I'm proud to publicly announce my first speaking opportunity of 2012. I'll be speaking at MDevCon in Amsterdam this year on March 10th. This will be my first trip to Amsterdam and I'm incredibly excited to have the opportunity. I'm so excited, actually, that I'll be staying in the city for several days after the conference to hang out in Appsterdam and visit. When I know exactly which days I'll be in the city, I'll let you know.
I have one other conference that I've already agreed to speak at this year, but that one hasn't been publicly announced yet, so I can't spill the beans quite yet, but I'm equally excited about that one.
Showing posts with label iOS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iOS. Show all posts
Friday, December 30, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
3D Game and Graphics Engines
One thing that I get asked about a lot is whether you should use a game or graphics engine instead of learning OpenGL ES. Often, these emails are prefaced by a statement about how hard graphics programming. I've had to answer this question enough times now that it seems like a good topic for a blog post.
Honestly, I find it kind of hard to answer, because I don't see the "using an engine" and "learning graphics programming" as being distinct or mutually exclusive approaches. While a good game or graphics engine will handle a lot of the more gnarly programming tasks for you and shorten your development time, you still need to understand the underlying concepts to build anything of any complexity.
All of these engines are built on top of OpenGL (and/or DirectX if they support Windows), and are subject to the same limitations and strengths. Not understanding, at least at some level, how these lower-level graphics libraries work and the basic maths of 3D programming will eventually hold you back.
But… that doesn't necessarily mean you need to learn OpenGL before you can start using these tools effectively. You don't. It's just that some of the difficult, sticky math and concepts that might be scaring you away from OpenGL are still there (though better hidden), and you may well still have to deal with them at some point if you're doing the coding on the game (as opposed to just creating assets or doing level design).
Here's kind of a simple nutshell rule:
So, when shouldn't you use an existing engine if your goal is to make a game and not to try and be the next John Carmack? Almost never. Rolling your own game engine should be a labor of love. It's got to be an itch you can't scratch; the kind of desire that I probably couldn't talk you out of anyway. Otherwise, it's just a waste of your time.
What about when there just isn't an engine that works for what you want to do?
Honestly, that's not all that likely in this day and age, but even if it is, you're far better off starting with an existing engine and then modifying it to meet your needs.
From a business and financial perspective, it's almost never better to start from scratch. Even many of the AAA commercial game engines are derivatives of other engines. To give an example: Valve's Source Engine, is derived from their older Goldsource Engine, which itself was forked from the Quake Engine back around 1996.
Though there are quite a few game engines around, a very large percentage of high-end commercial games, both console and PC, are based on either the Unreal engine or the Quake engine or one of their derivatives. If you throw in a handful of other engines, like the CryEngine, you've probably covered all but a few outliers.
If it's not cost effective for large, multi-person development teams with multi-million dollar budgets to develop their own game engines, it's probably not the best choice for individual indie developers or small shops.
So, don't reinvent the wheel. Use an engine and stand on the shoulders of John Carmack and others like him. Don't spend your time trying to solve problems that are long-solved. Just be aware that using an engine can't completely eliminate the need to learn a little math or to understand the underlying concepts.
I won't be discussing the UDK, even though it's a phenomenal engine, because it requires using Windows for many tasks, and I don't want to spend time in Windows. If you've got both a Mac and a Windows machine, however, and don't mind splitting time between OS X and Windows, you might want to check it out. A lot of time and brainpower has gone into getting the UDK to have incredible performance on iOS and the license terms have been changed to be much more friendly to small indie shops ($99 plus 25% of royalties after the first $50,000).
Honestly, I find it kind of hard to answer, because I don't see the "using an engine" and "learning graphics programming" as being distinct or mutually exclusive approaches. While a good game or graphics engine will handle a lot of the more gnarly programming tasks for you and shorten your development time, you still need to understand the underlying concepts to build anything of any complexity.
All of these engines are built on top of OpenGL (and/or DirectX if they support Windows), and are subject to the same limitations and strengths. Not understanding, at least at some level, how these lower-level graphics libraries work and the basic maths of 3D programming will eventually hold you back.
