4 ms·

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 acquisitio

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
  Another effect that may be playing into all of this is that Android has a larger share of users who want a phone but not necessarily a smartphone. This demographic is less likely to buy an iPhone and more likely to opt for the cheapest thing on the shelf, which is almost invariably going to be running Android. These users basically do not exist as far as app revenue is concerned. I don't have links but I've seen reports that on average, iOS users make considerably more heavy use the "smart" features of their phones (and thus, buy and use more apps), which lines up with this. While there are "power users" who make heavy use of Android's more technical features and deep customization, they probably aren't a large enough group to make up the difference.
  - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
    As I explained in a followup comment, apple users are not paying more, despite the myth.

ramesh31 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
Another effect that may be playing into all of this is that Android has a larger share of users who want a phone but not necessarily a smartphone. This demographic is less likely to buy an iPhone and more likely to opt for the cheapest thing on the shelf, which is almost invariably going to be running Android. These users basically do not exist as far as app revenue is concerned. I don't have links but I've seen reports that on average, iOS users make considerably more heavy use the "smart" features of their phones (and thus, buy and use more apps), which lines up with this. While there are "power users" who make heavy use of Android's more technical features and deep customization, they probably aren't a large enough group to make up the difference.
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
  As I explained in a followup comment, apple users are not paying more, despite the myth.