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.
In theory one can sell an infinite number of apps because it's not a physical object unlike a smartphone in which each one has a specific cost to manufacture. Apps do not have a set profit margin, once the dev breaks even every app they sell increases the profit margin, so while they technically can be sold at a loss it is not priced specifically by the dev as a money loser.
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.
I have no idea about that, I'm just commenting on your claim that everything is equal on the app markets. That's not true for a number of reasons.
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.
How is it wrong?
As previously stated:
Revenue ≠ Profit
True, but just because Android devices are sold for little to no profit does not mean that Google runs the Play Store as a profit loser, or at a lower profit than Apple does.
We simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way.
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.
In theory one can sell an infinite number of apps because it's not a physical object unlike a smartphone in which each one has a specific cost to manufacture. Apps do not have a set profit margin, once the dev breaks even every app they sell increases the profit margin, so while they technically can be sold at a loss it is not priced specifically by the dev as a money loser.
If the app is given away for free then it will always be making a loss. If the pricing compared to the expected downloads from the developer doesn't cover the costs then it will be being sold at an expected loss.
This isn't all that much different from a manufactured good, there may not be a unit production cost but they are still subject to development overhead, price elasticity of demand, and the maker will have an expectation of sales that they price for.
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.
How is it wrong?
As previously stated:
Revenue ≠ Profit
True, but just because Android devices are sold for little to no profit does not mean that Google runs the Play Store as a profit loser, or at a lower profit than Apple does.
We simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way.
You say "we simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way" and yet you're the one that wrote, "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.
Of course it makes no sense because everything you wrote from second sentence forward are all wrong.
How is it wrong?
As previously stated:
Revenue ≠ Profit
True, but just because Android devices are sold for little to no profit does not mean that Google runs the Play Store as a profit loser, or at a lower profit than Apple does.
We simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way.
You say "we simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way" and yet you're the one that wrote, "Since everything is equal on the app markets the one that makes the most revenue makes the most profit."
I was referring to the 30% cut that both take, it's the only known variable, but you're correct, I should've written 'if' instead of 'since'.
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.
How is it wrong?
As previously stated:
Revenue ≠ Profit
True, but just because Android devices are sold for little to no profit does not mean that Google runs the Play Store as a profit loser, or at a lower profit than Apple does.
We simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way.
You say "we simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way" and yet you're the one that wrote, "Since everything is equal on the app markets the one that makes the most revenue makes the most profit."
I was referring to the 30% cut that both take, it's the only known variable, but you're correct, I should've written 'if' instead of 'since'.
But we know everything isn't equal. We know from 3rd-party developers that they have a harder time selling apps on Android, or at the same prices as on iOS, Android requires more freemium apps with ads to generate revenue, and there's more theft of Android apps over iOS. We also know that the apps aren't using the same languages or IDEs, which need to be supported.
Since we're not talking about it costs the 3rd-party developers we're only using them as a way of seeing how things aren't equal since their 30% revenue comes from developer's (70% take) revenue. We have Apple and Google supporting their stores, their IDEs, marketing. Then you have every free app download being a cost center, as well as every update to a previously paid app for the developer's verification process, storage on the app store, user/device verification process requires infrastructure, and the download takes bandwidth, time and money. And every time you need to rebuild a device because you wiped the OS because of "issues" or you got a new one.
And that's just scratching the surface of the costs involved, so when you say that they each get 30% profit from their respective app stores you're not just a swing and miss… you're not even in the ballpark.
Soli said: Since we're not talking about it costs the 3rd-party developers we're only using them as a way of seeing how things aren't equal since their 30% revenue comes from developer's 70% revenue.
??? You might want to try again with that sentence.
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.
How is it wrong?
As previously stated:
Revenue ≠ Profit
True, but just because Android devices are sold for little to no profit does not mean that Google runs the Play Store as a profit loser, or at a lower profit than Apple does.
We simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way.
You say "we simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way" and yet you're the one that wrote, "Since everything is equal on the app markets the one that makes the most revenue makes the most profit."
I was referring to the 30% cut that both take, it's the only known variable, but you're correct, I should've written 'if' instead of 'since'.
