This was Marco and other iOS developers' mistake. If they wait too long to come to Android, there will be established competitors on the platform, and instead of being considered a market leader, they might even have to play catch-up with those already established on Android.
This is the same reason why even Microsoft has decided to make Office for iOS and Android. They can't just ignore 700 million users (and soon to be much bigger) just because they'd want people to use Windows instead. Windows is a big cash cow for Microsoft, but so is Office (about as big in revenue), and they can't risk losing the Office market to others, and not getting to decide the future format for docs, and other benefits they now get from being the absolute Office leader.
>This was Marco and other iOS developers' mistake.
How so? Instapaper is literally one developer; isn't it better to be a market leader on one platform than to spread yourself across two platforms and dilute both applications?
It sounds like once the right team approached him (one that he trusted the quality and business ethics of, and he knew their work) he cut a deal for an Android version.
To me, that seems like an optimal use of limited resources.
Is that Instapaper nets somewhere in the $1-2M range. I'd hardly call that "limited resources." The ability to staff up and/or outsource work effectively is an important skill for a business. You don't get a do-over just because you want to do all the work yourself.
That source says that that money is over the apps lifetime. So divide that by 4 (?) and its starting to become more limited.
EDIT to include the quote (the low end of the scale starts to make things quite tight by my guestimating):
>>> TL;DR:
Final estimate is somewhere between 0.15% to 0.60% of the iOS market, netting it somewhere between $875k to $2.3m for the duration of its existence (not yearly)<<<
Instapaper is a place, time AND device shifting service for content. Its market leader position on one or two devices was made more precarious by not branching out as soon as possible to as many devices as possible.
Marco's personal inclination was to support only platforms that he himself used—that's why he built a free service into Instapaper for the Kindle platform while ignoring the Android platform. I initially had an iPhone and an iPad, on which I owned the Instapaper client, then upgraded to an Android phone. I promptly switched to another service with support for my platform.
All fair points, but history demonstrated that Marco was doing much more than making a rational business decision. I would say that he suffered under the delusion that his blog posts would change the market (let's call it the Gruber Complex). Instead of rationally understanding and analyzing the market he spit venom and conjecture against Android, under the seemingly bizarre notion that it would halt its rise.
I doubt Microsoft will make a native iOS version of Office. Simply for the reason that they'll have to distribute through the AppStore, meaning Apple will take a 30% cut. I don't think Microsoft would be ok with Apple talking a cut on a product like Office.
I'm leaning towards the theory that Microsoft will release a "free for existing customers" mobile version of Office. I'd thought the primary motivation would be to deal with their cannibalization concerns, but it would also avoid issues like Apple's slice.
This is the same reason why even Microsoft has decided to make Office for iOS and Android. They can't just ignore 700 million users (and soon to be much bigger) just because they'd want people to use Windows instead. Windows is a big cash cow for Microsoft, but so is Office (about as big in revenue), and they can't risk losing the Office market to others, and not getting to decide the future format for docs, and other benefits they now get from being the absolute Office leader.