The Psychology of Android and iOS Users

I saw a jest on Twitter recently that the Onion should do a story on the fact that WWIII has just erupted since the release of Instagram for Android. This is a dramatic statement to be sure, but perhaps one that we can all appreciate given the buzz that the long-awaited application's release has generated in the past week or so. Recently, however, there has been even more news in the debate among the user bases of Android and iOS. Developer Ryan Bateman of the Papermill app (an Instapaper client for Android) has argued that Android users are significantly less willing to pay a premium for refined applications than iOS users. Statements like these spark a great deal of controversy in the Android community, and with good reason. Is there any truth behind those words?

Developing for Android: Is it Worth It?

First, some background information to the Papermill story. Developer Bateman created the app because the original creator of Instapaper for iOS was thoroughly uninterested in ever creating an equivalent application for Android users. In December of 2011, Marco Arment, the creator of Instapaper, issued a challenge to Android developers, saying that if developers met certain requirements, he would sanction a would-be application as the official Instapaper client for Android. Ryan Bateman wanted to meet that challenge, and Papermill was born. Over at The Verge, it was reviewed as the first beautiful Instapaper client for Android. So, what happened?

Ryan Bateman is currently charging $3.99 USD for the Papermill app, which also requires an Instapaper subscription (amounting to $3 for 3 months). The developer had said that he didn't think he could get away with the price tag, and apparently he was right: as of April 4th, the app had only sold 441 units on Google Play and 5 units in the Amazon App Store. He claims that the reason for this is that Android users are less willing to pay for premium apps than iOS users. His device logs show that 40% of his sessions came from users running Android 4.0+, and since the app is built using 4.0 design guidelines, the developer feels that he is designing his application around a small base of users interested in paying for quality.

As Android users, a lot of us have heard this argument before: the Android user base is cheap. It is often said that developers flock to iOS because its users tend to be more willing to pay for applications and to pay higher prices for those applications. (More on some reasons why that might be in a minute.) This argument is often made by iOS developers uninterested and unwilling to port their (often paid) applications that have been successful on iOS to Android. When they finally do decide to port those applications or opt to go the way of Marco Arment and offer a challenge to developers to create a new application, they are often disappointed in the results. "See," they say. "Android users are cheap, and we were better off sticking with our iOS user base. Those customers are more willing to pay for applications."

Form, Function, or Both?

It is often the case that those same developers do not understand the Android user base. While their applications were sitting pretty for months on iOS, the enterprising Android development community was working on its own versions. For example, I took a good look at Papermill this week and one of its main competitors, the often-cited and highly-praised app Readability. Readability happens to be free on Google Play and provides exactly the same sort of service. Furthermore, it has a native Chrome extension, which is something that Instapaper does not possess. With Instapaper, you need a bookmark option in your bar in order to save pages for offline reading. With Readability, you don't need an Instapaper subscription. The app also syncs across Android and iOS devices, so it is cross-platform. Even more, for those of you that haven't had much experience with the app or had a chance to use it, the interface is intuitive, the syncing options work well, and it's even easy on the eyes:

Part of the problem here isn't that Android users aren't interested in paying for quality applications. It is that they aren't interested in paying for new applications in Google Play that do less than applications that are already out there. How many of you would still be willing to use Readability if you had to pay for the application? The price of an app directly correlates to its usefulness. I would also bet that part of what makes the Papermill pill harder to swallow for Android users is that you not only have to pay for the application, but you have to pay for an Instapaper subscription. Not only is this inconvenient, since you have to do this in two different locations, but it adds cost on top of cost for an application that performs functions about the same (or arguably worse, if you look at some of the reviews in Google Play) as other Android apps that already exist.

None of this is meant to say anything against the developer, and I hope the community will encourage him to continue developing for the Android platform. However, the point that I hope is coming across here is that developers cannot simply hope to port iOS ideas onto the Android platform and then get frustrated when their apps don't sell well. If users aren't interested in Papermill right now en masse, it does not necessarily imply that Android users as a whole are not interested in "paying for quality applications." The method of purchasing and subscribing to Papermill is clunky at best, and it lacks some key features that other applications with similar features have out of the box. None of these things put together should necessarily make the developer draw the rather presumptuous conclusion that Android users are cheap.

I know most of you are perfectly willing to use your hard-earned cash to pay for quality apps, and on this site, a lot of those apps will be root applications. Are there room for functional applications that are also "pretty?" Of course! The thing about Android users, though (and power users, especially) is that they aren't willing to sacrifice function for form. If you're planning on developing for Android, you have to know your customers.

The Psychology Behind the Platforms

Let's return to this week's battle to the death over the release of Instagram. The battle between iOS users and Android users has gotten increasingly hostile over the past few days, where many (on both sides) have taken to Twitter to complain. Many iOS users are irritated by Instagram's new users and concerned about the potential quality of the social network. Of course, it is true that Android hardware is extremely diluted and that picture quality will likely vary greatly, but the reverse of that is that Instagram is usable on iOS back to the 3GS, which is certainly not known for its high-quality photography. Android users, on the other hand, often think of iOS users as dumbed-down "hipsters" and have been known to look upon ported iOS apps with particular disdain. Instagram has been no exception. This week, there was an article published on Buzzfeed by Matt Buchanan that explains some key differences between Android users and iOS users. Citing different reports and surveys, the author explains the rather large demographic gap between Android users and iOS users. According to a Hunch survey (when taking this survey into account, it must be considered that those who participated had to actively sign up for Hunch) Android users are 80 percent more likely to only have a high school degree, 86 percent more likely to live in a rural area, 20 percent more likely to be politically conservative, 57 percent more likely to "prefer an ugly device that's full-featured" and 71 percent more likely to have never left their native country. iOS users are 37 percent more likely to have a graduate degree, 27 percent more likely to live in the city, 17 percent more likely to be politically liberal, 122 percent more likely to "prefer a sleek device that does just a few things," more likely to be upper-middle-class, and 50 percent more likely to have visited more than five countries.

Before we all get too up in arms over this, it might be relevant to consider how this relates to the earlier discussion regarding developing for Android. First of all, it makes sense that the Android demographic would be significantly more spread out than the iPhone demographic. There is a lot more Android hardware on the market, from inexpensive, prepaid devices all the way on up to top of the line, flagship devices that are actually more expensive than the iPhone out of the box. This makes for a wide range of users, and in the defense of developers thinking of moving to Android, it does present a significant challenge. As Papermill developer Bateman had suggested, there were only a small amount of devices using Android 4.0+ that were interested in his design aesthetic. One thing for developers to look at, though, is that if Android users are coming from all sorts of different economic backgrounds, is a pretty, iPhone-esque Instapaper app that requires a separate subscription necessarily the best way for you to net income? Furthermore, should you blame the consumers when revenue isn't what you had hoped? Again, it's important to know and understand your audience and their interests.

The fact that the Android user base has a more diverse demographic economically doesn't necessarily make them cheap, but I would argue it does make them a more discerning and complex audience. Developers can't merely expect to port over iPhone applications and design ideas and expect them to take root and sell well in a community as diverse as this. There are a lot of different people in the Android community buying applications, and consumers are diluted. In that respect, Android is more of a challenge to develop for than iOS, which is arguably more homogeneous. It goes without saying that most of you are offended when you hear that Android users are less willing to pay for quality applications, and with good reason. That superficial statement only scratches the very surface of a controversial argument.

Sources [The Verge], [Buzzfeed]