11 ms·

>There are, to be sure, valid business reasons for all three services to have not built a native app; the latest prediction from Apple supply chain analyst Ming

by shmatt 3y ago

>There are, to be sure, valid business reasons for all three services to have not built a native app; the latest prediction from Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo put first-year sales at around 500,000 units, which as a tiny percentage of these services’ user bases may not be worth the investment Except for the fact the iPhone users spend 7x more on apps than Android users[1]. And it would be safe to assume Vision Pro users are on the higher end of having extra money to spend. Apple has made a clear definition for "Rich AF" iOS users and app makers are trying to look the other way? Their loss. Hell, even having a list of iPhone users that pre-ordered the Vision Pro is worth targeting $$$$ [1] https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/06/iphone-users-spend-apps/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/06/iphone-users-spend-apps/

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>Except for the fact the iPhone users spend 7x more on apps than Android users[1]. Sure, but rich people with frivolous spending habits are a finite resource. After a while you run out of rich people you can monetize so your growth slows to a crawl. Who is richer? Toyota or Porsche?
- shmatt 3y ago
  From that same article it was 650 million active iphone users vs. 2.5 billion android I think Apple is *very* happy to be Porsche in this story
- anileated 3y ago
  > After a while you run out of rich people you can monetize so your growth slows to a crawl. Neat trick: create an ecosystem that genuinely helps your users live well & prosper, increasing their wealth so they can spend more money. It’s a circle of something!
- jitl 3y ago
  Toyota has about 4x the profit per second compared to Porsche, but at 36,996 employees compared to Toyota’s 375,235, I think I would rather try to build a Porsche shaped business which seems more sustainable and obtainable.
- skywhopper 3y ago
  Apple's not quite as upmarket as Porsche. But it doesn't really matter. We've already tested iPhone vs everyone else, and Apple has been winning for well over a decade. The unit count doesn't really matter. The profit is what matters, and Apple is making 80% of the profit with 20% or less of the units.
  - sleepybrett 3y ago
    Apple is the VW<->Audi spectrum of the market. You can get whatever the Rabbit from the 90s has become (ipad/macbookair) all the way up to an a4 type (think mac pro tower).
- _yb2s 3y ago
  Toyota and VW (e.g. Porsche) go back and forth every few years as to which is the biggest/richest.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    VW is a mass market brand in the same league as Toyota. Which si why I specifically restricted Porsche, and not the whole group of VW.
    - PaulHoule 3y ago
      If Porsche is relying on technology developed by VW then the profit numbers they post are inflated.
      - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        Luxury/performance car brands like Porsche, Lambo, Ferrari, Rolls, Bentley, etc. can't exist stand alone, they just wouldn't be profitable enough if they had to develop everything in house. Hence why most of them brushed with bankruptcy and had to be bought out by bigger conglomerates that give them access to the supply chains and economies of scale the likes of VW or Fiat enable. It's how the famous Swedish SAAB went bankrupt. They were spending most of their budget on developing a decent media infotainment unit, instead of using a terrible already developed one form the GM parent company.
    - _yb2s 3y ago
      kind-of... When Ferdinand Piëch ran VW he turned it into a high end brand from the late 90s until 2010 or so, with quality actually higher than high end luxury brands at the time and some crazy high end models like the V10 twin turbo Touareg, and the W12 Phaeton. Even the Bugatti Veyron supercar, the fastest street legal car in the world at the time, was initially planned to be released as a VW model. Weirdly, VW was selling higher end models than the affiliated Audi/Porsche brands for a while. A spec'd out VW from that time period makes a high end BMW or Mercedes from that era feel really cheap. Even the cheaper models like the Beetle and Golf felt really high quality compared to just about any other car at the time. Customers couldn't really bring themselves to pay the high end luxury prices VW was charging for something with a VW badge, so they went back to making low end cars... the current VW lineup are again all pretty low end cars.
criddell 3y ago
Are you suggesting that Netflix, for example, could charge for their app? I hadn't thought of that, but you might be on to something.
pjmlp 3y ago
In countries where iDevices are available, which is always forgotten precodition in a planet where 80% is dominated by Android and feature phones.
lapcat 3y ago
> Except for the fact the iPhone users spend 7x more on apps than Android users[1]. And it would be safe to assume Vision Pro users are on the higher end of having extra money to spend. Here's the crucial question, though: are Vision Pro owners actually going to spend extra money on third-party software, or are they just going to demand that their current iPhone/iPad apps be supported by the developers for free on Vision Pro? Apple will see extra revenue from Vision Pro, but will third-party developers? Neither iPad nor Watch (or Apple TV) have been big revenue generators for most developers.
- knodi123 3y ago
  > are they just going to demand that their current iPhone/iPad apps be supported by the developers for free With what leverage? You can't just "demand" something of a developer that you've already paid.
  - ukuina 3y ago
    Yeah, like the Instagram iPad app.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    There are several forms of consumer leverage: 1) Refusing to pay for other platforms and walking away, thus making it difficult for developers to charge separately for the other platforms 2) Leaving bad App Store reviews and ratings 3) Clogging the developer's support channels with complaints
- threeseed 3y ago
  > Vision Pro owners actually going to spend extra money on third-party software It doesn't make sense that you would spend $3500 on a device and then buy no apps for it.
- dwaite 3y ago
  > Here's the crucial question, though: are Vision Pro owners actually going to spend extra money on third-party software, or are they just going to demand that their current iPhone/iPad apps be supported by the developers for free on Vision Pro? > Neither iPad nor Watch (or Apple TV) have been big revenue generators for most developers. I think the answer is "it depends", but for many apps having a separate iPhone and iPad version has been something their user base has disliked. An iPhone app which is separate from an iPad app but otherwise identical is subtractive - I get less value being limited to my phone. Its not subtractive enough for them to say "lets pay double my original purchase price to get the iPad version". Likewise, having the iPhone app work on iPad is additional value - I have selected and paid more for an app for having good ecosystem support. Chances are your Apple TV or Apple Watch app has greatly limited functionality due to the interactivity limitations of those platforms, so you simply cannot charge much for these incrementally. Again, providing proper support (depending on your app) is instead a differentiating factor. I don't have a first-party app that I can port to AVP. However, I would not be doing so to get some of those exclusive AVP dollars based on them buying something equivalent to a mid-tier pro laptop. Instead, I'd be there as a differentiating feature and for the potential promotional aspects of being present. Some of this comes from personally being more subscription/services oriented in thinking; I really dislike the idea of selling someone software with dubious unpaid support, fueled by a decreasing amount of new sales as I reach saturation for my software.
simiones 3y ago
So you think it's likely people will get a new Netflix subscription for their Vision Pro? Also, even if Vision Pro owners spend 70x more than Android users, with 500k VP users vs 2.5 billion Android users, there's still not that much reason to invest in VP.

