Yesterday, T-Mobile stocked their stores with G1 handset, the first smartphone to feature Google's mobile operating system "Android." Along with the device itself, the Google Android Market also went live. There, developers are offering a number of applications for installation on the new phone. However, the Android Market isn't the only place to get apps. Both Handango and MobiHand have app stores of their own. Will this open ecosystem be good for the "Google phone" or will it lead to consumer confusion?
One of the biggest differences between Google's Android and Apple's iPhone is the open nature of the Android ecosystem. Although consumers see the G1 as a direct competitor to the iPhone, comparing the two is really like apples (ha!) and oranges. Apple manufactures both the hardware and the software for the iPhone, whereas Google only provides the mobile OS itself. A more apt comparison would be to compare Android to Windows Mobile. And given the rise of multiple sites for Android apps, that comparison is now more applicable than ever.
Of course, the main source for finding new Android apps is the official Google Android Market. Similar to Apple's App Store, this site currently features around 50 applications for Android phones. We've written about a few of these already, including BooRah (restaurant search), imeem (streaming music), and MySpace's mobile app. We're also fans of WikiMobile (a Wikipedia app), iSkoot (Skype VoIP calls), Shazam (media player), ShopSavvy (barcode scanner/shopping assistant), TuneWiki (media player), iMap (weather maps), and wertago (for finding stuff to do). And pre-launch, we picked out some early favorites when we listed 10 Android apps we would actually use.
Compared to the clean, minimalist look of the Android Market, the Handango Android app site is downright ugly. Most of the apps here aren't free, but you still might find something you'll want to try. Some that look interesting include the GoogHelper which helps you launch various types of internet searches, the Fast Food Calorie Counter, for healthy eating on the go, or the an all-in-one IM app for instant messaging via AIM, iChat, MSN/Live Messenger, ICQ, Yahoo!, Jabber, and Google Talk.
Also launched yesterday was the MobiHand Android app store called OnlyAndroid.com. This store features both free and paid applications. OnlyAndroid is available both on the desktop and from the mobile phone itself in order to support OTA installation of their apps. Some of the featured applications at launch include games like Freecell and Par 72 Golf II and FotMob, an app for sports scores.
We noticed that the MobiHand store features some apps that were also found on Handango's site, like the GoogHelper app and the FotMob app, for example. However, on OnlyAndroid, GoogHelper was $3.95 whereas Handango sold it for $4.95. FotMob, on the other hand, was free on Handango but was $7.99 on OnlyAndroid.
Uh-oh! It's only one day into Android being publicly available and already there are three different places to shop for apps? Google's Android Market will feature free apps at first, with paid apps not being included until next year. Meanwhile, paid applications today are found in two non-official stores, each with different pricing for the exact same apps.
Say whatever you want about Apple's locked-down ecosystem, but there is simplicity in knowing there's only one place to get apps (well, unless you're voiding your warranty through jailbreaking, that is). What will people think of all these Android stores? We're worried that these parallel marketplaces could lead to consumer confusion. We love that Google has gone the open route with Android, but Apple has been successful doing just the opposite. That makes us wonder: is "open" still a way to compete? Let us know what you think in the comments.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
agreed, this is going to be a little confusing for a while. fyi- your first link 404s, you are missing the ending /
Posted by: Google Tutor | October 23, 2008 7:12 AM
I think it is good that there is marketplace competition. Just the fact that you see 3 different prices for an application shows that there NEEDS to be this competition to help keep prices competitive. Competition is almost always good for the consumer.
Posted by: Free Mobile Backgrounds | October 23, 2008 7:13 AM
You don't get it do you....
Anyone anywhere can wright an app and host it on any web page anywhere...
Do you get confused when you have to go to AVG's web site to download there application? Then have to go to a different web page to download Itunes.. or winamp... or any application.
Really... did apple pay you to wright this article?
