3 ms·

The original report reads like it was heavily influenced by Apple's marketing team. There are asides that are just ad copy for Apple's other products, for examp

The original report reads like it was heavily influenced by Apple's marketing team. There are asides that are just ad copy for Apple's other products, for example, > Users can find thousands of apps on the App Store to help them adopt healthier lifestyles. Many of these apps take advantage of Apple’s HealthKit API, which allows the use of sophisticated sensors on iPhone and Apple Watch, while ensuring that user data is safe according to Apple’s rigorous privacy and data security protocols. The actual 1.1T number comes mostly (81%) from goods and services purchases (mostly retail) made in mobile apps on Apple devices. The methodology? > We estimate the share of each app category’s sales that occur via mobile apps, within each geography, using information collected from marketing surveys or data on usage patterns. Finally, we apportion usage to Apple platforms based on the overall iOS share market share. So it's an estimate; not hard data. I don't want to discount the conclusion, because it's always difficult to understand Apple from outside the company, and the point really is just that people make a lot of purchases on Apple devices. (Conflict of interest: I'm an Apple shareholder.)

ksec 3y ago
>The original report reads like it was heavily influenced by Apple's marketing team. When you read enough over Apple's marketing and PR over the years. You can easily detect them. Not saying all marketing are bad, but I would be cautious simply because of that.
EPWN3D 3y ago
I hate to break it to you, but virtually everything at this scale is an estimate based on models and not direct data. We don't e.g. get more reliable GDP numbers because we get hard data; we get it by creating new models that recognize and/or emphasize variables which were previously being ignored. The reason to be skeptical here is not because "it's an estimate"; it's because it's one group's model, studying a very nascent space for which there's been very little academic research. What this estimate shows is that this is a clearly very large economy that isn't being rigorously modeled or studied right now. And we should probably devote some resources to that since what happens in this economy will meaningfully contribute to employment and national GDPs.

ksec 3y ago

>The original report reads like it was heavily influenced by Apple's marketing team. When you read enough over Apple's marketing and PR over the years. You can easily detect them. Not saying all marketing are bad, but I would be cautious simply because of that.

EPWN3D 3y ago

I hate to break it to you, but virtually everything at this scale is an estimate based on models and not direct data. We don't e.g. get more reliable GDP numbers because we get hard data; we get it by creating new models that recognize and/or emphasize variables which were previously being ignored. The reason to be skeptical here is not because "it's an estimate"; it's because it's one group's model, studying a very nascent space for which there's been very little academic research. What this estimate shows is that this is a clearly very large economy that isn't being rigorously modeled or studied right now. And we should probably devote some resources to that since what happens in this economy will meaningfully contribute to employment and national GDPs.