I don't find these figures a surprise. When you consider Apple only sell flagship mobile devices but Android comes in both really cheap devices and flagship. It makes sense that people who buy flagship will spend more money on apps etc than cheap phone users.
The cheap device users who just want a cheap phone will bring down the average clicks per 1000 adverts. An interesting figure would be to compare just using Android flagship figures.
Do you really believe that he couldn't influence the other board members or CEO in any mutually beneficial way, or that Nike stayed iOS only out of the goodness of their hearts and their love for all things Apple?
Actually they must have done it because they couldn't afford a 100+ dev team to constantly update their app to try and beat fragmentation in android.
I have a few apps in the App Store, churning along, most of my money is from the Mac dev day job. But it all helps. Everytime I show them off to Android owners they ask when will I port 'em, or why I haven't I yet. Did I know that the market was huge?
Android has something like 80% of the market... while iOS only has 11%
It seems like Android's phenomenal market share isn't really an advantage.
Correction on Facts:
Apple was about 18% of worldwide sales last Quarter, but that is not the installed base for all Phones. And the iOS market includes the iPod touch and the iPad. Nevertheless Apple users clearly both pay for apps more readily, click to ads more readily and buy from those ads more readily ( thats where a lot of the money comes from, FB probably tracks what is bought).
This is good news for Apple, but they should ask why FB is taking them to lunch on advertising revenue on the iOS platform. I don't know why either, but FB is taking a lot of it.
Fandroids will simply say that "Well, Android users are smart with their money" or "iOS users are just a bunch of rich trust-fund kiddies that like wasting money", or the typical name-calling that they are so good at doing since they have no valid argument to debate with.
This just cracks me up.
Wow there must be a lot of trust fund babies in the world. If you think that was the case and in the US we have 99% complaining about the 1% with the money. Apple should only have 1% of the market share then since the 99% are not spending money like the 1% are or so they claim.
I put this way, most people who will buy cheap fail to understand quality and will be destine to always have no money since they have the buy the cheap product 10 times over since it breaks all the time. In the end they spend more and have lots of broken things lying around their place.
It's really funny to read how these guys are spinning it. They refuse to even entertain the notion that Nike booted Android out simply because of ROI reasons. No. It HAD to be a shadow-meeting in a board room between Cook and the CEO. Of course in this case they can say that without providing any proof that board of directors can tell a CEO how to market its products.
I read about Nike's booting of Android due to support reasons from various Android-centric sites.
Where was the spin? You really think Tim Cook isn't a persuasive guy? You honestly think he couldn't get a quick 10 minutes with Phil Knight or Mark Parker to make an advantageous push? You think he doesn't have the clout or cash to throw Nike what amounts to a fraction of a bone for exclusivity that Apple would earn back 10-fold? There's no need for shadowy, backroom deals or to present some absurd scenario. Sometimes companies make decisions that aren't the best they could be (see Apple getting rid of Jobs, Ballmer having a job, BlackBerry still making devices, Nokia going Windows Phone, etc.). The Nike software isn't super complicated or computationally taxing with constant deep updates. They could easily have hired someone with Android experience and no problem making iOS and Android apps to make it with support for a handful of flagship Android phones (people with money only buy Android flagships and iPhones) and have the best of both worlds for almost nothing, but they didn't. There's no need for strawmen or moronic analogies when there is a simple explanation (and it's probably not Android is teh suck and they are poor, Apple rules because it's for smart, rich kids).
Thats true, it means that even in rich countries Android users don't pay for shit.
No it means that Android users are less susceptible to click/purchase advertising than ios users.
I read a few different reports on this news and a few stats were given by Facebook Advertising team.
1. Men window shop/women buy (A far larger proportion of users who click/through/purchased via FB ads were women)
2. By far the larger proportion were in the older age category
3. By far the larger portion of purchases were for Apps
Do we deduce from this then that Android users are mostly young males who prefer free ad supported app versions, while ios users are made up of old women who like to pay for apps with no ads?
No it means that Android users are less susceptible to click/purchase advertising than ios users.
I read a few different reports on this news and a few stats were given by Facebook Advertising team.
1. Men window shop/women buy (A far larger proportion of users who click/through/purchased via FB ads were women)
2. By far the larger proportion were in the older age category
3. By far the larger portion of purchases were for Apps
Do we deduce from this then that Android users are mostly young males who prefer free ad supported app versions, while ios users are made up of old women who like to pay for apps with no ads?
