4 ms·

>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 w

>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.

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.