Posted by: Edward Keefe | October 23, 2008 7:18 AM
and why is that confusing ?? I think its called 'choices'...
you can download Windows XP / Vista and Windows Mobile apps from few hundred places... so ??
one should and must be able to get/download apps from when ever they like ...
guess you have never heard of Download.com / Filehippo.com / Softpedia.com / freewarepocketpc.net / and few hundreds others ??
Posted by: WindowsMobile | October 23, 2008 7:20 AM
Suggesting that having multiple sources for Android Apps is like complaining that there are multiple clothing stores, multiple shoe stores, multiple office supply stores, multiple gas stations, etc... Should we try to simplify the world by making sure there is only one grocery store to go to, one clothing store to go to, one restaurant to go to, etc, etc? Or should be celebrate diversity, competition, and choice?
For those who find "choice" to be "confusing"... then they can just stick with the Google Android Market and pretend the others don't exist. For those of us who are more frugal, or who don't find options to be confusing, we welcome the open market.
Posted by: StareClips.com | October 23, 2008 7:22 AM
Smartphone users have had access Multiple App stores for years. Why this would cause confusion is beyond me. Stupid article in my opinion.
Posted by: Brad | October 23, 2008 7:23 AM
Dear Sarah,
Please, grow a brain.
Best,
BMM
P.S. Patronizing your users and assuming they can't be trusted to deal with consumer-grade technology alienates and drives people away. That is exactly what Apple does. Hence, I personally vow never to buy anything Apple. Please, stop being such an Apple fangirl.
Posted by: BrainMcMind | October 23, 2008 7:25 AM
Sarah,
Are you equally confused when entering a standard Amercian shopping mall on a mission to buy a pair of shoes?
Hypothetically, if you entered the mall and every store was a Dillard's, how would you feel? Relieved knowing that at least most of the inventory within the stores is the same and provides predominantly good quality shoes or FREAKED OUT BECAUSE EVERY STORE IS A DILLARDS! . . . and you're trying to find that perfect pair of [style/brand] to where to the [event]
Posted by: Patrick Perez | October 23, 2008 7:27 AM
I guess you are conflicted every morning knowing if you should get out of bed on one side or the other other... Come on, that has to be the lamest thing to complain about.
a) there is only one Market app on your G1 by default.
b) and yes there is option to go shop around...
Not everybody has surrender its ability to think.
Posted by: Chris | October 23, 2008 7:27 AM
Android Market Link
you might wonder why the first link in this article does not link to the Google Android Market... there's just a slash missing
http://www.android.com/market/
d
Posted by: Dominic G | October 23, 2008 7:28 AM
Why are people freaking out about cell phones being confusing? I've got news for you people: there's a ubiquitous device in our society with the ability to perform a wide array of functions, and thousands upon thousands of places to get applications. What is this monstrously confusing device? The Personal Computer. It's not a new invention folks. I am flabbergasted by the media telling us that phones are becoming confusing when phones are becoming more like computers. All we're getting is the right to control our own property -- what's confusing about that?
Posted by: Ixe | October 23, 2008 7:29 AM
One issue that has caused problems on the Apple store is the fluctuating pricing of apps. Consumers complain and feel cheated when they buy an app at one price only to find the price dropped a day later (presumably due to low demand).
This looks like it will also be an issue for Android apps only on a larger scale, where not only will prices change on 1 store but will be available at multiple stores for different prices at the same time.
Now savvy shoppers (and capitalists) will take this in stride, realizing that they may get a higher price on one app than other people - and a lower price on a different app, and may even 'shop around' to find the best price. Still there will be a lot of less savvy shoppers who will just feel cheated.
Watching this sort of free market self organize on a regular basis is going to be a roller coaster ride. There will definitely be some interesting studies published for those interested in economics theory.
Posted by: James | October 23, 2008 7:30 AM
I do agree, though, that Handango's site is lousy.
I'm a committed PocketPC user, or I AM a PocketPC (to buzz correctly) and that company's always been sub par.
Posted by: Patrick Perez | October 23, 2008 7:32 AM
Three competing stores? That's too confusing!!!
