MLB.com CEO: iOS users more likely to purchase content than Android users | Hacker News Reader

MLB.com CEO: iOS users more likely to purchase content than Android users

edibleapple.com

52 pointsanderzole60 comments

The iOS MLB app (especially the iPad variety) is probably my favorite. The Android MLB app is probably my least favorite. It's just ugly ... only does a fraction of what the iOS app does, and provides very little beyond what you can get for free from any number of other sports or baseball apps.

People will pay for quality. Right now, the Android app isn't anywhere near what I'd consider a quality app.

Additionally, if you read the fine print, the android app only works with certain phones, this isn't clearly indicated and a friend ran into this last weekend while on vacation.

Is this MLB.com's fault, limitations of Android, or both?

What limitations would there be on Android, relative to to iOS? I can just think of in-app purchases.

While perhaps limitation is a strong word, it is clear that the development environments/tools/api's for the two platforms are very different. Is it not possible that one is simply better suited to producing high quality apps than the other?

That's a diversion from the original point that iOS users are more willing to pay for apps. Whether it's easier to develop high quality apps for whichever platform, the fact that the iOS app is higher quality is an important factor when that makes the comparison invalid.

Well, I agree that a drastic difference in quality between the two versions of the app invalidates the data from MLB, the grand parent of my post asked why the quality is different between the two. Specifically, wether it is MLB's fault or a deficiency in Android. I think my answer is relevant, and the question, while a diversion from the question here as to wether users from the two platforms approach paying for apps differently, is especially relevant to the deeper question of "which platform should I work on."

You make a very fair point, one that's important to the deeper question.

Sorry if I sounded combative, I was merely trying to point out that (still cogent) point does not say anything about the willingness of Android/iOS users to pay for apps.

Built in content protection for streaming video? I don't know, that's why I asked. I have no experience with the MLB app and limited experience with both iOS and Android.

The quality of bundled apps. Application developers will be influenced by them because they see them before they write the first line of code, use them most likely everyday and are inclined to mimic the user experience. iOS bundled apps are all very decent and are the source of inspiration for most apps in the App Store and the emphasis on user experience across the whole ecosystem. I cannot remember anybody praising stock Andriod apps beyond the GMail client. The (other) built-in email client basically ruins any belief in that Google plays the UX game as half well as Apple.

While I enjoyed last year's app, I'm a little irked by the fact they require iOS 4 this year. I'm still using a 3G and don't really want to upgrade to iOS 4. I understand that sometimes there are reasons they want to put features in an app that requires a more recent OS version, but I don't really see what features those would be with the update for this season.

Also there have been a lot of complaints it seems on iTunes about this year's version for various reasons. Some of them unwarranted, no doubt, but last year the ratings were quite high for a $15 app.

My dad, who is far from being technically-savvy, owns an iPhone (a Christmas gift from my brother and I to our parents.)

He wasn't a fan of the phone at first. Too complicated, too hard to make calls, etc. However, something amazing (considering my dad's, uh, "technological capabilities"...) happened a few weeks ago. He calls me up and asks about his "iTunes password" and whether he had ever set that up. I told him, "yeah we did, and it's probably your e-mail password." He tries it and it works.

I asked him what he needed that for and he replies "I've reached my five song limit for Shazam and want to upgrade."

I was kind of blown away by this. Here is my dad, who can't get drag & drop right, upgrading his free version of Shazam with an in-app purchase. An app, I honestly didn't think he would use that much but found enough value in it, he wanted to pay for the full version...

After that, I walked him through finding more apps on the App store. I warned him though. "The one click purchase makes it easy to go crazy."

While iOS is a smooth experience, I honestly cannot tell what is the substantial difference from Android. Both have the same enter credit card information once, one click purchasing from now on experience.

Beyond the pretty small group of people who don't like giving Google more info/don't trust Google as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, what is so much better about iTunes than Google Checkout?

It's not the tech that makes it better it's the people, as an app developer it's easier to make money on the Apple ecosystem than Google. If I can't make a profit I'm not going to produce for that platform.

