3 ms·

The author is hopeful at best, even to concede each single tenuous argument made, the article still doesn't make a convincing story. To consider even the most s

The author is hopeful at best, even to concede each single tenuous argument made, the article still doesn't make a convincing story. To consider even the most simple counter points makes the article entirely feeble. (Does the author believe ad-supported apps are unique to the marketplace?) iOS's high revenue isn't chance: The iOS store is a stronger performer due to not only a better demographic positioning, but it's an extension of the worlds largest music store, it's a longer-term cultivation, it's run by a company with very-high consumer trust, apple seed programs and provide continuous incentives for developers, apple's yields massive advertising and events programs and apple's incredibly high penetration due to inclusion with iTunes and installation on all iOS devices, are each very strong reasons on it's own. Meanwhile, those factors do make it a popular choice for developers who are wanting mainstream consumers, but this doesn't leave android in the dark. Android can tout greater variance/complexity of applications due to more lax regulation by google. Such as porn, apps that are counter the OS's UX, apps that reproduce functionality or overtake certain OS features and of course simple apps. Millions of increasingly fragmented Android devices out there will not make the marketplace more attractive to developers. Plus Google is only half interested, their goal is to get as many Android devices out there, to ensure Google search and services are the only choice for consumers as this is their business model. The emergence of a future run by smart phones where search was commoditised by the phone provider was the motivation for Google into making Android.

esmevane 15y ago
I don't think you really answered anything from his article except the mention of the ad-supported applications, which you are correct if impolite about. The rest of your post seems to be filled with content you've prepared ahead of time? For example: 'iOS high revenue is not chance', 'iOS is a popular choice', 'android is fragmented'. OK. But, we've all heard those before, and they are not confronted by the article. What was confronted by the article was deliberate skewing of charts - percentage gaming - in order to show unflattering android numbers instead of actual relevant real-time data. The author suggests that this is misleading, and it is exactly that. It is the sort of political tactic which turns this: "Do you think it's a good idea that children should pass if they have bad test scores?" Into this: "89% of people polled supported No Child Left Behind."
- onemoreact 15y ago
  When the androids authority's best evidence that Android marketplace is not terrible is to present and tare down a straw man argument that's simply not convincing. If there was a good news story supported by actual income he could have said so, but he did not. There I just refuted his entire argument. Now to support my point of view I could list all the reasons why Android fails but then you would attack them and miss the point. PS: idspispopd was being more polite but he used the same argument.
  - esmevane 15y ago
    I really want to see income levels as well. There's no denying that the article didn't retort with actual data, a huge flaw. I even went to the end of the article expecting to see a data-driven response, and was disappointed that there wasn't one. If you are interested in my honest opinion, I don't feel like you've refuted anything. May I remind you, the article pointed out the skewed nature of the charts and claimed that was misleading. I think that in order to refute that, you would have to supply reasoning as to why it was not misleading or skewed. Don't you agree? I will concede that if you feel like this is a faulty stance and you don't think you need to refute it, that is fine. Why refute something you believe to be patently false? It feels like you're attempting to champion something here, and you expect me to do the same. That seems to be the central theme with a lot of the responses I'm seeing here. Why so defensive? What's wrong with someone pointing out bad data? Isn't that something worth looking into?
    - mikeryan 15y ago
      Without actual numbers nothing was refuted in the article either. The original article is trying to say that the 7% of revenues numbers could be wrong by pointing out some flaws in the data collection. But since it doesn't have its own numbers to counter with then the whole thing is a bunch of handwaving. Its strange to call someone out for "not refuting" an article which doesn't actually refute anything itself. Its like asking someone to prove a negative.
    - onemoreact 15y ago
ja27 15y ago
iOS users, at least many of the early adopters, were used to spending money in the iTunes store on music. It was an easy leap for them to go from spending 99 cents for a song to 99 cents on an app. There are iTunes gift cards in almost every retail outlet so you don't even need a credit card. Nobody's mentioning Windows Phone. I know it's a small market share, but with most owners being Microsoft techies and less competition, it could be a more profitable platform than Android.
ja27 15y ago
iOS users, at least many of the early adopters, were used to spending money in the iTunes store on music. It was an easy leap for them to go from spending 99 cents for a song to 99 cents on an app. There are iTunes gift cards in almost every retail outlet so you don't even need a credit card. Nobody's mentioning Windows Phone. I know it's a small market share, but with most owners being Microsoft techies and less competition, it could be a more profitable platform than Android.

esmevane 15y ago

I don't think you really answered anything from his article except the mention of the ad-supported applications, which you are correct if impolite about. The rest of your post seems to be filled with content you've prepared ahead of time? For example: 'iOS high revenue is not chance', 'iOS is a popular choice', 'android is fragmented'. OK. But, we've all heard those before, and they are not confronted by the article. What was confronted by the article was deliberate skewing of charts - percentage gaming - in order to show unflattering android numbers instead of actual relevant real-time data. The author suggests that this is misleading, and it is exactly that. It is the sort of political tactic which turns this: "Do you think it's a good idea that children should pass if they have bad test scores?" Into this: "89% of people polled supported No Child Left Behind."

onemoreact 15y ago
When the androids authority's best evidence that Android marketplace is not terrible is to present and tare down a straw man argument that's simply not convincing. If there was a good news story supported by actual income he could have said so, but he did not. There I just refuted his entire argument. Now to support my point of view I could list all the reasons why Android fails but then you would attack them and miss the point. PS: idspispopd was being more polite but he used the same argument.
- esmevane 15y ago
  I really want to see income levels as well. There's no denying that the article didn't retort with actual data, a huge flaw. I even went to the end of the article expecting to see a data-driven response, and was disappointed that there wasn't one. If you are interested in my honest opinion, I don't feel like you've refuted anything. May I remind you, the article pointed out the skewed nature of the charts and claimed that was misleading. I think that in order to refute that, you would have to supply reasoning as to why it was not misleading or skewed. Don't you agree? I will concede that if you feel like this is a faulty stance and you don't think you need to refute it, that is fine. Why refute something you believe to be patently false? It feels like you're attempting to champion something here, and you expect me to do the same. That seems to be the central theme with a lot of the responses I'm seeing here. Why so defensive? What's wrong with someone pointing out bad data? Isn't that something worth looking into?
  - mikeryan 15y ago
    Without actual numbers nothing was refuted in the article either. The original article is trying to say that the 7% of revenues numbers could be wrong by pointing out some flaws in the data collection. But since it doesn't have its own numbers to counter with then the whole thing is a bunch of handwaving. Its strange to call someone out for "not refuting" an article which doesn't actually refute anything itself. Its like asking someone to prove a negative.
  - onemoreact 15y ago

ja27 15y ago

iOS users, at least many of the early adopters, were used to spending money in the iTunes store on music. It was an easy leap for them to go from spending 99 cents for a song to 99 cents on an app. There are iTunes gift cards in almost every retail outlet so you don't even need a credit card. Nobody's mentioning Windows Phone. I know it's a small market share, but with most owners being Microsoft techies and less competition, it could be a more profitable platform than Android.

ja27 15y ago