Why Does Silicon Valley Hate Android?

This blog was originally posted on DZone.




For the April - July quarter of this year, Android made up 85% of the market, shipping a staggering 249.6 million devices. When you put that statistic, from research group IDC, in contrast to Apple and Windows, which shipped 31.2 million and 8 million respectively last quarter, it seems that Android is dominating the market.

So why do Silicon Valley startups resist developing for the OS?

In the article "Why Silicon Valley Doesn't Care About Android," Sandi MacPherson explores the contradictory state of Android in the hub of some of the most technologically progressive startups and established businesses. According to McPherson, who spoke with mobile entrepreneurs to conduct her research, these are the key points businesses fixate on:

• Building for Android is more expensive and time intensive, mostly because of massive fragmentation in hardware and software
• iOS users are much more valuable and monetize more than Android users
• iOS is more popular in the US, and that’s the market most US-based companies know best. While Android is just under 85% worldwide, it’s only about 50% in the US

These are some valid points, ones that, from an outside perspective like mine, never occurred to me. It’s easy to get pulled into the allure of a company that sells 85% of devices worldwide, and yet forget that it only makes up about half the user base in the country Silicon Valley-ites work in.

However, upon reading some of the quotes in the article, I’ve come to a few conclusions of my own on why iOS continues to dominate. Such statements include:

The problem with Android is really a problem of perception. People think that developing on the platform is inferior to iOS, that it’s difficult to monetize, and that fragmentation is a huge pain…This problem only becomes worse when interacting with non-technical founders and general business people who have so internalized iOS’s premium positioning that they would never consider building on Android first (I certainly haven’t met any).
-Cezary Pietrzyk, Founder at Cezary & Co.

With any development team, you will always have a more familiar platform. This platform is your team’s bread and butter. You can make magic happen…You feel infinite. And then there’s [Android]. This mystery platform monetizes poorly and is used by poor people. None of your friends use it. None of the tech press, the people who you want covering you, use it. It feels like it’ll take another thousand hours that went into designing and executing the original iOS application.

Seen in this light, we can empathize why we want to believe iOS-first is the best strategy. We don’t want to concede we’re pursuing a lesser strategy because it’s too hard. Cognitive dissonance is what leads tech CEOs to build arguments saying that going iOS-first is actually better for users.
-Jong Moon Kim, Founder at YC Startup

If you’re building an app for “mainstream” China, India or Indonesia, it probably makes sense to start on Android, or joint-launch today. If you’re trying to go after prestige users in those markets, then iOS still makes the most sense in that market… and that reasoning will probably hold for a while.
- Sutha Kamal, Founder and Former CEO at Massive Health

I don’t want to discredit these guys; they seem to know what they’re doing, and have reached a certain level of success within their field, which is admirable. I also want to disclose that I have a Mac Air, and with Netflix, those pretty much sum up my plans for a Friday night. But all these statements seem to suggest these things:

• If you want to be rich, you must emulate the rich, and only cater to the rich.
  

• The public perception of Apple as “hip” and “wealthy” is one of, if not the most, important factors.
  

• People do not consume consciously but, rather, consume what they believe to be the best because it’s pretty and costs a lot more, i.e. people are dumb.
  

• Technology shouldn’t be accessible to everyone, and maybe we should keep it elite.
  

The idea that Android is a cheap product for the lesser class is nothing new; ReadWrite had an article about it, Time analyzed the allure of Apple, and Gizmodo ran a story on it (complete with a picture of a homeless guy and racist allusions to the fact that because Hispanic and African-American households tend to buy Android more, this means Android must be a poor brand. Way harsh). The whole argument on which platform is better takes me back to 2009 - and, in fact, all those articles were written at least two years ago.

When you consider the fact that Android makes up 85% of the market, even if that market is overseas, then it makes sense to want to tap into the worldwide market. The economy is increasingly international, and while it feels good to develop for a brand that was created in and continues to have its headquarters in America, in contrast to brands like Samsung and Sony, that scope quickly begins to feel small if you only cater to American customers rather than looking at becoming a global player.
To say that Android is inferior based on what America is doing is a narrow point of view. For example, iOS apps currently equal 1 million, while Android has around 1.3 million. Plus, Android, with the help of Google, has made efforts to improve the current state of its apps. Are the critics just saying that Android is worse for apps because there's more competition, thus making it harder to get a return on your investment if it's not up to par?

Creating an app isn’t as easy as just plugging your code in, putting it online for sale, and then getting a nicely sized check in the mail. It takes marketing and the right combination of elements to ensure success, along with a lot of market savvy and a good sense of UI design. For me to sit here and speculate that these startups should absolutely cash in on the Android international market is easier than going out and doing it. But in a world where I see elementary school kids, and sometimes even younger, carrying around smartphones that have access to any online information in the world, the view that a product is somehow lesser than because it’s from another country seems antiquated. I mean, just look at Apple. They manufacture their goods in China.

Your YouTube View is Worth Its Weight in Gold: Conscious Consumerism in the Internet Age

I've been working in cosmetic retail for a little over a year now, and I've seen and been asked almost everything. One of the most common questions I get asked, however, isn't how to properly use primer or what eyeshadow I recommend; it's whether or not I get paid a commission.

The answer is no. But, our company sells cosmetics and products from a variety of different brands, (over 100 to give you a scope of how much I have to have at least working knowledge of). Since all these names are competing for customers and brand loyalty, they often employ vendors to promote their products. These vendors do in fact work to get commission and have a sales goal in mind; they are working to get the most for their employers - which is why people don't trust us.

