And what does it mean? Do the ads concern you or just the fact they "know" something?
If the latter why would you even bother with internet activities as there's thousands of companies and organizations (probably millions) besides Google who are tracking what you say, what you visit and what you buy.
So you stay off the internet and out of Google's eyes and you're safe right? Nope, not if the concern is not being followed. Off-line it's your credit-card provider, pharmacy, insurance company, bank, box-store retailer, grocery store, magazine, club, homeowners association or landlord, city, county and state, etc who's keeping track of you. All Google wants to do in show you an ad. What are these others actually doing with your information? If Google makes you sick what's your reaction to these others? Honest questions.
It's not that they know something, it's more what they might know. I might consider some info on my tech to be more personal than any of my info elsewhere. I choose very carefully what I want to be known, so I also choose very carefully what products and services I use. If someone's data is being collected, they may never truly know how it's being used.
With regards to my last sentence, I was just acknowledging that they tell you they collect certain data, so you can at least know what you're getting into.
And anything collecting information about myself to profit off of, or to be used in any other way, makes me sick(the act itself makes me sick.)
You know what else Apple trails behind? Televisions, Refrigerators, not to mention Toilets, oh and Pennies. There are more Pennies than iPhones. WHAT IS THE POINT HERE?
If I had EXCALIBUR, (the mythic sword) and NO ONE else had it, I would be like oh well too bad, and I would hide in a CAVE nice and happy. And you know what? I marketshare 1 person...
There are more bicycles on the world's roads than Roll Royces, does this actually matter to Roll Royce?
In fact it does in the long run. The increasing number of bicycles is making the politicians to ban cars from the city center in a lot of historical European cities, converting the roads to bicycle or pedestrian only roads. This is changing the purchase behaviour of the local population, buying more bikes.
Apparently, Android now makes more profit in their App Store than Apple.
Android's app stores are expected to surpass the App Store in revenue sometime this year. However, they certainly are not expected to surpass the App Store in profit.
Bullshit. Apples profit is 30% of the revenue minus the operational costs of its app store. The same applies for
the suppliers of the competing Android app stores. There is no
evidence that the operational costs of the Apple app store are lower
than of the competing app stores, so you cannot make your claim hard. It is of course true that Apple generates more profit than the manufacturers of Android devices, but that was not your statement By the way for the developers (I am one) of apps it is exactly the same. The developer gets 70% of the revenue, independent of the app store. Currently the revenue split of the apps I developed is 60% Android, 40% iOS. The costs follow roughly the same pattern: 60% Android, 40% iOS. For the record I am not developing games, which might have a different split.
When you're giving away devices and an OS for negative profit whilst stealing personal information and giving it to the government, you're sure to dominate marketshare. Sadly, you're not going to dominate profits not have any cash to do anything else.
Google is in the ads business. It has developed an OS for free in order to sell more ads. You don't have to like this strategy, but you have to agree that this is a successful business model for Google. It is of course different for the device manufacturers that incorporate Android in their devices. They work with thin margins, but it is their choice. By the way, Google is not giving away any personal information to anybody. If you are an advertiser that wants to make use of the Google services (and I did), you don't get any details of the persons/companies belonging to the targeted audience, Google shields this information from you.
And what does it mean? Do the ads concern you or just the fact they "know" something?
If the latter why would you even bother with internet activities as there's thousands of companies and organizations (probably millions) besides Google who are tracking what you say, what you visit and what you buy.
So you stay off the internet and out of Google's eyes and you're safe right? Nope, not if the concern is not being followed. Off-line it's your credit-card provider, pharmacy, insurance company, bank, box-store retailer, grocery store, magazine, club, homeowners association or landlord, city, county and state, etc who's keeping track of you. All Google wants to do in show you an ad. What are these others actually doing with your information? If Google makes you sick what's your reaction to these others? Honest questions.
It's not that they know something, it's more what they might know. I might consider some info on my tech to be more personal than any of my info elsewhere. I choose very carefully what I want to be known, so I also choose very carefully what products and services I use. If someone's data is being collected, they may never truly know how it's being used.
With regards to my last sentence, I was just acknowledging that they tell you they collect certain data, so you can at least know what you're getting into.
And anything collecting information about myself to profit off of, or to be used in any other way, makes me sick(the act itself makes me sick.)
