In other news, auto industry analysts have also concluded that BMW is going to make zero headway in its bid to take market share away from Kia and Suzuki.
Only industry pundits care about 80% share of units sold. Manufacturers are far more jealous about Apple's 92% share of profits.
Which do you think is going to enable a company to keep on making innovative new products for years to come?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geekmee
So essentially, they are operating a unsustainable business model.
Well, the handset manufacturers are having problems (although I'm sure they have sources of revenue beyond handset sales - like carrier subsidies for contract sales, and other similar things.) Google, on the other hand, is getting its license fees whether or not the handsets are profitable.
Yes, some really cheap models sell with open source builds of Android, but those phones are barely Android, since they're missing all of the good stuff that customers want in their phones. But I'm sure they count towards IDC's 80% market share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
If the market share drops too low, developers might start to abandon it, which could lead to a snowball effect. The smartphone industry will eventually start to plateau just like the PC industry has done and I'm hoping Apple has at least 20% market share when that begins to happen.
It's about profit, not market share. Developers will develop for a platform if there are enough sales to make it profitable. Looking solely at market share assumes that an equal percentage of each platform's customers will be buying your software. It ain't necessarily so.
I disagree with that assessment. There is only enough room in the market for maybe three platforms, so 10% is not good enough in my opinion.
Why do you think market share alone is what's important? Why do you think Google is more successful with 80% share when they're making 8% of the market's profit?
Market share is great for advertising, but you can't pay your staff with it.
Market share is calculated by adding up all smartphone sales from all manufacturers... and then seeing what percentage each company had for the quarter or year.
But Apple is one company versus hundreds of other companies. The iPhone has never had a high market share because of the sheer volume of non-Apple phones being sold.
If 1 billion smartphones get sold in a year... and Apple sells 200 million iPhones in a year... they would have 20% market share. Sounds low, right?
Except... they sold 200 million iPhones! That's actually great! The only other company who can move more volume is Samsung... but the bulk of their sales are cheap smartphones.
In fact... most of the "smartphone" market is made up of super-cheap Android phones.
So you've got Apple's $700-$900 iPhones lumped into the same category as $50-$100 Android phones.
And guess which price range of phones sells in more volume and thus has more market share? It's not Apple.
Apple had never chased volume. They make certain types of products and price them accordingly. As such... they don't sell as much as everyone else combined.
But they don't have to.
I've said this a number of times, if Android (That's everyone) sold 1 Zillion phones but only broke even and Apple Sells 1 iPhone and makes a $50 profit, who's winning? Well the fandroids will say Android of course, after all 1 zillion Android phones smoke 1 iPhone by a mile!!! Any normal person would say Apple won because they actually make a profit of $50 and did far, far less work. Much easier to make 1 phone over a zillion phones. You can scale this up and say Android sold 10 Zillion phones and still broke even while Apple sold 10 iPhones and made a $500 profit. That's pretty much what's happening!!!
Nokia was selling millions of dumb phones and yet barley making a profit doing it and ended up getting snatched up by Microsoft and we all know how well that's turned out. How many have heard "Work Smarter not harder!"? Apple is the one working Smarter. Android has been a race to the bottom in profits. Apple makes around 90% of the Smartphone Profits, with Samsung getting most of the rest. Where do you think that leaves everyone else. HTC, Motorola, LG, and so on and so on,...Slim to none in profits. I can only assume these company's are hanging in there because there's either no other choice or waiting for the market to thin out and then they can start making some profit?!?!
Android hardware for the most part has become a commodity. There's really no money to be made in the Hardware, it's the Software that matters and the only one that wins there is Google. Not only with Google's Services, Movies, TV, Music, App's, etc, but by Ad's also. Google doesn't care who sells a Android phone or even if they make a profit. If they go out of business, someone else will fill that hole and Google still wins. If you can't make the money on the hardware like Apple, you would at least want to make your money on the back end, like MS and Sony on their Consoles or Apple with their services or Google with their's. Samscum keeps trying and so far it's all failed. They're trying again with Samscum Pay, but why would anyone want to use it over Google Wallet and then Android pay??? So in the end that will fail, but Samscum keeps trying to get another source of money after the sale.
There's far, far more to worry about with Android as it just gets worse and worse over time. Switching to Windows Phone may be a short term solution, but you'll end up in the same hole as Microsoft controls the software side where the profits would be. What's the answer? Well ignoring that crap that's coming from IDC for one thing is a start. Their reports belong on the bottom of a bird cage.
