Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Games

Angry Birds Boss Credits Piracy For Popularity Boost 321

Posted by Soulskill
from the easier-to-do-that-when-you're-successful dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Mikael Hed is the CEO of Rovio Mobile, the company behind popular mobile puzzle game Angry Birds. At the Midem conference Monday, Hed had some interesting things to say about how piracy has affected the gaming industry, and Rovio's games in particular: '"We could learn a lot from the music industry, and the rather terrible ways the music industry has tried to combat piracy." Hed explained that Rovio sees it as "futile" to pursue pirates through the courts, except in cases where it feels the products they are selling are harmful to the Angry Birds brand, or ripping off its fans. When that's not the case, Rovio sees it as a way to attract more fans, even if it is not making money from the products. "Piracy may not be a bad thing: it can get us more business at the end of the day." ... "We took something from the music industry, which was to stop treating the customers as users, and start treating them as fans. We do that today: we talk about how many fans we have," he said. "If we lose that fanbase, our business is done, but if we can grow that fanbase, our business will grow."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Angry Birds Boss Credits Piracy For Popularity Boost

Comments Filter:
  • by TemperedAlchemist (2045966) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:11AM (#38888149)

    Rovio Mobile indicted for taking part in the Mega Upload conspiracy.

    • by Taco Cowboy (5327) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:50AM (#38888391) Journal

      ... he would be filthy rich - and his offspring will be forever filthy rich as well, thanks to our "perpetual copyright laws"

      Unfortunately, he ain't

      That is why Beethoven died dirt poor

      But on the other hand, the world is far more richer because no one could monopolize the wonderful music of Beethoven

      • by sjames (1099) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @05:33AM (#38888887) Homepage

        A good story, but not what happened. He described himself as penniless for a while due to the costs of caring for his sick brother (there's something many in the U.S. can relate to) and his lack of output during that time, but he wasn't exactly out on the streets (in fact, he was still able to appear as a nobleman). Several bouts of personal illness and a protracted legal battle didn't help either. However, he left an estate when he died.

      • by houghi (78078) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @07:06AM (#38889361)

        You could say the same for Rubens [wikipedia.org] Oh wait, not only was he filthy rich, he also put his name on the work of his students, thus pirating his own students.

        Also Beethoven might have been rich today, that would not mean his offspring would be as well. His record producer would be and most likely he still would be dirt poor.

        There are plenty of musicians today that are not rich. Some just like music more then they like money, just like some would never work for a specific company, no matter how much they like coding.

        It is a pity that money is seen as the only proof of success.

        • Oh wait, not only was he filthy rich, he also put his name on the work of his students, thus pirating his own students.

          That's the bedrock of the current patent and copyright systems. Substitute "students" with "employees" and "artists"...

        • by mcgrew (92797) * on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @12:07PM (#38891957) Homepage Journal

          You could say the same for Rubens Oh wait, not only was he filthy rich, he also put his name on the work of his students, thus pirating his own students.

          That's not pirating, that's plagarism. Plagiarism helps nobody but the plagiarist. Piracy helps the artist. Roger McGuinn's career died when the labels decided he was too old for rock and roll, and it was resurected with Napster, who he said brought his music to a whole new generation. Speaking of McGuinn and The Byrds, the lyrics to "Turn, Turn, Turn" are in the public domain [kingjbible.com] -- they come straight from the King James bible.

          Cory Doctorow came to the same conclusion as Mikael Hed a long time ago. As he says, nobody ever went broke from piracy, but many artists have starved from obscurity (Van Gogh comes to mind). He credits the fact that he publishes under a GPL license, gives his books away as ebooks on boingboing, and encourages sharing for his status as a New York Times best seller.

          I credit the free public libraries for the fact that I have a couple dozen Asimov titles on my bookshelf; were I not to have been able to read him for free, I'd never have bought any of his books.

          There are plenty of musicians today that are not rich. Some just like music more then they like money, just like some would never work for a specific company, no matter how much they like coding.

          I know quite a few musicians, and none of them are rich. Most do it as a second job simply because, as you say, they love music and love playing. None of them would touch an RIAA contract with a ten foot pole.

