A new way of parental control
-
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller it is also clearly stated on their website that they want their Android out soon.
@DustinB3403 is hating just to hate on Apple.
It seems ridiculous that can't make a responsive website that would work with all devices. Limiting yourself to less than half the market is a bad ploy.
Less than half? The iPhone only has 15% of the market, but it has something like 90% of the online mobile sales on Black Friday.
I'm glad to hear they are coming out with support for Android (though they should be making a Windows desktop client as well). But frankly they looked at their desired market and realized that they would cover WAY over 50% of them with apple support.
remember that the market here is not "phones" but "families with kids that want parental control that will buy a device branded Disney". That's a VERY limited set of customers and I think that you will find that...
- Apple is by far the dominant device and/or is in by far the majority of households (you only need one device in a multiple device house)
- This is only about time to market and they are not choosing to eschew any market, only focusing on the lowest cost, most important first.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller it is also clearly stated on their website that they want their Android out soon.
@DustinB3403 is hating just to hate on Apple.
It seems ridiculous that can't make a responsive website that would work with all devices. Limiting yourself to less than half the market is a bad ploy.
Less than half? The iPhone only has 15% of the market, but it has something like 90% of the online mobile sales on Black Friday.
I'm glad to hear they are coming out with support for Android (though they should be making a Windows desktop client as well). But frankly they looked at their desired market and realized that they would cover WAY over 50% of them with apple support.
remember that the market here is not "phones" but "families with kids that want parental control that will buy a device branded Disney". That's a VERY limited set of customers and I think that you will find that...
- Apple is by far the dominant device and/or is in by far the majority of households (you only need one device in a multiple device house)
- This is only about time to market and they are not choosing to eschew any market, only focusing on the lowest cost, most important first.
I completely agree.
-
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I don't feel that any of those factors are likely to be true. So why do you feel they would want to spend costly development resources making features only for an audience that they are not likely to have anyway? How many people would actually buy this based on such a feature and actually avoid it without it?
Many mobile apps are just glorified web browsers.. It seems like this easy enough to do.
Sure, but the glorification is the part that makes it friendly to non-technical end users. Doesn't matter how little extra it does as long as the extra part is the differentiating factor.
But that didn't answer my question... how many real sales are they losing by going after the biggest market first?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
- This is only about time to market and they are not choosing to eschew any market, only focusing on the lowest cost, most important first.
Maybe if not lowest cost, wider market. I was under the impression that Android development & App store licensing was far cheaper than Apple / IOS?
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
- This is only about time to market and they are not choosing to eschew any market, only focusing on the lowest cost, most important first.
Maybe if not lowest cost, wider market. I was under the impression that Android development & App store licensing was far cheaper than Apple / IOS?
But so what? iPhone owners have already proven that they don't care about cost - they bought an iPhone. With that in mind they have proven they have the cash and are willing to spend it.
-
@IRJ said:
I have found on my website which receives 90% mobile traffic. That only about 20-30% of the devices are apple devices. The market is shifting towards android very fast. $50-100 devices are readily available for android. I would assume many parents would rather buy a $50-100 device than a $500 apple device. It's not like young kids don't understand technology these days.
Sure, but the market decision is about households, not devices. We are a six iOS family (four people) but are switching a few devices to Android. That will help bolster the Android numbers. But the household still has iOS. You are looking at a number that is slightly suggestive but not the market number driving the decision making. This is where metrics get dangerous - no matter how many devices Android has on the market, it's the adult household iOS penetration number for people interested in the product that matters.
In our household where we would not want this product, the kids are moving to Android but not the adults. A common thing, I think. I know lots of people doing this this year. To sell to us, the iOS decision would make sense and Android would not, even though we statistically support your theory. Does that make sense?
-
@IRJ said:
@JaredBusch said:
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I don't feel that any of those factors are likely to be true. So why do you feel they would want to spend costly development resources making features only for an audience that they are not likely to have anyway? How many people would actually buy this based on such a feature and actually avoid it without it?
Many mobile apps are just glorified web browsers.. It seems like this easy enough to do.
Now, this is very true. And if that is all that the app does, then you would be right that there is no excuse.
Of course the app would need to scan the network for the device before connecting so it would automatically find the IP, but this seems easy enough to implement
Depends on the security, auditing, potential other features, etc. There is every reason to assume that it is nothing like this because this suggests that there is a web page on the device that we just can't find. It's safe to assume that that is not true.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
- This is only about time to market and they are not choosing to eschew any market, only focusing on the lowest cost, most important first.
Maybe if not lowest cost, wider market. I was under the impression that Android development & App store licensing was far cheaper than Apple / IOS?
Sure, but it is also fragmented. Getting into the Google Play store doesn't get you onto Fire devices and vice versa. Getting into Android is a lot of steps with a lot of vendors. And the cost of getting into the store is nothing compared to the cost of development - that's what they really care about. And they are doing it, it's all about prioritization, not choosing one over another.
-
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
- This is only about time to market and they are not choosing to eschew any market, only focusing on the lowest cost, most important first.
Maybe if not lowest cost, wider market. I was under the impression that Android development & App store licensing was far cheaper than Apple / IOS?
But so what? iPhone owners have already proven that they don't care about cost - they bought an iPhone. With that in mind they have proven they have the cash and are willing to spend it.