But… that doesn't necessarily mean you need to learn OpenGL before you can start using these tools effectively. You don't. It's just that some of the difficult, sticky math and concepts that might be scaring you away from OpenGL are still there (though better hidden), and you may well still have to deal with them at some point if you're doing the coding on the game (as opposed to just creating assets or doing level design).
Here's kind of a simple nutshell rule:
If you love graphics programming or are fascinated by it, then study OpenGL ES and the underlying maths and forget about using the engines at first (though studying their source is a great way to learn). There's always going to be work for good graphics programmers and you can't put a price tag on doing what you love.
If, on the other hand, your goal is to make a game or other graphics-heavy application, and graphics programming is just a means to that end, then use an engine, because it will shorten the amount of work you have to do tremendously, which inherently increases your chances of making money because time is money and there's never enough of it.
So, when shouldn't you use an existing engine if your goal is to make a game and not to try and be the next John Carmack? Almost never. Rolling your own game engine should be a labor of love. It's got to be an itch you can't scratch; the kind of desire that I probably couldn't talk you out of anyway. Otherwise, it's just a waste of your time.
What about when there just isn't an engine that works for what you want to do?
Honestly, that's not all that likely in this day and age, but even if it is, you're far better off starting with an existing engine and then modifying it to meet your needs.
From a business and financial perspective, it's almost never better to start from scratch. Even many of the AAA commercial game engines are derivatives of other engines. To give an example: Valve's Source Engine, is derived from their older Goldsource Engine, which itself was forked from the Quake Engine back around 1996.
Though there are quite a few game engines around, a very large percentage of high-end commercial games, both console and PC, are based on either the Unreal engine or the Quake engine or one of their derivatives. If you throw in a handful of other engines, like the CryEngine, you've probably covered all but a few outliers.
If it's not cost effective for large, multi-person development teams with multi-million dollar budgets to develop their own game engines, it's probably not the best choice for individual indie developers or small shops.
So, don't reinvent the wheel. Use an engine and stand on the shoulders of John Carmack and others like him. Don't spend your time trying to solve problems that are long-solved. Just be aware that using an engine can't completely eliminate the need to learn a little math or to understand the underlying concepts.
Engines
It just so happens that for a number of proposals I've done lately, I've been looking at game engines in some depth. I'm not going to do "reviews" per se, but over the next few weeks, I will try and post my thoughts about several of the engines available for iOS, including Unity3D, Sio2, Ogre3D, and Cocos3D.I won't be discussing the UDK, even though it's a phenomenal engine, because it requires using Windows for many tasks, and I don't want to spend time in Windows. If you've got both a Mac and a Windows machine, however, and don't mind splitting time between OS X and Windows, you might want to check it out. A lot of time and brainpower has gone into getting the UDK to have incredible performance on iOS and the license terms have been changed to be much more friendly to small indie shops ($99 plus 25% of royalties after the first $50,000).
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
App Store Review Times by Shiny Development
Dave Verwer of Shiny Development has created a web bot that trolls Twitter for tweets about App Store review times and maintains a running average of both iOS and Mac review times. The results are continuously available at this website. The more people who contribute, the better the data will be, so if you want to contribute, just tweet your review time using the #iosreviewtime or #macreviewtime hash tags like the example tweet.
Friday, March 4, 2011
The iPad 2 Rant
MartianCraft has a fair amount of Android work right now. Personally, I try to focus on the iOS work whenever possible, but we're a small company, so nobody gets to play the primadonna. As a result, I spend a good chunk of my time on Android projects and have to stay abreast of both the Android and iOS worlds from both a hardware and a software perspective.
Last week, I found myself grudgingly admitting to myself that the Motorola Xoom is not a bad tablet. It feels incomplete in many ways. It has rough edges, some definite hardware and software CBBs¹, and a general dearth of good, native-resolution apps. But, it had potential and I definitely saw how certain demographics might be attracted to it over the iPad. I saw a tablet that normal people could use with some frustration, but not an insurmountable amount… much like Windows, post Windows-95.