      • by westlake (615356)

        That is why Beethoven died dirt poor

        Beethoven died dirt poor because the Napoleonic Wars destroyed the patronage system --- and deafness his (very substantial) income from live performance.

        But on the other hand, the world is far more richer because no one could monopolize the wonderful music of Beethoven

        Beethoven is a transitional figure --- a professional musician and composer in the modern sense more than ready and willing to break from bonds of the patronage system. It is quite easy to see him lobbying for strong copyright and performance rights.

        Very easy if you see him --- correctly --- as a major talent with much more yet to give but visibly aging an

      • by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @10:39AM (#38891047) Journal

        If Beethoven were alive today, he'd be making tiny residuals while the recording industry made millions off of the rerelease of his works on BluRay.

      • Order of the Stick (Score:4, Informative)

        by sckeener (137243) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @11:05AM (#38891321)
        People seem to be focused on the piracy aspect of the story and I focused on the 'fan' aspect. Something that is going on with Kickstarter as of this week is Order of the Stick [comicsalliance.com], a free online web comic, that has blown away its goals multiple times in the first week of the kickstarter. That is the power of fans. The product is free on the web, but yet fans are tripping over themselves to get out of print material back in stores.
    • by davester666 (731373) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @05:01AM (#38888761) Journal

      Once his company goes public, and the stock price takes a tiny little dip, suddenly at the next investors meeting it becomes "Piracy is the devil's works!"

  • by kainosnous (1753770) <kainosnous@lavabit.com> on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:20AM (#38888197) Homepage

    Piracy is one of the greatest forms of advertising. In some businesses, it's called "word of mouth". Growing up, many of the products I was introduced to, and subsequently became loyal customers of, was thanks to "piracy" of one sort or another. Back then, nobody saw it as a bad thing. The rule of thumb was copy all that you want as long as you don't try to make a profit from it or pass it off as your own.

    When I was younger and still listened to mainstream music, my favorite band was Metallica. I heard them on the radio a few times, but I didn't know who they were. That is, until one of my friends loaned me a cassette tape. Then, a series of them. I was hooked. I bought every CD I could find (even though I already had the tapes), and I tuned into every radio station that played them. From what I understand, they owe a lot of their success to piracy. It's a shame that they attacked Napster. By the way, has anybody heard anything from them lately? I wonder how their anti-piracy campaign is working?

    It wasn't just music. Everything from software and video games to free food came along my way, and I often rewarded the company with my business. I was always more loyal to companies that treated me like I was a prize to be one, and not a resource to be manipulated. I hope that the media companies realize this before we lose too many of our rights. As for me, I've already given up on them.

    • Did you know that Napster was a for-profit company at that time? How does that work with your rule of thumb?

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      Piracy? Of the game? It's a free download from the market.

      Metallica: afaik they're still alive and well, but artistically well over their prime. Mostly playing old works for old fans. That doesn't mean their music is bad or anything, they're still very good musicians, just that they don't have much new original material coming out. That's why you don't hear from them much. And they'll take the tours easier as well. Upcoming summer they're touring in Europe for example.

      Back to the birds: interestingly the ar

    • by Tastecicles (1153671) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:58AM (#38888441)

      They didn't just attack Napster, they called everybody who listened to music, thieves. That was the drummer Ulrich who said that.

      At which point I made a public event of incinerating hundreds of Pounds worth of Metallica merchandise just to make a statement:

      YOU DO NOT SHIT WHERE YOU EAT.

    • Grep this (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wreakyhavoc (1045750)
      The music industry cries foul about file sharing, but you can find almost any music track on Youtube.

      Music execs are finally getting wise to the benefits of try-before-you-buy. Artists certainly have been for a while.

      What exactly is the difference between listening to a new album - or even watching full videos - on Youtube, and downloading them from peers to listen to before buying? They know it increases sales, yet insist on draconian measures to the contrary. I smell a rat.

      I listen to a lot of stuf
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @06:41AM (#38889229)

      Regarding Metallica:

      They actually did learn from their experience. Death Magnetic was leaked on youtube days before the album came out. Metallica was so blown away by the positive reaction that they didnt DMCA any of the songs(the studio lawyers did for the first few uploads, but Metallica put a stop to it and let the leak continue). Death Magnetic went on to sell very well, and Metallica acknowledged the leak was a good thing and that they look at things differently now.

  • Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:23AM (#38888215)

    We took something from the music industry

    Incoming lawsuit?

  • Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by brit74 (831798) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:23AM (#38888227)
    Really? A company that sells their product for a dollar finds it's uneconomical to drag pirates into court? Besides, it's easy for people to buy Angry Birds since it's easily searchable in the AppStore, and most people would find it way more trouble than it's worth to try to pirate it and save themselves a few bucks. They have a huge convenience advantage over pirates.
    • by gl4ss (559668) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:46AM (#38888371) Homepage Journal

      ..one of the "pirated" products was a fucking theme park.

    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sqr(twg) (2126054) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:51AM (#38888403)

      This is exactly the situation the music industry was in. If they only had created an easy way to buy and instantly download songs for a dollar a piece, piracy and sites like napster would not have become so popular. Alas, they chose to rely on lawsuits instead, probably costing them billions in lost revenue, untlil Apple more or less forced them to join the iTunes store.

      • by EETech1 (1179269)

        I wonder what (insert big music biz name here) would have said to the junior executive that dared bring up the thought of $10 digital album downloads or $1 single track downloads ten years ago.

        You know there's gotta be a few ITYSs out there, although their most likely working elsewhere by now.

        Bitching at the bar about getting fired for coming up with iTunes.

        Cheers!

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      It's free (ad-supported - or no ads if you don't have an Internet connection) from the Android Market.

    • Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DZign (200479) <averhe AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @04:53AM (#38888731) Homepage

      True.
      And their business model isn't a perfect analogy with the music industry, so their comparison doesn't hold true.
      Btw I know I'm playing devils advocate here.

      But the music industry are in fact middlemen between consumers and the artists themselves, and their product (revenue) comes from the music itself (songs, on cd, downloaded, ..) but not tshirts, posters, concerts, .. as usually the artist benefits most of that.

      Rovio can be compared to the artists (who also sell themselves). Their main product are downloads of their games. Anything else that is copied (tshirts, posters, toy dolls, ..) can indeed be seen as free publicity, which will help make their brand stronger, which in the end results in more sales of their core product: downloads of their games.
      And those producers that pay for a license to make related products, are seen as additional income streams, but licensing the Angry Birds brand is not their core business.
      If enough illegal dowloads of their full games become available, or other people will make clones of their games (think angry owls/bad birds/..) and this causes a significant drop in sales of their own games, they'll also have to react (by legal means) to survive as a company, as their main income stream is treatened.

      If you want to compare to the music industry, then compare them to artists. Most (small) bands don't earn a lot from cd sales, getting known is better for them, even if it's by illegal downloads, as this will mean they'll become more popular, do more and bigger concerts, sells related things (posters, tshirts, ..) and so on, and these are things that increase their income.

      • by DZign (200479)

        Continued - but still Rovios point is correct, it's better to treat (potential) customers as fans and try to win them for you so they'll eventually buy your product, than act like the music industry and be arrogant and sue everyone, as this will only cause your customers to abandon you even more..

    • by kiwimate (458274)

      1. The article is talking more about physical products like plush dolls and t-shirts with Angry Birds brands.
      2. They got people hooked by giving the original Angry Birds as a free app. The follow-up apps were what you had to pay for. And yes, pathetic, isn't it, that people would pirate something that only costs a dollar. Except that if you read one of the comments on the article, you find...
      3.

      Cheaper prices may help reduce piracy on SOME platforms, but not all. I've a friend who developed an iPhone game, it got into the top 10 downloaded charts, but it still got pirated to hell. And it was 69p. If people are willing to rip off a game that costs less than a cup of tea then there's no hope.

  • He is right (Score:5, Informative)

    by future assassin (639396) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:24AM (#38888233) Homepage

    Photoshop anyone?

    • Re:He is right (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dropadrop (1057046) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:50AM (#38888389)

      Photoshop anyone?

      This 5x

      Most people would easily get their problems solved with Gimp, and if there was a huge user base of simple users they might even make an easier "Lite" version out of it. Adobe knows, so they don't put meaningful copy protection in their applications. They know their target customers are corporations since normal people won't have 500-1000€ to throw into such an application, so they just try to ensure that people are accustomed to their products already before working anywhere. This way once they get a job they'll be asking for photoshop instead of permission to download Gimp.