If you're selling with a specific end goal in mind rather than just acting like an advisor, people can usually tell. They might buy it under pressure in the spur of the moment, but then they'll come back a couple days later and return it to us. That, coupled with the fact that big corporations are increasingly being exposed as corrupt (hey, Wal-Mart), contributes to the growing power of the online review.

When you walk into a store, you know, or at least assume, that the workers there have an agenda to get you to buy their product. When you use the Internet, essentially a free service, to learn about a product that worked for someone with, say, your specific skin type or beauty needs, you feel like you're listening to a trusted friend.

YouTube reviews in particular have become so popular that many of these users have become YouTube partners. YouTube partners make money through views. When you watch a video, you’re usually forced to watch a 30 second ad about something you’re probably not interested in. YouTube makes money off your view, and with billions watching videos every day, they make a significant amount of money.

Since popular users have millions of subscribers and billions of views, they make up a substantial portion of YouTube’s ad-based income, so really popular channels often become partners. As a partner, they then make a certain percentage of the money generated from ad views; becoming a partner is YouTube’s way of giving back to these popular personalities and incentivizes them to stay active. So how profitable is this?

Insanely. The top earning YouTube partner last year, and for many years before that, was Swedish gamer PewDiePie, real name Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg (say that five times fast), who topped out the highest grossing list with $7 million and 5.4 billion views. 

Kjellberg’s videos are often in the incredibly addictive and entertaining “Let’s Play” format. These videos are screen-captured videos of real gameplay along with commentary and reviews. The commentary can range from high-tech critiques of game engines to just plain fun, which is what Kjellberg specializes in. He’s entertaining, and, most importantly, relatable. He doesn’t talk down to his audience, and you feel like a friend taken along for a video game ride.

On the makeup side, YouTube beauty bloggers, also known as “Beauty Gurus” and “Vloggers,” are making just as much profit. What is a Beauty Guru? A Beauty Guru is someone records and uploads reviews of makeup and does tutorials. Makeup has been a multi-billion dollar industry for a long time, and the constant demand for makeup means that Beauty Gurus have become increasingly invaluable for influencing trends.

Michelle Phan is one of the most popular personalities out there. Her makeup prowess has transformed her into actors like Angelina Jolie and Marilyn Monroe to cartoon icon Jessica Rabbit. She has been on YouTube since 2007 and started with one modest video and has grown in popularity exponentially. She currently possesses over 7 million subscribers and has her own line with L'Oreal, an online beauty startup called Ipsy (think along the lines of Birchbox, but much more affordable), and has recently released a makeup book. Last year, her site had 985 million views, and Phan earned $1.3 million, a vast difference from her family’s financial struggles when she was growing up.

YouTube has become a platform for education on products and a vehicle for young, ambitious entrepreneurs to get their faces out to the public and launch their careers. These popular bloggers and YouTubers represent the driving force at the heart of capitalism: If you make it, and people like it, you will get a ton of money for it. More importantly, since most of these personalities' fan bases consist of the highly profitable teenager to young adult age group, it indicates a growing generational shift away from name brand trust to a more democratic type of consumerism. Rather than relying on glossy ads in magazines or TV commercials, consumers are increasingly taking to the Internet to read real reviews from real people, spending time to educate themselves instead of blindly purchasing.

Yet high-income industries have a vested interest in their goods to stay on top. Games, already a multi-billion dollar global industry, are reportedly expected to be worth $100 billion by 2017. The power of video games can be measured by the numbers for the industry’s best sellers. Last year, Grand Theft Auto V was released in September and, over the course of three days, made over $1 billion. The game went on to shatter six Guiness World Records, including best-selling game in 24 hours, fastest entertainment property to make $1 billion, and highest revenue generated by an entertainment product in 24 hours. As such, these companies are allegedly willing to dish out compensation in return for positive reviews online.

Most recently, Kotaku ran a story behind the release of the much-anticipated “Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor” game. The article reports that reviewers and journalists could get early copies in order to rate the game – so long as the commentary is solely positive in nature, in addition to adhering to other strict guidelines highlighted in the contract. Such caveats include what aspects of the game to specifically focus on, such as the Nemesis System within the game, as well as to express enthusiasm for the franchise in general.

Awards, you say?

Another infamous example is the case of Blair and Elle Fowler, juicystar07 and AllThatGlitters21 respectively, sister beauty vloggers who each have their own channel. The girls are leaders in the art of the “haul,” a video showcasing a recent spending spree on anything from room décor to makeup and clothing. The girls each have over a million subscribers and are one of the most popular beauty and lifestyle channels. In 2010, the New York Times ran an article purporting that the sisters took considerable compensation for their reviews. Brands would approach them and offer to pay per video featuring their product; in one case, a suntan brand reportedly paid Elle Fowler $4,000 for a video review of their product.

So what is a consumer to do? Who can you trust? Certainly, these reports are worrying, but in a system based on blind viewing and public admiration for the personalities, the solution may not be as simple as unsubscribing from suspect channels or exposing them online. Luckily, the FCC has cracked down, and videos that are made for money are required to disclose this information. Even so, I would suggest to keep doing what you savvy customers always do: Do your research on all levels. Check out the reviewers and see what their online reputation is, and don’t let popularity alone fool you. Instead of paying attention solely to what well-paid reviewers say, also look at what consumers are saying, since they have no incentive to write something glowing about a bad product. Above all else, trust your gut. If you don’t like a product, your opinion is the most important one out there. And know that if you come into my store, the only compensation I receive is for the time I spend helping you during my scheduled shift.



© Cultivate Blog 2014