Here's a freebie...
Plug your name in here and see what comes up. Keep a trash can handy as you may not like how much stuff is out there about you. http://www.peekyou.com/
And not one piece of it comes from Google. I don't think your privacy issues flow from where you thought. As I said earlier there's a lot of repeated misinformation out there and some of it is very intentionally created FUD meant to serve competitive purposes. There's far more intrusive entities out there who aren't just trying to make a living from relatively benign advertising but instead have other motivations and intents.
When you're giving away devices and an OS for negative profit whilst stealing personal information and giving it to the government, you're sure to dominate marketshare. Sadly, you're not going to dominate profits not have any cash to do anything else.
There are more bicycles on the world's roads than Roll Royces, does this actually matter to Roll Royce?
Apparently, Android now makes more profit in their App Store than Apple.
And BMW bought Rolls-Royce, and Volkswagen bought Lamborghini because luxury cars are expensive to make, and mass market allows much more volume. Besides the iPhone is not a Rolls, it's a Mercedes. It targets people who are affluent, not billionaires.
I found that all quite amusing what was meant as a simple analogy on numbers and profits descended into an discussion about RR! I now realize I should have stuck to a simpler analogy obviously so as not to allow false equivalence, so here goes.
A sells a shit load of low price low profit widgets, B sells far fewer widgets but at a high price and very good margins. Then I can ask the same rhetorical question I did before .... "Should B be worried about A?
The reasons why Android is more popular than iOS are: 1) The devices running on the Android are much cheaper on average. Apple probably needs to consider their prices as even their "budget" iPhone 5C costs higher than, for example, OnePlus 2) Android is open source and any phone can use it as the operating system. Meanwhile, iOS is more like a closed system only for Apple devices. 3) Android provides more customization and free space on the contrary to iOS which requires to have a jailbreak to do something beyond the limits
Apple has a problem: price. Apple could reduce 50% the price of all products and boost sales tremendously worldwide.
Additionally, in the case of Mac they use many times soldered components (RAM, SSD and GPU), so that you cannot upgrade the machine later on (programmed obsolescence and big anti-ecological impact on planet Earth!) or with proprietary connectors, so that you are forced to purchase from Apple.
And Apple charges 2 to 3 times more for the very same product as compared to sites like Amazon when you buy just one item (whereas Apple purchases millions, so they could give even better price than Amazon.
Do not get me wrong. I love Apple products and in particular the Mac. But the situation is clearly unfair.
Take a finance class and learn about time value or money and doing NPV analysis and you will find an investment in Apple product even at a higher initial cost has much higher value over time than competing products. The issue is the fact most people can not even attempt to make this cost benefit analysis and most companies who make consumer products know this and rather selling you the same cheap product 10 times in the same time period apple only sold you one.
That's not totally accurate. Planes only make money while in the air. For every extra kilo its adds around a million dollars to the cost over the lifetime of the product. There are far too many factors involved, even in personal computing, to get beyond sweeping generalisations.
TCO is a nice but overly simplistic idea when put to the test.
It's not invalid but to be taken with a pinch of salt. The 'much higher value over time' will depend on far too many unique, user dependent factors to be reliable.
In my particular case I have decided to buy cheaper and upgrade more frequently on phones. The main reason is that I cannot afford to buy an iPhone every 12 to 15 months, so I get cheaper but excellent quality Android phones (which actually come down in price over time). For Macs, it's not the same. I get what I need, for the price I consider fair, and squeeze all I can out of them, even while paying the price of being cut off from security updates etc.
First, I was not talking about a plane, second it is not as complicated as you think, a computer purchase or a phone purchase is simple. Here is the example I use all the time since everyone can relate.
For this example forget fashion trends.
We all can go to a store and buy a "leather" or "Fake Leather" shoe and pay $50, if you wear it every day it will last you 2 year before it has to be replaced, you can not repair a $50 shoe even if it made of leather. Or you can buy a well made Leather shoe for $250 to $300, you wear it every day and you will be replacing the soles and heels every 3 to 5 yrs at a cost of $25 to $50, at the end of 20 yrs you still have those well made leather shoes but you replace the $50 shoe 10 times. You spent $500 and still do not have the shoe at the end of 20 yrs. If you bough the $250 shoe and took care of them, you invested a total of $400 and still have the shoe which is still worth about $250. This has a higher value especially if you factor in the time it take to go shopping every two yrs to replace your shoe. Most people never factor in their personal time to deal with replacing a product.
