[dreamux]

The comparison isn't really fair, since they sell the game and make money - a different model than flash games (advertising, free distribution).

The problem with launching these apps is the amount of noise you need to break through in the app store to differentiate a product. People will probably start following brands instead of titles when searching for new content. This is already the case with other platforms, such as Zynga (Facebook), and EA (desktop, consoles). In that sense, the brand could become entrenched and very valuable.

There is no brand leader in mobile applications, yet.

[ajscherer]

I think EA's marketing muscle is the reason their games tend to get "discovered", not that gamers are paying any attention to the EA brand (mostly they seem quite hostile towards it).

I'm not sure why people think there is any particularly high amount of noise to break through in the app store. If you write a book and get your local bookstore to carry it, there is almost no chance you are going to sell a lot of copies just by putting it on the shelf. The same would apply to records or PC software if people actually bought either of those.

If you don't have people coming to the app store specifically to buy your app, you aren't going to sell very many copies. That isn't a grim reality of the app store, it's a grim reality of selling anything anywhere.

[decklin]

Only on iOS. The Android version is ad-supported.

[Hovertruck]

There's an OS X version in the app store as well that costs $4.99.

[kylelibra]

There was an article on HN a few days ago that explained how Angry Birds was in the iTunes store for several weeks and got no traction. It was only after Rovio partnered with a company with a good relationship with Apple and got the game featured on iTunes that it took off.

[smackfu]

It has gotten to the point where companies develop entire games then give them away for free, just as a vehicle to advertise for their other pay or freemium games.