Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Rise of the New Middle Class: iPhone Gets Original, Part II

 | Submit to Digg digg it | Submit to Reddit reddit | Add to delicious delicious | Submit to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon | Share on Facebook Facebook | Share on Twitter Twitter | Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn 

In Part I of this series, Indie iPhone App Developers, we explored the breakdown of new vs. established developers in the App Store, focusing on the largest App Store category, Games. Evaluating over 10 months of data, we concluded that new entrants outrank incumbent mobile game developers in the top paid games category, and with no signs that established game publishers are gaining ground. We call this new group of developers the New Middle Class.

This blog post further explores how key changes in the ecosystem, driven by Apple, have enabled the growth of the New Middle Class. Simply put, a year ago, the new darlings of mobile gaming - companies like Bolt Creative (Pocket God), Backflip Studios (Ragdoll Blaster, Paper Toss), Storm8 (World War, Racing Live) and Firemint (Flight Control, Real Racing) - could not have flourished in mobile.

At the highest level, this can be explained by friction points in the industry that included significant development and porting costs, impossible distribution challenges and rampant consumer risk. If a game maker did not license a big brand, they were basically dead on arrival. Very few companies, most notably Digital Chocolate, were able to survive this era of mobile, but largely due to a formidable streak of exceptionally innovative and well-made games.

With the iPhone and App Store, Apple has leveled the playing field for garage developers. In today's mobile world, an indie game maker can invent an original game, distribute it and compete with the likes of Electronic Arts and Gameloft. In other words, content is king again, and it doesn't need to be licensed. With that in mind, our analysis focuses on original vs. branded content in the gaming category.

Hypothesis: With reduced friction to get into the App Store, and less friction for consumers to try and buy games, original games compete more effectively against branded games in the App Store vs. carrier decks.

Baseline: In July, Flurry compared top selling games in the App Store vs. the Media Mall, the AT&T managed storefront. Specifically, we looked at the breakdown of original vs. branded titles, and present these in the table below.

 Original_vs_Branded_AppStore

A quick inspection reveals that branded content dominates the traditional carrier store front. Out of 25 titles, 20 of them are branded (80%). However, in the App Store, original titles hold roughly two thirds of the Top 25 slots (17 of 25, or 68%). Even more striking is a comparison of games that are both branded and shipped by established companies. In this case, we find that AT&T's store front has 3.5 times as many branded titles by established companies versus the App Store (20 vs. 6, or 80% vs. 32%).

Test: To ensure July's snapshot accurately reflect the success original games have on the iPhone, Flurry took a mid-month snapshot of the Top 25 App Store Top Paid Games category from September 2008 through July 2009. We then sorted games into two categories: (1) original titles created just for the iPhone; and (2) existing brands, whether licensed (e.g., movies, sports, music, board games, etc.) or ported from other platforms (e.g., social networks, classic arcade, web, console, PC, etc.). We tallied the results and generated the following charts.

Original_vs_Branded_AppStore

 

Original_vs_Branded_AppStore_PieChart

Conclusion: When it comes to the Top 25 Paid Games on the iPhone - the largest App Store category - Original games dominate Branded games by a ratio of nearly 3:1. Further, compared to the kind of companies appearing in the Top 25 games (55% New vs. 45% Established), covered in Part I of the New Middle Class series, Original titles trump Branded titles by an even wider margin (72% vs. 28%). This can be attributed to the fact that established companies also ship original titles, and some of these rank better than their branded counterparts.

Apple can be credited with enabling the Rise of the Middle Class in two historical, groundbreaking ways. First, Apple provides the most egalitarian access for all developers who want to sell apps in the App Store. Love or hate the App Store submission process, it is worth remembering that only the most privileged, dogged or lucky companies were granted access to the carrier decks. And while the number of available games now totals more than 10,000 in the App Store, most carrier decks listed no more than several hundred games at a time, regularly sun-setting any title that "under-performs." Second, Apple has significantly reduced the amount of risk that consumers face when trying and buying new games on the iPhone. The App Store provides rich point-of-sale information (e.g., long descriptions, screenshots, videos), has enabled free trial, provides a forum for consumer reviews and has created an efficient market whose equilibrium outputs lower price points. By stark contrast, carriers set minimum pricing around $4.99, frequently blocked free trial, provided no voice for consumer reviews, and as described above, offered minimal information about a game a consumer might consider purchasing.

The App Store has created a level playing field, enabling a steady stream developer Cinderalla stories. Unlike the carriers, previously charged with managing mobile store fronts, Apple has provided more choice to consumers while simultaneously empowering them with all the tools to make informed decisions. The resounding result is that indie developers are thriving in mobile like never before.

In Part III of the New Middle Class series, we study developers and games in the Android Market.