The thing that I haven't seen in any of the Android tablets, however, is a compelling reason to buy them instead of the iPad. The only people I know who've bought Android tablets also own iPads. Other than a strong aversion to Apple's products or Apple as a company, what would compel somebody to pay $800 for a Xoom or Tab rather than going out and getting an iPad? Maybe there's a reason, but I can't see it. While both the Xoom and Tab had some specs that were better than the original iPad, neither offered a comparable experience let alone a better one, and neither could do anything that the iPad can't², despite higher price tags.
Then came yesterday.
Two days ago, the Xoom looked like a decent, almost finished and slightly overpriced tablet. Two days ago, it had a couple of quantifiable advantages, including native CDMA support and a better GPU. Two days ago, you could make the Xoom look better than the iPad on paper. Though marketing based on tech specs hasn't proven to be a very effective strategy in mobile computing space, at least they did have that for them. They had grounds for claiming you should buy the Xoom instead of an iPad. The arguments were thin, but two days ago they existed.
Today, simply put: The Xoom is fucked. So, I suspect, is the unreleased Samsung Tab 10.1 and the RIM Playbook. I can only imagine the discussions that are going on inside those companies today.
Only the staunchest Apple haters and self-deluded "openness" ideologues are going to pony up that kind of dough for a tablet that can't offer a comparable experience and doesn't have better tech specs. The Xoom doesn't even have the advantage of working with a carrier that Apple's tablet doesn't. In seven days, there will be both native CDMA and GSM models of the iPad 2.
Think about this: yesterday when I checked, the Android Marketplace had sixteen Honeycomb tablet-resolution apps. Sixteen. And you know what's not included in that sixteen? That space game that they show the guy playing in the Xoom commercials. In other words, they had to put a fake game in the commercial. Would they have done that if they had even one compelling application that could make the Xoom look better than the iPad?
As a tablet platform, Android has two big challenges.
First, it has a chicken-and-egg problem with software. Developers are waiting for people to buy Android tablets in sufficient quantity to support the platform, and many consumers are waiting for good apps to buy Android. In the phone world, Android seems to be past that hump. While the app situation is nowhere near as good as on iOS yet, there are apps — including some good ones — for the platform.
But, even if the Xoom were every bit as amazing of a piece of hardware as the iPad 2, it would still have the problem that it does less cool things. There's nothing comparable to Garage Band or iMovies, or any of the hundreds of jaw-dropping iPad apps that have been created in the last year like Infinity Blade, The Elements, or Alice. There's just no "wow" app you can put on your Xoom and show people that's going to make them want to run out and buy one. There's nothing you can do and confidently say "your iPad can't do that shit right there, bitch".
The second, and much larger problem is simply one of price. I see people constantly comparing the Android/iOS situation to the Windows/Mac situation of the eighties and nineties. I usually see this claim by people laughably arguing that Apple's failure is imminent.
In the nineties, Apple kept insane profit margins on their products while dozens of manufacturers created inexpensive commodity PCs running Windows. There was a margin war on the PC side, and PCs became noticeably cheaper (despite paying hefty licensing fees to Microsoft), and that price difference, combined with Microsoft closing some of the usability gap with the Mac, is what lead to the dominance of Wintel machines. In the nineties, Macs simply cost more. You could argue that Macs were cheaper based on TOC or employee efficiency, but in the quantifiable terms that bean counters understand, the Mac was a lot more expensive and didn't do noticeably more, especially once Adobe jumped ship and become cross-platform.
That's not where things are now, however. For typical consumers - people who don't have a dog in the technology race, so to speak, are going to buy based largely on price, Apple's mobile "post-PC devices" aren't just better than their competitors, they're cheaper than comparable competitors.
We don't have a situation where commodity resellers can easily assemble components into a working, desirable mobile device. Mobile devices are all about form factor, design, and ease of use. They don't sit on a desk, they go where you go. They need to be well engineered, light, get good battery life, and be easy to use. They can't require IT support staff, an instruction manual, or training. A large beige box on a desk is one thing, but in your pocket it's another thing altogether.
Why is this the case, though? Why can't these companies compete with Apple on price in the tablet space?
The prices Apple can offer is a result of two things. First, is plain and simple buying power. Apple sells a lot of devices, so they buy a lot of screens, flash memory, etc. As a result, they can get quantity discounts. Apple got to the 10 inch form factor first and cornered the market, driving up the price for 10" screen components for any competitors coming after them.