The same it true to computers, my macs last me 6 to 8 yrs verse my work PC needing replace every 2 to 3 yrs, and they usually need to be replace they start having all kinds of issue and I become less productive, I never have productivity issue with my mac so I do not loss time dealing with issue and my time is money.
I personally rather buy once verse having to buy over an over again since my time is worth more than the time to deal with issue with cheap products.
I personally did a NPV on buying a mac over a PC fact on the all the cost of software to protect the PC, dealing with down time and factor in my time to deal with issues and whey the value of the product was at the end of the life. PC end up in recycle bins, verse I have sold my old mac or donated them so they return money on the end. I have done the same on Iphone and android (which no want to buy a used Android)
Apparently, Android now makes more profit in their App Store than Apple.
Android's app stores are expected to surpass the App Store in revenue sometime this year. However, they certainly are not expected to surpass the App Store in profit.
Apparently, Android now makes more profit in their App Store than Apple.
Android's app stores are expected to surpass the App Store in revenue sometime this year. However, they certainly are not expected to surpass the App Store in profit.
I didn't know apps could be sold at a loss.
1) How do you get "sold at a loss" from his statement?
2) They absolutely can be sold at a loss if the cost exceeds revenue.
Apparently, Android now makes more profit in their App Store than Apple.
Android's app stores are expected to surpass the App Store in revenue sometime this year. However, they certainly are not expected to surpass the App Store in profit.
Probably never.
thanks for correcting that.
It still makes no sense. Both Apple and Google get 30% from every app sold. Last I checked apps cost the same in the App store and on the Play store. Since everything is equal on the app markets the one that makes the most revenue makes the most profit.
Apparently, Android now makes more profit in their App Store than Apple.
Android's app stores are expected to surpass the App Store in revenue sometime this year. However, they certainly are not expected to surpass the App Store in profit.
Probably never.
thanks for correcting that.
It still makes no sense. Both Apple and Google get 30% from every app sold. Last I checked apps cost the same in the App store and on the Play store. Since everything is equal on the app markets the one that makes the most revenue makes the most profit.
Are you being serious right now or trolling for the sake of trolling?
Apparently, Android now makes more profit in their App Store than Apple.
Android's app stores are expected to surpass the App Store in revenue sometime this year. However, they certainly are not expected to surpass the App Store in profit.
Probably never.
thanks for correcting that.
It still makes no sense. Both Apple and Google get 30% from every app sold. Last I checked apps cost the same in the App store and on the Play store. Since everything is equal on the app markets the one that makes the most revenue makes the most profit.
Of course it makes no sense because everything you wrote from second sentence forward are all wrong.
Apparently, Android now makes more profit in their App Store than Apple.
Android's app stores are expected to surpass the App Store in revenue sometime this year. However, they certainly are not expected to surpass the App Store in profit.
Probably never.
thanks for correcting that.
It still makes no sense. Both Apple and Google get 30% from every app sold. Last I checked apps cost the same in the App store and on the Play store. Since everything is equal on the app markets the one that makes the most revenue makes the most profit.
Of course it makes no sense because everything you wrote from second sentence forward are all wrong.
It would be more helpful to explain why it's wrong, unless you're not sure why. I do understand his point and granted it's early, I was late to work and missed coffee till just now.
Apple gets $10B in revenue from iOS app sales and keeps 30%. Google gets $10B in revenue from Android app sales and keeps 30% Amazon gets $1B in revenue from Android app sales and keeps 30%.
So far so good?
Then there's the "others" where we don't know what the revenue split is. So @"kevin kee" could you expand on this "all wrong" stuff 'cause I'm missing it too.
Apparently, Android now makes more profit in their App Store than Apple.
Android's app stores are expected to surpass the App Store in revenue sometime this year. However, they certainly are not expected to surpass the App Store in profit.
Probably never.
thanks for correcting that.
It still makes no sense. Both Apple and Google get 30% from every app sold. Last I checked apps cost the same in the App store and on the Play store. Since everything is equal on the app markets the one that makes the most revenue makes the most profit.
It's likely not that simple, and will depend on what is included in the accounting of revenue and costs.
