Digital readers are evil

[Colin YNWA]

In a more general sense, though, the trend is obvious. I was so glad when Rebellion put out its 2000 AD iPad app, because I was concerned the company might be not pushing into an area that's becoming increasingly important.

As I'm sure you all know already I speak from a position of absolute ignorance, but its never stopped me.

The thing is with that Rebellion do seem highly bias towards Apple (I'm right in saying you can't get the 2000ad App on Android right? At least I failed to this X-Mas if not). Now I think this is cos to develop for Apple means developing one thing that works on multiple Apple platforms (right? Damn this is going to turn into a string of questions!). To develop for Android is far more complex as it has to work on so many different platforms that have different variations (right???).

The thing is though as a consumer most won't care about this and will pick the higher end product based on that product rather than whether a specific app is available for it... so what I'm saying, or asking really, is Rebellion making a mistake not getting an Android app out to go with the Apple one in a more timely fashion?

Or do comic readers all tend to go for Apples? What proportion of the market do Apple have, compared to Android, in my head I haver the figure 40% but I have NO idea really?

[Molch-R]

We're not biased towards Apple - it's just an easier and less fragmented market to develop for and reach. Android apps required shedloads of optimization work because of the huge number of devices (we know about this - we've been optimizing Judge Dredd vs. Zombies for a year now) and it comes down to the fact that Apple user spend far and away more than Android users do. Proportionally they may outnumber Apple users, but their markets and stores are all over the place. The returns are simply higher on Apple.

It's also worth bearing in mind that Apple Newsstand provides us with a lot of the developing legwork already done, for high returns. An Android app would have to be built from the ground up for a smaller return. So I hope you can understand the business logic at work here.

[radiator]

Am I right in saying that you can get 2000ad on Android, but just not via the App?

[Molch-R]

Am I right in saying that you can get 2000ad on Android, but just not via the App?

Yep, all the comics available through our online store are Android-and-other-tablets-that-can-read-PDFs friendly.

[IndigoPrime]

For anyone who wants more insight into mobile app development, it's worth reading the BBC's experiences with its iPlayer and Sports apps. (Those are just two articles—there have been plenty more.) In the latter case, the iOS is coming out first; in the former case, the iOS app had more functionality and it's taking a long time to get the Android one to feature parity.

Predictably, the comments of such articles are full of Android users whining, entirely ignoring the BBC's points. These centre on the fragmentation that Molch-R mentioned, but it goes further than that—in the BBC's case, the team's mentioned plenty of times that it spends more resources on Android than iOS, but manages to achieve less due to system issues (not least video playback, but also other things). Coupled with Molch-R's point about Android users en masse spending significantly less than iOS users per head and you have a recipe for risk, especially if you're not a company like EA or Rovio who can just fling resources at the wall to see what sticks. (This is also something I've heard first-hand from a large number of devs, not least indie's who've found iOS's piracy issues nothing compared to rampant bootlegging on Android, and the relatively low number of people on Android willing to pay for anything.)

In terms of the overall market-share, which Colin asked about, that varies wildly, depending on what figures you believe. In smartphones, however, Android outpaces iOS about 2:1. However, all new Apple devices have the same OS, and at least the last two revisions of each device can upgrade freely. Devs state the uptake of the new OS is astonishingly fast. Android, however, has a huge number of devices, all with different capabilities, and a range of operating systems, based on different flavours of Android. From a development standpoint, Android is therefore much costlier.

Also, sales aren't the only figure. I write a lot for design and tech mags, and reports regularly show the disconnect between sales (or at least shipped units) and usage. At all points, web traffic from iOS significantly outperforms web traffic from iOS. Income from apps also outperforms Android. The only realistic conclusion is that while there are far more Android users, plenty of them use their devices much like dumbphones, rather than as computers and media players. This makes Android's pure numbers advantage significantly smaller than it would first appear. On tablets, the market's the other way around. The iPad sells more than everything else combined, and you've the added complication of one of the most popular Android tablets, the Kindle Fire, not really being Android per se at all.

I'm not sure how this will all shake out. I hope we end up with a number of major players, all driving each other on. The last thing we need in tech is another Microsoft Windows era, with one hugely dominant player essentially taking all. But right now, it's pretty clear Apple's platform is the first and most important place to go for any company that wants a shot at making some money, and that's why they do so.

EDIT: Also read Rory Cellan-Jones on Answers about Android.

[Proudhuff]

So I hope you can understand the business logic at work here.

This is the INTERNET, what the feck are you thinking?

[The Prodigal]

For anyone who wants more insight into mobile app development, it's worth reading the BBC's experiences with its iPlayer and Sports apps. (Those are just two articles—there have been plenty more.) In the latter case, the iOS is coming out first; in the former case, the iOS app had more functionality and it's taking a long time to get the Android one to feature parity.

