| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Closed for business |
| By special contributor henderson101 on 2012-07-24 23:42:53 |
| "I read earlier this week about a developer who made their Android version free after the $1 game was extensively pirated. Stories like this come as no surprise, but the industry press rarely deals with the core problem - and nor does Google. [...] Whilst the aforementioned story about the Android game didn't surprise me, it did horrify me. Android is designed to be difficult to make money from, and the core issue is that it's open - with the corrosive mentality that surrounds such openness." |
|
| No lost sales |
| By pucko on 2012-07-25 00:17:36 |
|
The matter of piracy is simple but yet (primarily) publishers are not understanding it. I dare to say that a pirated copy is not a "lost sale", because it was not a sale from the beginning. The person would not have bought it anyway if it was impossible to duplicate it. Now, there is a small group of people which are the exception. They would most likely buy the product if they could, but do unfortunately not have access to a credit card. And as far as I know, there is no gift card or other means of payment for Google Play besides credit cards. And if Paid Apps is even available in that country. This last group is where your lost sales are. And in this case, it is up to the publisher, or even the developer to find solutions where the buyers can pay for the copy. Speaking for myself I do not pirate any applications because: 1) I have a credit card, 2) I have access to Paid Apps on Google Play. |
 - Score: 3 |
| RE: No lost sales |
| By Declination5 on 2012-07-25 00:25:20 |
| While the matter of a pirated copy not equating to a lost sale it is not exclusive either. When there is a culture of piracy surrounding a product people that would otherwise pay for apps see easy piracy and think to themselves a number of thoughts. They think things like, "Why should I pay when no-one else does?" So while initially piracy doesn't equate to lost sales once a mainstream culture of piracy is built around an ecosystem it most definitely does start hurting sales numbers. |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE[2]: No lost sales |
| By _txf_ on 2012-07-25 00:35:53 |
|
> While the matter of a pirated copy not equating to a lost sale it is not exclusive either. When there is a culture of piracy surrounding a product people that would otherwise pay for apps see easy piracy and think to themselves a number of thoughts. They think things like, "Why should I pay when no-one else does?" So while initially piracy doesn't equate to lost sales once a mainstream culture of piracy is built around an ecosystem it most definitely does start hurting sales numbers. But oddly enough I have a strange anecdote: I know plenty of people that have android phones, and they buy stuff from Google play, yet at the same time they do pirate other software etc. And oddly enough the people that I know that have Iphones, are the ones engaging in the most mobile app piracy. The point I guess I'm trying to ask is, where is the massive Android piracy culture? I'm just not seeing it. Has anybody tried to quantify it? Edited 2012-07-25 00:37 UTC |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: No lost sales |
| By pucko on 2012-07-25 00:53:11 |
|
My guess is that the largest "pirate markets" are the countries which do not have "Paid Apps" available to them. I could be wrong but since games are very popular with the younger audience, I guess pirating is the only option as credit cards are not available to you until you are 18+. |
| - Score: 5 |
| Openness and Piracy, I don't see where the match up. |
| By runjorel on 2012-07-25 00:57:12 |
|
I think sub-par app quality (at least when compared to corresponding iOS versions) are the reason Android developers aren't making money. I know it's hard because the market is fragmented and a whole bunch of other reasons (economic and technical). I also know things are improving but it's still frustrating to see a difference in quality or performance when comparing an iOS app and an Android App from the same publisher. I think this is the reason the Android Market is not doing so well. Not because of 'openness' If that's the argument then the many pirated copies of Windows, Office, and Adobe Photoshop prove that the 'closed' model does not work. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: No lost sales |
| By sukru on 2012-07-25 01:00:03 |
|
The lost sales due to piracy issue is neither black, nor white, but actually a gray tone in between. There were actually some experiments with the ratios. For example, stardock realized there were 10 times more people on their servers than actual sales for an online game of theirs. There was also a shareware/donationware study, where people were much less likely to pay, unless pressured to. Anyways, it is pretty much settled for the music industry with 0.99c tracks (or less). I hope it also gets resolved for the game and movie industries. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: No lost sales |