Sorry Sarah, you fail
Posted by: jonnyq | October 23, 2008 7:34 AM
You are wright, Edward. Anybody can wright an app for Android. But without some kind of "gatekeeper" to filter out the really junky stuff, a LOT of crapola is gonna get into the system. "Open" ain't always the best way to market a product.
Posted by: John Van | October 23, 2008 7:35 AM
If the apps for the Android OS is usable with all future phone that uses the Android OS then the open Android platform will definitely be better in the end because multiple phones and carriers can access the apps.
But having multiple apps store is definitely confusing. Google should make the google market place the only place to get apps.
Posted by: Knigh | October 23, 2008 7:35 AM
I can't believe how ridiculous this article is. If you can't figure out how to shop at more than one app store than you deserve to have an iPhone and all of its built in "day care" style restrictions and lack of user freedoms.
Posted by: Chris | October 23, 2008 7:36 AM
Just to pile on: This article is rediculous and should be pulled. It seems very much like trying to persuade people against anything not Apple. Do you work for them, or are you worried that the iPhone won't be the only way to be cool anymore, therefor you won't be cool anymore.
Posted by: Eric Dallas | October 23, 2008 7:37 AM
James,
Honestly. I can't imagine a Iphone user feeling cheated by paying to much for something.
It's just retail business as usual. Nothing interesting. Supply and demand.
Throw out new product, apps, on promotion, clear out old inventory with specials.
The success of application content and competition will be directly proportional, obviously, to the amout of market in-roads Google based smartphones make.
Posted by: Patrick Perez | October 23, 2008 7:37 AM
How did we ever cope before the iPhone? When we needed to actually choose where to buy things from? What a ridiculous argument. The idea that forcing everyone to buy from a single monopolistic app store is ludicrous.
Posted by: Richard | October 23, 2008 7:44 AM
Shop around? Confusing?? Isn't this the case for virtually all computer software? A smartphone is a computer after all....
Why all the confusion?
Posted by: Moe Money | October 23, 2008 7:49 AM
Sarah asks:
Given the success of the iPhone, this is obviously pretty relevant. Never before has such a closed and dictatorial smartphone seen such wide release. Look at the ways it locked people down:
No choice of carrier.
No choice of contract.
No choice of software store.
No choice of price.
Yet people suck it up like its the best thing since sliced bread.
The obvious conclusion is that people who buy iPhones are idiots. On the other hand millions of people buy iPhones. They cant all be idiots, can they?
The answer is that, of course, they can be, and that people in general are stupid.
Apple is successful because they sell to stupid people, and a wise company would replicate their methods. As PT Barnum implied, idiots is the fastest growing consumer segment, and of course a fool and his money is soon parted, meaning in the end its the easiest to get idiots to buy things from you.
I therefore propose that the next cellphone OS maker (Palm maybe) should make sure the OS is very purty, has lots of gimmicks and maybe shiny lights and mirrors, and can only dial one number by hitting the phone with your fist.
They will sell at least 7 million...
Posted by: Fred | October 23, 2008 7:50 AM
Agreed, 3 places to shop is a smart idea.
it is not confusing, it is marketing.
Posted by: Zamier | October 23, 2008 7:50 AM
first, i wish people would stop comparing a completely (and purposefully) open system to anything Apple (assuming you're comparing Androids Market to Apples App Store). Apple doesn't let anything happen without their say which is pretty much the polar opposite of what Android stands for.
and second, why would you purchase *any* app for android?? chances are, it's going to be crap, as the OSS community almost always has an equivalent or better.
those that bought an Android phone are more than likely doing so for open-ness. we know what we're doing.
Posted by: owen66 | October 23, 2008 7:52 AM
write...
Shoot me John
My point was made, all be it with improper spelling...
Posted by: Edward Keefe | October 23, 2008 7:56 AM
Hmmm, I think people are reacting to the headline instead of the conclusion:
"We love that Google has gone the open route with Android, but Apple has been successful doing just the opposite. That makes us wonder: is "open" still a way to compete?"