by shmatt 3y ago

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

>Except for the fact the iPhone users spend 7x more on apps than Android users[1]. Sure, but rich people with frivolous spending habits are a finite resource. After a while you run out of rich people you can monetize so your growth slows to a crawl. Who is richer? Toyota or Porsche?

shmatt 3y ago
From that same article it was 650 million active iphone users vs. 2.5 billion android I think Apple is *very* happy to be Porsche in this story
anileated 3y ago
> After a while you run out of rich people you can monetize so your growth slows to a crawl. Neat trick: create an ecosystem that genuinely helps your users live well & prosper, increasing their wealth so they can spend more money. It’s a circle of something!
jitl 3y ago
Toyota has about 4x the profit per second compared to Porsche, but at 36,996 employees compared to Toyota’s 375,235, I think I would rather try to build a Porsche shaped business which seems more sustainable and obtainable.
skywhopper 3y ago
Apple's not quite as upmarket as Porsche. But it doesn't really matter. We've already tested iPhone vs everyone else, and Apple has been winning for well over a decade. The unit count doesn't really matter. The profit is what matters, and Apple is making 80% of the profit with 20% or less of the units.
- sleepybrett 3y ago
  Apple is the VW<->Audi spectrum of the market. You can get whatever the Rabbit from the 90s has become (ipad/macbookair) all the way up to an a4 type (think mac pro tower).
_yb2s 3y ago
Toyota and VW (e.g. Porsche) go back and forth every few years as to which is the biggest/richest.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  VW is a mass market brand in the same league as Toyota. Which si why I specifically restricted Porsche, and not the whole group of VW.
  - PaulHoule 3y ago
    If Porsche is relying on technology developed by VW then the profit numbers they post are inflated.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      Luxury/performance car brands like Porsche, Lambo, Ferrari, Rolls, Bentley, etc. can't exist stand alone, they just wouldn't be profitable enough if they had to develop everything in house. Hence why most of them brushed with bankruptcy and had to be bought out by bigger conglomerates that give them access to the supply chains and economies of scale the likes of VW or Fiat enable. It's how the famous Swedish SAAB went bankrupt. They were spending most of their budget on developing a decent media infotainment unit, instead of using a terrible already developed one form the GM parent company.
  - _yb2s 3y ago
    kind-of... When Ferdinand Piëch ran VW he turned it into a high end brand from the late 90s until 2010 or so, with quality actually higher than high end luxury brands at the time and some crazy high end models like the V10 twin turbo Touareg, and the W12 Phaeton. Even the Bugatti Veyron supercar, the fastest street legal car in the world at the time, was initially planned to be released as a VW model. Weirdly, VW was selling higher end models than the affiliated Audi/Porsche brands for a while. A spec'd out VW from that time period makes a high end BMW or Mercedes from that era feel really cheap. Even the cheaper models like the Beetle and Golf felt really high quality compared to just about any other car at the time. Customers couldn't really bring themselves to pay the high end luxury prices VW was charging for something with a VW badge, so they went back to making low end cars... the current VW lineup are again all pretty low end cars.

