
MLB.com CEO: iOS users more likely to purchase content than Android users - anderzole
http://www.edibleapple.com/mlb-ceo-bob-bowman-ios-more-likely-purchase-content-than-android-users/
======
uptown
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.

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

~~~
usaar333
What limitations would there be on Android, relative to to iOS? I can just
think of in-app purchases.

~~~
macrael
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?

~~~
joebadmo
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.

~~~
macrael
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."

~~~
joebadmo
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.

------
j79
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."

~~~
Kylekramer
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?

~~~
fleitz
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'

~~~
Kylekramer
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.

~~~
dailyrorschach
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.

------
jeffclark
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.

~~~
Macha
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.

~~~
gte910h
Actually if you use certain frameworks without good reason in the Apple App
Store, you get rejected.

------
shuchton
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.

~~~
j79
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...

~~~
shuchton
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.

~~~
j79
Very interesting! Thanks for the reply!

------
amitraman1
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.

~~~
jrockway
_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...](http://www.amazon.com/Rovio-Mobile-Angry-
Birds-Ad-Free/dp/B004SBQGHS/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1301937710&sr=8-7)

~~~
chc
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.

~~~
jrockway
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.

~~~
chc
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.

------
MatthewPhillips
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?

~~~
nomad2986
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.

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

------
apress
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.

------
mhb
Why the Amazon App store is revolutionary by Matt Maroon:

[http://mattmaroon.com/2011/03/31/why-the-amazon-app-store-
is...](http://mattmaroon.com/2011/03/31/why-the-amazon-app-store-is-
revolutionary/)

------
lojack
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.

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

------
zmmmmm
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?

