Good point. But what does this mean for gamers like me who would rather pay for a game up-front rather than be bombarded with ads for "free?"
I wish I could tell you - if I knew, I would be selling that knowledge to the highest bidder.

I may be reading too deeply into your comments, but you seem to be implying that it may be more profitable for developers to make second-rate, ad-supported ports of their iOS titles rather than create a paid title for Android. This is quite depressing...
It will depend from developer to developer. Though I have to say that I do find the example of Angry Birds somewhat depressing too. This is, after all, without a doubt the most anticipated title on Android yet, and would pretty much have been guaranteed to make tens of thousands of sales in its first hours... one would certainly have expected them to make a lot of money through sales. Ads can certainly be lucrative with a large enough user base, but that lucrative? To me, the decision to drop that approach suggests an unfortunate lack of confidence in the profitability of the sales model in the Android market.
Google are committed to improving the market, though, so we shouldn't get too carried away with the doom and gloom. There are also an increasing number of competitors coming to the scene (I'm particularly interested in what Amazon will bring to the table), and these will help put more pressure on the Android market to improve.
Long term, I am actually pretty optimistic for the platform; it still has a lot of unreleased potential.
