I know I'm late to the party, but articles such as these always disappoint me.
Quote:
Take the case of developer Ryan Bateman, who built what reviewers called “the first beautiful, simple Instapaper client for Android.” Despite heavy tech news coverage about Papermill following its release, Bateman says the app netted less than $600 in profit over its first three weeks in release. Bateman’s effective rate for the project to date worked out to barely more than $2 per hour.
OK, so that’s one app from one developer, and Papermill requires that you have a separate subscription to Instapaper’s paid service (which costs $1 per month). But Bateman’s tale of disappointing Android sales is anything but unique
|
This seems like a misunderstanding of apps' market penetration in Android. A lot of times I see anecdotes such as these quoted, usually with the point made that Android users are inclined to be petty cheaparses. In the case of Instapaper, the fates took their sweet time in seeing a client released, and by the time it came out there were already alternatives, some of which one even has to pay for. Marco Arment, the creator of Instapaper, has also been clear for a long time in his lack of interest in developing for Android, due again to the belief that Android users don't pay. What a surprise that Android users will look elsewhere for alternatives.
I do wonder if iOS developers and to a lesser extent users really do believe that Android users suffer from a paucity of quality apps, that we do hunger for the polished gems of the iOS market whilst suffering from the absence of any of our own, and that simply porting their hit apps to Android will guarantee success.
So every time an iOS developer comes to Android and then trots out this excuse, it always frustrates me. I'd certainly be happy to pay for quality apps, though since I was previously an iOS user, maybe I've just still retained the tendency to throw my money at passing electronic fripperies, who knows.