But we know everything isn't equal. We know from 3rd-party developers that they have a harder time selling apps on Android, or at the same prices as on iOS, Android requires more freemium apps with ads to generate revenue, and there's more theft of Android apps over iOS. We also know that the apps aren't using the same languages or IDEs, which need to be supported.
Since we're not talking about it costs the 3rd-party developers we're only using them as a way of seeing how things aren't equal since their 30% revenue comes from developer's 70% revenue. We have Apple and Google supporting their stores, their IDEs, marketing. Then you have every free app download being a cost center, as well as every update to a previously paid app for the developer's verification process, storage on the app store, user/device verification process requires infrastructure, and the download takes bandwidth, time and money. And every time you need to rebuild a device because you wiped the OS because of "issues" or you got a new one.
And that's just scratching the surface of the costs involved, so when you say that they each get 30% profit from their respective app stores you're not just a swing and miss… you're not even in the ballpark.
The devs that can't sell on Android are small in number and their revenue or lack thereof will not have an effect on the Google's or Apple's bottom line. Freemium apps have the potential of generating much more revenue than a paid app per user and my guess is why Google prefers them. Stolen apps are hosted on non-Google servers, so it only hurts the dev.
How did you get 30% from the devs 70%? It's 30% from 100%, leaving the dev with 70%. We also do not know how much it costs to run the their stores, and everything that goes with it.
Whenever there's an article saying how much revenue the App Store made plenty of posters on here automatically go with 30% of that number to claim that's what Apple made. I've never seen you once tell them that they're not in the same ballpark because everyone is too busy butt slapping each other.
BTW I do find funny that someone would claim that Apple makes more profit when Apple themselves said that the App Store was meant to be a break even venture. Apple didn't start turning a profit until what, 2 or 3 years ago?
I simply objected to the OP's claim that Apple makes more profit without any real hard numbers to base it on. My guess is that he's assuming it because of the hardware numbers which is definitely not the same ballpark. The app market business model of both Apple and Google are much more aligned than the hardware one.
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.
How is it wrong?
As previously stated:
Revenue ≠ Profit
True, but just because Android devices are sold for little to no profit does not mean that Google runs the Play Store as a profit loser, or at a lower profit than Apple does.
We simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way.
You say "we simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way" and yet you're the one that wrote, "Since everything is equal on the app markets the one that makes the most revenue makes the most profit."
I was referring to the 30% cut that both take, it's the only known variable, but you're correct, I should've written 'if' instead of 'since'.
But we know everything isn't equal. We know from 3rd-party developers that they have a harder time selling apps on Android, or at the same prices as on iOS, Android requires more freemium apps with ads to generate revenue, and there's more theft of Android apps over iOS. We also know that the apps aren't using the same languages or IDEs, which need to be supported.
Since we're not talking about it costs the 3rd-party developers we're only using them as a way of seeing how things aren't equal since their 30% revenue comes from developer's 70% revenue. We have Apple and Google supporting their stores, their IDEs, marketing. Then you have every free app download being a cost center, as well as every update to a previously paid app for the developer's verification process, storage on the app store, user/device verification process requires infrastructure, and the download takes bandwidth, time and money. And every time you need to rebuild a device because you wiped the OS because of "issues" or you got a new one.
And that's just scratching the surface of the costs involved, so when you say that they each get 30% profit from their respective app stores you're not just a swing and miss… you're not even in the ballpark.
The devs that can't sell on Android are small in number and their revenue or lack thereof will not have an effect on the Google's or Apple's bottom line. Freemium apps have the potential of generating much more revenue than a paid app per user and my guess is why Google prefers them. Stolen apps are hosted on non-Google servers, so it only hurts the dev.
How did you get 30% from the devs 70%? It's 30% from 100%, leaving the dev with 70%. We also do not know how much it costs to run the their stores, and everything that goes with it.
Whenever there's an article saying how much revenue the App Store made plenty of posters on here automatically go with 30% of that number to claim that's what Apple made. I've never seen you once tell them that they're not in the same ballpark because everyone is too busy butt slapping each other.
BTW I do find funny that someone would claim that Apple makes more profit when Apple themselves said that the App Store was meant to be a break even venture. Apple didn't start turning a profit until what, 2 or 3 years ago?
