I started a list several months ago of iOS-first applications that had everything to gain from launching on #Android but seemingly just decided not to. Far from complete, and probably like the third post I had ever written on anything, but it was a start. Anyways, this morning on All About Android I heard about this guy who tried to elucidate the point in probably the most smug way possible. The tone makes me feel like he would carry hand sanitizer around just in case he accidentally touched an HTC One. So here is my attempt to FJM this whole thing.
1. "In the US, iOS market share is still extremely strong (even pre-iPhone 5s launch data showed Android having peaked, so Q4 data will be interesting with Apple’s refresh)
Well, since you aren’t going to bother with data, I guess I will: Android covers 52% of the US market to iOS’s 40%. But, if you want to go anecdotally too, I know someone who is dropping iOS entirely because of a gamebreaking iOS7 bug that neither AT&T nor Apple has remedied. This makes me doubt that #iOS will make up that 12% gap in Q4.
Since the vast majority of innovative mobile startups come out of the US, Apple’s stronghold domestically has an absolutely massive impact on developer mindshare
Yes, there are a lot of US startups, because there are a lot of US VCs with a lot of disposable income. Apple’s “stronghold” doesn’t impact developer mindshare, it impacts VC mindshare, because they fall into iOS’s affluent demographic. It is a status symbol to them. That doesn’t make it better or easier to develop for.
2. All of my conversations over the past year with Android developers… building and releasing on Android costs 2-3x more than iOS.
Ok, anecdotal again. Here’s an anecdote: Any.DO (just featured on The Verge for inspiring the design of iOS7 you love so much) started… on Android! DUN DUN DUN! It built up the hype there before hitting iOS, and I would say it worked out well for them.
3. The effort required to build and release an app is severely gated by capital-raising…
4. These structural limitations around capital raising for venture-backed companies…
*yawn* First world problems. You don’t even use the word ‘mobile’ (let alone ‘iOS’) until #5.
5. To build a mobile app with $1M in capital, a startup can roughly afford to hire one designer, one client developer (iOS or Android) and one back end engineer
Here is the bias. You know who had more than one of each of these (and definitely more capital)? Twitter, after buying Vine. They had nearly 3 months to at least add viewing capability for their Android client before its public release, which was already iOS-only anyway. But maybe that is a bad example. Again, Any.DO shows that you can do Android just as well with the same ‘constraints’.
6. Almost zero startups are going Android-first under these constraints. Why? Because founders know they have an extremely high bar to prove traction on the primary platform, before they can raise additional financing and accelerate into two platforms
Again, this is a fallacy - see my answer to #2 again. Unless you think the “extremely high bar” is somehow lower on iOS. And it might be, when you have (generally) affluent guys paying (generally) affluent guys to create an app for a platform used by (generally) affluent people. It would be hard to get that kind of ‘vision’ to sync across stages of development on platforms with a more diverse base of users.
7. So it’s well known in tech circles today that seed round sizes constrain app development to a single primary platform.
Ok, that may be a point. My broken-record answer of Any.DO did start on only one platform, and most others start on the other platform. But in general, I would ignore any sentence featuring the phrase ‘it’s well known in tech circles’, much like ‘quantum mechanics.’
And startups are choosing to go iOS first not only because development is cheaper and easier, but also because money for in-app purchases and advertising is overwhelmingly skewed toward iOS
This may be true. Once again, I will do your research for you, instead of relying on ‘tech circles’ - Play Store revenue is up to 35% of global app revenue market share, leaving Apple with a huge advantage. It may never be on par with Apple here, but it is hard to compete with an install base of (generally) affluent (generally) white users.
In fact, a recent study of Facebook ads shows ads were 1,790% more profitable on iOS. This is extremely incriminating for Android and is the worst kind of news for Google.
What do Facebook ads have to do with anything? I see Facebook ads on my Galaxy Note 2, and they suck because they are not relevant to me, so I don’t click on them. I only see them in the Facebook app, which is not made by a startup, and probably launched on both platforms as quickly as humanly possible. It is not bad news for Google, it is bad news for Facebook on Android.
You want incriminating? Ad revenue generated on iOS has fallen 11% in market share since last year, while Android has remained steady. I didn’t even have to use a ridiculously large number from a third party that has nothing to do with my overall point.
8. Since iOS better supports startups’ ability to prove metrics requisite for raising Series A rounds from institutional investors, the earliest most innovative services are almost always available first on iOS.
The metrics you gave in #3 were: significant traction, repeatable user acquisition strategy, early ideas toward monetization, etc. What do those have to do with platform at all? Download counts and active users are easily found in the Play Store and its developer console. User acquisition is definitely platform agnostic, and if anything, Android users can get the word out about a new app they are using with the built-in share menu that is light years ahead of iOS. And - repeat - see #2 to show it can be done.
9. … often these startups become acquihires for the top mobile acquirers (FB, Google, Apple, Yahoo, Dropbox, etc). Because they are almost always shutdown at acquihire, big companies often have some of the most talented iOS engineers and product people in residence for a 1 to 2 year earn-out period. Without a doubt, these employees skew toward iOS when they join internal projects or think up new ideas. And when they eventually leave, there is a good chance they’ll stick with iOS again. There is no doubt this forms a sort of virtuous circle of iOS-first talent in the startup community.
This is a symptom, not a cause. You can substitute Android for iOS in that paragraph, and it would be a symptom of Android-first, not the cause of it. And why is this ‘virtuous’? Did you mean to type ‘vicious,’ but your iPhone keyboard autocorrected it? A little Freudian if you ask me.
While in theory Android provides a very modern platform for mobile development,
Gravity is also a theory.
Startups simply cannot afford to bypass iOS and go Android out of the gate. One could even argue the gap is widening.
The gap is widening only in the minds of people like you. You perpetuate this stereotype, and this is the reason companies that are not startups, like Nike, completely skip over half the mobile market in favor of the first choice among the (generally) affluent ‘tech circles.’
The reality is that software innovation at the app layer is accelerating, and converged hardware / software development costs a lot of money.
It is accelerating because there is competition. And starting on a certain platform before moving to another does cost money, but that is not a reason to start on the same platform every time. The startup issue is a chicken and egg scenario, and nothing is going to change until VCs start laying their eggs on the other side of the proverbial fence.