Comments

I think that Apple is to be applauded for the results listed above. However, I believe that Apple has to take responsibility for the "race to the bottom": the tendency for Apps, particularly games, to wind up at 99 cents. There is a problem with the iTunes store as it currently exists and that is that the bulk of the income is earned by a small percentage of Apps. 
 
I would like to see an analysis done that shows the viability of Apps in the iTunes store. What percentage of developers will be able to continue developing as a result of the income from their Apps? In other words, what percentage of developers are viable and able to sustain their efforts? 
 
I strongly believe that Apple needs to change the rating system which currently only takes into account the number of downloads. The pressure to get into the top 25 list is resulting in a pricing landslide as documented at Yappler.com: 
 
"-What is the average cost per app? 
"-Did you know prices dropped over 10% since March? 
 
"http://Yappler.com/Apple-iPhone-App-Store-Stats/" 
 
What is the answer?  
 
1) Change the ranking to be dollar based.  
2) Create an hierarchy of ranks and rank $10 apps against $10 apps, $5 apps against $5 apps, etc. in the same category. 
3) Do away with the overall top 100 list and have separate lists for each area, in the manner of Amazon. Amazon does not have a top 100 list. Imagine if they were ranking books, software, hardware, and music all on the same list.  
 
Apple is moving in the right direction with its new key-word search feature. Hopefully they will continue to restructure the iTunes store to make it viable for most developers. Currently it is more like searching for gold--only the lucky few strike it rich. True, there are exceptions to this--developers who have wisely found a niche market, but in the long run, Apple needs to find a way to help their many developers to be viable. Otherwise many of them will be forced to leave the platform.
Posted @ Monday, August 24, 2009 3:42 AM by Doug Hogg
Very interesting. Hey Peter, would you like to talk about Flurry at the next iPhone Business Meetup August 31st in Santa Clara? We have at least 50 people signed up.
Posted @ Wednesday, August 26, 2009 3:19 PM by Ray Thackeray
Good observations, but the conclusions you make are a bit short- sighted in my opinion. In new distribution environments, brand license holders tend to be more conservative and take a "wait-and-see" approach to new markets/channels. For those companies, even the downward performance of brick-and-mortar retail for Nintendo titles still far outperform from a global sales perspective, despite Nintendo's 50+% decrease in revenue year over year. I remember in mobile this same discussion you make here was put forth early in the going, but look at mobile now, as your charts show the AT&T Media Mall. What this says is that original titles can make a difference and generate revene opportunity in the early going of any new distribution channel, but ultimately the brands will enter the market and take over; it's just a matter of when. No one ever forgets Disney or NFL, but titles like Pocket God or Ragdoll Blaster will remain a device specific hit unless they look at porting to the broader mobile market AND/OR taking it to retail, online and other traditional distribution channels.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 08, 2009 2:01 PM by Chris Beer
Hi Chris - Thanks for your comment. I agree that we take an optimistic position regarding the future of independent developers in the App Store. However, there are major, meaningful differences in the friction points for distributing to retail and through carriers vs. through markets like the App Store. Branded products will always do well in any marketplace over time because, by definition, there is built-in recognition, loyalty and positive associations with that product. The point we are making, and the data we are seeing over a 10 month trend, shows that independents are faring better in this lower friction marketplace. Personally, having spent nearly a decade in consumer packaged goods, including PC gaming and now five years in mobile, with direct experience dealing with WW Tier 1 carriers, this is the first time in history where Indies and garage developers truly have a chance to perform. At the end of the day, I think we're looking at the same glass of water, but simply having a half-full, half-empty kind of discussion :)
Posted @ Tuesday, September 08, 2009 3:09 PM by Peter Farago
Thanks for the article. Very good stuff. Apple should look at Netflix in order to help gamers discover new apps. Netflix is successfully recommending unknown movies to its customers based on previous choices and the likes of those who rated + the same movies. So does Amazon. Content owners are delighted. Apple should use the same models. They could buy the top models that have unsuccesfully competed for Netflix's $1 million prize for a fraction of the price. Apple should not wait too long because the solution is there, and app developers need help, just like unknown film owners do.
Posted @ Friday, September 11, 2009 5:39 PM by robert miller
I think Apple also innovated by allowing developers to include advertising in their apps as well as features enabling the sale of products and services residing outside iTunes. An example of that would be Rhapsody, recently available on the App Store. Once downloaded, you can use it to purchase a subscription directly from the Rhapsody mobile site.  
 
I don't believe the latter feature, or even the inclusion of advertisement, were available in any app store before 2008. Does anyone know? This is really major because it allows developers to monetize in new ways, and the combination of the two will make selling AR apps another success story for developers in 2010.
Posted @ Friday, September 11, 2009 6:22 PM by robert miller
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics

Receive email when someone replies.

Subscribe by Email

Your email: