Platform Differentiation Through Apps

Some people call a company bad names for making their 1st party apps available on 3rd party platforms. I understand the rationale. 1st party experiences help make the platform unique and provide a reason for your users to choose one platform over another. In theory.

"In theory" is a huge part of the problem. I still hold Windows Phone (or Windows 10 Mobile) is a better OS than either Android or iOS on many levels. But, the reality is that the developer support isn't there. And that means that there are a lot of missing apps, but also a lot of missing API's. The lack of apps hurt most normal users and the missing API's only helps to further keep developers at bay.

Companies don't want to invest in expanding API coverage if they can avoid it. Bigger API's means more things which go wrong. More attack vectors for viruses. More OS level bugs. More app bugs. So, they need app developers to tell them which features are missing. Then they need to prioritize them and only try to bite off enough that they can handle. But, without enough developer interest, important API's are either never requested, or the sample data is too small to know which will actually succeed in drawing in more devs. But, this article isn't about growing an App SDK. So we'll end that thought here for now.

The other problem with this theory is that there isn't always a good market reason for drawing people to your platform. I would say, for Microsoft, this reason died when they dropped the licensing fees for mobile devices. If they aren't getting paid for people to come to their platform anyway, what good does it do to have such a one sided strategy? Easy. None.

Dropping the license fee is another controversial topic. I think, ultimately, it was a mistake. I think they either should have never charged a fee (ideal) or never dropped it. In dropping the fee, I think they sent the message to OEM's that they'd thrown in the towel. But that too is not part of what I'm aiming to discuss.

Hopefully, after what I've written so far it is starting to become clear. These rules don't really apply in the mobile world. Or maybe it is more true to say that it only applies if you're the dominant force in the market. For instance, many people griped about the lack of Google Maps on Windows Phone, but almost no one complained when Here maps wasn't on Android. Here is much better, in my opinion. Google Maps just happened to be more popular. Similarly, Android users also rarely complain about not having things like iTunes or other Apple apps (in general).

The exception to that is subscription services. This is one I truly don't get how Microsoft is the ONLY company to see this. Maybe their small market share forced them. But this is idiocy. Why are companies locking paid subscriptions behind hardware? Apple Music and the Google equivalent should be available on ALL devices. Apple Music doubly because of their family plan. To explain this, it is probably easiest if I just use myself as an example. There is no way in hell I'm buying an iPhone just so I can pay a monthly subscription for music. And, I've already got a subscription to Groove Music. And there is no way I could ever convince my wife to switch to an iPhone. BUT, since Microsoft doesn't have a family plan, if Apple Music were available on mine and my wife's devices, then I'd kick Groove to the curb. At $15/month, we're talking $180/year. For the foreseeable future. That is like remaking the margin on a device sale every year, but without the need to actually make or sell or warranty a device.

I've been a Groove Music subscriber from day 1 of it's availability in Canada. I don't think Microsoft cares if I'm running it on an Android device, or my Xbox One or a Windows Phone. I've paid many times over what they would have gotten in OS licensing fees and device revenue.

And, as I alluded to earlier. Consumers don't actually give a damn about platforms. They aren't savvy enough to actually know anything about them. They don't know where the OS ends and the apps begin. They also have very fickle/limited loyalties. And we live in a world where, at the moment, people have rather ludicrous expectations of companies and other people. So, even if it is just good PR because the app is free, it serves a greater good for marketing your company.

I would like to note, I'm only really applying this to 1st party OS makers and not all app developers. Microsoft, Apple and Google have the talent, money and resources to do these things. This isn't something every indie dev or even some bigger app companies can handle. Though, I would agree that many of them lost potential revenue for not doing this.

Comments

Popular Posts