How much do the app stores cost to run? Presumably these are different between Apple and Google (Apple should actually be more expensive because of app review)
IAPs, do these earn differing amounts for Apple/Google?
Subscriptions, do these earn different amounts?
Any other kinds of income (e.g. is advertising revenue included in any way, or paid placement on the storefronts)
Refunds, are these processed the same and accounted for in the same way?
Referrals, do the stores pay for them, and if so, are they equal.
Are ongoing store development costs included?
I'm sure that isn't a complete list, but there are plenty of ways, large and small, that might lead to differing margins between Apple and Google in the running of their app stores.
Apparently, Android now makes more profit in their App Store than Apple.
Android's app stores are expected to surpass the App Store in revenue sometime this year. However, they certainly are not expected to surpass the App Store in profit.
Probably never.
thanks for correcting that.
It still makes no sense. Both Apple and Google get 30% from every app sold. Last I checked apps cost the same in the App store and on the Play store. Since everything is equal on the app markets the one that makes the most revenue makes the most profit.
Are you being serious right now or trolling for the sake of trolling?
Completely serious. Please tell me where I'm wrong. One can't come to the conclusion that because Apple makes the most hardware profits then it must also make the most software profits when they are very different business models.
Apparently, Android now makes more profit in their App Store than Apple.
Android's app stores are expected to surpass the App Store in revenue sometime this year. However, they certainly are not expected to surpass the App Store in profit.
Probably never.
thanks for correcting that.
It still makes no sense. Both Apple and Google get 30% from every app sold. Last I checked apps cost the same in the App store and on the Play store. Since everything is equal on the app markets the one that makes the most revenue makes the most profit.
Of course it makes no sense because everything you wrote from second sentence forward are all wrong.
Apparently, Android now makes more profit in their App Store than Apple.
Android's app stores are expected to surpass the App Store in revenue sometime this year. However, they certainly are not expected to surpass the App Store in profit.
Probably never.
thanks for correcting that.
It still makes no sense. Both Apple and Google get 30% from every app sold. Last I checked apps cost the same in the App store and on the Play store. Since everything is equal on the app markets the one that makes the most revenue makes the most profit.
It's likely not that simple, and will depend on what is included in the accounting of revenue and costs.
How much do the app stores cost to run? Presumably these are different between Apple and Google (Apple should actually be more expensive because of app review)
IAPs, do these earn differing amounts for Apple/Google?
Subscriptions, do these earn different amounts?
Any other kinds of income (e.g. is advertising revenue included in any way, or paid placement on the storefronts)
Refunds, are these processed the same and accounted for in the same way?
Referrals, do the stores pay for them, and if so, are they equal.
Are ongoing store development costs included?
I'm sure that isn't a complete list, but there are plenty of ways, large and small, that might lead to differing margins between Apple and Google in the running of their app stores.
And since we don't know any of that no one can claim that either one is more profitable than the other. The claim was most likely based purely on Apple's success on hardware profits.
Comments
With regards to my last sentence, I was just acknowledging that they tell you they collect certain data, so you can at least know what you're getting into.
And anything collecting information about myself to profit off of, or to be used in any other way, makes me sick(the act itself makes me sick.)
If I had EXCALIBUR, (the mythic sword) and NO ONE else had it, I would be like oh well too bad, and I would hide in a CAVE nice and happy.
The increasing number of bicycles is making the politicians to ban cars from the city center in a lot of historical European cities, converting the roads to bicycle or pedestrian only roads. This is changing the purchase behaviour of the local population, buying more bikes.
Apples profit is 30% of the revenue minus the operational costs of its app store. The same applies for the suppliers of the competing Android app stores. There is no evidence that the operational costs of the Apple app store are lower than of the competing app stores, so you cannot make your claim hard.
It is of course true that Apple generates more profit than the manufacturers of Android devices, but that was not your statement
By the way for the developers (I am one) of apps it is exactly the same. The developer gets 70% of the revenue, independent of the app store. Currently the revenue split of the apps I developed is 60% Android, 40% iOS. The costs follow roughly the same pattern: 60% Android, 40% iOS. For the record I am not developing games, which might have a different split.
It is of course different for the device manufacturers that incorporate Android in their devices. They work with thin margins, but it is their choice.