Apple's marketing message appeals to a set of consumers who want to buy stuff digitally. Apple has done a bunch of work for me, whereas it's hard to monetize the marketing message of 'open platform'

Again, I think this argument applies to a Hacker News crowd, not the general population. I have seen plenty of Android marketing and I can't remember a single mass market ad that touted openness beyond saying that it runs Flash.

Of course, Google employees have said things to that effect, but that is directed to a separate smaller audience. You won't find that on the sides of buses or on TV. I'd be surprised if more than 10% of Android users know it is open source or even made by Google. I'm trying to find the root of why iOS is more profitable for paid apps. In this particular case, I think it is overcharging for a fairly weak app, but I know this is a larger trend which I can't ascribe to an open platform bias.

I think the issue is developer demographics. When people write an app for Apple, they are in the state of mind that it's going to make Apple love them forever. God, erm... Steve Jobs... says so, and he is really cool. There is lots of eye candy to be had, and everything is a singular unified platform. You use your Apple computer, running Apple software to make stuff for an Apple phone that syncs with Apple iTunes. There is some zen in that that is appealing to the kind of developer that spends thousands of hours on irrelevant details that makes designers with blogs really like your app.

On the other hand, there is Android, where the developers are barely-competent Java programmers that just want to make a few bucks off their weekend project.

The reason for the difference is Steve Jobs. People love him, and he motivates them to write better apps. Android is the same-old-Eclipse that you use for programming projects that actually make money, and that's boring.

(I don't write apps for either platform.)

Sure. But 1. do we see any actual Android marketing on TV or media? We see marketing from the individuals handset makers, but very rarely, or at least I haven't from Google, for the OS, which makes sense in some light.

Contrast that with a lot of the advertising that Apple does, it's not about the phone, it's about the software, experience, and the apps. In print ads, tv ads, etc there is an explicit focus on the content you can buy to create a better experience.

I think that makes a difference.

A large part of it comes from paid apps not being available in all countries. That lead to a lot of ad-supported apps (since the developers couldn't make the app paid), which have become the norm on Android.

Apple's selecting people who are willing to pay extra for a better phone experience. You can get Androids (and I'm an android fan here) in 2-for-1 specials and other discounted means.

In some ways, the fact that android has a solid browser makes the iPhone about apps (and the iPod/iTunes platform). People are paying money to buy a phone to use its applications --- you're gonna find a higher percentage of them willing to pay for it.

Shazam has a five song limit? I'm never upgrading. When did they do that?

I know they've had a five song limit since the iPhone 4 came out. I had the original version, which had unlimited tagging, but when I upgraded to the iPhone 4, I had to re-download the same Shazam app I had installed on my 3G. The same version, the one they said would have unlimited tagging, implemented the 5 song restriction.

There was an outcry from iPhone 3g/3gs users who were forced to upgrade and hit with this limit right around the iPhone 4 launch.

I havent upgraded at all in years (I think that the little icon next to the app store has a forty in it) so I dont understand the limit. Is it five free tags overall or five a month/day etc? I have at least fifty on mine and I tag things almost weekly.

I consider myself pretty high on the chart of "technology-savvy" and trusting when it comes to payment on the Internet.

But for some reason, I won't pay for something inside the Android store. I know Google's behind it and that my stuff is probably safe. But there's just something inherintly shady about the Android store that I can't put my finger on.

I know it's irrational, but imagine how someone who hasn't created apps feels.

I agree 100%. However, I tried the amazon app store and instantly felt better at actually spending money. Somehow it just "feels" less shady.

This is probably all irrational and the Amazon store most likely doesn't address the real issues with the Google run store. But at the same time, I know the next time I want to look for an app, I will go to Amazon first.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that people aren't used to giving money to Google where they are more likely to have a trusted customer-vendor relationship with Amazon.

That being said Google is a well-known and trusted brand so I think something else might be at play here psychologically. Perhaps the public perception of Google's products as being "free" (to them) somehow increases the barrier to becoming a paid customer.

I have not an ounce of evidence to indicate that but I think it could be an interesting topic with big implications for the startup community.

I don't think it has anything to do with people's feelings about Google. Based on the Android owners I know, people who don't make that association strongly seem to respond the same way. The store itself just feels sketchy. I'm pretty sure it's mainly a design issue, although the fact that the iPhone store started off with high-quality stuff while Android Market was seeded with crapware also hurts the perception.

