43 ms·

They did put the effort in to overcome those issues, only to discover that for every 80 iOS users they had 1 Android user, so they concluded that continuing to

They did put the effort in to overcome those issues, only to discover that for every 80 iOS users they had 1 Android user, so they concluded that continuing to do the work wasn't justified because there was a lack of demand. If they'd had comparable demand from Android users, they'd have continued to invest.

igravious 14y ago
But if they had a crappy product for Android is it any wonder that their uptake ratio was so out of kilter? If they had platform feature parity at launch your argument would be valid but they didn't so you cannot draw the conclusion you have drawn.
- rbarooah 14y ago
  It's not really my conclusion - it's the conclusion from the TWN piece. That said, even though it's not a controlled experiment, the fact that they didn't have feature parity doesn't completely invalidate their experience. 80-1 is a high ratio particularly for a free product that people presumably would have expected to improve over time if they had been interested. See Zaheer's comment on this thread too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4991585 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4991585
garuda 14y ago
Android is Open Source, so it belongs to everyone. Content producers need to do their part alongside developers to make it great, even if that means putting in more investment than supporting a propriety platform like iOS.
- eropple 14y ago
  > Content producers need to do their part alongside developers to make it great Uh...why? Why should they "do their part" for a platform where they have no users and don't see a likely growth of them? I am an Android user and developer, but I am also realistic.
  - garuda 14y ago
    Because that investment will pay off over time as more and more people move to Android, and a platform that isn't controlled by a single company will make innovation easier for everyone.
    - eropple 14y ago
      There's some legwork to do to make the claims you're making. Maybe you should step back and establish niceties like why people who are in their target demos will flock to Android "over time" and quantify how the NPV of investing now will pay off later.
      - garuda 14y ago
        It's well known that Android has overtaken iOS in terms of the base OS. A hardware advantage that Apple had is almost gone now, so the only thing missing is content. I don't think iOS buyers are fanatics or taken in by marketing because there is more marketing of Android. I think they have been choosing a better product. So, now that hardware and the OS no-longer favor iOS, it's simply down to content providers to make the investment. Technologists bought in to Android because it's open, long before it became the best platform. Why shouldn't content producers do the same?
        Steko 14y ago
        "It's well known that Android has overtaken iOS in terms of the base OS. " This is not well known, although it's an opinion often voiced here. "Why shouldn't content producers do the same?" Because they are not utopian technologists? This article is about a content producer that invested in Android yet failed. Instead of talking about how the content producers need to do more, we should be talking about why this effort failed. Here's a start: when you buy an iphone today the Newsstand is one of a handful of Apps you start with. It's featured and people click on it and then many of them start buying and consuming content. What is the competing experience on Android? I assume there's no equivalent to the standalone Newsstand App installed by default on the phone. I assume they hit Play, which incidentally is terribly named and many customers never click on ever because they think it only leads to pokemon. Then they have to know that Magazines on their Device are a thing now and find them on which may be easy or hard in Play but is still an order of magnitude harder than it is on iOS.
- rbarooah 14y ago
  I doubt that would change things. iOS users are not price sensitive and Apple doesn't make any pretense that content is free. People who buy into the Apple world are choosing to buy into an ecosystem where they are going to have to buy content from a collection of proprietary 'Stores'. Apple is well known for the iTunes store and the App store so it's a conscious choice for their users. Most Android devices (obviously not the highest end ones) are sold on price, and Google as a brand is known for providing free, advertising supported content. It's no great surprise that people who choose that ecosystem expect to get free stuff and don't want to be buying a lot of digital content. If they'd wanted that they'd have bought an iOS device.

igravious 14y ago

But if they had a crappy product for Android is it any wonder that their uptake ratio was so out of kilter? If they had platform feature parity at launch your argument would be valid but they didn't so you cannot draw the conclusion you have drawn.

rbarooah 14y ago
It's not really my conclusion - it's the conclusion from the TWN piece. That said, even though it's not a controlled experiment, the fact that they didn't have feature parity doesn't completely invalidate their experience. 80-1 is a high ratio particularly for a free product that people presumably would have expected to improve over time if they had been interested. See Zaheer's comment on this thread too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4991585 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4991585

garuda 14y ago

Android is Open Source, so it belongs to everyone. Content producers need to do their part alongside developers to make it great, even if that means putting in more investment than supporting a propriety platform like iOS.

eropple 14y ago
> Content producers need to do their part alongside developers to make it great Uh...why? Why should they "do their part" for a platform where they have no users and don't see a likely growth of them? I am an Android user and developer, but I am also realistic.
- garuda 14y ago
  Because that investment will pay off over time as more and more people move to Android, and a platform that isn't controlled by a single company will make innovation easier for everyone.
  - eropple 14y ago
    There's some legwork to do to make the claims you're making. Maybe you should step back and establish niceties like why people who are in their target demos will flock to Android "over time" and quantify how the NPV of investing now will pay off later.
    - garuda 14y ago
      It's well known that Android has overtaken iOS in terms of the base OS. A hardware advantage that Apple had is almost gone now, so the only thing missing is content. I don't think iOS buyers are fanatics or taken in by marketing because there is more marketing of Android. I think they have been choosing a better product. So, now that hardware and the OS no-longer favor iOS, it's simply down to content providers to make the investment. Technologists bought in to Android because it's open, long before it became the best platform. Why shouldn't content producers do the same?
      - Steko 14y ago
        "It's well known that Android has overtaken iOS in terms of the base OS. " This is not well known, although it's an opinion often voiced here. "Why shouldn't content producers do the same?" Because they are not utopian technologists? This article is about a content producer that invested in Android yet failed. Instead of talking about how the content producers need to do more, we should be talking about why this effort failed. Here's a start: when you buy an iphone today the Newsstand is one of a handful of Apps you start with. It's featured and people click on it and then many of them start buying and consuming content. What is the competing experience on Android? I assume there's no equivalent to the standalone Newsstand App installed by default on the phone. I assume they hit Play, which incidentally is terribly named and many customers never click on ever because they think it only leads to pokemon. Then they have to know that Magazines on their Device are a thing now and find them on which may be easy or hard in Play but is still an order of magnitude harder than it is on iOS.
rbarooah 14y ago
I doubt that would change things. iOS users are not price sensitive and Apple doesn't make any pretense that content is free. People who buy into the Apple world are choosing to buy into an ecosystem where they are going to have to buy content from a collection of proprietary 'Stores'. Apple is well known for the iTunes store and the App store so it's a conscious choice for their users. Most Android devices (obviously not the highest end ones) are sold on price, and Google as a brand is known for providing free, advertising supported content. It's no great surprise that people who choose that ecosystem expect to get free stuff and don't want to be buying a lot of digital content. If they'd wanted that they'd have bought an iOS device.