      I even see this at work. Somebody who's only need for editing graphics is resizing a logo from 250*120 pixels to 125*60 pixels will be running photoshop to do it...

      • by mwvdlee (775178)

        Somebody who's only need for editing graphics is resizing a logo from 250*120 pixels to 125*60 pixels will be running photoshop to do it...

        Coincidentally, rescaling is one of the few areas Photoshop isn't very good at, compared to what is possible with some free applications.

        • Somebody who's only need for editing graphics is resizing a logo from 250*120 pixels to 125*60 pixels will be running photoshop to do it...

          Coincidentally, rescaling is one of the few areas Photoshop isn't very good at, compared to what is possible with some free applications.

          But it's the corporate standard... :)

  • Ripping Off (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cosm (1072588) <thecosm3NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:28AM (#38888249)

    ...Angry Birds brand, or ripping off its fans.

    Because Rovio brought us the first of this wonderful concept of projectile-tower crushing. No ripping off there. Never been done. Glad people pay for it. **puts on old and bitter smug-cap, goes back to Crush the Castle 3**

    • by sjames (1099)

      Except that people DON'T pay for it. It's a free download. They pay for Angry Birds pillows, shirts, plush toys, etc etc, but not the games.

      Like rock groups, they make nothing on what they're primarily known for, it's all the extras that make them money.

  • Well, well. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mykos (1627575) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:29AM (#38888255)
    Paulo Coelho would tend to agree with them, even taking it a step further [mediabistro.com]. He's joined up with Pirate Bay as part of an arts promotion program.
  • by EETech1 (1179269) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:31AM (#38888267)

    My friend downloaded a cracked and pirated copy of angry birds, and he liked it so much (as did his wife) that they both purchased the full copy of the game. He sent it to me, and I purchased it also (having tried the free version and went Meh...) but probably would not have, had I not gotten a chance to see all of the levels, and really appreciate the game!

    Probably 75 percent of the games that I have ever purchased, I have played a pirated version first not the demo. Especially when you can get all of the levels or vehicles unlocked and use all of the different weapons and just give it a good run through to be sure it's really worth having.

    If it's not worth buying, it's not worth keeping the pirated version around either!

    Cheers:)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:32AM (#38888271)

    Even though they would probably never admit it, IMHO this is how Windows and MS Office got so popular.
    I do not believe MS would not be able to come with a better way of protecting against illegal copying. It is just that allowing people to copy windows without much effort created a very nice near-monopoly on OS for them.

    • by hcs_$reboot (1536101) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:36AM (#38888307)

      Even though they would probably never admit it

      They did it involuntarily.

      • by GreatBunzinni (642500) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @06:37AM (#38889207)

        They did it involuntarily.

        Not quite. They did it voluntarily, and in a very explicit way. Bill Gates himself has said the following [latimes.com]:

        "Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though," Gates told an audience at the University of Washington. "And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

        Even the founder of Microsoft stated that the unauthorized (and free) distribution of Microsoft products is benefitial for a company such as his own. The totalitarian copyright enforcement crap only comes in as useful if a product already attained a reasonable market share, and therefore there is a copyright to enforce. Until there isn't a copyright to enforce, they simply turn a blind eye for convenience and due to business sense.

  • They stole the idea from a bunch of flash games without innovating and are now raking in unbelievable profits on games, toys, advertising, etc. What do they care if someone pirates something they put barely any effort into?

    • by Zorque (894011)

      By the way, I don't mean that as any sort of troll. It just makes me mad when companies step all over indie game developers (although I guess Rovio could just be considered a larger breed of indie developer) and never credit or acknowledge them, as is clearly the case here.

  • by Tastecicles (1153671) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:54AM (#38888419)

    ...which is why they supplied keys for their OSes separately to the media. Why they went for hooky VLKs and those distributing them instead of the end users using them. Establish the user base and lock them in, when you get the planned obsolescence running properly, as they have now, then you've got a captive audience and every fucking penny they will ever earn for the rest of their lives.

