3 ms·

This is simply not true. There are more on the android platform, and therefore enough for viability. The reality is people want all the benefits of the iOS wor

This is simply not true. There are more on the android platform, and therefore enough for viability. The reality is people want all the benefits of the iOS world without paying anything for it.

learc83 6y ago
>There are more on the android platform, and therefore enough for viability. Is that true for customers who are interested in a high end email service that costs $100 a year? I'd wager that the vast majority of people in that segment are on iPhones.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Honestly, I don't think that segment really exists. The ones that would search that out will just as likely be on android as iPhone. If 33% of such an app is enough to cause this much angst, it makes me think it just isn't that popular.
  - learc83 6y ago
    >Honestly, I don't think that segment really exists. The ones that would search that out will just as likely be on android as iPhone. Why. The type of people who want a curated mail experience might just happen to be the type of people who like the curated iPhone experience. >If 33% of such an app is enough to cause this much angst, it makes me think it just isn't that popular. Why 33%? If you're right and they're just as likely to seek out android it's going to be 50%. If I'm right it's going to be much higher than that. Where are you getting 33% from?
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      > Why. The type of people who want a curated mail experience might just happen to be the type of people who like the curated iPhone experience. Even if this were true (doubtful), that doesn't mean there is a segment. A handful may like this application. I can't imagine the market for a ridiculously expensive email client that isn't functional is large. In fact, it's so small, that it can't take the shock of paying 15-30% fee for the advertisement, easy transfer to customer, easy place for reviews, and updates, in other words, a platform with access to a large array of consumers willing to spend for good software. What's more likely is this - the app is struggling to make money, they cheated the rules and they know it, so why not turn it into a marketing campaign. Apple the big bad (meanwhile the company cheated the system, while developers who followed the rules get screwed). > Why 33%? If you're right and they're just as likely to seek out android it's going to be 50%. If I'm right it's going to be much higher than that. Where are you getting 33% from? I'm not sure what you're talking about, could you be more clear? 33% really means the 15-30% of revenue that apple takes. I just rounded up to about a third. The fact is the App Store wall entry fee is fair. It's not exorbitant. If you don't like it make a web app. There are too many remedies for this, and there are far bigger fish to fry in anti-trust than this.
      - learc83 6y ago
        >The type of people who want a curated mail experience might just happen to be the type of people who like the curated iPhone experience. >Even if this were true (doubtful), that doesn't mean there is a segment. If you're assuming my scenario is true, then yes it does mean there is a segment. That's what assuming my scenario is true means in this case. > Apple the big bad (meanwhile the company cheated the system, while developers who followed the rules get screwed). If, for example, Apple decides to reduce their fees to 10% going forward are all the developers who've paid 30% in the past screwed? If so you have an odd definition of screwed. >I'm not sure what you're talking about, could you be more clear? 33% really means the 15-30% of revenue that apple takes. I just rounded up to about a third. I thought you were responding to this > I'd wager that the vast majority of people in that segment are on iPhones. And that 33% was the percentage of customers on iPhones. >The fact is the App Store wall entry fee is fair. It's not exorbitant. I and many other people think that 30% is exorbitant. >There are too many remedies for this, and there are far bigger fish to fry in anti-trust than this. Sure, there are always bigger fish to fry. But it's not an either or situation.

This is simply not true. There are more on the android platform, and therefore enough for viability. The reality is people want all the benefits of the iOS world without paying anything for it.

learc83 6y ago

>There are more on the android platform, and therefore enough for viability. Is that true for customers who are interested in a high end email service that costs $100 a year? I'd wager that the vast majority of people in that segment are on iPhones.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Honestly, I don't think that segment really exists. The ones that would search that out will just as likely be on android as iPhone. If 33% of such an app is enough to cause this much angst, it makes me think it just isn't that popular.
- learc83 6y ago
  >Honestly, I don't think that segment really exists. The ones that would search that out will just as likely be on android as iPhone. Why. The type of people who want a curated mail experience might just happen to be the type of people who like the curated iPhone experience. >If 33% of such an app is enough to cause this much angst, it makes me think it just isn't that popular. Why 33%? If you're right and they're just as likely to seek out android it's going to be 50%. If I'm right it's going to be much higher than that. Where are you getting 33% from?
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    > Why. The type of people who want a curated mail experience might just happen to be the type of people who like the curated iPhone experience. Even if this were true (doubtful), that doesn't mean there is a segment. A handful may like this application. I can't imagine the market for a ridiculously expensive email client that isn't functional is large. In fact, it's so small, that it can't take the shock of paying 15-30% fee for the advertisement, easy transfer to customer, easy place for reviews, and updates, in other words, a platform with access to a large array of consumers willing to spend for good software. What's more likely is this - the app is struggling to make money, they cheated the rules and they know it, so why not turn it into a marketing campaign. Apple the big bad (meanwhile the company cheated the system, while developers who followed the rules get screwed). > Why 33%? If you're right and they're just as likely to seek out android it's going to be 50%. If I'm right it's going to be much higher than that. Where are you getting 33% from? I'm not sure what you're talking about, could you be more clear? 33% really means the 15-30% of revenue that apple takes. I just rounded up to about a third. The fact is the App Store wall entry fee is fair. It's not exorbitant. If you don't like it make a web app. There are too many remedies for this, and there are far bigger fish to fry in anti-trust than this.
    - learc83 6y ago
      >The type of people who want a curated mail experience might just happen to be the type of people who like the curated iPhone experience. >Even if this were true (doubtful), that doesn't mean there is a segment. If you're assuming my scenario is true, then yes it does mean there is a segment. That's what assuming my scenario is true means in this case. > Apple the big bad (meanwhile the company cheated the system, while developers who followed the rules get screwed). If, for example, Apple decides to reduce their fees to 10% going forward are all the developers who've paid 30% in the past screwed? If so you have an odd definition of screwed. >I'm not sure what you're talking about, could you be more clear? 33% really means the 15-30% of revenue that apple takes. I just rounded up to about a third. I thought you were responding to this > I'd wager that the vast majority of people in that segment are on iPhones. And that 33% was the percentage of customers on iPhones. >The fact is the App Store wall entry fee is fair. It's not exorbitant. I and many other people think that 30% is exorbitant. >There are too many remedies for this, and there are far bigger fish to fry in anti-trust than this. Sure, there are always bigger fish to fry. But it's not an either or situation.