Android App Market splinters into fragments

Apple Online Store “Google designed its mobile operating system, Android, so anyone could grab the code and inject it into a product… but it could confuse consumers looking to purchase Android applications,” Elizabeth Woyke reports for Forbes,

“Manufacturers and software vendors are constructing their own app stores. Gadget maker Archos launched an independent Android app market, called AppsLib in September. Insyde Software, which makes embedded software for companies like Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo and Dell, opened an online store for Android netbook apps in late October,” Woyke reports. “Even handset makers are opening Android app stores. Brooklyn-based General Mobile has one called Storeoid. Motorola is said to be planning a market called SHOP4APPS. Several third-party app stores, like GetJar and Handango, also offer Android apps.”

Woyke reports, “The Android apps free-for-all is the opposite approach of Apple, which maintains a central store for iPhone and iPod touch applications. Google spokeswoman Carolyn Penner declined to comment on the company’s app store strategy.”

MacDailyNews Take: That’s either because they don’t have a strategy or they know it’s not a winning one.

Woyke continues, “Frederic Balay, Archos’ vice president of marketing, says the company wanted to use Google’s Android Market for its Android-powered Internet tablet, but couldn’t because it altered the device’s software to support high-resolution screens and high-definition content. ‘Devices that don’t fit Google’s requirements will have to go through third-party portals,’ he explains.”

MacDailyNews Take: Fragmented mess. In other words: PlaysForSure failure.

Woyke continues, “Many apps developed for Android phones aren’t suited for Android tablets or netbooks. Archos’ tablet lacks a camera and the vibration feedback popular in some Android games. Insyde’s netbooks don’t have accelerometers or global positioning system (GPS) technology.”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Android is a clusterfsck. More info here.

27 Comments

  1. The Wintel model doesn’t work on a mobile platform, period. Google’s implementation of it is worse because everyone can have a different version of the OS all in the same week. The mobile space changes to quickly for a single platform to own, unless it is a vertically integrated platform running on ONE compan’s devices. That way they control how often the OS Is updated. Googole has this figured out, they just have to get their hardware stategy together. Apple had it figured out 5 years ago. So google is still at least 3 years behind????

  2. “MacDailyNews Take: Android is a clusterfsck.”

    Wow, how fscking insightful. The apple app store has 2 products that it services: Iphones & Ipods that use the same hardware, same processor, same input method, same internet connection functionality. Archos uses a different architecture than Motorola, which uses a different architecture/design/chip/etc than Asus. But they all can run using Android.

    This reminds me of back in the 80s & 90s when only Macs could run Mac Software and any PC maker could run DOS & Windows — How’d that one turn out?

    But hey, it’s much more fun to write articles writing off android as a “clusterfsck”. Even the headline for this article, that the market “splinters into fragments” is completely misleading. For instance, where are the stats on how many apps are in the Android Market versus at these other platform-specific markets? 10,000 to 5? to 10 maybe?

    Keep up the good work – I’m sure the fan boys love it!

  3. @Sean
    Why are you trawling Apple sites? Is it because you know you’re on the wrong platform in phones and computers and trying to make yourself feel better by spouting off here where your drivel is of no interest to anyone?

  4. @ Sean,

    Just in case you missed it, Google is actually coming out with hardware soon. They realize the difference between the mobile space of 2010 versus the desktop of the 80’s and 90’s. More people see the need of technology so the pay attention. Sure geeks and nerds will always want something to tool around on but everyone else only needs the best overall device in everyday life. Then they put down the device and get on to living. In the 80’s geeks and business accounted for 90% of desktop sales. In the 90’s that number probaby dropped to 70%. Today. The average consumer is tech Davy to the extent they want to be, so they make up probably 50% of the mobille buying. Geeks are still geeks. The will continue to use jailbroken iPhones and android build 2.0.876543265432. Everyone else will buy what just works. So Rimm will sell phones, Apple will sell phones, Nikia will sell more junk, and everyone else will fight for scraps.

    The Wintel model doesn’t work on a mobile platform, period. Google’s implementation of it is worse because everyone can have a different version of the OS all in the same week. The mobile space changes to quickly for a single platform to own, unless it is a vertically integrated platform running on ONE compan’s devices. That way they control how often the OS Is updated. Googole has this figured out, they just have to get their hardware stategy together. Apple had it figured out 5 years ago. So google is still at least 3 years behind????

  5. Sean, I agree with you that MDN is (once again) over the top with this analysis. There may be a point being made, or maybe it’s just snarkiness let out for a run.
    Your more civil analysis, though, is simply wrong.
    Oh … the 80’s and 90’s thing is spot on. Would still be, except that so many consumers (as in “Not Businesses”) recognize that many garbage games and amusing databases are not really a selling point. And, now all the silly games and amusing DBs are on the iPhone, NOT the Android. Darn near all are third party.

  6. Bashers and cynics of the world unite: The only thing you have to lose is your individuality and credibility. **

    ** Some of you guys take yourselves ‘WAY too seriously. MDN is a fun, unapologetically pro-Apple site that serves its base constituency extraordinarily well. You are not its doctoral examination board, nor are most of you qualified to spout the vitriol you do. Don’t like the opinions MDN offers? Then create your own site . . . and hold on to your shorts while the rest of us ream you mercilessly.

  7. The volume of apps comparison doesn’t work. When someone would say how there are significantly more apps for Windows than for Macs, we would say, what good is it to have all the choice when the best apps for some things are only available for the Mac. Now, non-iPhone people are trying to use the same logic when someone says “100k apps vs. 10k apps” — but it doesn’t work. We can reasonably defend Mac’s smaller volume of apps by saying that there’s no iLife for Windows, so what good are hundreds of apps for Windows, when the best ones aren’t available. Non-iPhone people, however, don’t have that defense (yet). There are NO apps on Android (or RIM, or Web OS, or WinMob, or Symbian) that aren’t available on iPhone, and that everybody would want.

  8. In other words, there is no compelling app on any platform that would justify anyone choosing anything other than Android. If such an app does exist, nobody knows about it yet.

    And MDN is right (with its over-the-top commentary). When a developer has a choice of testing his code for compliance on dozens (if not even hundreds) of different hardware/software/OS configurations before he can determine system requirements for his app, vs. developing for a single platform and accessing tens of millions of potential customers with that ONE SINGLE version, it is extremely difficult to justify development for the fragmented platform.

    And comparison with Windows is very good, since it tells us EXACTLY why mobile and desktop aren’t the same. MS has been throwing money at Windows Mobile for over ten years. They had built it along the exact same model as desktop windows, and it had failed. Meanwhile, Palm came with their Pilot, and with a complete, vertically integrated solution, swept up the mobile business, dominating it for years. As soon as Palm started licensing its OS and splintering the platform, it begun losing share to RIM which was offering complete, integrated vertical solution. As soon as Apple came with a (yes, vertically integrated solution), it begun taking over.

    The ONLY way mobile platform can hold onto its share is by offering a monolythic, vertically integrated product. This is why Android has a excellent chance for failure.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.