Great point, I'd second that. Could even be due to the fact that Google is used to taking money from businesses, not consumers. Amazon and Apple, consumer-focused companies, probably know how to do a better job at getting us to spend our cash from all their other experience.

My guess (not having used the Amazon store however) is that Android's permissions system is hurting it. Why does that app need location and full network access? So you become suspicious. And so on. While on iOS its automatically given full rights apps get, apart from location, which it asks for at runtime, not install time. So while the iOS app has as much ability to start feeding data home, the fact that the Android app is forced to admit it uses network access leaves us more suspicious.

It doesn't help that many apps have a perfectly legitimate purpose for that network access, to download and display ads.

Actually if you use certain frameworks without good reason in the Apple App Store, you get rejected.

It's a reasonable guess, but it would apply to free apps, too. (Even more, in fact, since they're usually ad-supported, which means they require Net access and probably your location.)

"But for some reason, I won't pay for something inside the Android store."

It could be one of several things, which would actually vary from person to person, but all leading to paltry returns for _most_ Android developers vs. iOS.

1) The "perceived value" proposition - To a user, Google is "the search engine" and Android "the mobile OS", but they're both free to use. In a consumer's mind, why wouldn't then _everything_ else, including the Marketplace apps, be free. It doesn't help matters that Rovio's runaway blockbuster cultural gamechanger shared timesink app Angry birds is free on Android (albeit with ads).

2) The blatant, flagrant, rampant, money-maker shaking heaps of copyright theft and IP violations that make it to the top of the Marketplace lists. It makes the whole thing feel like a grey market bazaar in old Morocco or Bangkok - just sketchy as all hell. How could I entrust my credit card with a service that allows GPL violators and copyright flouters to rise to the _very tippy top_ of the charts? I mean, alot of that has changed since Google started putting the screws on very obvious scofflaws like Nintendo emulator game ROM packs, Star Wars weapon simulators, and famous rapper soundboards. But the die may be cast for some of the old-school adopters.

3) The weird availability - Android phone users had to pirate Marketplace apps from day one if they didn't come from the US. Now they're expected to _pay_ for stuff? Sorry, but once you've told them it's free, it's free for a loooong time. Hell, Napster all taught us way back that music "wanted to be free". It's taken over a decade for paid music to come back into some semblance of making any money; coincidentally, it's via Apple's iTunes.

I bought a Nexus one recently and while browsing for apps on the market saw many apps just listing every keyword from the dictionary in their description to get some keyword juice. Its similar to the keyword list you find in CL ads. Of course it turns you off that app but also does not make you feel good about the store itself.

How about there is no Honeycomb version of At Bat, but there is an iPad and iPhone/iPod version. Basically, they don't support Android the same way they support iOS. I have both and iPad and a Xoom, but I only purchased the iPad version because there is no Honeycomb version.

I'm curious: Do you find you use the iPad more because of that one app? Or, is the iPad strictly used for At Bat, and the rest of your time (email, browsing, etc.) used on the Xoom?

I know Apple likes to advertise how many apps they have, but you're the first person that I've seen who has claimed to purchase hardware based on app availability...

I think most people would choose hardware based on App availability. So, for baseball, absolutely. The iPad has a better tablet version of At Bat 11.

In more general terms, I'm still figuring my use patterns out. I've had the iPad since it came out in Mar 2010. I've had a Xoom since the WiFi model came out in Mar 2011. To be as objective as possible, I'd still tell my non tech savvy friends and family to go with the iPad. The whole experience (not just hardware specs) is smoother.

Right now, the Xoom is fun, but a lot of what I use the iPad for is not available yet. Netflix, Hulu, and Zinio are all either not working at all or require hacks. I thrive on figuring out how to make that stuff work, but my parents do not. Since this is a post about MLB, I'll leave my deeper thought on the subject for a later post.

Very interesting! Thanks for the reply!

This applies to apps too. Here my simple logic.