The second, however, is that they have gobs of cash on hand. A lot of market watchers say Apple is foolhardy to keep so much cash on hand. On the contrary! Apple understands psychology, and not just consumer psychology. When they go to a vendor or hardware partner and ask for exclusive arrangements, priority fulfillment, or better prices, do you know what bargaining chip they have that few other companies have?
The corporate equivalent of a suitcase full of cash.
When a vendor needs to retool for a new manufacturing process Apple has developed or needs to increase their output capacity, Apple shows up with a wad of cash in hand. They don't have to liquidate any assets or get a loan or seek permission of shareholders. They just play Daddy Warbucks and pull out a wad of million dollar bills. Apple's partners, in addition to getting large-volume contracts, can get working capital as part of their arrangment with Apple without taking out loans. A definite part of the reason you were able to buy an iPad for only $499 is because Apple didn't follow conventional wisdom about cash on hand.
Arguing that Apple would be doing better by doing what everybody else is doing isn't usually very convincing to me.
Motorola and Samsung… they're both large companies with a lot of buying power and strong brand recognition. The problem is, they don't understand the game that Apple's playing in the mobile space, so they're playing it wrong. They're so caught up in catching up that they're not even trying to innovate in this space. Maybe HP or Rim will figure it out, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Which is unfortunate. If Apple's doing this kind of amazing stuff without any viable competition, can you imagine what they'd be doing with strong, viable competitors nipping at their heels?
1 "Could Be Betters"
2 From a consumer perspective, not from the perspective of a geek who likes to take things apart and put them back together. The Xoom, with its more powerful processor and GPU had the potential to do things the original iPad couldn't, but didn't ship with any application that proved it. Consumers believe what they see, not what the tech specs say.
Last week, I found myself grudgingly admitting to myself that the Motorola Xoom is not a bad tablet. It feels incomplete in many ways. It has rough edges, some definite hardware and software CBBs¹, and a general dearth of good, native-resolution apps. But, it had potential and I definitely saw how certain demographics might be attracted to it over the iPad. I saw a tablet that normal people could use with some frustration, but not an insurmountable amount… much like Windows, post Windows-95.
The thing that I haven't seen in any of the Android tablets, however, is a compelling reason to buy them instead of the iPad. The only people I know who've bought Android tablets also own iPads. Other than a strong aversion to Apple's products or Apple as a company, what would compel somebody to pay $800 for a Xoom or Tab rather than going out and getting an iPad? Maybe there's a reason, but I can't see it. While both the Xoom and Tab had some specs that were better than the original iPad, neither offered a comparable experience let alone a better one, and neither could do anything that the iPad can't², despite higher price tags.
Then came yesterday.
Two days ago, the Xoom looked like a decent, almost finished and slightly overpriced tablet. Two days ago, it had a couple of quantifiable advantages, including native CDMA support and a better GPU. Two days ago, you could make the Xoom look better than the iPad on paper. Though marketing based on tech specs hasn't proven to be a very effective strategy in mobile computing space, at least they did have that for them. They had grounds for claiming you should buy the Xoom instead of an iPad. The arguments were thin, but two days ago they existed.
Today, simply put: The Xoom is fucked. So, I suspect, is the unreleased Samsung Tab 10.1 and the RIM Playbook. I can only imagine the discussions that are going on inside those companies today.
Only the staunchest Apple haters and self-deluded "openness" ideologues are going to pony up that kind of dough for a tablet that can't offer a comparable experience and doesn't have better tech specs. The Xoom doesn't even have the advantage of working with a carrier that Apple's tablet doesn't. In seven days, there will be both native CDMA and GSM models of the iPad 2.
Think about this: yesterday when I checked, the Android Marketplace had sixteen Honeycomb tablet-resolution apps. Sixteen. And you know what's not included in that sixteen? That space game that they show the guy playing in the Xoom commercials. In other words, they had to put a fake game in the commercial. Would they have done that if they had even one compelling application that could make the Xoom look better than the iPad?
