3 ms·

>Despite being much much more APKs than Ipas (and the gradient likely increasing (any data ?), this doesn't seems to affect much markestshare. What the IOS mark

>Despite being much much more APKs than Ipas (and the gradient likely increasing (any data ?), this doesn't seems to affect much markestshare. What the IOS market needs to fall is to miss some killer apps. Market share doesn't tell the true story. It's all about revenue. Apple generates nearly twice the profits of Google from one third the number of devices. https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/05/app-store-earns-723-billion-in-2020-almost-double-google-play-revenues https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/05/app-store-earns-7...

SemanticStrengh 5y ago
While a commonly repeated trope, I disagree with it: Play stores apps must pay a 30% comission rate the first year then it drops to 15%. Most of user acquisition of successful apps are made after the first year of existsence. Therefore, the vast majority of Android apps revenue are made with a 15% commission rate vs Apple constant 30% milking. So one could ~say for an equal revenue, Apple will take the double, and since they have ~25% marketshare, then I see no signal of apple users spending more than Android users, however the milking is hard. Android announced this year that from now one, the comission rate will be 15% even the first year. And 15% is still indecent, people must be really perturbed in modern society to find such power abuse acceptable.
- ramesh31 5y ago
  >So one could ~say for an equal revenue, Apple will take the double, and since they have ~25% marketshare, then I see no signal of apple users spending significantly more than Android users, however the milking is hard. Blood from a stone and all that. You can only milk people for what they've got, and you can bet that Google's 15% number is not coming out of the kindness of their hearts. It's a competitive tactic to lure app developers away from what they know is a more lucrative platform. Point being that Apple users are, on average, much wealthier and more willing to spend money in an app store, and thus much more profitable per MAU.
  - SemanticStrengh 5y ago
    > Point being that Apple users are, on average, much wealthier and more willing to spend money in an app store, and thus much more profitable per MAU. No the only maximally pro-thesis consequence you could speculate from data is that Apple users have on average, maximally 15% more money willing to spend. Of course in many cases the fact they pay 50% more to apple (global 15%) does not imply that this excess money would be spent in additional app purchases, only a subset would and spending often have diminishing returns. I would say that the average apple user has 5-8% more money to spend, and as said, in the ridiculously pro-thesis case, 15%. Therefore the effect you're trying to show is in fact very small.
  - a4isms 5y ago
    > Apple users are, on average, much wealthier... That someone willing to pay for a premium product is likely to be wealthy is a reasonable conjecture for items where the item is so expensive that a typical middle-class customer is making a substantial sacrifice to purchase, if they can do so at all. So for architect-designed homes, small-volume luxury cars, cigarette boats, personal jets... Absolutely. Middle-class people can and do buy small-volume luxury cars, but it's a big compromise and most of the people driving Bentleys are actually wealthy. iPhones are not that kind of luxury item, they're what we might call "affordable luxuries." Even the most tricked-out iPhone is within reach of your typical 9-5 full-time employee if they want one. Other "affordable luxuries" include things like premium alcoholic drinks, expensive basketball shoes, carbon bicycles, and Fashion brands such as Polo Ralph Lauren that specialize in pretending to be exclusive but distributing their wares in department stores. Owning an affordable luxury in no way suggests you're significantly wealthier than people who buy an affordable substitute for the same product. It's more about signalling taste than means.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      Assuming they live on countries where contracts are more relevant than pre-paid phones, and are fine paying the monthly iPhone contract subscription.
  - kitsunesoba 5y ago
endisneigh 5y ago
Makes sense - in my experience people with iPhones are more willing to pay for things.
- prox 5y ago
  In my experience the apps are more often worth paying for. Probably a viscous circle. Android always feels like a garbage bin I have to scrounge through to find some gems imo.
  - kitsunesoba 5y ago
    And this effect is even more profound when looking for tablet optimized apps, which are far and few between on the Play store. There's a few decent ones on F-Droid but iPadOS has the quality tablet app market solidly cornered.
    - prox 5y ago
      I had an Android tablet, unfortunately not a good experience, especially now I have an iPad. The two are lightyears apart in quality. Apps were indeed a big letdown, only one tablet app on android had a decent photo editor for RAW, while with the iPad, I can do some stuff out of the box and there are a bunch of apps which are really good.
- mojzu 5y ago
  I'm a recent-ish convert and found this to be true, there's definitely plenty of rubbish on the app store similar to the play store and trying to avoid subscription services where it shouldn't be necessary can be frustrating (I'm not paying a monthly fee for a calculator). But so far I've generally been able to find high quality apps that are pay once/sync via icloud/support sign in with apple that means I've spent more money on apps in a couple of years then I did in the previous 10+ with Android
  - enos_feedler 5y ago
    What are the top things you want in a calculator that aren’t included in the default one?