Android phones are available for free from carriers. Thus, the typical Android buy is more price sensitive. They are more likely to choose free content & apps.

iPhone customers don't get FREE iPhones. They are willing to pay $200+ for a phone and contract. Their willingness to pay for apps & content is higher than Android users.

Just look at Angry Birds. It's FREE on the Android store, but charged for on the iOS store.

Just look at Angry Birds. It's FREE on the Android store, but charged for on the iOS store.

But it's 99 cents on the Amazon Android store: http://www.amazon.com/Rovio-Mobile-Angry-Birds-Ad-Free/dp/B0...

Maybe I've missed it, but has Amazon actually released any sales numbers from its store? So far, it seems to me like little more than a curiosity. The difficulty of installation alone will rule out most customers.

Isn't that true of anything? "Why would people trust Amazon to run their data center?" "Why would people wait for books to be shipped when they could just go to the bookstore?"

Fact is, everything new and different is new and different at first. But that fades away quite quickly.

Sorry, I think the way I backed into my point has confused you. I'm not saying, "Amazon's store is new and different. Why would people use it?" What I mean to say is: "I don't have any reason to believe many people are currently using Amazon's store. It seems unlikely. Since (as far as we can tell) this store is currently not successful, and its lack of success is quite possibly due to factors other than price, its pricing doesn't reveal much about what people are willing to pay." And that is not true of everything.

The difficulty is definitely an issue currently. But Amazon have shown willingness to get involved in the hardware market.

An Amazon (or Kindle?) branded Android tablet with the Amazon store and music locker service is starting to be more and more likely.

That still doesn't mean their current pricing strategy will turn out to be successful.

Neither Android phones, nor Angry birds are "free". One is subsidized by years long contracts, and the other is ad-supported. If these things are really affecting sales then it's mostly psychological, which is interesting in itself.

Recent surveys in the UK by YouGov suggest iPhone users are poorer and manage money less well than Android or Blackberry users, but also that the people who use their phone 4+ hours a day are more often found on the iOS platform. This is an interesting reversal of the common wisdom that Android is the home of freetards and geeks. But an audience of geeks with poor impulse control over their spending sounds pretty good, even if they're relatively poor.

Do you have a link to the survey results? I can only find links to the Daily Mail which seems to be hand picking results. I ask because it really doesn't gel with my own observations in London at all. Nearly everyone I know running Android is either a technology enthusiast, price sensitive or both.

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/yg-...

I'm not in London, for me the geeks/normal split oseems fairly even between iPhone and Android e.g. a female, non-tech colleague who went into the store wanting something with a hardware keyboard and came out raving about Swype while my tech colleagues all have iPhones.

According to those results, 31% of android users are earning £10-20,000 vs 13% for iPhone. In the £20-30,000 category the positions are reversed. On the other hand, Symbian users seem to be even more affluent so I'm not sure this proves anything.

"iPhone customers don't get FREE iPhones. They are willing to pay $200+ for a phone and contract. Their willingness to pay for apps & content is higher than Android users."

Exactly. They have shown their willingness to spend their disposable income on their phone.

iPhone users are a marketer's dream. Hence why ads on the platform will also generate a higher ecpm than Android.

One other thing about the iPhone is that Apple has much more uniform and confident marketing as a single company than Android has being spread across the industry. That means if I buy an app now, I feel sure I'll be able to use it for years to come on whatever new iPhone I have at the time. I feel confident investing in my mobile app library. I bought a $100 GPS app on the iPhone because I believe I'll be able to to use it for the next 5 years at least. That's value. If I could only be sure I would be able to use it till I got a phone upgrade, I wouldn't have bought it. With Android, (I have an Android phone too) it's not so clear to me that when I buy an app I'll still be able to have that same app on my phone in 5-10 years with whatever phone I have at the time. Maybe other people feel differently, but I'm not sure who I'm putting my confidence in with Android. Google doesn't control what handsets are made, so I can't just put my confidence in them, and A lot of the mobile carriers have hinted at building their own OS, etc, so I could see Android growing out of favor. This may be very unlikely, but I just don't feel as confident about it, so I don't feel I can invest in my software library like I can with the iPhone.

My thoughts exactly. Even Verizon's commercials highlight "This and thousands of other free apps..."