"I wouldn't say 10% market share would be bad for the iPhone... it could actually be good depending on the size of the market."
Like I said... market share is based on the size of the market at any given time. If the smartphone market grew to 3 billion units a year... and Apple was selling 300 million iPhones a year... they would have fallen to 10% market share... but also have record-setting iPhone sales.
Developers were excited about the iPhone when there were far fewer iPhones being sold.
The percentage doesn't matter as much as the actual units.
You can't just look at the percentage without looking at what it is a percentage of.
Question: Why do developers even bother making iPhone apps when they know Android has over 80% market share?
Answer: iPhone apps make money thanks to iPhone owners spending lots of money. And the iPhone has never had a huge amount of market share.
The iPhone could theoretically lose market share while simultaneously gaining users. And more users means more iPhone apps developers can sell.
I dare a developer to abandon the iPhone just because there are a higher percentage of $50 Android phone sold in China and India. Because that's exactly what's happening.
Even though Apple sells more iPhones every year... even more crappy Android "smartphones" are being pumped into the market... thus reducing the iPhone's market share.
But that shouldn't matter to an iPhone developer... there are more than enough people buying iPhones.
Exactly. It depends on the size of market. Our country, smaller then New Yourk, local language and less then 10% share (my projection 300 000 users) it is not very friendly place for iPhone developers if it want to create local specific App. And you can see number of Apps that are Android only.
Exactly. It depends on the size of market. Our country, smaller then New Yourk, local language and less then 10% share (my projection 300 000 users) it is not very friendly place for iPhone developers if it want to create local specific App. And you can see number of Apps that are Android only.
India is similar for now. A client we have in India is android first. iOS there is about as popular as windows phone worldwide.
Wow, I wonder why they love being wrong so often? As others have said, this isn't the first time they've made bad predictions and been completely off base. At least it'll be fun to look back at this article and laugh.
Exactly. It depends on the size of market. Our country, smaller then New Yourk, local language and less then 10% share (my projection 300 000 users) it is not very friendly place for iPhone developers if it want to create local specific App. And you can see number of Apps that are Android only.
But if all those potential Android users don't actually pay for your app, have you really gained anything? Again, the money is what's important, not the number (or potential number) of downloads.
Yeah, I was wishing for a better answer than simple 'clickbait' economics...
Unfortunately not, and I doubt that will ever change. Look at TV shows and radio; it's all about eyeballs and ears, respectively, when it comes to what the advertisers are willing to pay. Those are different paradigms that use historic models for payment, not a 1:1 payout for clicks, but the concept is universal.
I think this is good news. As long as Apple has to worry about competing with Android devices and Windows Phones, they (hopefully) won't get complacent and let iOS stagnate. There's nothing wrong with someone picking a non-iOS device if it doesn't fit their needs/wants as long as no one platform dominates the others.
Man, please fracking read what I wrote not what you wish I wrote. Got that.
The dev get more money from IOS than from Android despite a smaller marketshare.
When you consider how much more it costs to cover the Android fragmentation and the potential support nightmare after the sale, the chasm grows wider.
This fragmentation also mean that App dev who want to target the highest end of the Android market, must forgo the lower end (which don'T run the latest OS) and be stuck with smaller pie than IOS (because IOS dominates the high end).
Apple getting most profits is important because it reflects the most desirable demos; you know MONEY.
Why would a dev give a shit if a platform has 90% of all users if those users buy NOTHING.
They might as well not exist; and seemingly they don't.
In a market, what matters is where the discretionary income is.
Man, please fracking read what I wrote not what you wish I wrote. Got that.
The dev get more money from IOS than from Android despite a smaller marketshare.
When you consider how much more it costs to cover the Android fragmentation and the potential support nightmare after the sale, the chasm grows wider.
This fragmentation also mean that App dev who want to target the highest end of the Android market, must forgo the lower end (which don'T run the latest OS) and be stuck with smaller pie than IOS (because IOS dominates the high end).
Apple getting most profits is important because it reflects the most desirable demos; you know MONEY.
Why would a dev give a shit if a platform has 90% of all users if those users buy NOTHING.
They might as well not exist; and seemingly they don't.
In a market, what matters is where the discretionary income is.