As a tablet platform, Android has two big challenges.
First, it has a chicken-and-egg problem with software. Developers are waiting for people to buy Android tablets in sufficient quantity to support the platform, and many consumers are waiting for good apps to buy Android. In the phone world, Android seems to be past that hump. While the app situation is nowhere near as good as on iOS yet, there are apps — including some good ones — for the platform.
But, even if the Xoom were every bit as amazing of a piece of hardware as the iPad 2, it would still have the problem that it does less cool things. There's nothing comparable to Garage Band or iMovies, or any of the hundreds of jaw-dropping iPad apps that have been created in the last year like Infinity Blade, The Elements, or Alice. There's just no "wow" app you can put on your Xoom and show people that's going to make them want to run out and buy one. There's nothing you can do and confidently say "your iPad can't do that shit right there, bitch".
The second, and much larger problem is simply one of price. I see people constantly comparing the Android/iOS situation to the Windows/Mac situation of the eighties and nineties. I usually see this claim by people laughably arguing that Apple's failure is imminent.
In the nineties, Apple kept insane profit margins on their products while dozens of manufacturers created inexpensive commodity PCs running Windows. There was a margin war on the PC side, and PCs became noticeably cheaper (despite paying hefty licensing fees to Microsoft), and that price difference, combined with Microsoft closing some of the usability gap with the Mac, is what lead to the dominance of Wintel machines. In the nineties, Macs simply cost more. You could argue that Macs were cheaper based on TOC or employee efficiency, but in the quantifiable terms that bean counters understand, the Mac was a lot more expensive and didn't do noticeably more, especially once Adobe jumped ship and become cross-platform.
That's not where things are now, however. For typical consumers - people who don't have a dog in the technology race, so to speak, are going to buy based largely on price, Apple's mobile "post-PC devices" aren't just better than their competitors, they're cheaper than comparable competitors.
We don't have a situation where commodity resellers can easily assemble components into a working, desirable mobile device. Mobile devices are all about form factor, design, and ease of use. They don't sit on a desk, they go where you go. They need to be well engineered, light, get good battery life, and be easy to use. They can't require IT support staff, an instruction manual, or training. A large beige box on a desk is one thing, but in your pocket it's another thing altogether.
Why is this the case, though? Why can't these companies compete with Apple on price in the tablet space?
The prices Apple can offer is a result of two things. First, is plain and simple buying power. Apple sells a lot of devices, so they buy a lot of screens, flash memory, etc. As a result, they can get quantity discounts. Apple got to the 10 inch form factor first and cornered the market, driving up the price for 10" screen components for any competitors coming after them.
The second, however, is that they have gobs of cash on hand. A lot of market watchers say Apple is foolhardy to keep so much cash on hand. On the contrary! Apple understands psychology, and not just consumer psychology. When they go to a vendor or hardware partner and ask for exclusive arrangements, priority fulfillment, or better prices, do you know what bargaining chip they have that few other companies have?
The corporate equivalent of a suitcase full of cash.
When a vendor needs to retool for a new manufacturing process Apple has developed or needs to increase their output capacity, Apple shows up with a wad of cash in hand. They don't have to liquidate any assets or get a loan or seek permission of shareholders. They just play Daddy Warbucks and pull out a wad of million dollar bills. Apple's partners, in addition to getting large-volume contracts, can get working capital as part of their arrangment with Apple without taking out loans. A definite part of the reason you were able to buy an iPad for only $499 is because Apple didn't follow conventional wisdom about cash on hand.
Arguing that Apple would be doing better by doing what everybody else is doing isn't usually very convincing to me.
Motorola and Samsung… they're both large companies with a lot of buying power and strong brand recognition. The problem is, they don't understand the game that Apple's playing in the mobile space, so they're playing it wrong. They're so caught up in catching up that they're not even trying to innovate in this space. Maybe HP or Rim will figure it out, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Which is unfortunate. If Apple's doing this kind of amazing stuff without any viable competition, can you imagine what they'd be doing with strong, viable competitors nipping at their heels?