Experience in this space with my company is much the same. iOS outsold our Android version 7 to 1 and the iOS app was out for less than half the time.

Android might be taking the numbers lead but if I was a developer and I only had the resources to do 1 platform iOS would win easily.

"Android phones are available for free from carriers."

I can't find a way to interpret this statement and have it be true.

There is no fee to use the o.s. The devices cost the carriers a great deal. They purchase them in bulk from the oems and then sell them to customers. The cost is then recovered over the life of the contract.

This is why it's hard to know exactly how many windows phones are active in the ecosystem. The only public data is the bulk sales to carriers by oems.

Wrt your other points, I don't have any nits to pick. :)

While there are some 'free' (subsidized over two years) android phones available, most of those are low-performance devices more akin to feature phones. Those purchasers may indeed be less likely to buy apps due to spending habits. But there are plenty of Android phones above $200, even on contract. And a 3GS can now be had for $49.

I think it's also that Android users tend to use their phones more as solely communications devices (FB, Twitter, news, email) and less as an 'app console' device, for lack of a better description.

Only in the U.S. though - here in Australia, most carriers offer a free iPhone with a 2 year contract (e.g. you can get a 16GB iPhone 4 on a $54/month two year contract with no upfront fee).

And we don't have to pay for incoming calls on our mobiles here.

MLB.tv is the only subscription service (that I'm aware of) that charges for the app as well. And they do it inconsistently.

I paid I think $120-$130, somewhere in that range, for MLB.tv, however I need to pay an additional $15 to get it on my Android phone and an additional $15 to get it on my iPad. However on Roku I pay no additional cost for the app, and on the web I pay no additional cost.

I bought the iPad app because I felt I would be more likely to use it, when laying in bed and such. On the phone I would probably only use it in rare situations and so it's just not worth it for me.

Is any one aware of another subscription that has this type of price model?

This is exactly my issue with the At Bat app. I already pay for MLB.tv which plays video in Flash and I have a flash capable Android phone. I don't understand why I should have to pay extra for the app just to watch video. However, last time I checked I was blocked from watching content on my phone.

Unless I'm missing something, even with an MLB.tv subscription, the Android app doesn't provide that feature.

Be careful about generalizing too far from the MLB experience. As has been discussed over and over, the Android experience for video locked down by DRM is sorely lacking. iOS has a single unified video DRM scheme while different carriers and handset makers seem to be going different ways on Android. Hence, the MLB app's video is only available for 11 phones so far, there's no official Netflix client for any yet and so on. The fact that MLB makes 5 times more from iOS users is partially explained by the fact that all iOS users can buy the app but only a small portion of Android users.

However, not sure that should apply to the entire spectrum of apps. Rovio has said it's making the same on both platforms and the Pocket Legends folks say they make more on Android. Not to say that Android is equal to iOS in app monetization, which it's surely not, but there are signs that it's catching up in some segments. Video, however, is not one of those areas.

Why the Amazon App store is revolutionary by Matt Maroon:

http://mattmaroon.com/2011/03/31/why-the-amazon-app-store-is...

I recently switched from iPhone to an Android and I am definitely less willing to pay for apps. To me its all about the pricing.

Going through a list of apps on the first page of the android market I see prices of: $8.05, $7.99, $2.89, $0.99, $9.99, $14.26, $5.99, $2.99.

A random selection from the iTunes app store: $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $0.99, $4.99, $2.99.

To me, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one, a $3 app is 20x more expensive than a $1 app. There are few iPhone apps that cost more than $1 and its rare to find one more than $5. This pricing makes me feel like the android marketplace is a huge ripoff, so there is almost no chance of me buying an app for $15. When I buy an app that sucks on the iPhone market I only lose $1 which in turn makes me feel better about future purchases.

Funny, thats the same argument ("feels like a ripoff") that stops me buying Apple hardware.

Wait ... he says he gets 5 x the sales on iOS but then drops this line:

> MLB recently expanded the number of supported handsets from 6 to 11

So out of literally hundreds of Android handsets on the market they supported 6?!!?! And they wonder why their Android sales are not very good? Am I missing something here?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com