Does it matter who is paying in terms of sex or age? The iPhone is hammering Android.
As for the young males who prefer "free ad supported" apps, that's true enough of younger males. But it also means that the apps advertising to them are wasted as they avoid all ads and don't spend.
Actually they must have done it because they couldn't afford a 100+ dev team to constantly update their app to try and beat fragmentation in android.
Yes, because Nike couldn't figure out how to support their super complex (it's not), feature heavy (it isn't), computationally crippling (nope), Bluetooth software other than by throwing monkeys with typewriters at it. Why would they need to constantly update the app that ties into their expensive shoe and band product because some poor people outside of their target markets with what amounts to a pile of burner phones have an old version of Android? That's stupid.
I have a few apps in the App Store, churning along, most of my money is from the Mac dev day job. But it all helps. Everytime I show them off to Android owners they ask when will I port 'em, or why I haven't I yet. Did I know that the market was huge?
I reply with one question and one statement.
the question is:
1) How many apps have you paid for?
the statement is
2) I am not a charity.
The answer to 1) is always 0.
The question you should ask is: Would you pay for my app if it was out there?
Does it matter who is paying in terms of sex or age? The iPhone is hammering Android.
As for the young males who prefer "free ad supported" apps, that's true enough of younger males. But it also means that the apps advertising to them are wasted as they avoid all ads and don't spend.
No money in Android whichever way you look at it.
Right, that must explain why android adoption is so low then.
I have never (purposefully) clicked through and purchased via an in app ad on either platform. I do all my product research via pc/mac. I'd say that that's the same for most users.
Comments
Phew... that's a relief
I don't find these figures a surprise. When you consider Apple only sell flagship mobile devices but Android comes in both really cheap devices and flagship. It makes sense that people who buy flagship will spend more money on apps etc than cheap phone users.
The cheap device users who just want a cheap phone will bring down the average clicks per 1000 adverts. An interesting figure would be to compare just using Android flagship figures.
Can I get it at a discount?
Between UA, ad blocking, custom ROMs and Apple webkit, the short answer is: 'sort of'.
Bwa-hahahahahahaha !!! yup, EVERY droid dork out there is loading custom ROMS and webkits to tweak their droid dork phone!!!
yeah, thats it!!
we can all go log-outnow, its been solved
Do you really believe that he couldn't influence the other board members or CEO in any mutually beneficial way, or that Nike stayed iOS only out of the goodness of their hearts and their love for all things Apple?
Actually they must have done it because they couldn't afford a 100+ dev team to constantly update their app to try and beat fragmentation in android.
+1
Every Google hater claims android is all about advertising, yet apples users click on more ads?
Something smells here.
Who here has ever clicked on taking fb ad? I for one never have.
I just checked fb on my android phone, one suggested post every 20-60 regular posts and easily discernable as ads. Maybe ios fb
has a lot more ads and people are clicking on them by mistake?
Also consider a lot of Android users may be using Google plus instead of fb.
look.
They say "google gets most of it's revenue from advertising"
apple users click on more ads only means "apple users are main reason for googles revenue" or something along those lines.
Could it be the same as 103% of all profit ¿
I have a few apps in the App Store, churning along, most of my money is from the Mac dev day job. But it all helps. Everytime I show them off to Android owners they ask when will I port 'em, or why I haven't I yet. Did I know that the market was huge?
I reply with one question and one statement.
the question is:
1) How many apps have you paid for?
the statement is
2) I am not a charity.
The answer to 1) is always 0.
Post 38 mentions poor android users in india/china.
Indian fb users are about 5% of population.
China is at 0.05% of population.
USA is about 50%
So fb ad revenue would not be significantly affected by poor android user's in India /china.
Thats true, it means that even in rich countries Android users don't pay for shit.
If true... that's really sad.
Android has something like 80% of the market... while iOS only has 11%
It seems like Android's phenomenal market share isn't really an advantage.
Correction on Facts:
Apple was about 18% of worldwide sales last Quarter, but that is not the installed base for all Phones. And the iOS market includes the iPod touch and the iPad. Nevertheless Apple users clearly both pay for apps more readily, click to ads more readily and buy from those ads more readily ( thats where a lot of the money comes from, FB probably tracks what is bought).