But it's nice to see a discussion brewing on the topic, nonetheless.
Posted by: Sarah Perez
|
October 23, 2008 8:02 AM
@Dominic G: thanks, link fixed
Posted by: Sarah Perez
|
October 23, 2008 8:04 AM
don't worry, Ed - john just doesn't quite see it yet. and the childish response suggests that he prob won't. it's the difference between old world business logic and the new "internet" logic. open source (and global collaboration) is going to dramatically change the business world and you're going to have to adapt or die. (look at entertainment media)
Posted by: owen66 | October 23, 2008 8:05 AM
Like, OMG! Like, there is like, more than one place to like, buy stuff! OMG! How will I ever understand that?? Like, there should be like, only one place to like, buy stuff, that way my brain doesn't like, get all hurty from having, like, choices and stuff!
Posted by: Randall Godso | October 23, 2008 8:07 AM
HELP HELP!!! My town has three different grocery stores!!1 its so confusing, I just keep driving around town, burning fuel and wondering what to do!!! Somebody help me soon, please, before I starve...
;-)
Somehow, Sarah, I think consumers will manage to figure this out.
Posted by: Torrboy | October 23, 2008 8:08 AM
I can't believe someone is complaining about diversity and choice. Free market ring a bell? Monopolies busted anyone?
This is a good thing.
-bZj
Posted by: Brian Z Jones | October 23, 2008 8:13 AM
What's not stated in this article is the fact that the Android marketplace is *not yet* open for developers to submit new apps.
From http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/10/android-market-now-available-for-users.html :
"If you're a developer, you will be able to register and upload your applications starting next Monday, 2008-10-27, when we've wrapped up a few final details."
Developers would not be flocking to other street-side stores if google had prepped the real store in time for the launch. I find it quite shocking that Google held back on these details until after the launch. Google "submit android app" and you'll see a plethora of sites/forums where frustrated developers are scrambling to find a damn link to this market place! I certainly was angered. Our G1 download page was put up simply because we had no way to put our app into the store.
Posted by: Shrisha Radhakrishna | October 23, 2008 8:18 AM
Sarah I suppose you would do great in a communist society being that you want only one choice. Remember this is open source = open mind = freedom. We are not bound to the dictatorship of mr jobs he is not our idol, we do not worship him. He is not the massiah of the computing world. What part of the OPEN SOURCE DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?????
Posted by: xqzu | October 23, 2008 8:22 AM
You mean instead of monopolistic dictatorship from a single vendor we actually have free market choices? I'm really not sure we should be allowed to choose, that sounds like anarchy.
Posted by: Brian | October 23, 2008 8:32 AM
I agree with some of the others. Why is this confusing? Is it confusing to have multiple places to by groceries? Is it confusing to have multiple places to buy clothes? For cripes sake, this is exactly what the market needs. Not a Mac iPhone monopoly on apps, slick working phones, and operating systems. The open nature of Android means (over time) a much shorter turn-around on new features, apps, etc. This is nothing but good!
Posted by: Eleavings | October 23, 2008 8:34 AM
The only reason I'm considering this phone is *because* there are multiple sources of apps. The biggest weakness of the iPhone is that apple can unilaterally pull software from the market, and that they have, usually for monopolistic reasons.
Android doesn't have that problem, so instead of shutting out competition with anything that apple (or google, or t-mobile,...) has a stake in, Andriod will let the best apps win.
Posted by: hedora | October 23, 2008 8:39 AM
What's not stated in this article is the fact that the Android marketplace is *not yet* open for developers to submit new apps. That's righ
From http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/10/android-market-now-available-for-users.html :
"If you're a developer, you will be able to register and upload your applications starting next Monday, 2008-10-27, when we've wrapped up a few final details."
Developers would not be flocking to other street-side stores if google had prepped the real store in time for the launch. I find it quite shocking that Google held back on these details until after the launch. Google "submit android app" and you'll see a plethora of sites/forums where frustrated developers are scrambling to find a damn link to this market place! I certainly was angered. Our G1 download page (boorah.com/g1.html) was put up simply because we had no way to put our app into the store.