  • by hcs_$reboot (1536101) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:58AM (#38888437)
    From TFA

    We could learn a lot from the music industry, and the rather terrible ways the music industry has tried to combat piracy

    This is not a surprise, the two companies don't see piracy from the same angle.
    The Music industry and their executives come from this ancient business model where people have to purchase physical and palpable objects, like potatoes or condoms ; they had then to - slowly and awkwardly - adapt to the new digital technologies.
    Rovio on the other hand is a young enterprise having every staff member fully immersed in the digital world from day one. Definitely not the same mentality.

  • by djchristensen (472087) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @03:58AM (#38888439)

    I think the validity of this viewpoint depends on just how many people will end up purchasing after pirating. If too many people decide they'll be the pirates and let someone else be the purchaser, then the model breaks done. Making purchasing easy and of reasonable perceived value will help, much like Apple did for digital music sales (which the music publishers still seem to be unhappy about, the ungrateful bastards).

    • by dmomo (256005)

      This leaves out the fact that the pirate may not buy it.. but might mention the game to a friend... who then buys it. So, the "word of mouth" thing still stands. Not sure how much, but it makes sense.

      • by delinear (991444)
        This is exactly the point. The pirate might not buy the game after playing it for free - but then he might never have played it at all if he couldn't get it free. There's now an increased chance that he'll buy the sequel, or buy some of the massive range of merchandise, or just enthuse about the game to his friends and family, or just tell people in general that Rovio are a pretty cool company. That's all about winning "mindshare" - companies will happily spend millions advertising their products to people
    • by Xeno man (1614779)
      Actually you really don't need to over analyze the model as it's self regulating. The bottom line is you need a good product. If it's crap, no one will buy it, it's it's good, many people will buy it. As the ratio of pirate to purchase goes up, the less profitable software will be. As businesses close and migrate away from software the demand for good software goes up as there is less supply. With less supply, more people will be willing to pay for good software reversing the pirate to purchase ratio.

      Bus
    • by olau (314197)

      That's simplifying it. Lawrence Lessig in Free Culture [wikipedia.org] has a deeper analysis. Remember as long as those people not paying would never have paid anyway, you are not loosing any customers, just gaining fans.

  • Probably (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @04:09AM (#38888483) Homepage Journal
    That's why MS DOS, Windows, etc did so well back in the 90's. All you needed to clone a DOS system was a floppy disk. I don't know if I ever saw legitimate MS install media. Of course, once they got well-established, they started cracking down...
  • by Idimmu Xul (204345) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @04:33AM (#38888613) Homepage Journal

    I really wanted to watch Van Helsing the other day. I just wanted to watch it, not own it. I've recently had a cleanse and sold all my DVDs to a second hand store, only keeping my wild life documentary Blu-Rays as I got a bit fed up with having hundreds of DVDs cluttering up the flat.

    After scouting around, on Amazon it is about £8 for the Van Helsing Blu-Ray, on iTunes it is about £8 to buy/download forever Van Helsing.

    I'm not a fan of buying movies to keep like that, I just wanted to watch it once, not keep it on a HDD for the rest of my life, i figured to me it's worth £1 to download/stream and view once.

    Lovefilms do PPV at £3.49 for most films, Van Helsing wasn't available and that's more than I wanted to pay anyway. They also do unlimited streaming for £5pm.

    Netflix do unlimited streaming for £6pm but their site didn't seem to show Van Helsing and there wasn't a one off option.

    iTunes only lets you buy, not one off stream and that's the same price as the Blu-Ray.

    BitTorrent on the other hand had it readily available for free, but I don't pirate so watched my copy of Planet Earth instead.

    Am I unreasonable in wanting to watch once an 8 year old film that had a budget of $160 million and broke $300 million in the box office for £1?

    Is it unreasonable to not want to pay monthly subscriptions to a service that doesn't have the film I want to watch anyway which forces me to watch more films than I want in order to get value for my money?

    Is it me that's broken, or their business model?

    • by evilviper (135110)

      Is it me that's broken, or their business model

      They have to set a price, and there will always be people who will consider it reasonable, and those who don't. That doesn't mean their business model is broken, and doesn't mean the person who isn't willing to pay is broken either.

