I have not used StartApp - though we’ve had some discussions about it on this board.
While StartApp has it’s advantages, there are some limitations:
- you cannot charge a variable amount it’s either/or
- once their stuff is installed on a phone, there is little incremental utility for StartApp
The second issue suggests problems with saturation - which because of the “success” of StartApp seems to have happened earlier than expected.
These days if you download 10 apps - one of them may have StartApp - this attests to the phenomenal success/adoption by developers (because the model promises payment for total installs - though even there it could be argued that it may rely a bit too much on mistaken clicking of “Accept” in the StartApp EULA).
However, this also means it’s utility maybe reducing for developers.
Since my search for apps ROUTINELY turns up apps using StartApp - I would guess that StartApp is probably very near saturation already.
This was a problem with StartApp from the start - what would happen when an app like Angry Birds uses it - it will essentially SATURATE the market in a couple of months (because everyone will try Angry Birds, though they may not keep it on the phone).
In addition there is a second problem - as the RPMD starts dropping (as it has to because additional installs give no advantage to StartApp) there is going to be a point where StartApp will pay less than competing solutions - eventually the equilibrium situation would be where StartApp is paying developers mostly for replacing earlier developers’ already installed StartApp. Even this is a courtesy on the part of StartApp - they do not have to do this, but they had to do something like that to keep their model “attractive” to users.
In effect new developers are not giving ANY value to StartApp (since StartApp is already installed “everywhere”) - it is only StartApp paying off those developers with a lower price to keep a semblance of workability (basically StartApp sharing any continuing revenue from bookmarks and home screen shortcuts in order to keep developer interest so they keep deploying StartApp - which compensates for old users removing StartApp from their phones) - but just “trying” the app will have installed StartApp (there will be some percentage ofusers though who will remove StartApp manually).
So in a saturated market, the model starts becoming a bit screwy.
What happens if Angry Birds were to include StartApp - it would wind up on almost all phones - then where would additional developers rolling out StartApp be ?
Regarding the “infection rate” for StartApp, you have to include the factor that certain apps are more “infectious” i.e. Angry Birds if it were to use StartApp would SATURATE the market within a couple of months.
So you can see it is not a long-term viable model in that sense. StartApp’s utility/business model seems to work well for developers while they are not saturated. Once they are saturated it still benefits StartApp, but it’s utility goes down for developers.
This is why monetization for Android is still not being addressed - there still needs to be a micro-payment solution.