[A-Za-z0-9]+

I've bought loads of apps from the Android market. Some of these are "unnecessary" - for instance the free version of Maverick (off-road GPS) is quite good enough, but at the same time it is so good I couldn't resist the opportunity to bung the developer the tiny amount of loose change the pro version cost. Is this a sustainable model? I think only time will tell.

Two (or more) horse race means a degree of healthy competition

"iOS provides a method of actually making at least the cost of your development back." That's assuming your app is approved and left there as opposed to being declined with no reason given or removed after a month due to some minor change that has no effect on how your app works. I'm not speaking from personal experience there but there are more than enough examples of this and worse out there. I don't recall Google pulling any app for arbitrary reasons and I can only think of one time where something was pulled for being somewhat malicious.

Both platforms offer something different with similar functionality mixed in. Android has the greater freedom for both developers and users, Apple and iOS are for those that don't want to mess around much. You can jailbreak and do a lot with an iPhone and other iOS devices but not in the same scope as Android. I've yet to see a custom iOS ROM developed by users for example but there are people putting Android on iPhones.

@Alan

About those who decided not to develop for Android, did they decide because their existing android apps weren't selling or was it that they didn't expect them to sell?

Paid Apps

I've also bought this app for the same reason. IMHO one of the reasons developers could not make money form Android was the absence of a paid market in a lot of countries. I had to root my phone and use MarketAccess so I *could* pay for apps. If you think that China and India, 2 very large countries with a large Android-population only recently got access to the paid market it's really clear why people didn't pay for apps: they couldn't!

@fandom

They avoided Android as having done the research they decided that spending the money on having a team of developers write an Android app to go alongside their existing successful IPhone app was not a sensible investment of cash as they were unlikely to see sufficient money come back from that version. Whereas with the IPhone app they would (and indeed have).

This wasn't a "Fart" app or indeed a technology focused app but instead an app that wrapped up their produced content so that it could be accessed on the go. To repackage that content into Android format would require them to hire a team of android developers who would obviously want paying for their services.

As per the article from the Angry Birds developers <http://technmarketing.com/iphone/peter-vesterbacka-maker-of-angry-birds-talks-about-the-birds-apple-android-nokia-and-palmhp/

>

"paid content just doesn’t work on Android."

That if you are paying to develop an app is a pretty persuasive argument/perception from anyone's perspective.

@Two (or more) horse race means a degree of healthy competition

I suggest you read the article interviewing the Angry birds developers

"Android is growing, but it’s also growing complexity at the same time. Device fragmentation not the issue, but rather the fragmentation of the ecosystem. So many different shops, so many different models. The carriers messing with the experience again. Open but not really open, a very Google centric ecosystem. And paid content just doesn’t work on Android. "

As jailbreaking is not perceived as the norm for iOS people feel more confident (rightly or wrongly) in the chances of their App not being pirated. Angry Birds can make money through the advertising due to the frequent use.

A purveyor of a less frequently accessed but useful content resource based app is not going to see any return.

The idiocy of needing a title when replying is moot

>>>>

No developer makes money on Android

<<<<

Whoa. Silly me, here I thought there were new apps being built every day. Oh wait. They are. So obviously there is something in it for developers.. otherwise, wait I know this one! There wouldn't be any further development. Whoa.

>>>>

The volume Android has in the US is all on Verizon, and Verizon customers have no choice but to use Android or Blackberry, which is uncompetitive

<<<<

Uh... what?? So, the fact that Apple sign SPECIFIC, BINDING contracts with ONE operator is GOOD for competition? Holy cow. Never mind that it's APPLE that you have a beef with there, not Android. Good grief.

Here, let me help you:

Uncompetitive: That does not involve competition; not competitive

In other words, ONE provider. ONE. Not two, as in choice. ONE. I have two sweets, you have ONE, I have a choice you have NONE. Are we ok on the meaning of uncompetitive??

Android phones are accessible to ANY network, in fact the only ones that are limited are due to technology limitations, such as 4G

@ The idiocy...etc

I presume you are talking about America.

