Given sophisticated new digital tools, increased investment in app development, and the near-ubiquity of mobile devices, educational software developers are creating more engaging and empowering content today than ever before. Mobile platforms like iOS and Android enable small developers to build groundbreaking games, toys, and tools for kids to play, learn, grow, and develop - all free from commercial branding and at minimal cost to parents (at least for software) - a rare "win, win, win" scenario.
If we as parents, educators and developers want to maintain this, however, it's time to take a step back and reassess our expectations: $.99 is not sustainable. We're paying $19.99 at Target for games and toys that cost us $1.99 in the App Store. While digital apps are certainly cheaper to distribute than boxed software, development costs for these increasingly complex products far exceed parents' and education markets' price expectations. Given their relatively small market, this tension is particularly acute for educational developers - a true shame considering the incredible potential for these platforms as learning and creation tools for kids. If we don't commit to supporting great content, then we're effectively resigning developers to cut costs through quality reduction or supplement revenue through commercial branding/advertisement.
Responsibility goes both ways, however. With the rapid emergence of these new revenue models comes great opportunity for exploitation. If parents are going to support great content, then developers must in turn avoid these temptations, hold themselves to the highest standards, and pledge to respect and uphold the sanctity of play and childhood.
Given this, we've compared the App Store's five most common revenue models to determine which approach offers the most benefit to parents, kids, and developers alike.
There are merits to each approach, but our collective goal should be a sustainable, fair, and merit-based market where parents and educators can evaluate apps at a nominal fee while funding new development through additional purchases that expand the play experience. This encourages parents to take a chance on unknown brands and unique/innovative products, which is great for developers, the market, and ultimately kids. It also provides incentive for developers to release regular updates/fixes and continue to improve the user experience.
To continue development of quality children's apps, we need to embrace reasonable revenue models that are open, honest and upfront. We need for educators and parents to recognize they are paying not just for an app, but for the development put into it and the innovation and new ideas that will follow it as apps of the future. By supporting an independent app industry, we are not just supporting developers, but maintaining a diversity of characters, stories, ideas and game types.
Everyone with a stake in the future of children's media needs to commit to do their part. Parents need to support exceptional content by looking beyond $.99 apps, publishers need to keep their prices accessible, developers need to avoid the temptation of selling game-play consumables, and investors need to maintain reasonable expectations for returns. In short, we all need to strike a balance between our respective interests and what's best for the long-term viability of the market and for our children to play, learn, create, and grow (hint: it's one and the same).
Today, we're proud to unveil the Children's App Manifesto a call to action and a template for parents, teachers, publishers, developers, researchers, marketers, and investors to step forward and strike that balance. We welcome you to take a read and consider joining us in valuing play, valuing childhood, and helping to create a dynamic, purposeful, and sustainable world of mobile media for our children.
For further information and to read the Manifesto visit: Children's App Manifesto
Note: This piece was co-authored by Andy Russell, a toy and game producer and a co-founder of Launchpad Toys.
Follow Daniel Donahoo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ddonahoo
Although I agree with the general message of this text, in my experience with 100+ kid's book apps I have downloaded on my iPad, only a small percentage of the apps that offered Lite versions, or similar previews of content actually enticed me to buy the full version. In my experience this model works against low and mid-range developers (speaking in terms of quality)... Which means that it's better for consumers, but might mean money loss for publishers or developers that don't have the creativity, the know-how, or the resources to producetop-notch apps. As a curator of kids book apps, of course I benefit from being able to preview an app before buying, as many times I don't have time to look for a You Tube trailer for every book app that spikes my interest. I think in a way, several bestseller book apps have raised their prices to a range between 4$ - 7$ (I'm taking about book apps, not game apps). So in a way this is already working...but it is true that as buyers we have become so used to the 0.99$ app that we think 5$ is expensive. Who wants to take a risk on five books at 5$, if they haven't seen a preview or read a review about it? I find it hard to find a model that works to the benefit of both parties.
Curating Book App Mom
www.curatingbookappmom.com
Much of that 19.99 is for packaging and distribution, to include paying the artists who design what is printed on the box flaps
Moreover, computers have their own baggage, sometimes a program will not run or install properly because of yet another program on the computer. A call has to be made to technical support and sometimes it can take an hour for the phone support person to narrow it down. The technical support department is another cost to the software publisher, and if a lot of calls are made on a program, that drives up ithe expense of that program.
These types of things are not as a seen as much on mobile devices
Still .99$ is a bargain