By the way, Google is not giving away any personal information to anybody. If you are an advertiser that wants to make use of the Google services (and I did), you don't get any details of the persons/companies belonging to the targeted audience, Google shields this information from you.
Notice that iOS beat all Android devices in the USA with iOS at 25.7 percent, and Android at 21.2 percent according to StatCounter.
iOS also doubled Android's share in Australia by a whopping 31.39% to 15.29% - that's only 6% behind Windows!
iOs also beat Android in the UK with 26.22% to 18.88%.
In Canada iOS had 25.12% vs 14.81%.
In Japan, with 21.53%, iOS thrashed Android on a lowly 8.69%.
Note that NetApplications puts iOS even higher at 53% web browser share of all Android devices worldwide.
Not bad at all for one manufacturer whose devices come in at 3x - 4x the price of the average cheap plastic Android device.
And not one piece of it comes from Google. I don't think your privacy issues flow from where you thought. As I said earlier there's a lot of repeated misinformation out there and some of it is very intentionally created FUD meant to serve competitive purposes. There's far more intrusive entities out there who aren't just trying to make a living from relatively benign advertising but instead have other motivations and intents.
A sells a shit load of low price low profit widgets, B sells far fewer widgets but at a high price and very good margins. Then I can ask the same rhetorical question I did before .... "Should B be worried about A?
1) The devices running on the Android are much cheaper on average. Apple probably needs to consider their prices as even their "budget" iPhone 5C costs higher than, for example, OnePlus
2) Android is open source and any phone can use it as the operating system. Meanwhile, iOS is more like a closed system only for Apple devices.
3) Android provides more customization and free space on the contrary to iOS which requires to have a jailbreak to do something beyond the limits
First, I was not talking about a plane, second it is not as complicated as you think, a computer purchase or a phone purchase is simple. Here is the example I use all the time since everyone can relate.
For this example forget fashion trends.
We all can go to a store and buy a "leather" or "Fake Leather" shoe and pay $50, if you wear it every day it will last you 2 year before it has to be replaced, you can not repair a $50 shoe even if it made of leather. Or you can buy a well made Leather shoe for $250 to $300, you wear it every day and you will be replacing the soles and heels every 3 to 5 yrs at a cost of $25 to $50, at the end of 20 yrs you still have those well made leather shoes but you replace the $50 shoe 10 times. You spent $500 and still do not have the shoe at the end of 20 yrs. If you bough the $250 shoe and took care of them, you invested a total of $400 and still have the shoe which is still worth about $250. This has a higher value especially if you factor in the time it take to go shopping every two yrs to replace your shoe. Most people never factor in their personal time to deal with replacing a product.
The same it true to computers, my macs last me 6 to 8 yrs verse my work PC needing replace every 2 to 3 yrs, and they usually need to be replace they start having all kinds of issue and I become less productive, I never have productivity issue with my mac so I do not loss time dealing with issue and my time is money.
I personally rather buy once verse having to buy over an over again since my time is worth more than the time to deal with issue with cheap products.
I personally did a NPV on buying a mac over a PC fact on the all the cost of software to protect the PC, dealing with down time and factor in my time to deal with issues and whey the value of the product was at the end of the life. PC end up in recycle bins, verse I have sold my old mac or donated them so they return money on the end. I have done the same on Iphone and android (which no want to buy a used Android)
2) They absolutely can be sold at a loss if the cost exceeds revenue.
Apple gets $10B in revenue from iOS app sales and keeps 30%.
Google gets $10B in revenue from Android app sales and keeps 30%
Amazon gets $1B in revenue from Android app sales and keeps 30%.
So far so good?
Then there's the "others" where we don't know what the revenue split is.
So @"kevin kee" could you expand on this "all wrong" stuff 'cause I'm missing it too.
- How much do the app stores cost to run? Presumably these are different between Apple and Google (Apple should actually be more expensive because of app review)
- IAPs, do these earn differing amounts for Apple/Google?
- Subscriptions, do these earn different amounts?
- Any other kinds of income (e.g. is advertising revenue included in any way, or paid placement on the storefronts)
- Refunds, are these processed the same and accounted for in the same way?
- Referrals, do the stores pay for them, and if so, are they equal.
- Are ongoing store development costs included?
I'm sure that isn't a complete list, but there are plenty of ways, large and small, that might lead to differing margins between Apple and Google in the running of their app stores.