criddell 3y ago

Are you suggesting that Netflix, for example, could charge for their app? I hadn't thought of that, but you might be on to something.

pjmlp 3y ago

In countries where iDevices are available, which is always forgotten precodition in a planet where 80% is dominated by Android and feature phones.

lapcat 3y ago

> Except for the fact the iPhone users spend 7x more on apps than Android users[1]. And it would be safe to assume Vision Pro users are on the higher end of having extra money to spend. Here's the crucial question, though: are Vision Pro owners actually going to spend extra money on third-party software, or are they just going to demand that their current iPhone/iPad apps be supported by the developers for free on Vision Pro? Apple will see extra revenue from Vision Pro, but will third-party developers? Neither iPad nor Watch (or Apple TV) have been big revenue generators for most developers.

knodi123 3y ago
> are they just going to demand that their current iPhone/iPad apps be supported by the developers for free With what leverage? You can't just "demand" something of a developer that you've already paid.
- ukuina 3y ago
  Yeah, like the Instagram iPad app.
- lapcat 3y ago
  There are several forms of consumer leverage: 1) Refusing to pay for other platforms and walking away, thus making it difficult for developers to charge separately for the other platforms 2) Leaving bad App Store reviews and ratings 3) Clogging the developer's support channels with complaints
threeseed 3y ago
> Vision Pro owners actually going to spend extra money on third-party software It doesn't make sense that you would spend $3500 on a device and then buy no apps for it.
dwaite 3y ago
> Here's the crucial question, though: are Vision Pro owners actually going to spend extra money on third-party software, or are they just going to demand that their current iPhone/iPad apps be supported by the developers for free on Vision Pro? > Neither iPad nor Watch (or Apple TV) have been big revenue generators for most developers. I think the answer is "it depends", but for many apps having a separate iPhone and iPad version has been something their user base has disliked. An iPhone app which is separate from an iPad app but otherwise identical is subtractive - I get less value being limited to my phone. Its not subtractive enough for them to say "lets pay double my original purchase price to get the iPad version". Likewise, having the iPhone app work on iPad is additional value - I have selected and paid more for an app for having good ecosystem support. Chances are your Apple TV or Apple Watch app has greatly limited functionality due to the interactivity limitations of those platforms, so you simply cannot charge much for these incrementally. Again, providing proper support (depending on your app) is instead a differentiating factor. I don't have a first-party app that I can port to AVP. However, I would not be doing so to get some of those exclusive AVP dollars based on them buying something equivalent to a mid-tier pro laptop. Instead, I'd be there as a differentiating feature and for the potential promotional aspects of being present. Some of this comes from personally being more subscription/services oriented in thinking; I really dislike the idea of selling someone software with dubious unpaid support, fueled by a decreasing amount of new sales as I reach saturation for my software.

simiones 3y ago

So you think it's likely people will get a new Netflix subscription for their Vision Pro? Also, even if Vision Pro owners spend 70x more than Android users, with 500k VP users vs 2.5 billion Android users, there's still not that much reason to invest in VP.