I think you're replying to me. I said in my original post that iOS's 20% was misleading because of android fragmentation, Apples lead in America, in enterprise and its high end base.
However platform still matters so the car analogy doesn't work (nor is the iPhone luxury in the same sense as a Mercedes Benz) and those of you who talk about android fragmentation and how that 80% isn't really the same as a more useful engaged 20% are both stating the obvious and admitting that platform does matter, but not in raw percentage terms.
But if all those potential Android users don't actually pay for your app, have you really gained anything? Again, the money is what's important, not the number (or potential number) of downloads.
That's also wrong. Vast majority of apps are sold to replace or augment websites, to add value to existing online services, to utilise mobile features not available in other formats to drive sales etc. Games are money makers, very few other apps are.
Which means if an Indian bank wants a mobile app it's android first. For now. Like Cook I think that emerging markets are more brand aware than price aware, and Apple has that brand.
That's also wrong. Vast majority of apps are sold to replace or augment websites, to add value to existing online services, to utilise mobile features not available in other formats to drive sales etc. Games are money makers, very few other apps are.
Which means if an Indian bank wants a mobile app it's android first. For now. Like Cook I think that emerging markets are more brand aware than price aware, and Apple has that brand.
Give me the stats with sources or desist, simple as that. I don't to hear you any crap anymore.
That creative thing isn't true. Windows is used there too And it's one or two companies who need developers for that. Adobe. A few others.
I have plied my trade in Mac and windows development so I know the score. I now do iOS and Mac as a tech manager and we can't recruit Mac devs because there aren't any. There aren't any because of a chicken and egg situation where people don't do it because no jobs. It's next to impossible to convince internal iOS devs to do Mac too.
See my original post: because they know their tech and their market.
It very may well be whatever it is you're trying to develop and whether any Mac developer (including your own iOS) team wants to be associated with it.
You're right: this is not Windows tech, where there's different degrees of developer experience and quality due to years of schools bucket-dropping MSIE's. Market forces take control of the situation, putting many of those less talented and dedicated back into the market. Completely the opposite side of the fence versus Mac (or iOS) developers.
Oh... sure, certain professional programs are used on Windows. Most of that is due to the legacy snafu and difficulties getting OSX off the ground back in 2001 and Adobe betting (wrong) that Apple wouldn't make it, and stabbing them in the back rather than lending a helping hand. That from a company that owed it's existence to SJ and Apple.
While I fully understand the mentality and (probably) difficult decision from "some of" the original devs at Adobe, years later they had built a team that was in many respects hostile to Apple, when it should've been the other way around. Well at one time at least SJ called them out on it with their PR BS about Flash and not being on iOS.
BTW: have you considered "poaching" developers or possibly working with another company that develops similar software on OSX? Take a look around the App Store and look for some small teams that might be able or want to collaborate with you and your company. THINK outside of the box.
That's also wrong. Vast majority of apps are sold to replace or augment websites, to add value to existing online services, to utilise mobile features not available in other formats to drive sales etc. Games are money makers, very few other apps are.
Which means if an Indian bank wants a mobile app it's android first. For now. Like Cook I think that emerging markets are more brand aware than price aware, and Apple has that brand.
How is this going to make you any extra money? If the app only does what your web site is already doing, how have you earned anything with it? All those so-called customers would've gone to your web site if they didn't have the app. If you spend a million dollars to develop an app that doesn't actually earn anything, then it's an expense, not a profit. A billion downloads that don't pay anything is still an expense.
And no, people do pay for things other than games, but it has to be something worthwhile, not just an alternate presentation of what's already available on a web page.
But don't let me change your mind. Go ahead and spend all your time and money developing software that nobody will pay for. Your download count will make great bragging points when you show it to the people you work with at your day job.
If the app only does what your web site is already doing, how have you earned anything with it? All those so-called customers would've gone to your web site if they didn't have the app. If you spend a million dollars to develop an app that doesn't actually earn anything, then it's an expense, not a profit. A billion downloads that don't pay anything is still an expense.
You should tell that to the three banking apps on my phone, and my trading accounts like e-*trade. Or to Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Quora, Glassdoor, Groupon, LinkedIn, Amazon, Kindle, e*Bay, Youtube and so many others that not just have an app for what could just be -- and often is as well -- a mobile interface to a website or web service. Add to that most retail stores with online booking options. Add many if not most newspapers. Even forums like Apple Insider.