In the Uk you have a choice of 6 carriers with your iPhone.

Therefore there is competition.

@Alan Wray:selective quoting at its best, try this one instead

I suggest you track down this quote from Rovio's CEO. Perhaps you might get a clue that the business models are different and paid content doesn't define profit on Android.

"“By end of year, we project earnings of over $1 million per month with the ad-supported version of Angry Birds,” says Peter Vesterbacka, CEO of Rovio."

Blasphemy?

I trust your post is tongue in cheek?

There is no reason for an android developer not to make money selling applications to consumers. As an individual consumer I could create my own app (if I had the patience with the disasterous mess apple claim is a developer environment) BUT whether I do is a judgement on the cost of the application versus the cost of my time to develop my own. This is REGARDLESS of the underlying operating system. The fact that the apple developer environment is so much worse than the development provided by other OS's (including the most installed OS of them all - Symbian) means that the cost of developing applications is higher. This means they will cost more in the market. This means I will find Android or Symbian far better IF - and only if - I am the type of person who wants to add applications to their device.

So even in an 'open' situation that balance between cost of my effort and cost of the application applies, and, I will still pay a developer who has taken the time I don't want to spend.

And as for 'if apple were on verizon...' not an arguement that holds water, if apple was so much better people would swap their operator.

The apple phones are NOT good for those of us who like to have a real keyboard, or a proper clam shell so we don't fiddle with 'locking' or 'unexpected phone calls' with other OS's I get a much wider choice of device, thats where they will win.

Making the cost of development back...

Must be ***** expensive and sell ***** loads, after all the development environment requires expensive hardware to run on, it then takes decades to work out (its the worst environment I have EVER seen - and I've been around for a very long time), if you want to do more than a trivial 'hello world' with 'objectiveC' then you will need the patience of a saint and need to back everything up before typing a single command because it is probable that you will find the development environment complete f****** your application and you will need to start again.

Even if you get through all that pain - and frankly I'd rather stab my eyes out with my own severed dick than do it again - you then have to jump through the mindless hoops to get it onto the store.....

No, better and easier to develop for Symbian or Android.

Completely agree

"The biggest reason for this consumer adoption is the robust developer adoption Android has engendered." has to be one of the worst pieces of analysis ever published by El Reg. Android phones tick more feature boxes and come at a lower cost. That's the end of it.

I have to agree it's mainly price.

Of all the people I know who bought phones recently a few bought iPhones because they wanted one, a couple being rabid Apple fans, the rest bought on price and features -- I know a couple of people who bought HTCs because the iPone was too expensive.

@Marky W: But non-techie buyers don't know they're buying into "The Apple Way" and a lot of techies don't want to do that -- so I don't think that affects the figures much either way.

Of course

With 100 times (made up number, but probably the right OoM) as many developers working on Android than iOS, I expect most problems to go away after a couple of years maximum - just look at the improvements just over the last year. We are considering the future here, not the state of play right now (which I don't think is quite as bad as you make out)

RE:James Hughes

Maybe, maybe not. As the various Linux distros have shown, without having a dedicated team working on look, feel, standardisation and usability of the UI you can end up with some real shit. I like Linux and Ubuntu is definitely getting there but it has shown that open source software needs real leadership and direction. Outside of starting it off and getting their hooks into your data I'm not so sure Google gives a toss, which then leaves the handset manufacturers and networks that can only think of themselves. I know there's some club/group/committee or whatever that deals with Android but that's probably not enough.

The advantage that I'm afraid Apple has is that they know shiny touchy feely hardware and UI sells (whether it's great or not is your own opinion) and because they control the lot it's why they're ahead.

Now that doesn't mean I'm advocating that Android won't get market share as choice and cost will sort that out but I don't believe number of developers means much either - just look at windows.

They both need to do some innovation in the app stores though - too much shite to sift through in both.

re Oh, please

Sound points, well made.

With regard to

<<< I think that, as soon as Verizon (and the other cellcos) provide iPhone service, you'll see a massive switch over.>>>

You may well be correct but as with the Mac, I doubt Apple care greatly about market share as such. They will be laughing all the way to the bank. The Mac may have less than 10% market share, but look at Apple's profitability (and in the market segment for computers over $1k they have over 90% share). Most people just want something that works, full stop, no qualifications and as long as Apple keep delivering that, they'll keep selling the stuff in droves.

@Jedidiah

Quote:

"It might be fine for some housewife."

"Thus many power users view Apple products in general as some sort of joke."

Considering the handful of 'power users' that want to run shell scripts on an iPhone (why!?!) against the many millions of iPhone owning housewives, to misquote you:

Thus Apple view 'power users' in general as some sort of joke.

If it's that much of a problem for you to do what you want on an iPhone, why aren't you using an android phone then? You might consider running a shell script on a phone a "pretty basic use case" but more than 99.9% of the world think it's irrelevant.

Most of the world right now think "basic use cases" for a smartphone is to be able to make calls, send texts and MMS, check Facebook and play Angry Birds.

Re: "Oh please..."

Unless, of course, I happen to get these Android phones for free...in which case, it wouldn't quite make me a D"head (at least, not for that reason).

Why do I need a title to reply?

It baffles me why anyone other than the completely brainwashed could find anything in your post to down vote!

Android will win this battle too.

"They both need to do some innovation in the app stores though - too much shite to sift through in both."

Android, being the open beast it is, will allow anyone to open their own app store. Frankly i'm amazed its taken this long for someone to open one. When Amazons app store opens they promise weeks of vetting to ensure apps work and are of sufficient quality, more like a 'premium app store'. If you don't like being limited, you can always use the wild jungle that is Googles store.

It's all about choice, see, it's ultimately why I went Android. So many people with iPhones, all exactly the same, same interface, same colour, same ringtones, unable to change any of it, dull. No wonder the iPhone 4 sold so well to current owners, at least it was 'slightly' different.

errr...

Yes, or the equavalant of.

You can buy a new unlocked iPhone from anywhere you like, and update it to the most recent OS for free.

There are many points for and against many mobile phone platforms, but this isn't one of them.

erm

Strangely enough a friend also bought an Orange SF a few days ago, and has been busy putting 2.2 on it.

It worked for a time, but then he discovered some horrible bugs with it. He's on his third 2.2 version but stability is getting progressively worse.

So he's back on 2.1 until the device manufacturer releases the drivers or firmware or whatever it needs for an official 2.2.

So true

After many years with various Nokia candybars I finally "needed" a shiny smartphone like all my friends. The Orange San Francisco (£99 pay-as-you-go from Argos) fills the bill nicely and I do like this Android thingy. I'm not a fanboi though and willing to try an Apple equivalent if anyone can recommend one. (Must be under 100 quid no SIM latch and no contract kthx)

@yosemite

So as an iPhone can be upgraded to the current OS version s well, so the only reason you've given for buying the San Fran is that it's cheaper, and whatever open source advocates may think, that's the number one reason Android phones are selling, and it's exactly that reason why I got a Desire.

If your options were paying £400 for an unlocked iPhone, or £400 for an unlocked Android phone, would you still go for the Android one.

Bollocks

Of course Google isn't open - its a company, and needs to make money. And one way it wants to make money is to give Android away for free. What's wrong with that? Why should it give away its propriety search secrets? No-one has said Google were open, what they have said is that Android is open - that is, one product from Google, not the whole sodding company.

Google haven't ( AFAIK) said otherwise, or been dishonest with regard to openness in this area, certainly no more so than Apple.

Bit of a strawman argument here...

Google isn't open, don't think the article says that Google is an open company, and the register points this out quite regularly how not very 'open' google is.

However, android (which is what we are talking about) *is* mostly open source software. Which you can hack, chop and change as you (or to be honest, other, more smarter people with lots of free time on xda) see fit.