Posted by: Shrisha Radhakrishna | October 23, 2008 8:39 AM
I refuse to buy anything from the Evil Empire from Cupertino. People that are sheep and too stupid to ask for functionality they require or enjoy, can stay with Steve Jobs as their Emperor.
But for the thinking person, the entire idea of the open market is the killer app. Remember who brought the Smart Phone to the market and how they got there: Palm. Sure Palm screwed it up because they didn't reinvest in upgrading the OS. But tens of thousands of developers sold many millions of apps by allowing end users to download, try and then buy their apps. My four year old Treo 650 running Palm OS still blows away every single iPhone I've had shoved in my face. Why? I have killer apps, well over 200 of them. The iPhone users were clueless about functionality. Their perspective is "web, use the web!" In the meantime I pull up very useful information in a total of 20 seconds while they struggle for 2 mins to do the same (Dallas airport - flight status). And the same story times 20.
So stick with the Evil Empire Sarah. As for me? Baaaaaaaah! Open market is the ONLY way to go.
Posted by: Guilden_NL | October 23, 2008 8:40 AM
Why would having three places to shop seem bad? When you buy a washer, you have dozens of places and dozens of models to consider!
Posted by: Art | October 23, 2008 8:41 AM
Sounds like someone needs to create an aggregation service like Travelocity or AddAll for these application. "Find this application at its cheapest price on the internet" kind of thing. The API for this will come around before too long, I'm sure.
Posted by: Mark Cahill | October 23, 2008 8:42 AM
I believe that the crux of the article is that Apple has had remarkable success with the iPhone by providing people with a well designed and easy to use device. This ease of use extends to the purchasing and installation of third party applications and if Android wants to compete then it must compete on ease of use and not features.
Now just about every smart phone provides a way to install third party apps and provides functionality beyond just making phone calls. Recent user surveys of smart phone users have illustrated that iPhone users are more likely to use the advanced functionality of their phone. The question then becomes why? I believe the answer is not that people are idiots, though most are, but because the perceived effort outweighs the expected benefits.
For Android based phones to be a serious competitor to the iPhone they are going to face a number of hurdles. One of these is ensuring that there is an easy way of determining that applications will either run correctly on Android phones with different screens and input devices (keypad vs. touchscreen), remember Android is an OS+Framework and not a actual device. The other is keeping making it easy to find and install third-party software. Google's App Store helps but my guess is that people are going to decide that it's too much effort to compare all of the different apps, with different features, and different price points across different app stores. People will mainly just pick the one that is easiest to use.
Now if Google could only partner with a company that specialized in search, then they could show the user the app store with the top rated software in the category they wanted at the best price.
Posted by: ryan | October 23, 2008 8:48 AM
I see a lot of you are still stuck in the free market doctrine. This "free market is always the best for consumers" econo-political hypothesis has been proven naive, if not downright dangerously fundamentalistic, by the present financial crisis. I know it's hard to deprogram ourselves from the prevail ideology that was hammered into our heads since childhood, but it's time to think for ourselves and face the new reality.
Posted by: Vote O | October 23, 2008 8:50 AM
You're absolutely right, Owen. I don't understand open source and probably never will. The puzzlement for me is how an "open" system can survive without some sort of structure to give it direction and focus. Sure, it's great that anyone in the world can contribute their part, but my puny brain can't grasp how all the parts get put together to form a coherent whole.
Why don't we have open-source cars? Everyone could contribute a piece to it, and individuals could innovate like crazy on their piece, but I don't think I'd care to have one--even though Fred thinks that me and ten million other folks are complete idiots that would buy anything that's shiny.
Competition is great, and I'm truly glad that Apple is getting some, but "open source" says to me "disorganized and complicated"--as in umpteen different flavors of Linux. Much as some people don't want to admit it, creating a product that has tight integration and "synergy" between the hardware and software designs can result in some very usable systems that "open" will find it difficult to duplicate.