| By PlunderBunny on 2012-07-25 01:23:26 |
|
I've always thought that the no-lost-sales-to-piracy argument was pretty weak. If people have a limited amount of spare time, and they fill that time by playing a pirated copy of Unhappy Avians, they might still be able to argue that they wouldn't have bought Unhappy Avians, but what would they have done with that time if they didn't? Would they not have played games at all? Perhaps they might have played only free-to-play games, but the fact is, they didn't! "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway" is really just a way of saying: 1. I didn't pay for it because I could get away with not paying for it. 2. I'd like to push the moral implications of my decision into a fantasy land that doesn't exist. |
| - Score: 5 |
| Ehh? |
| By Valhalla on 2012-07-25 01:40:06 |
|
So in other words, Windows, OSX, Linux are all 'designed for piracy' because they allow the end user to run whatever he/she wants. And then we have bullshit statements like closed is better for business, If you want a platform to be commercially viable for third-party software developers, you have to lock it down, because software wasn't making any money until Apple came along with it's walled garden? This whole blog post is nothing but an attack on open, sprinkled with his hatred for 'nerds' / 'geeks'. And obviously given that he is entirely Apple oriented he will also attack Android because it doesn't restrict people from running whatever they want. As for piracy, it's always been there and always will, it exists on EVERY platform, even consoles/handhelds. If you make good apps you will sell, if you make the fifthythousandandfirst weather app then chances are small that you will make a profit, piracy or no piracy. The saturation on these 'app stores' means you need to stand out and actually offer something better than the competition, it's quickly becoming a reality that just throwing a glossy interface over yet another alarm clock application won't cut it anymore. But of course it's always a welcome excuse to attribute your failures to piracy. http://arstechnica.com/apple/201... It's like the gold-rush of yore, with huge success-stories constantly being repeated despite being by far the exceptions. Still, if IOS is so great then wy is Matt Gemmel complaining? He already operates in what he thinks is the perfect environment, why does he feel the need to attack Android/openess, it shouldn't affect him one little bit? No one is forced to publish anything on Android, so why do they? According to Matt Gemmel it's certainly not to make money, because that only happens on locked down systems like Apple's. |
| - Score: 25 |
| Closed is better for business. |
| By JAlexoid on 2012-07-25 01:40:37 |
|
> Closed is better for business. That is an oversimplified statement. Because closed is not necessarily better or worse. Closed is when iPhone was released for the first time - no native apps. How was that for business? Now, as much as I might dislike Windows, it's more open than both OSX and Linux. Not in a political/cultural/philosop hical way, but in a practical way Windows is a much more open(welcoming, to be more precise) than any other platform. And so far, all I can see is that Windows is winning. Thus, a closed platform is not unanimously better for business. > You have bills to pay. Life is serious. Pick a platform that knows it. Implication is that Android does not know that? That is kind of inconsistent with the whole text there.(Also very big misunderstanding of what Android and iOS were designed for) It's simple, you want to make money you make sure your business model is sound. That means having to deal with Apple's approval process, Linux's GPL status, Android's piracy issue and Microsoft's shifting strategies. If you take one model and apply it to another market - you will fail. There is always an answer to a question - How do I make a profitable business out of it? Probably, even giving away cash on the corner can be turned into a money making enterprise! Edited 2012-07-25 01:43 UTC |
| - Score: 7 |
| I live in a different world |
| By th3rmite on 2012-07-25 02:31:13 |
| I personally have seen MANY people choose to pirate something despite the fact that they could afford it. To many people they can't see the victim, and they don't suffer a consequence. I can't speak for other cultures, but in America we have a HUGE entitlement mentality where people think they are entitled to everything for free. Just go down to the welfare office and count the iphones and android phones. Too poor to afford food, but rich enough to afford a fancy phone. The people pirating this app have enough money to afford a smart phone, but not enough money to pay the $1 it costs. It's only because they don't have to pay and nobody is going to make them. |
| - Score: 6 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |