I understood that you asked me what's Apple's cut for Google's revenue, and the answer is that Google pays Apple a flat yearly rate instead of a percentage.
Then why are they developing apps for iOS? If you are correct then they don't need the Apple ecosystem and, in fact, would be better off without it since then they would not have to give up 30% of their profit.
Did you not read where I wrote Apple needs devs and devs need Apple? But Apple doesn’t pay developers to make apps, they do it on their dime in hopes that they'll earn money in the app store, and even though Apple provides storage and handles the transaction they do nothing to ensure that a developer makes money, that's totally on them and if and when they do Apple makes money from them not for them.
What I read, which you repeatedly asserted, is that the developers would make money with or without Apple's help. It was a ridiculous claim to make, and I'm not surprised that you are now backing off to the trivial observation that Apple does not guarantee them an income.
How did I misunderstand "where is the cut of the profits?" Do you mean Apple's cut of Google's profit? Or Google's cut of the profit made on it's search engine?
Did you not read where I wrote Apple needs devs and devs need Apple? But Apple doesn’t pay developers to make apps, they do it on their dime in hopes that they'll earn money in the app store, and even though Apple provides storage and handles the transaction they do nothing to ensure that a developer makes money, that's totally on them and if and when they do Apple makes money from them not for them.
Welcome to the free market. Providing storage & handling the transaction is an expense for Apple. That isn't exactly nothing.
How did I misunderstand "where is the cut of the profits?" Do you mean Apple's cut of Google's profit? Or Google's cut of the profit made on it's search engine?
The consumer's cut. After all it if they are the product don't they deserve a cut?
What I read, which you repeatedly asserted, is that the developers would make money with or without Apple's help. It was a ridiculous claim to make, and I'm not surprised that you are now backing off to the trivial observation that Apple does not guarantee them an income.
It's possible that they coulde, again if the side loading of apps were allowed one could buy the apps elsewhere for their device and theoretically a dev would make money without any help for Apple, but a dev has no choice but to sell their app on the app store but does that ensure that the app will make money? No
What I read, which you repeatedly asserted, is that the developers would make money with or without Apple's help. It was a ridiculous claim to make, and I'm not surprised that you are now backing off to the trivial observation that Apple does not guarantee them an income.
It's possible that they coulde, again if the side loading of apps were allowed one could buy the apps elsewhere for their device and theoretically a dev would make money without any help for Apple, but a dev has no choice but to sell their app on the app store but does that ensure that the app will make money? No
Now you are clutching at straws. Possible...could... if... theoretically.... So, if the developers could sell their apps elsewhere, would that ensure that the app makes money? Or is that another completely irrelevant distraction to the discussion?
Now you are clutching at straws. Possible...could... if... theoretically.... So, if the developers could sell their apps elsewhere, would that ensure that the app makes money? Or is that another completely irrelevant distraction to the discussion?
No but neither does being in the app store ensure them money. My whole point is that these devs could make money without Apple but Apple could not get their cut if it weren't for devs making apps. Apple doesn't make money for them it makes money from them.
1) I’ll state this again; you should have a section dedicated to charting these analyst and their accuracy. List every prediction with links, then state Future, Correct, Wrong, and run a % Accurate total.
2) You should supply more links to their predictions even if just footnotes.
3) When you prove wrong a claim for items such as sales numbers, profit margin, etc., you should stet actuals and link to your source.
Does Apple pay consumers a cut? They make a ton of money on them as well. How many people don't opt out of Apple sharing their information?
Apple doesn't make a "ton of money" on consumer information. Read their earnings calls - Apple makes money on devices first and foremost. Then on iTunes and The App Store. iAd is so far down the list I can't even find it.
Contrast this with Google whose primary source of revenue is advertisements.
No but neither does being in the app store ensure them money. My whole point is that these devs could make money without Apple but Apple could not get their cut if it weren't for devs making apps. Apple doesn't make money for them it makes money from them.
You can expand upon your outrage by also shaking your fist at the firms who hire programmers and then pay their operational support people a cut for their help, rather than only paying the people who actually write the code.
Or in the other direction, you can be outraged that Apple's App Store operation also is forced to pay a share of its cut to cover the costs of hosting the store and maintaining iTunes' servers.
Or you can give up your naive position and concede that the cut Apple takes is well worth it to App Store developers or they'd be targeting other platforms instead.
In fact, nothing worthy of note is being developed for side loading on Android devices outside of an app market, because app shoppers aren't using Google to search for developer's home pages to buy their apps directly.
Users that matter are overwhelming using the iTunes App Store to download and manage their apps.
The consumer's cut. After all it if they are the product don't they deserve a cut?
Consumers get their cut.
Google Search at no additional charge. And Google Maps. And Navigation. And G-Mail. And YouTube. And Translate. And Image Search. And News. And Earth. And Finance. And Scholar. And Patent Search. And Alerts. And Shopping. And Blog Search. And Trends. And Docs. And Drive.
Nearly every internet visitor can find things of value somewhere in that list. Who else provides anywhere near this level of services, even for a subscription charge? Further who else even has the expertise and engineering to do so? And in return for services of value you see a few ads. Not even targeted ones if you wish to opt out.
This was a very well written article. This article was written by someone that truly cares about his craft and his profession. I have been an Mac user and Apple shareholder for several decades. I have posted similar (but not as comprehensive) retorts to Apple bashers over that same period of time. As long has there have been message boards I have been an Apple supporter. No company or person on earth if perfect. Apple does an excellent Job making products that I have enjoyed using in my personal an professonal life. The company is second to none. Why certain segments of the media and populace hates Apple is beyond me. Apple's products add to an improve our lives. They challenge other companies to make products that we want. They make technology into what it is supposed to be and extension of ourselves that allows us to be more productive in all aspects of our lives. Thanks again for a great read. (It took me awhile to get through it, since I was clicking all the links).
THANKS FOR A GREAT READ and THE EDUCATION THAT YOU GAVE ME.
Google Search at no additional charge. And Google Maps. And Navigation. And G-Mail. And YouTube. And Translate. And Image Search. And News. And Earth. And Finance. And Scholar. And Patent Search. And Alerts. And Shopping. And Blog Search. And Trends. And Docs. And Drive.
Nearly every internet visitor can find things of value somewhere in that list. Who else provides anywhere near this level of services, even for a subscription charge? Further who else even has the expertise and engineering to do so? And in return for services of value you see a few ads. Not even targeted ones if you wish to opt out.
Ads. That's it.
Really had to stretch to make your list longer, didn't you?
Google was self-supportive (and profitable) for a long time. What pisses people off about Google is increasing ads by a substantial amount to increase their profits while not doing anything to make their existing products better.
My point is that developers would make money with or without the walled garden, Apple doesn’t make the money for them.
So why do they use Apple's "walled garden" for the Mac App Store? It's still the same 30% cut and there is a much richer selection of titles with some developers no longer maintaining their own website, downloads, licensing service since MAS started. I never tell techtarded friends and family to buy apps outside the MAS if it's available there.
And let's remember that free apps that are popular cost nothing to be hosted or advertised or anything else the iOS or Mac App Store does. Those having 30% taken are paying for these other apps but I don't see that as a problem, especially when you consider how much vendors like BB and MS charged before Apple released the App Store in 2008.
You can expand upon your outrage by also shaking your fist at the firms who hire programmers and then pay their operational support people a cut for their help, rather than only paying the people who actually write the code.
Or in the other direction, you can be outraged that Apple's App Store operation also is forced to pay a share of its cut to cover the costs of hosting the store and maintaining iTunes' servers.
Or you can give up your naive position and concede that the cut Apple takes is well worth it to App Store developers or they'd be targeting other platforms instead.
In fact, nothing worthy of note is being developed for side loading on Android devices outside of an app market, because app shoppers aren't using Google to search for developer's home pages to buy their apps directly.
Users that matter are overwhelming using the iTunes App Store to download and manage their apps.
There isn't any outrage on my part, lost patience yes outrage no. How many times have I read on here somebody extolling the virtues of a app only found on the Cydia store? So those apps do in fact exist. My contention is that if Apple indeed did make money for developers then they'd all make money and it's well known that most developers never even recover the money it took to make the app. Yes Apple provides the venue for these developers to earn money but how much they earn is entirely on them. A app will benefit from Apple's platform whether it sells or not.
Let's look at another content maker, say Beyoncé. Do you believe Apple made her money or she made money on the strength of her talent? Had she decided to release her album on Amazon, would her fans flocked to Amazon to purchase her album? Of course they would have. She chose iTunes and in doing so made Apple a nice amount of money but she would have done the same for Amazon had she gone with them.
Really had to stretch to make your list longer, didn't you?
Google was self-supportive (and profitable) for a long time. What pisses people off about Google is increasing ads by a substantial amount to increase their profits while not doing anything to make their existing products better.
Well that's hardly true now is it? It's not difficult to find numerous examples of recent updates and new features added to existing Google services. I bet you could find examples for yourself if you actually wanted to even using the less-capable Bing for your search. :rolleyes:
Try these search phrases if you can't figure out what to ask for:
Google updates Maps
or
Google updates Search
or
Google updates GMail
or
Google updates Chrome
Let's look at another content maker, say Beyoncé. Do you believe Apple made her money or she made money on the strength of her talent? Had she decided to release her album on Amazon, would her fans flocked to Amazon to purchase her album? Of course they would have. She chose iTunes and in doing so made Apple a nice amount of money but she would have done the same for Amazon had she gone with them.
OK, I think this is getting into semantics here. Yes, Beyoncé made herself money by being talented (which includes hiring talented people to help her make money). In this case she essentially hired Apple to sell her album exclusively because it was a means to an end for her to make more money. But she's still choosing Apple over Amazon or Target or Walmart to maximize her profits.
Comments
Yes they do. The cut is added to the final selling price.
So someone that is selling a product at the App store could factor in those expenses. Correct? I don't see what your point is?
I understood that you asked me what's Apple's cut for Google's revenue, and the answer is that Google pays Apple a flat yearly rate instead of a percentage.
No, that's not what I said. Please read the post.
Then why are they developing apps for iOS? If you are correct then they don't need the Apple ecosystem and, in fact, would be better off without it since then they would not have to give up 30% of their profit.
Did you not read where I wrote Apple needs devs and devs need Apple? But Apple doesn’t pay developers to make apps, they do it on their dime in hopes that they'll earn money in the app store, and even though Apple provides storage and handles the transaction they do nothing to ensure that a developer makes money, that's totally on them and if and when they do Apple makes money from them not for them.
What I read, which you repeatedly asserted, is that the developers would make money with or without Apple's help. It was a ridiculous claim to make, and I'm not surprised that you are now backing off to the trivial observation that Apple does not guarantee them an income.
How did I misunderstand "where is the cut of the profits?" Do you mean Apple's cut of Google's profit? Or Google's cut of the profit made on it's search engine?
Did you not read where I wrote Apple needs devs and devs need Apple? But Apple doesn’t pay developers to make apps, they do it on their dime in hopes that they'll earn money in the app store, and even though Apple provides storage and handles the transaction they do nothing to ensure that a developer makes money, that's totally on them and if and when they do Apple makes money from them not for them.
Welcome to the free market. Providing storage & handling the transaction is an expense for Apple. That isn't exactly nothing.
How did I misunderstand "where is the cut of the profits?" Do you mean Apple's cut of Google's profit? Or Google's cut of the profit made on it's search engine?
The consumer's cut. After all it if they are the product don't they deserve a cut?
It's possible that they coulde, again if the side loading of apps were allowed one could buy the apps elsewhere for their device and theoretically a dev would make money without any help for Apple, but a dev has no choice but to sell their app on the app store but does that ensure that the app will make money? No
Does Apple pay consumers a cut? They make a ton of money on them as well. How many people don't opt out of Apple sharing their information?
What I read, which you repeatedly asserted, is that the developers would make money with or without Apple's help. It was a ridiculous claim to make, and I'm not surprised that you are now backing off to the trivial observation that Apple does not guarantee them an income.
It's possible that they coulde, again if the side loading of apps were allowed one could buy the apps elsewhere for their device and theoretically a dev would make money without any help for Apple, but a dev has no choice but to sell their app on the app store but does that ensure that the app will make money? No
Now you are clutching at straws. Possible...could... if... theoretically.... So, if the developers could sell their apps elsewhere, would that ensure that the app makes money? Or is that another completely irrelevant distraction to the discussion?
No but neither does being in the app store ensure them money. My whole point is that these devs could make money without Apple but Apple could not get their cut if it weren't for devs making apps. Apple doesn't make money for them it makes money from them.
1) I’ll state this again; you should have a section dedicated to charting these analyst and their accuracy. List every prediction with links, then state Future, Correct, Wrong, and run a % Accurate total.
2) You should supply more links to their predictions even if just footnotes.
3) When you prove wrong a claim for items such as sales numbers, profit margin, etc., you should stet actuals and link to your source.
4) You should never stop writing these articles
Contrast this with Google whose primary source of revenue is advertisements.
You can expand upon your outrage by also shaking your fist at the firms who hire programmers and then pay their operational support people a cut for their help, rather than only paying the people who actually write the code.
Or in the other direction, you can be outraged that Apple's App Store operation also is forced to pay a share of its cut to cover the costs of hosting the store and maintaining iTunes' servers.
Or you can give up your naive position and concede that the cut Apple takes is well worth it to App Store developers or they'd be targeting other platforms instead.
In fact, nothing worthy of note is being developed for side loading on Android devices outside of an app market, because app shoppers aren't using Google to search for developer's home pages to buy their apps directly.
Users that matter are overwhelming using the iTunes App Store to download and manage their apps.
Google Search at no additional charge. And Google Maps. And Navigation. And G-Mail. And YouTube. And Translate. And Image Search. And News. And Earth. And Finance. And Scholar. And Patent Search. And Alerts. And Shopping. And Blog Search. And Trends. And Docs. And Drive.
Nearly every internet visitor can find things of value somewhere in that list. Who else provides anywhere near this level of services, even for a subscription charge? Further who else even has the expertise and engineering to do so? And in return for services of value you see a few ads. Not even targeted ones if you wish to opt out.
Ads. That's it.
THANKS FOR A GREAT READ and THE EDUCATION THAT YOU GAVE ME.
Really had to stretch to make your list longer, didn't you?
Google was self-supportive (and profitable) for a long time. What pisses people off about Google is increasing ads by a substantial amount to increase their profits while not doing anything to make their existing products better.
So why do they use Apple's "walled garden" for the Mac App Store? It's still the same 30% cut and there is a much richer selection of titles with some developers no longer maintaining their own website, downloads, licensing service since MAS started. I never tell techtarded friends and family to buy apps outside the MAS if it's available there.
And let's remember that free apps that are popular cost nothing to be hosted or advertised or anything else the iOS or Mac App Store does. Those having 30% taken are paying for these other apps but I don't see that as a problem, especially when you consider how much vendors like BB and MS charged before Apple released the App Store in 2008.
There isn't any outrage on my part, lost patience yes outrage no. How many times have I read on here somebody extolling the virtues of a app only found on the Cydia store? So those apps do in fact exist. My contention is that if Apple indeed did make money for developers then they'd all make money and it's well known that most developers never even recover the money it took to make the app. Yes Apple provides the venue for these developers to earn money but how much they earn is entirely on them. A app will benefit from Apple's platform whether it sells or not.
Let's look at another content maker, say Beyoncé. Do you believe Apple made her money or she made money on the strength of her talent? Had she decided to release her album on Amazon, would her fans flocked to Amazon to purchase her album? Of course they would have. She chose iTunes and in doing so made Apple a nice amount of money but she would have done the same for Amazon had she gone with them.
Well that's hardly true now is it? It's not difficult to find numerous examples of recent updates and new features added to existing Google services. I bet you could find examples for yourself if you actually wanted to even using the less-capable Bing for your search. :rolleyes:
Try these search phrases if you can't figure out what to ask for:
Google updates Maps
or
Google updates Search
or
Google updates GMail
or
Google updates Chrome
OK, I think this is getting into semantics here. Yes, Beyoncé made herself money by being talented (which includes hiring talented people to help her make money). In this case she essentially hired Apple to sell her album exclusively because it was a means to an end for her to make more money. But she's still choosing Apple over Amazon or Target or Walmart to maximize her profits.