1 "Could Be Betters"
2 From a consumer perspective, not from the perspective of a geek who likes to take things apart and put them back together. The Xoom, with its more powerful processor and GPU had the potential to do things the original iPad couldn't, but didn't ship with any application that proved it. Consumers believe what they see, not what the tech specs say.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
OpenGL ES iOS
I've created a new public project on GitHub for classes, scripts, and projects related to OpenGL ES programming on the iPhone. I'll be slowly consolidating all of my OpenGL ES code snippets, utilities, and sample projects except for the particle generator (which has its own repository) into this location.
Right now, all it has is:
Right now, all it has is:
- Blender export script for Objective-C for Blender 2.49a
- Blender export script for Objective-C for Blender 2.5+
- My old OpenGL ES Xcode project template for OpenGL ES 1.1
- A fairly simple OpenGL ES 1.1 Xcode project
- A fairly simple OpenGL ES 2.0 xcode project
- A few OpenGL ES-related categories and classes
- My old Wavefront OBJ file loader
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Experts == Idiots?
It's sad, really, the state of technology journalism. But you knew that, already. I should know to enough ignore link-baiting crappy journalism, especially those that do little more than republish some company's press release. Most days, I do.
Not today, though.
Computerworld posted an article with this headline today: Devs bet big on Android over Apple's iOS.
Wow, really? That seems surprising. What could possibly justify such a claim? Some proof that developers are leaving iOS in droves? Some new data about the Android Marketplace is actually making decent money for a substantial portion of Android developers? No, though it is encouraging to see that the Marketplace opened up to 13 new countries today. Still another 60 or so to go, but it's a step in the right direction. But that fact's not even mentioned in this article.
So what justifies such a grandiose claim? A survey of Appcelerator Titanium developers commissioned by Appcelerator. Now, if you don't know, Appcelerator Titanium is a cross-platform framework that allows you to develop an app once and generate applications for multiple paltforms: iOS, Android, Linux, Mac OS, and Windows.
Leaving aside my personal opinions about cross-platform tools, the article has already strayed from the headline. Devs? Well, sure, they're devs, but they're not representative of devs in general as the headline would imply. They're developers who have specifically chosen one option, and it's an option that doesn't tie them to a platform at all. We're talking about a group of people that have already shown their willingness to hedge their bets and who aren't about to take the risk of hitching their wagon to a single platform.
It's an inherently skewed sample. If you ran that same survey past 15,000 dedicated iOS developers, or dedicated Android or Blackberry or .Net developers, you'd get drastically different results.
In other words, this survey has no value whatsoever except to Accelerator. To them, it's perhaps useful for helping them decide where to devote their resources in the future to keep their clients happy.
But for the world at large? Worthless.
Oh, and what constitutes "betting big" in the context of the article? Well, it's not actually addressed, but their idea of "betting big" doesn't seem to match mine. There's nothing about investments, or exclusive agreements, or anything else that involves any sort of risk whatsoever. Developers were just asked things like "how interested are you in a platform X". The "betting" didn't involve monetary investments, or time investments. These developers did nothing more than state an opinion. An anonymous opinion. Oh… those crazy rebels.
Well, I'm "betting big" that the author of this post is a hack and his soi-disant "expert" is fucking clueless.
Let's face it, nobody knows for sure where the mobile market is headed, and being a Titanium Dev doesn't make your opinion any more informed or valuable than anyone else's. Personally, I suspect Android will continue to grow in market share unless Windows Phone 7 is better than great or else Microsoft manages to one-up Google's relationship with Verizon. But, any way you cut it, this is not a replay of the PC battles. There are too many companies still in the game and who have the potential to grow market share, profit share, or whatever other metric by which you want to judge.
Despite what you may read, there is no clear market leader. Nokia is still in the lead based on total handsets, Blackberry is still in the lead based on smartphone handsets sold, Apple is kicking ass in the profits department, and Android is doing gangbusters in new sales unit, if you lump all the 100+ models of Android phones together and count free phones as sales. Plus, the market is still growing. Apple, for example, didn't increase their market share at all year over year, but they increased their units sold considerably.