There are reasons. Stickiness. Notifications. Access to contacts. Single sign on. Location awareness. Touch ID. Watch integration. And customers want apps. In fact some of those mobile websites are forceful in directing you to their app.
And no, people do pay for things other than games, but it has to be something worthwhile, not just an alternate presentation of what's already available on a web page.
Sure. Who said differently.
But don't let me change your mind. Go ahead and spend all your time and money developing software that nobody will pay for. Your download count will make great bragging points when you show it to the people you work with at your day job.
Where the **** did you get that lame arsed crap excuse for an ad hominem from? Did I even say I write personal apps? Was it when i said I work for a company that producess mobile apps and I manage the iOS and Mac team? For companies that pay us. For apps that are mostly free, but used to build the brand of the company or replicate or replace their website, or add some functionality to the website offerings like better location awareness etc. There are free apps for most events, even. You can hardly have a village festival without an app.
That's why actual market share matters not just the ratio of paying customers and why the size of iOS's share in India -- where we have a branch -- makes android more important. For now.
I didn't even say people who make apps should make them free but that the market size matters, not the paying customer size, for banking apps, for retail apps, etc etc etc.
Exactly. It depends on the size of market. Our country, smaller then New Yourk, local language and less then 10% share (my projection 300 000 users) it is not very friendly place for iPhone developers if it want to create local specific App. And you can see number of Apps that are Android only.
Originally Posted by shamino
But if all those potential Android users don't actually pay for your app, have you really gained anything? Again, the money is what's important, not the number (or potential number) of downloads.
You are correct. Especially from developer point of view. But when you counts free apps and user view. You are not. I was talking mainly about local free apps like public transport or so.
Comments
Grrrr.
Only industry pundits care about 80% share of units sold. Manufacturers are far more jealous about Apple's 92% share of profits.
Which do you think is going to enable a company to keep on making innovative new products for years to come?
Quote:
So essentially, they are operating a unsustainable business model.
Well, the handset manufacturers are having problems (although I'm sure they have sources of revenue beyond handset sales - like carrier subsidies for contract sales, and other similar things.) Google, on the other hand, is getting its license fees whether or not the handsets are profitable.
Yes, some really cheap models sell with open source builds of Android, but those phones are barely Android, since they're missing all of the good stuff that customers want in their phones. But I'm sure they count towards IDC's 80% market share.
If the market share drops too low, developers might start to abandon it, which could lead to a snowball effect. The smartphone industry will eventually start to plateau just like the PC industry has done and I'm hoping Apple has at least 20% market share when that begins to happen.
It's about profit, not market share. Developers will develop for a platform if there are enough sales to make it profitable. Looking solely at market share assumes that an equal percentage of each platform's customers will be buying your software. It ain't necessarily so.
Current figures show that although iOS has fewer app downloads, they are generating more revenue.
I disagree with that assessment. There is only enough room in the market for maybe three platforms, so 10% is not good enough in my opinion.
Why do you think market share alone is what's important? Why do you think Google is more successful with 80% share when they're making 8% of the market's profit?
Market share is great for advertising, but you can't pay your staff with it.
Exactly.
Market share is calculated by adding up all smartphone sales from all manufacturers... and then seeing what percentage each company had for the quarter or year.
But Apple is one company versus hundreds of other companies. The iPhone has never had a high market share because of the sheer volume of non-Apple phones being sold.
If 1 billion smartphones get sold in a year... and Apple sells 200 million iPhones in a year... they would have 20% market share. Sounds low, right?
Except... they sold 200 million iPhones! That's actually great! The only other company who can move more volume is Samsung... but the bulk of their sales are cheap smartphones.
In fact... most of the "smartphone" market is made up of super-cheap Android phones.
So you've got Apple's $700-$900 iPhones lumped into the same category as $50-$100 Android phones.
And guess which price range of phones sells in more volume and thus has more market share? It's not Apple.
Apple had never chased volume. They make certain types of products and price them accordingly. As such... they don't sell as much as everyone else combined.
But they don't have to.
I've said this a number of times, if Android (That's everyone) sold 1 Zillion phones but only broke even and Apple Sells 1 iPhone and makes a $50 profit, who's winning? Well the fandroids will say Android of course, after all 1 zillion Android phones smoke 1 iPhone by a mile!!! Any normal person would say Apple won because they actually make a profit of $50 and did far, far less work. Much easier to make 1 phone over a zillion phones. You can scale this up and say Android sold 10 Zillion phones and still broke even while Apple sold 10 iPhones and made a $500 profit. That's pretty much what's happening!!!