Predictably, the comments of such articles are full of Android users whining, entirely ignoring the BBC's points. These centre on the fragmentation that Molch-R mentioned, but it goes further than that—in the BBC's case, the team's mentioned plenty of times that it spends more resources on Android than iOS, but manages to achieve less due to system issues (not least video playback, but also other things). Coupled with Molch-R's point about Android users en masse spending significantly less than iOS users per head and you have a recipe for risk, especially if you're not a company like EA or Rovio who can just fling resources at the wall to see what sticks. (This is also something I've heard first-hand from a large number of devs, not least indie's who've found iOS's piracy issues nothing compared to rampant bootlegging on Android, and the relatively low number of people on Android willing to pay for anything.)

In terms of the overall market-share, which Colin asked about, that varies wildly, depending on what figures you believe. In smartphones, however, Android outpaces iOS about 2:1. However, all new Apple devices have the same OS, and at least the last two revisions of each device can upgrade freely. Devs state the uptake of the new OS is astonishingly fast. Android, however, has a huge number of devices, all with different capabilities, and a range of operating systems, based on different flavours of Android. From a development standpoint, Android is therefore much costlier.

Also, sales aren't the only figure. I write a lot for design and tech mags, and reports regularly show the disconnect between sales (or at least shipped units) and usage. At all points, web traffic from iOS significantly outperforms web traffic from iOS. Income from apps also outperforms Android. The only realistic conclusion is that while there are far more Android users, plenty of them use their devices much like dumbphones, rather than as computers and media players. This makes Android's pure numbers advantage significantly smaller than it would first appear. On tablets, the market's the other way around. The iPad sells more than everything else combined, and you've the added complication of one of the most popular Android tablets, the Kindle Fire, not really being Android per se at all.

I'm not sure how this will all shake out. I hope we end up with a number of major players, all driving each other on. The last thing we need in tech is another Microsoft Windows era, with one hugely dominant player essentially taking all. But right now, it's pretty clear Apple's platform is the first and most important place to go for any company that wants a shot at making some money, and that's why they do so.

EDIT: Also read Rory Cellan-Jones on Answers about Android.

I can say with all honesty that I did not understand a word of this.

[IndigoPrime]

I can say with all honesty that I did not understand a word of this.

Android is harder to develop for than iPhone/iPad, and Android users spend less money per head and are less likely to use their devices for tasks other than phone calls and text messaging. Therefore, companies concentrate on iPhone/iPad, even though Android has higher sales. Better?

[Jim_Campbell]

Android is harder to develop for than iPhone/iPad, and Android users spend less money per head and are less likely to use their devices for tasks other than phone calls and text messaging. Therefore, companies concentrate on iPhone/iPad, even though Android has higher sales. Better?

Yep. To reinforce this... I've worked for two companies starting up in digital comics who've both been pilloried by fans for "favouring" Apple with an iOS release months ahead of an Android one. But, misplaced sense of entitlement notwithstanding, how hard is it to understand this business decision:

1) All other things being equal, given finite development resources, you'll want to develop product for the platform that provably delivers more paying customers. This not fanboy rhetoric; as IP says -- iOS users demonstrably spend more money via their platform than Android users.

2) All other things are NOT equal, because developing for Android means hitting multiple hardware and software configurations.

So... expend more development resources to target the platform that (in the tablet market) delivers minority market share and (in both phone and tablet markets) delivers a fraction of the revenue from paid downloads.

Rocket science, this is not.

Cheers

Jim

[The Prodigal]

I can say with all honesty that I did not understand a word of this.

Android is harder to develop for than iPhone/iPad, and Android users spend less money per head and are less likely to use their devices for tasks other than phone calls and text messaging. Therefore, companies concentrate on iPhone/iPad, even though Android has higher sales. Better?

You're as sound as they come Indigo. Thank you.

[TordelBack]

So ... expend more development resources to target the platform that [...] delivers minority market share and [...] delivers a fraction of the revenue from paid downloads.

Speaking as an Apple user since the mid 80's, I hope Steve Jobs appreciated this irony as much as I do.

[Jon]

Whether for books or comics, newspapers or magazines, they lack the tactile longevity of paper. You can't take an eReader in the bath. You can't flick its pages and smell times gone past. You can't toss it in a bag and be sure it will be readable. You can't share it with someone you know will like it.

They are the work of the devil.

I always read your scripts on my Kindle or iPad.

[NorthVox]

As for comics, definitely hard copy kind of guy, though that being said, I do now prefer to read novels on my kindle. Read the Dredd: City Fathers on there, and I must say being able to easily scroll from page to page, or having the damn thing read it out to me in a robot voice when my eyes were too tired to carry on definitely appealed to my lazier side.

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

eReaders are no doubt perfectly decent as a technology, I cannot bring myself to touch them though. They seem artless and soulless to me.

When, and if, I ever have to make the leap, it will be to an iPad app, no question. Integrated hardware and software is the only way to deliver a decent user experience. The Android approach is basically a replication of what Windows did on home computers, and it has been shit for the whole PC era. We don't want our smartphones and tablets hobbled the same way.

[Mardroid]

I find it works pretty well on  my Nexus 7!

Oh, there's nothing quite like a proper paper comic and bigger is better for e-viewing comics (in which case there's the Ipad-rivalling-but-much-cheaper Nexus 10) but as a balance between readability and portability it works very well. One of the best purchases I've made I reckon. And the size issue isn't much of an issue at all once you get into the story.