I simply objected to the OP's claim that Apple makes more profit without any real hard numbers to base it on. My guess is that he's assuming it because of the hardware numbers which is definitely not the same ballpark. The app market business model of both Apple and Google are much more aligned than the hardware one.
Now you've veered off in many different directions from your original position that revenue equals profits. What Apple makes or doesn't make in profits since their 2008 about braking even is useless. You do understand how economies of scale work, right? And, YES, everything fuck app on the store has an impact on both Apple and Google (and Amazon, Samsung, Micrsoft, and every other app store.)
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)
That's the simplistic approach. What if I bought an equivalent leather shoe for $70 or $500 for that matter? What if I kept my (older) worn shoes for different uses? What if I bought them on Amazon (no shop trips). You want to forget fashion trends but fashion has a price? That $500 tag could well be branding, not quality.
If you BTO the SSD to maximum capacity (some people do this as the trend on laptops at Apple is to make them non-upgradeable) you might be overpaying because you could have unused but paid capacity sitting on your laptop. Two years down the line (perhaps when you are finally using that capacity, it is half the price, better and faster. That's a lot of terms that mean 'maybe' (might, could, perhaps) because every user not only has different needs, but puts a price on those needs.
My wife has an expensive iPhone. I have a cheap Huawei. My Huawei trumps the iPhone in many ways but my wife will want another iPhone when it's time to upgrade. She values her phone (in part because it's an iPhone :-()
In part, It cost so much as I didn't want to skimp on capacity so we have paid for storage space she is a long way off using (Apple Upsell). I'm on my second phone in the same period. The old one lives on and I haven't reached the halfway point of what the iPhone cost me.
The second phone gave me better fingerprint scanner, more memory, better design, camera etc.
I can guarantee you that when my wife upgrades (possibly this year) she will have spent more than I have on her phone (even if I upgrade again).
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.
How is it wrong?
As previously stated:
Revenue ≠ Profit
True, but just because Android devices are sold for little to no profit does not mean that Google runs the Play Store as a profit loser, or at a lower profit than Apple does.
We simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way.
You say "we simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way" and yet you're the one that wrote, "Since everything is equal on the app markets the one that makes the most revenue makes the most profit."
I was referring to the 30% cut that both take, it's the only known variable, but you're correct, I should've written 'if' instead of 'since'.
But we know everything isn't equal. We know from 3rd-party developers that they have a harder time selling apps on Android, or at the same prices as on iOS, Android requires more freemium apps with ads to generate revenue, and there's more theft of Android apps over iOS. We also know that the apps aren't using the same languages or IDEs, which need to be supported.
Since we're not talking about it costs the 3rd-party developers we're only using them as a way of seeing how things aren't equal since their 30% revenue comes from developer's 70% revenue. We have Apple and Google supporting their stores, their IDEs, marketing. Then you have every free app download being a cost center, as well as every update to a previously paid app for the developer's verification process, storage on the app store, user/device verification process requires infrastructure, and the download takes bandwidth, time and money. And every time you need to rebuild a device because you wiped the OS because of "issues" or you got a new one.
And that's just scratching the surface of the costs involved, so when you say that they each get 30% profit from their respective app stores you're not just a swing and miss… you're not even in the ballpark.
The devs that can't sell on Android are small in number and their revenue or lack thereof will not have an effect on the Google's or Apple's bottom line. Freemium apps have the potential of generating much more revenue than a paid app per user and my guess is why Google prefers them. Stolen apps are hosted on non-Google servers, so it only hurts the dev.
How did you get 30% from the devs 70%? It's 30% from 100%, leaving the dev with 70%. We also do not know how much it costs to run the their stores, and everything that goes with it.
Whenever there's an article saying how much revenue the App Store made plenty of posters on here automatically go with 30% of that number to claim that's what Apple made. I've never seen you once tell them that they're not in the same ballpark because everyone is too busy butt slapping each other.
BTW I do find funny that someone would claim that Apple makes more profit when Apple themselves said that the App Store was meant to be a break even venture. Apple didn't start turning a profit until what, 2 or 3 years ago?
I simply objected to the OP's claim that Apple makes more profit without any real hard numbers to base it on. My guess is that he's assuming it because of the hardware numbers which is definitely not the same ballpark. The app market business model of both Apple and Google are much more aligned than the hardware one.
