in > > > the > > > > > long > > > > > > tail of mobile applications (very likely). > > > > > > > > So, write your application and get to work marketing it because > all > > > > > > indications (IMO) are that this space is blowing up and there > will > > > be a > > > > > > healthy demand for all kinds of applications. > > > > > > > > Cary > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Dan U. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think you might be right about businesses wanting/needing > > > specific > > > > > > > apps. They are willing to pay the money to develop something > if > > > they > > > > > > > think their employees or customers will benefit. As for trying > to > > > come > > > > > > > up with an idea, build it, market it, and make money off it, > I'm > > > quite > > > > > > > a bit more skeptical. > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 3:40 pm, "Gene Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Triple T, > > > > > > > > > > I had the opportunity to build an Android app, but declined > as > > > the > > > > > > > project > > > > > > > > owner wanted me to work for free, and have only 40% > ownership in > > > > > > > whatever > > > > > > > > became of the project. $0 income + .40 * $0 longterm == $0. > > > Since > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > wealthy, I had to pass. Too much to gamble. > > > > > > > > > > Hell I could steal the idea. It wasn't very novel. The > idea > > > wasn't > > > > > > > > patentable. But, still 100% of 0 is 0. And that's how I > viewed > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > But, how does this answer your question? Well, since I > wasn't > > > going > > > > > to > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > paid, I had to weigh his idea carefully, and decided if I > was a > > > good > > > > > > > > investment = will pay out in the end. I ended up asking > myself > > > some > > > > > of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > same questions you have. I felt there wasn't enough > evidence > > > that > > > > > that > > > > > > > > project could be sold to make much at all. (Sorry, I can't > be > > > > > specific > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > the project.) It would be for a small group of handheld > owners > > > for > > > > > a > > > > > > > > specific group of users. It might be really valuable, but > it > > > wasn't > > > > > > > "new" > > > > > > > > or innovative. It was just another way to do something the > > > users > > > > > have > > > > > > > done > > > > > > > > all along without a device. So, why would they pay much at > all? > > > I > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > find any reason. Because of maps? > > > > > > > > > > So, I came to the conclusion that only really incredible > super > > > apps > > > > > that > > > > > > > hit > > > > > > > > the mainstream would make any money, and you'd probably have > to > > > make > > > > > a > > > > > > > deal > > > > > > > > with the handheld company to get it bundled on the device. > > > > > > > > > > I would imagine there might be money building highly > specific > > > apps > > > > > for > > > > > > > > businesses. System that meet their business needs > perfectly. > > > You > > > > > can > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > that now with other devices, but perhaps the Android will be > the > > > > > best > > > > > > > place > > > > > > > > to do it. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not a marketing guy, just an experienced Dev. I also > don't > > > feel > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > innovative or motivated at the moment to think up a killer > app. > > > I'm > > > > > > > keeping > > > > > > > > my eyes and ears open though. Would like to see lots of > posts > > > on > > > > > this > > > > > > > > thread. > > > > > > > > > > On 3/21/08, TTT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > I'm curious to understand, and this is not meant > negatively at > > > > > all, > > > > > > > > > how do developers plan to make money off the apps they're > > > > > creating? I > > > > > > > > > know the typical model for cell phone apps has been to > either > > > make > > > > > > > > > them totally free, but those apps are often low quality, > or to > > > try > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > sell them through places like handango.com, but I assume > > > adoption > > > > > > > > > rates are quite low as a consequence. (I only have > > > circumstantial > > > > > > > > > evidence on this - does anyone have any data on this by > any > > > > > chance?) > > > > > > > > > > > Right now, I don't really see why it would be worth > someone's > > > > > while to > > > > > > > > > write apps for Android or for any other mobile platform. > > > Facebook > > > > > apps > > > > > > > > > are a waste of time for most people as very few apps make > > > enough > > > > > money > > > > > > > > > to even get close to compensating for the time spent to > write > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > I'm not aware of any companies making money building > gadgets, > > > > > widgets, > > > > > > > > > etc. either. > > > > > > > > > > > What am I missing here? Is there a magic bullet or is it > all > > > about > > > > > > > > > hype a la Facebook apps? Don't get me wrong, Android is an > > > > > exciting > > > > > > > > > platform, but I'd like to understand the economics of it a > > > little > > > > > > > > > better. > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for any and all info! > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > TTT > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Picante Solutions Limited > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" 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-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