SemanticStrengh 5y ago

While a commonly repeated trope, I disagree with it: Play stores apps must pay a 30% comission rate the first year then it drops to 15%. Most of user acquisition of successful apps are made after the first year of existsence. Therefore, the vast majority of Android apps revenue are made with a 15% commission rate vs Apple constant 30% milking. So one could ~say for an equal revenue, Apple will take the double, and since they have ~25% marketshare, then I see no signal of apple users spending more than Android users, however the milking is hard. Android announced this year that from now one, the comission rate will be 15% even the first year. And 15% is still indecent, people must be really perturbed in modern society to find such power abuse acceptable.

ramesh31 5y ago
>So one could ~say for an equal revenue, Apple will take the double, and since they have ~25% marketshare, then I see no signal of apple users spending significantly more than Android users, however the milking is hard. Blood from a stone and all that. You can only milk people for what they've got, and you can bet that Google's 15% number is not coming out of the kindness of their hearts. It's a competitive tactic to lure app developers away from what they know is a more lucrative platform. Point being that Apple users are, on average, much wealthier and more willing to spend money in an app store, and thus much more profitable per MAU.
- SemanticStrengh 5y ago
  > Point being that Apple users are, on average, much wealthier and more willing to spend money in an app store, and thus much more profitable per MAU. No the only maximally pro-thesis consequence you could speculate from data is that Apple users have on average, maximally 15% more money willing to spend. Of course in many cases the fact they pay 50% more to apple (global 15%) does not imply that this excess money would be spent in additional app purchases, only a subset would and spending often have diminishing returns. I would say that the average apple user has 5-8% more money to spend, and as said, in the ridiculously pro-thesis case, 15%. Therefore the effect you're trying to show is in fact very small.
- a4isms 5y ago
  > Apple users are, on average, much wealthier... That someone willing to pay for a premium product is likely to be wealthy is a reasonable conjecture for items where the item is so expensive that a typical middle-class customer is making a substantial sacrifice to purchase, if they can do so at all. So for architect-designed homes, small-volume luxury cars, cigarette boats, personal jets... Absolutely. Middle-class people can and do buy small-volume luxury cars, but it's a big compromise and most of the people driving Bentleys are actually wealthy. iPhones are not that kind of luxury item, they're what we might call "affordable luxuries." Even the most tricked-out iPhone is within reach of your typical 9-5 full-time employee if they want one. Other "affordable luxuries" include things like premium alcoholic drinks, expensive basketball shoes, carbon bicycles, and Fashion brands such as Polo Ralph Lauren that specialize in pretending to be exclusive but distributing their wares in department stores. Owning an affordable luxury in no way suggests you're significantly wealthier than people who buy an affordable substitute for the same product. It's more about signalling taste than means.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Assuming they live on countries where contracts are more relevant than pre-paid phones, and are fine paying the monthly iPhone contract subscription.
- kitsunesoba 5y ago

endisneigh 5y ago

Makes sense - in my experience people with iPhones are more willing to pay for things.

prox 5y ago
In my experience the apps are more often worth paying for. Probably a viscous circle. Android always feels like a garbage bin I have to scrounge through to find some gems imo.
- kitsunesoba 5y ago
  And this effect is even more profound when looking for tablet optimized apps, which are far and few between on the Play store. There's a few decent ones on F-Droid but iPadOS has the quality tablet app market solidly cornered.
  - prox 5y ago
    I had an Android tablet, unfortunately not a good experience, especially now I have an iPad. The two are lightyears apart in quality. Apps were indeed a big letdown, only one tablet app on android had a decent photo editor for RAW, while with the iPad, I can do some stuff out of the box and there are a bunch of apps which are really good.
mojzu 5y ago
I'm a recent-ish convert and found this to be true, there's definitely plenty of rubbish on the app store similar to the play store and trying to avoid subscription services where it shouldn't be necessary can be frustrating (I'm not paying a monthly fee for a calculator). But so far I've generally been able to find high quality apps that are pay once/sync via icloud/support sign in with apple that means I've spent more money on apps in a couple of years then I did in the previous 10+ with Android
- enos_feedler 5y ago
  What are the top things you want in a calculator that aren’t included in the default one?