Now you've veered off in many different directions from your original position that revenue equals profits. What Apple makes or doesn't make in profits since their 2008 about braking even is useless. You do understand how economies of scale work, right? And, YES, everything fuck app on the store has an impact on both Apple and Google (and Amazon, Samsung, Micrsoft, and every other app store.)
What do these other stores matter? I know they exist but wasn't going to mention them each and every time.
My position is based on a known, the 30% cut. We cannot formulate a position on unknowns the way the OP did.
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.
How is it wrong?
As previously stated:
Revenue ≠ Profit
True, but just because Android devices are sold for little to no profit does not mean that Google runs the Play Store as a profit loser, or at a lower profit than Apple does.
We simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way.
You say "we simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way" and yet you're the one that wrote, "Since everything is equal on the app markets the one that makes the most revenue makes the most profit."
I was referring to the 30% cut that both take, it's the only known variable, but you're correct, I should've written 'if' instead of 'since'.
But we know everything isn't equal. We know from 3rd-party developers that they have a harder time selling apps on Android, or at the same prices as on iOS, Android requires more freemium apps with ads to generate revenue, and there's more theft of Android apps over iOS. We also know that the apps aren't using the same languages or IDEs, which need to be supported.
Since we're not talking about it costs the 3rd-party developers we're only using them as a way of seeing how things aren't equal since their 30% revenue comes from developer's 70% revenue. We have Apple and Google supporting their stores, their IDEs, marketing. Then you have every free app download being a cost center, as well as every update to a previously paid app for the developer's verification process, storage on the app store, user/device verification process requires infrastructure, and the download takes bandwidth, time and money. And every time you need to rebuild a device because you wiped the OS because of "issues" or you got a new one.
And that's just scratching the surface of the costs involved, so when you say that they each get 30% profit from their respective app stores you're not just a swing and miss… you're not even in the ballpark.
The devs that can't sell on Android are small in number and their revenue or lack thereof will not have an effect on the Google's or Apple's bottom line. Freemium apps have the potential of generating much more revenue than a paid app per user and my guess is why Google prefers them. Stolen apps are hosted on non-Google servers, so it only hurts the dev.
How did you get 30% from the devs 70%? It's 30% from 100%, leaving the dev with 70%. We also do not know how much it costs to run the their stores, and everything that goes with it.
Whenever there's an article saying how much revenue the App Store made plenty of posters on here automatically go with 30% of that number to claim that's what Apple made. I've never seen you once tell them that they're not in the same ballpark because everyone is too busy butt slapping each other.
BTW I do find funny that someone would claim that Apple makes more profit when Apple themselves said that the App Store was meant to be a break even venture. Apple didn't start turning a profit until what, 2 or 3 years ago?
I simply objected to the OP's claim that Apple makes more profit without any real hard numbers to base it on. My guess is that he's assuming it because of the hardware numbers which is definitely not the same ballpark. The app market business model of both Apple and Google are much more aligned than the hardware one.
Now you've veered off in many different directions from your original position that revenue equals profits. What Apple makes or doesn't make in profits since their 2008 about braking even is useless. You do understand how economies of scale work, right? And, YES, everything fuck app on the store has an impact on both Apple and Google (and Amazon, Samsung, Micrsoft, and every other app store.)
What do these other stores matter? I know they exist but wasn't going to mention them each and every time.
My position is based on a known, the 30% cut. We cannot formulate a position on unknowns the way the OP did.
Why don't they matter? They're all subject to two nearly all the same or simillar metrics.
When your statement equates a percentage of a cut equates to profits, not revenues, that's an issue.
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.
How is it wrong?
As previously stated:
Revenue ≠ Profit
True, but just because Android devices are sold for little to no profit does not mean that Google runs the Play Store as a profit loser, or at a lower profit than Apple does.
We simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way.
You say "we simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way" and yet you're the one that wrote, "Since everything is equal on the app markets the one that makes the most revenue makes the most profit."
I was referring to the 30% cut that both take, it's the only known variable, but you're correct, I should've written 'if' instead of 'since'.