      Checking the Android App store, I see it's available for $2.99USD, or about £1.90. But since you're using that funny-money, that probably means you're in one of those OTHER countries, where studios get horribly poor roy

  • Appstore economics. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Half-pint HAL (718102) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @05:47AM (#38888961)

    Rovio's attitude stinks, because it just runs on the same lines as all appstore economics.

    Rovio have made millions, but they're the exception -- most mobile apps get few or no sales. The profits in mobile apps, spread across all writers, would amount to a pretty pitiful wage. Losses to lower-order app developers mean loss of (already rubbish) income. Losses to Rovio mean little or nothing, considering the scale they're on.

    Advertising? Well, three things:

    1) It's well established that piracy tends to favour known and popular materials over unknown and unpopular, in all media. It therefore serves to further entrench the established players -- so it's great for Rovio, not much use for John A B Smith Software.

    2) The entrenched players in mobile apps are supported by their appstore ratings, compiled from legal downloads. Even 100,000,000 downloads of a pirated game wouldn't get it above Angry Birds in the appstore charts, so it wouldn't get commercial discovery and success.

    3) Angry Birds is a brand, and the toys and cartoons make lots of money. Most apps aren't merchandisable. PocketPlayPool -- are you going to market branded balls? GTCarsXXVII -- the manufacturers retain all likeness rights to their own models, so there's nothing to market. Same goes for EAProSportofchoice20xx and sports personalities/teams.

    So what Rovio is supporting is market conditions that favour their particular product, which is very different from market conditions that ensure a robust and healthy competitive environment, or that ensure innovation and development.

    • by ghostdoc (1235612) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @06:21AM (#38889123)

      If your customers aren't buying your products, please stop whining about customer behaviour and change your products to suit the market.

      If your business model doesn't make money in the market you've chosen, please stop whining about the market and change your business model.

      So what Rovio is supporting is market conditions that favour their particular product, which is very different from market conditions that ensure a robust and healthy competitive environment, or that ensure innovation and development.

      The market is fixed. Your business model and product is flexible (or should be). So change your product so it suits the market conditions.

      Rovio understood that the market they chose to operate in has a large amount of piracy. Instead of trying to change the market to suit their products, they chose the eminently more profitable option of working out how they could make piracy work for them. As you've pointed out, one of the ways they did this was by launching merch to go with their game that allowed them to take advantage of the fanbase generated by pirate players. As another poster pointed out, the game they created is not unique and the Castle version doesn't have the merch potential, which is possibly why Angry Birds made a lot more money from the same game.

      Pirating software is going to happen regardless of any action you take. It's a fact of life in the market. So you can choose to view pirated copies as lost sales and let your business plan get broken by it, or you can choose to view it as free marketing and incorporate it into your business plan.

    • by nomaddamon (1783058) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @06:41AM (#38889227)
      I'm a hobby developer for WP7 with 2 of my friends. The first thing we do on every release is upload our app to various torrent sites and seed the hell out of it.

      If someone has jailbroken their phone and is capable of and interested in finding, downloading and installing a pirated app on their phone, they are lost revenue for us anyway.
      Our only hope of revenue from these users is to provide them with good enough app so that they keep using it and might buy it (and advertise the app within their circle of friends, who might not be competent enough to pirate the app)

      If it is easier to buy the app on appstore than to pirate it, then pirates are good for you

      I can't say for sure that we wouldn't have made it without piracy, but currently we have 5 simple apps out and with total cost of 2000$ for launch advertising (and "free" work for 2-3 weeks at nights, after our daily jobs) per app, we gross around 6500$ every month

      Since we seed our apps ourselves, we see that approximately 20% of installations are pirated (~2000 torrent downloads vs ~10000 sales via store every month) but we are sure that without the 20% "lost" sales, we wouldn't make the top charts of legal downloads... ever....
  • by Cyko_01 (1092499) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @08:57AM (#38890007) Homepage

    We took something from the music industry...

    NOBODY takes ANYTHING from the music industry without paying for it! I'm sure they will have RIAA lawyers on there doorstep within a few hours.

    ...which was to stop treating the customers as users, and start treating them as fans

    oh, they were just kidding - the music industry has yet to learn this lesson.

Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to be doing at the moment. -- Robert Benchley

Working...