This is good news for Apple, but they should ask why FB is taking them to lunch on advertising revenue on the iOS platform. I don't know why either, but FB is taking a lot of it.
Fandroids will simply say that "Well, Android users are smart with their money" or "iOS users are just a bunch of rich trust-fund kiddies that like wasting money", or the typical name-calling that they are so good at doing since they have no valid argument to debate with.
This just cracks me up.
Wow there must be a lot of trust fund babies in the world. If you think that was the case and in the US we have 99% complaining about the 1% with the money. Apple should only have 1% of the market share then since the 99% are not spending money like the 1% are or so they claim.
I put this way, most people who will buy cheap fail to understand quality and will be destine to always have no money since they have the buy the cheap product 10 times over since it breaks all the time. In the end they spend more and have lots of broken things lying around their place.
It's really funny to read how these guys are spinning it. They refuse to even entertain the notion that Nike booted Android out simply because of ROI reasons. No. It HAD to be a shadow-meeting in a board room between Cook and the CEO. Of course in this case they can say that without providing any proof that board of directors can tell a CEO how to market its products.
I read about Nike's booting of Android due to support reasons from various Android-centric sites.
Where was the spin? You really think Tim Cook isn't a persuasive guy? You honestly think he couldn't get a quick 10 minutes with Phil Knight or Mark Parker to make an advantageous push? You think he doesn't have the clout or cash to throw Nike what amounts to a fraction of a bone for exclusivity that Apple would earn back 10-fold? There's no need for shadowy, backroom deals or to present some absurd scenario. Sometimes companies make decisions that aren't the best they could be (see Apple getting rid of Jobs, Ballmer having a job, BlackBerry still making devices, Nokia going Windows Phone, etc.). The Nike software isn't super complicated or computationally taxing with constant deep updates. They could easily have hired someone with Android experience and no problem making iOS and Android apps to make it with support for a handful of flagship Android phones (people with money only buy Android flagships and iPhones) and have the best of both worlds for almost nothing, but they didn't. There's no need for strawmen or moronic analogies when there is a simple explanation (and it's probably not Android is teh suck and they are poor, Apple rules because it's for smart, rich kids).
Thats true, it means that even in rich countries Android users don't pay for shit.
No it means that Android users are less susceptible to click/purchase advertising than ios users.
I read a few different reports on this news and a few stats were given by Facebook Advertising team.
1. Men window shop/women buy (A far larger proportion of users who click/through/purchased via FB ads were women)
2. By far the larger proportion were in the older age category
3. By far the larger portion of purchases were for Apps
Do we deduce from this then that Android users are mostly young males who prefer free ad supported app versions, while ios users are made up of old women who like to pay for apps with no ads?
Does it matter who is paying in terms of sex or age? The iPhone is hammering Android.
As for the young males who prefer "free ad supported" apps, that's true enough of younger males. But it also means that the apps advertising to them are wasted as they avoid all ads and don't spend.
No money in Android whichever way you look at it.
Anything to back that statement up? Android devices are just as viewable.
Actually they must have done it because they couldn't afford a 100+ dev team to constantly update their app to try and beat fragmentation in android.
Yes, because Nike couldn't figure out how to support their super complex (it's not), feature heavy (it isn't), computationally crippling (nope), Bluetooth software other than by throwing monkeys with typewriters at it. Why would they need to constantly update the app that ties into their expensive shoe and band product because some poor people outside of their target markets with what amounts to a pile of burner phones have an old version of Android? That's stupid.
I have a few apps in the App Store, churning along, most of my money is from the Mac dev day job. But it all helps. Everytime I show them off to Android owners they ask when will I port 'em, or why I haven't I yet. Did I know that the market was huge?
I reply with one question and one statement.
the question is:
1) How many apps have you paid for?
the statement is
2) I am not a charity.
The answer to 1) is always 0.
The question you should ask is: Would you pay for my app if it was out there?
Not: How many apps that suck have you paid for?
Right, that must explain why android adoption is so low then.
I have never (purposefully) clicked through and purchased via an in app ad on either platform. I do all my product research via pc/mac. I'd say that that's the same for most users.
You’re not the ones who are supposed to care. The people who make apps for your platform are.
Thanks for the pointless info.