But we know everything isn't equal. We know from 3rd-party developers that they have a harder time selling apps on Android, or at the same prices as on iOS, Android requires more freemium apps with ads to generate revenue, and there's more theft of Android apps over iOS. We also know that the apps aren't using the same languages or IDEs, which need to be supported.
Since we're not talking about it costs the 3rd-party developers we're only using them as a way of seeing how things aren't equal since their 30% revenue comes from developer's 70% revenue. We have Apple and Google supporting their stores, their IDEs, marketing. Then you have every free app download being a cost center, as well as every update to a previously paid app for the developer's verification process, storage on the app store, user/device verification process requires infrastructure, and the download takes bandwidth, time and money. And every time you need to rebuild a device because you wiped the OS because of "issues" or you got a new one.
And that's just scratching the surface of the costs involved, so when you say that they each get 30% profit from their respective app stores you're not just a swing and miss… you're not even in the ballpark.
The devs that can't sell on Android are small in number and their revenue or lack thereof will not have an effect on the Google's or Apple's bottom line. Freemium apps have the potential of generating much more revenue than a paid app per user and my guess is why Google prefers them. Stolen apps are hosted on non-Google servers, so it only hurts the dev.
How did you get 30% from the devs 70%? It's 30% from 100%, leaving the dev with 70%. We also do not know how much it costs to run the their stores, and everything that goes with it.
Whenever there's an article saying how much revenue the App Store made plenty of posters on here automatically go with 30% of that number to claim that's what Apple made. I've never seen you once tell them that they're not in the same ballpark because everyone is too busy butt slapping each other.
BTW I do find funny that someone would claim that Apple makes more profit when Apple themselves said that the App Store was meant to be a break even venture. Apple didn't start turning a profit until what, 2 or 3 years ago?
I simply objected to the OP's claim that Apple makes more profit without any real hard numbers to base it on. My guess is that he's assuming it because of the hardware numbers which is definitely not the same ballpark. The app market business model of both Apple and Google are much more aligned than the hardware one.
Now you've veered off in many different directions from your original position that revenue equals profits. What Apple makes or doesn't make in profits since their 2008 about braking even is useless. You do understand how economies of scale work, right? And, YES, everything fuck app on the store has an impact on both Apple and Google (and Amazon, Samsung, Micrsoft, and every other app store.)
What do these other stores matter? I know they exist but wasn't going to mention them each and every time.
My position is based on a known, the 30% cut. We cannot formulate a position on unknowns the way the OP did.
Why don't they matter? They're all subject to two nearly all the same or simillar metrics.
When your statement equates a percentage of a cut equates to profits, not revenues, that's an issue.
The profit is unknown, because the cost is unknown. The only knowns are total revenue, and the 30% cut taken from said revenues. If all things are equal, and we can only go by the 30% cut, then the one with the higher revenue made the higher profit. Simple math.
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.
How is it wrong?
As previously stated:
Revenue ≠ Profit
True, but just because Android devices are sold for little to no profit does not mean that Google runs the Play Store as a profit loser, or at a lower profit than Apple does.
We simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way.
You say "we simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way" and yet you're the one that wrote, "Since everything is equal on the app markets the one that makes the most revenue makes the most profit."
I was referring to the 30% cut that both take, it's the only known variable, but you're correct, I should've written 'if' instead of 'since'.
But we know everything isn't equal. We know from 3rd-party developers that they have a harder time selling apps on Android, or at the same prices as on iOS, Android requires more freemium apps with ads to generate revenue, and there's more theft of Android apps over iOS. We also know that the apps aren't using the same languages or IDEs, which need to be supported.
Since we're not talking about it costs the 3rd-party developers we're only using them as a way of seeing how things aren't equal since their 30% revenue comes from developer's 70% revenue. We have Apple and Google supporting their stores, their IDEs, marketing. Then you have every free app download being a cost center, as well as every update to a previously paid app for the developer's verification process, storage on the app store, user/device verification process requires infrastructure, and the download takes bandwidth, time and money. And every time you need to rebuild a device because you wiped the OS because of "issues" or you got a new one.
And that's just scratching the surface of the costs involved, so when you say that they each get 30% profit from their respective app stores you're not just a swing and miss… you're not even in the ballpark.