Understandably, many people are counting Microsoft out of the mobile game, but I'm not. Though I'm no fan of their technology stack or their approach to business, I think the sheer size of Microsoft's advertising budget, their Enterprise-savvy sales force, and the enormous pool of existing .Net developer talent they can draw on gives them an opportunity for huge inroads. They may not capitalize on it, but it's certainly there and counting Microsoft out of the wireless market would be as foolish as counting Apple out of the game 12 years ago was. And over at HP, lots of money and time is being invested into the Pre platform, which has not been a huge commercial success, but got pretty good grades with many developers who worked with it.
The game's afoot. It's going to be fun to watch, but if you are truly a betting person, this is what you might call a high-risk scenario.
Not today, though.
Computerworld posted an article with this headline today: Devs bet big on Android over Apple's iOS.
Wow, really? That seems surprising. What could possibly justify such a claim? Some proof that developers are leaving iOS in droves? Some new data about the Android Marketplace is actually making decent money for a substantial portion of Android developers? No, though it is encouraging to see that the Marketplace opened up to 13 new countries today. Still another 60 or so to go, but it's a step in the right direction. But that fact's not even mentioned in this article.
So what justifies such a grandiose claim? A survey of Appcelerator Titanium developers commissioned by Appcelerator. Now, if you don't know, Appcelerator Titanium is a cross-platform framework that allows you to develop an app once and generate applications for multiple paltforms: iOS, Android, Linux, Mac OS, and Windows.
Leaving aside my personal opinions about cross-platform tools, the article has already strayed from the headline. Devs? Well, sure, they're devs, but they're not representative of devs in general as the headline would imply. They're developers who have specifically chosen one option, and it's an option that doesn't tie them to a platform at all. We're talking about a group of people that have already shown their willingness to hedge their bets and who aren't about to take the risk of hitching their wagon to a single platform.
It's an inherently skewed sample. If you ran that same survey past 15,000 dedicated iOS developers, or dedicated Android or Blackberry or .Net developers, you'd get drastically different results.
In other words, this survey has no value whatsoever except to Accelerator. To them, it's perhaps useful for helping them decide where to devote their resources in the future to keep their clients happy.
But for the world at large? Worthless.
Oh, and what constitutes "betting big" in the context of the article? Well, it's not actually addressed, but their idea of "betting big" doesn't seem to match mine. There's nothing about investments, or exclusive agreements, or anything else that involves any sort of risk whatsoever. Developers were just asked things like "how interested are you in a platform X". The "betting" didn't involve monetary investments, or time investments. These developers did nothing more than state an opinion. An anonymous opinion. Oh… those crazy rebels.
Well, I'm "betting big" that the author of this post is a hack and his soi-disant "expert" is fucking clueless.
Let's face it, nobody knows for sure where the mobile market is headed, and being a Titanium Dev doesn't make your opinion any more informed or valuable than anyone else's. Personally, I suspect Android will continue to grow in market share unless Windows Phone 7 is better than great or else Microsoft manages to one-up Google's relationship with Verizon. But, any way you cut it, this is not a replay of the PC battles. There are too many companies still in the game and who have the potential to grow market share, profit share, or whatever other metric by which you want to judge.
Despite what you may read, there is no clear market leader. Nokia is still in the lead based on total handsets, Blackberry is still in the lead based on smartphone handsets sold, Apple is kicking ass in the profits department, and Android is doing gangbusters in new sales unit, if you lump all the 100+ models of Android phones together and count free phones as sales. Plus, the market is still growing. Apple, for example, didn't increase their market share at all year over year, but they increased their units sold considerably.
Understandably, many people are counting Microsoft out of the mobile game, but I'm not. Though I'm no fan of their technology stack or their approach to business, I think the sheer size of Microsoft's advertising budget, their Enterprise-savvy sales force, and the enormous pool of existing .Net developer talent they can draw on gives them an opportunity for huge inroads. They may not capitalize on it, but it's certainly there and counting Microsoft out of the wireless market would be as foolish as counting Apple out of the game 12 years ago was. And over at HP, lots of money and time is being invested into the Pre platform, which has not been a huge commercial success, but got pretty good grades with many developers who worked with it.
The game's afoot. It's going to be fun to watch, but if you are truly a betting person, this is what you might call a high-risk scenario.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