Posted by: John Van | October 23, 2008 8:50 AM
Why is it so bad to have many android stores? I think more is better! That is true freedom. Unlike Apple trying to tie us down with thier greed. Who want's to live in a locked down echo system anyway. I don't know what is so confusing about looking for apps. (don't be lazy it's not walking!)
Posted by: Rod | October 23, 2008 8:51 AM
Sarah, You are a good conversation starter :) . Thankfully someone has the open market in mind. Yay Apple has a closed market, that makes the opposite just as important. Everyone makes money. The end...
Posted by: Anthony Farrior
|
October 23, 2008 8:52 AM
This is what we need though, lots of competition. Can't wait to try some of these stores.
Posted by: Batty | October 23, 2008 9:08 AM
I bet you miss the days when there was only 1 phone company, 3 tv networks, 3 car companies, and only white bread. Life was much simpler then.
But, sorry, you have to choose your own way. In this case, between a system where someone chooses for you what apps you can get, if you get to keep them, and how you get them (kind of like your mom) versus having choices of what you want, where you get them, and who has the best deal (kind of like real life).
Choice is good.
Posted by: Al | October 23, 2008 9:12 AM
Tell me, how much time do you guys spend time researching when you buy clothes, or software for your desktop. I spend a lot and get the right price. When you buy groceries you tend to go to the store that charges you the least amount overall, but then the product is based on the price. The quality of the vegetable is the best in the store which charges me the most. Thats the same about Walmart and Target.
Do we really want to spend so much time when buying apps also? Those teeny weeny apps for you phone. I mean, think about it, if you have have to buy apps now you have to research first on the desktop and then buy on the phone. Yes yes, we can browse on the phone, but can we really spend so much time on the phone, researching? I doubt it.
I think Time is Money, and yes, having options is good, but too many turns down a lot of people.
I would still vote for the Apple AppStore model. And this article really says that.
Posted by: nk | October 23, 2008 9:25 AM
Vote O,
The irony in your statement made me spit coffee all over my non-Apple LCD monitor! Your thinking for yourself begs for an emperor to do all of your thinking. My thinking for myself allows me to make the best choice for myself, rather than relying on an Earthbound mini-God making those choices for me.
Baaaaaaaaah!
"I see a lot of you are still stuck in the free market doctrine. This "free market is always the best for consumers" econo-political hypothesis has been proven naive, if not downright dangerously fundamentalistic, by the present financial crisis. I know it's hard to deprogram ourselves from the prevail ideology that was hammered into our heads since childhood, *****but it's time to think for ourselves****** and face the new reality."
Posted by: Guilden_NL | October 23, 2008 9:30 AM
John Van,
I am an Enterprise Architect that has designed some of the systems you surely use transparently. Automotive - in car assistance with engine system remapping automatically. Voice self service platforms that complete over 100,000,000 calls PER DAY.
And what you don't realize is that all of these solutions rely greatly on open source. Yes there are proprietary point solutions buried into them - Nuance's speech recognition engines are a great point. But all of those point solutions are running on Industrial strength Linux, using MySQL or PostgreSQL databases, with web caching performed by Squid. Etc etc.
So your statement of "but "open source" says to me "disorganized and complicated"--as in umpteen different flavors of Linux. Much as some people don't want to admit it, creating a product that has tight integration and "synergy" between the hardware and software designs can result in some very usable systems that "open" will find it difficult to duplicate."
Doesn't ring true. I have no problem with it until you state that open will find it difficult to duplicate. All of what runs these massive systems is on open systems. Not Apple. Note the fastest computers in the world are all Linux systems. There is a reason for it.
If you want to buy all Sony or all Apple, so be it. But don't think for one second that the world benefits more from proprietary approaches than open systems.
Written using Mozilla Firefox 3.0.3 running on top of Ubuntu Hardy Heron.
Posted by: Guilden_NL | October 23, 2008 9:38 AM
1 2 Next