The devs that can't sell on Android are small in number and their revenue or lack thereof will not have an effect on the Google's or Apple's bottom line. Freemium apps have the potential of generating much more revenue than a paid app per user and my guess is why Google prefers them. Stolen apps are hosted on non-Google servers, so it only hurts the dev.
How did you get 30% from the devs 70%? It's 30% from 100%, leaving the dev with 70%. We also do not know how much it costs to run the their stores, and everything that goes with it.
Whenever there's an article saying how much revenue the App Store made plenty of posters on here automatically go with 30% of that number to claim that's what Apple made. I've never seen you once tell them that they're not in the same ballpark because everyone is too busy butt slapping each other.
BTW I do find funny that someone would claim that Apple makes more profit when Apple themselves said that the App Store was meant to be a break even venture. Apple didn't start turning a profit until what, 2 or 3 years ago?
I simply objected to the OP's claim that Apple makes more profit without any real hard numbers to base it on. My guess is that he's assuming it because of the hardware numbers which is definitely not the same ballpark. The app market business model of both Apple and Google are much more aligned than the hardware one.
Now you've veered off in many different directions from your original position that revenue equals profits. What Apple makes or doesn't make in profits since their 2008 about braking even is useless. You do understand how economies of scale work, right? And, YES, everything fuck app on the store has an impact on both Apple and Google (and Amazon, Samsung, Micrsoft, and every other app store.)
What do these other stores matter? I know they exist but wasn't going to mention them each and every time.
My position is based on a known, the 30% cut. We cannot formulate a position on unknowns the way the OP did.
Why don't they matter? They're all subject to two nearly all the same or simillar metrics.
When your statement equates a percentage of a cut equates to profits, not revenues, that's an issue.
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.
How is it wrong?
As previously stated:
Revenue ≠ Profit
True, but just because Android devices are sold for little to no profit does not mean that Google runs the Play Store as a profit loser, or at a lower profit than Apple does.
We simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way.
You say "we simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way" and yet you're the one that wrote, "Since everything is equal on the app markets the one that makes the most revenue makes the most profit."
I was referring to the 30% cut that both take, it's the only known variable, but you're correct, I should've written 'if' instead of 'since'.
But we know everything isn't equal. We know from 3rd-party developers that they have a harder time selling apps on Android, or at the same prices as on iOS, Android requires more freemium apps with ads to generate revenue, and there's more theft of Android apps over iOS. We also know that the apps aren't using the same languages or IDEs, which need to be supported.
Since we're not talking about it costs the 3rd-party developers we're only using them as a way of seeing how things aren't equal since their 30% revenue comes from developer's 70% revenue. We have Apple and Google supporting their stores, their IDEs, marketing. Then you have every free app download being a cost center, as well as every update to a previously paid app for the developer's verification process, storage on the app store, user/device verification process requires infrastructure, and the download takes bandwidth, time and money. And every time you need to rebuild a device because you wiped the OS because of "issues" or you got a new one.
And that's just scratching the surface of the costs involved, so when you say that they each get 30% profit from their respective app stores you're not just a swing and miss… you're not even in the ballpark.
The devs that can't sell on Android are small in number and their revenue or lack thereof will not have an effect on the Google's or Apple's bottom line. Freemium apps have the potential of generating much more revenue than a paid app per user and my guess is why Google prefers them. Stolen apps are hosted on non-Google servers, so it only hurts the dev.
How did you get 30% from the devs 70%? It's 30% from 100%, leaving the dev with 70%. We also do not know how much it costs to run the their stores, and everything that goes with it.
Whenever there's an article saying how much revenue the App Store made plenty of posters on here automatically go with 30% of that number to claim that's what Apple made. I've never seen you once tell them that they're not in the same ballpark because everyone is too busy butt slapping each other.
BTW I do find funny that someone would claim that Apple makes more profit when Apple themselves said that the App Store was meant to be a break even venture. Apple didn't start turning a profit until what, 2 or 3 years ago?
I simply objected to the OP's claim that Apple makes more profit without any real hard numbers to base it on. My guess is that he's assuming it because of the hardware numbers which is definitely not the same ballpark. The app market business model of both Apple and Google are much more aligned than the hardware one.
