KNOWLEDGE SHARING: VisionMobile Report Reveals Developer Attitudes & Operator Opportunities » mobilegroove

In brief: MSG kicks off a new series showcasing must-read sites and resources with a look at VisionMobile, a premier destination for mobile industry market analysis and advisory services. The new report, Mobile developer Economics 2010 and Beyond, based on a survey of 400+ developers, provides a wide range of insights into what developers demand and how the industry must respond.

The advance of the app store changes all the rules. But who would have thought that the arrival of this new business ecosystem would shift the balance so blatantly in favor of new platforms (primarily Android and Apple) and new players (Google)?

The must-read report from VisionMobile – the first to document developer attitudes and gripes – indicates that mobile app developers are breaking out in new directions after years of struggling with established platforms (such as Java and Symbian) and established players (mobile operators and OEMs).

ANDROID MINDSHARE

This key finding that should alarm bells ringing in boardrooms across the mobile industry.

“In the last two years, a mindshare migration has taken place, with mobile developers moving away from “incumbent” platforms, namely Symbian, Java ME and Windows Phone. The large minority (20-25 percent) of Symbian respondents who sell their apps via iPhone and Android app stores reveals the brain-drain that is taking place towards these newer platforms. The vast majority of Java ME respondents have lost faith in the write-once-run-anywhere vision. Moreover, anecdotal developer testimonials suggest that half of Windows Phone MVP developers (valued for their commitment to the platform) carry an iPhone, and would think twice before re-investing in Windows Phone.”

So, is Android the mindshare leader?

It sure looks it. The survey suggests that nearly 60 percent of all mobile developers recently developed on Android, with iOS (Apple iPhone) coming in a second. Both outrank Symbian and Java ME, which held the pole position in 2008.

Why the overall shift from platform incumbents (such as Symbian) to platform newcomers (Apple and Android)? VisionMobile points out that developers are trying to make money with their apps, so market penetration (addressable market) and monetization models (paid apps) are deciding factors.

Another reason could be platform complexity. VisionMobile’s benchmarks show that a Symbian developer needs to write almost three times more code than an Android developer, and twice as much code as an iPhone developer.

Combine that hassle with the significant differences in time-to-shelf for apps (24 days for Apple, 33 for Android and over 54 days for Symbian) and it’s easy to see why mobile app developers are voting with their feet.

Time-to-payment also plays in favor of the app store model and the platform owners that run them. And no wonder! Developers that choose to sell their apps via an app store generally get paid within a month of the application. On average it takes 55 days to get paid via an operator channel, 69 days to get paid when the app is preloaded by the operator an incredible 168 days (5.5 months) to get paid when the developer preloads the app via a handset maker.

Interestingly, the pay-per-download monetization model is the first pick for most developers (used by two-thirds of respondents). Despite the hype ad-funded apps are very distant second.

MOBILE OPERATOR OBSTACLE

Only 20 percent of respondents are using the mobile operators as a channel to market. Realistically, what role can the mobile operator possibly play in the emerging app economy?

Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of developers feel operators are bit-pipes that should clear the way for other ecosystem players. As one opinionated developer put it: “Operators should get out of the way of developers.” It may sound harsh, but it’s easy to understand this sentiment if we recall the miserable track record most mobile operators have in supporting their developers.

Kudos to VisionMobile for retracing this history and correctly observing that there are serious differences in the core ecosystems. The Internet/PC ecosystem has been about enabling developers to differentiate. Apple and Android take this to the next level. Meantime, the embedded software ecosystem has been about allowing handset makers differentiate. Mobile operators and handset makers continue to put their own differentiation first. Against this backdrop, mobile developers are taking matters (and marketing) into their own hands.

Indeed, the rise of the app stores has also impacted go-to-market strategies. Operator portals and on-device preloading through OEM or operator deals, once the preferred and popular channel to the consumer, are used by less than five percent of developers surveyed.

In fact, the vast majority of developers now uses native app stores (run by the handset maker) or offers their apps via a direct download from their own websites. Interestingly, Apple and Android app stores are the crowd-pleasers, with only 5 percent of Java and just over 10 percent of Windows Phone developers using app stores as a primary distribution channel. Java ME developers also use independent app store GetJar as a channel, followed by Nokia’s Ovi Store.

But it’s not easy money. VisionMobile finds that a minority of developers (five percent) reported very good revenues for their work. 24 percent said their revenues were poor and 27 percent said their revenues were as projected. (This dovetails with the recent post/rant from mobile authority Tomi Ahonen. He did the math and concludes the average developers will break even in about ten years.)

VisionMobile explains this could be due to platform-specific issues such as payment and refund policy. Android Market supports paid apps in only 13 of the 46 countries where it is available to users. What’s more, Android allows users to return an app for refund after 24 hours, a policy that Bango CEO Ray Anderson says spells trouble for developers wanting to track customers and calculate sales. [Listen to this no-holds-barred podcast here.]

POOR OPINION, RICH OPPORTUNITY

While developers may have a low opinion of mobile operators, their biggest business challenges (payment and content discovery through improved personalization and premium placement) could actually be solved by working more closely with mobile operators.

Sure, most developers think operators are a hindrance instead of a help. But ask them what support they need – or would be willing to pay for – and the answers place the mobile operator back in the center of the action.

Developers want – and would pay for – access to APIs. The same goes for marketing support. Specifically, half of respondents would be willing to pay for premium app store placement. And we have another confirmation that personalization and recommendation would go a long way toward helping app developers tackle the content discovery dilemma, allowing them to rise above the noise and expose their applications to the right customer segments.

MY TAKE

Connect the dots in this milestone report and it’s clear there are business models and approaches that would pay dividends for everyone in the ecosystem. It’s up to mobile operators to rebuild developer trust, abandon their command-and-control strategies and adopt a coordinate-and-cultivate approach. Payment, personalization and placement are sure-fire ways mobile operators can create value and keep their place at the table.

What’s at stake? I leave you with a quote from the report (via Peter-Paul Koch at www.quiksmode.org) that says it best: “The first mobile company to TRULY reach out to web developers will have an edge over the competition, but right now I don’t see any candidates. Except for Google, obviously. (And Apple, but they’re playing their own game.) If Google became an operator our problems would be solved.”

Disclaimer: Peggy Anne Salz is a VisionMobile Associate.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 6th, 2010 at 3:19 pm and is filed under Content Discovery, Mobile Research, Personalization, Recommendation, Usability, White Papers. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.