Yup, people choosing Android because it is $50, good for kids that might break it and comes with lots of free apps are not good customers. People spending a high price to get what they perceive as a premium product are the customers that you are likely to really get. Apple customers either have more money to spend or are generally more willing to spend it than Android customers.
-
I think that this thread would be good for a business class at college: Today's discussion: factors affecting the business decisions around time to market for a consumer product aimed at childrens' safety.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I think that this thread would be good for a business class at college: Today's discussion: factors affecting the business decisions around time to market for a consumer product aimed at childrens' safety.
How about a MangoCon session?
-
Some high level topics to consider as to why the vendor chose the path that they did:
- Time to market
- Total cost of development
- Time to develop
- Cost of hardware
- Target demographic
- Cost for support
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Yup, people choosing Android because it is $50, good for kids that might break it and comes with lots of free apps are not good customers. People spending a high price to get what they perceive as a premium product are the customers that you are likely to really get. Apple customers either have more money to spend or are generally more willing to spend it than Android customers.
I'll contend that the iPhone and iPad are just a better user experience for most people.
For example, my uncle, wants to know where his bank app is on his Kindle Fire. Sorry, not there. Kind of like what @scottalanmiller was saying about developing for Apple first as opposed to getting into Google Play. They have limited resources, they are going to go where the money is.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I think that this thread would be good for a business class at college: Today's discussion: factors affecting the business decisions around time to market for a consumer product aimed at childrens' safety.
How about a MangoCon session?
I think that there might be one around thinking about IT in a business context.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Yup, people choosing Android because it is $50, good for kids that might break it and comes with lots of free apps are not good customers. People spending a high price to get what they perceive as a premium product are the customers that you are likely to really get. Apple customers either have more money to spend or are generally more willing to spend it than Android customers.
I'll contend that the iPhone and iPad are just a better user experience for most people.
For example, my uncle, wants to know where his bank app is on his Kindle Fire. Sorry, not there. Kind of like what @scottalanmiller was saying about developing for Apple first as opposed to getting into Google Play. They have limited resources, they are going to go where the money is.
And it is just about going there first, not that the Android devices aren't right around the corner. Something has to come first and the choice was to hold back the product until they felt "enough" was done or to get it out for one group of customers first and start making money right away.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
@JaredBusch said:
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I don't feel that any of those factors are likely to be true. So why do you feel they would want to spend costly development resources making features only for an audience that they are not likely to have anyway? How many people would actually buy this based on such a feature and actually avoid it without it?
Many mobile apps are just glorified web browsers.. It seems like this easy enough to do.
Now, this is very true. And if that is all that the app does, then you would be right that there is no excuse.
Of course the app would need to scan the network for the device before connecting so it would automatically find the IP, but this seems easy enough to implement
Depends on the security, auditing, potential other features, etc. There is every reason to assume that it is nothing like this because this suggests that there is a web page on the device that we just can't find. It's safe to assume that that is not true.
Security on your own network? All you are doing is giving a device commands that is on your own network. It is not like anything you are sending needs to be encrypted. If somebody were to intercept data, they would already need to be on your own network. As you reminded me earlier, this is for consumers and not businesses. So it is doubtful any data should need to be protected.
-
Well, sort of. Remember that this is specifically a device built around the concept that you have an enemy (your kids) inside with a reason to defeat the security. You want to be careful, of course, that this new device will not expose you to outside threats on its own but also that it will not be trivially defeated by the kids or they will lose all credibility and the product will be done.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
- This is only about time to market and they are not choosing to eschew any market, only focusing on the lowest cost, most important first.
Maybe if not lowest cost, wider market. I was under the impression that Android development & App store licensing was far cheaper than Apple / IOS?
Sure, but it is also fragmented. Getting into the Google Play store doesn't get you onto Fire devices and vice versa. Getting into Android is a lot of steps with a lot of vendors. And the cost of getting into the store is nothing compared to the cost of development - that's what they really care about. And they are doing it, it's all about prioritization, not choosing one over another.
Getting into the Play Store is so easy. Anybody with $25 can do it. Apple on the other hand is very selective. I have made android and apple apps so I have experience with both. Mine we basic ones built in a web browser. Nothing too fancy, but I would assume this would be something similar.
If you can control enterprise devices via the web, there is absolutely no reason, you can't control this device through a web interface.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Yup, people choosing Android because it is $50, good for kids that might break it and comes with lots of free apps are not good customers. People spending a high price to get what they perceive as a premium product are the customers that you are likely to really get. Apple customers either have more money to spend or are generally more willing to spend it than Android customers.
I'll contend that the iPhone and iPad are just a better user experience for most people.
For example, my uncle, wants to know where his bank app is on his Kindle Fire. Sorry, not there. Kind of like what @scottalanmiller was saying about developing for Apple first as opposed to getting into Google Play. They have limited resources, they are going to go where the money is.
I am really shocked how far behind you guys are in the mobile device industry. In the world where we toss our devices every year or two price is everything. People are starting to understand that you can get the same thing from Android at a fraction of the cost with even better hardware. The iPhone 4 was the last time Apple did anything absoultely ground breaking
http://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-v-android-market-share-2014-5
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Well, sort of. Remember that this is specifically a device built around the concept that you have an enemy (your kids) inside with a reason to defeat the security. You want to be careful, of course, that this new device will not expose you to outside threats on its own but also that it will not be trivially defeated by the kids or they will lose all credibility and the product will be done.
I wouldn't expect kids to intercept packages on their own network. If they can do that, they can easily defeat their parents in other ways.