Now you've veered off in many different directions from your original position that revenue equals profits. What Apple makes or doesn't make in profits since their 2008 about braking even is useless. You do understand how economies of scale work, right? And, YES, everything fuck app on the store has an impact on both Apple and Google (and Amazon, Samsung, Micrsoft, and every other app store.)
What do these other stores matter? I know they exist but wasn't going to mention them each and every time.
My position is based on a known, the 30% cut. We cannot formulate a position on unknowns the way the OP did.
Why don't they matter? They're all subject to two nearly all the same or simillar metrics.
When your statement equates a percentage of a cut equates to profits, not revenues, that's an issue.
And you think that gives you the right to then assume that they are equal then claim that revenue must equal profit? How the hell do you not see your logic fallacy?
And you think that gives you the right to then assume that they are equal then claim that revenue must equal profit? How the hell do you not see your logic fallacy?
At least my logic is based on actual numbers that are known, not unlike science that makes conclusions based on what is known and then proven or changed when more is known. The OP made an absolute statement based purely on emotions, and assumptions, so Mr. I Question Everything, why didn't you challenge him on his statement? Because you agree with it without knowing the facts.
Comments
Revenue ≠ Profit
We simply do not have the numbers to make a claim either way.
If the pricing compared to the expected downloads from the developer doesn't cover the costs then it will be being sold at an expected loss.
This isn't all that much different from a manufactured good, there may not be a unit production cost but they are still subject to development overhead, price elasticity of demand, and the maker will have an expectation of sales that they price for.
Since we're not talking about it costs the 3rd-party developers we're only using them as a way of seeing how things aren't equal since their 30% revenue comes from developer's (70% take) revenue. We have Apple and Google supporting their stores, their IDEs, marketing. Then you have every free app download being a cost center, as well as every update to a previously paid app for the developer's verification process, storage on the app store, user/device verification process requires infrastructure, and the download takes bandwidth, time and money. And every time you need to rebuild a device because you wiped the OS because of "issues" or you got a new one.
And that's just scratching the surface of the costs involved, so when you say that they each get 30% profit from their respective app stores you're not just a swing and miss… you're not even in the ballpark.
??? You might want to try again with that sentence.
How did you get 30% from the devs 70%? It's 30% from 100%, leaving the dev with 70%. We also do not know how much it costs to run the their stores, and everything that goes with it.
Whenever there's an article saying how much revenue the App Store made plenty of posters on here automatically go with 30% of that number to claim that's what Apple made. I've never seen you once tell them that they're not in the same ballpark because everyone is too busy butt slapping each other.
BTW I do find funny that someone would claim that Apple makes more profit when Apple themselves said that the App Store was meant to be a break even venture. Apple didn't start turning a profit until what, 2 or 3 years ago?
I simply objected to the OP's claim that Apple makes more profit without any real hard numbers to base it on. My guess is that he's assuming it because of the hardware numbers which is definitely not the same ballpark. The app market business model of both Apple and Google are much more aligned than the hardware one.
Dude, you really need to read what you've written before posting it.
If you BTO the SSD to maximum capacity (some people do this as the trend on laptops at Apple is to make them non-upgradeable) you might be overpaying because you could have unused but paid capacity sitting on your laptop. Two years down the line (perhaps when you are finally using that capacity, it is half the price, better and faster. That's a lot of terms that mean 'maybe' (might, could, perhaps) because every user not only has different needs, but puts a price on those needs.
My wife has an expensive iPhone. I have a cheap Huawei. My Huawei trumps the iPhone in many ways but my wife will want another iPhone when it's time to upgrade. She values her phone (in part because it's an iPhone :-()
In part, It cost so much as I didn't want to skimp on capacity so we have paid for storage space she is a long way off using (Apple Upsell). I'm on my second phone in the same period. The old one lives on and I haven't reached the halfway point of what the iPhone cost me.
The second phone gave me better fingerprint scanner, more memory, better design, camera etc.
I can guarantee you that when my wife upgrades (possibly this year) she will have spent more than I have on her phone (even if I upgrade again).
My position is based on a known, the 30% cut. We cannot formulate a position on unknowns the way the OP did.
When your statement equates a percentage of a cut equates to profits, not revenues, that's an issue.
All things are not equal!