Nokia was selling millions of dumb phones and yet barley making a profit doing it and ended up getting snatched up by Microsoft and we all know how well that's turned out. How many have heard "Work Smarter not harder!"? Apple is the one working Smarter. Android has been a race to the bottom in profits. Apple makes around 90% of the Smartphone Profits, with Samsung getting most of the rest. Where do you think that leaves everyone else. HTC, Motorola, LG, and so on and so on,...Slim to none in profits. I can only assume these company's are hanging in there because there's either no other choice or waiting for the market to thin out and then they can start making some profit?!?!
Android hardware for the most part has become a commodity. There's really no money to be made in the Hardware, it's the Software that matters and the only one that wins there is Google. Not only with Google's Services, Movies, TV, Music, App's, etc, but by Ad's also. Google doesn't care who sells a Android phone or even if they make a profit. If they go out of business, someone else will fill that hole and Google still wins. If you can't make the money on the hardware like Apple, you would at least want to make your money on the back end, like MS and Sony on their Consoles or Apple with their services or Google with their's. Samscum keeps trying and so far it's all failed. They're trying again with Samscum Pay, but why would anyone want to use it over Google Wallet and then Android pay??? So in the end that will fail, but Samscum keeps trying to get another source of money after the sale.
There's far, far more to worry about with Android as it just gets worse and worse over time. Switching to Windows Phone may be a short term solution, but you'll end up in the same hole as Microsoft controls the software side where the profits would be. What's the answer? Well ignoring that crap that's coming from IDC for one thing is a start. Their reports belong on the bottom of a bird cage.
Ok.. but you left out the 2nd part of my quote:
"I wouldn't say 10% market share would be bad for the iPhone... it could actually be good depending on the size of the market."
Like I said... market share is based on the size of the market at any given time. If the smartphone market grew to 3 billion units a year... and Apple was selling 300 million iPhones a year... they would have fallen to 10% market share... but also have record-setting iPhone sales.
Developers were excited about the iPhone when there were far fewer iPhones being sold.
The percentage doesn't matter as much as the actual units.
You can't just look at the percentage without looking at what it is a percentage of.
Question: Why do developers even bother making iPhone apps when they know Android has over 80% market share?
Answer: iPhone apps make money thanks to iPhone owners spending lots of money. And the iPhone has never had a huge amount of market share.
The iPhone could theoretically lose market share while simultaneously gaining users. And more users means more iPhone apps developers can sell.
I dare a developer to abandon the iPhone just because there are a higher percentage of $50 Android phone sold in China and India. Because that's exactly what's happening.
Even though Apple sells more iPhones every year... even more crappy Android "smartphones" are being pumped into the market... thus reducing the iPhone's market share.
But that shouldn't matter to an iPhone developer... there are more than enough people buying iPhones.
Exactly. It depends on the size of market. Our country, smaller then New Yourk, local language and less then 10% share (my projection 300 000 users) it is not very friendly place for iPhone developers if it want to create local specific App. And you can see number of Apps that are Android only.
India is similar for now. A client we have in India is android first. iOS there is about as popular as windows phone worldwide.
The size of the market matters.
Exactly. It depends on the size of market. Our country, smaller then New Yourk, local language and less then 10% share (my projection 300 000 users) it is not very friendly place for iPhone developers if it want to create local specific App. And you can see number of Apps that are Android only.
But if all those potential Android users don't actually pay for your app, have you really gained anything? Again, the money is what's important, not the number (or potential number) of downloads.
.
64 replies (and counting) not to mention all the people that read the article and forum. IOW, ad revenue.
Yeah, I was wishing for a better answer than simple 'clickbait' economics...
Unfortunately not, and I doubt that will ever change. Look at TV shows and radio; it's all about eyeballs and ears, respectively, when it comes to what the advertisers are willing to pay. Those are different paradigms that use historic models for payment, not a 1:1 payout for clicks, but the concept is universal.
I think this is good news. As long as Apple has to worry about competing with Android devices and Windows Phones, they (hopefully) won't get complacent and let iOS stagnate. There's nothing wrong with someone picking a non-iOS device if it doesn't fit their needs/wants as long as no one platform dominates the others.
Man, please fracking read what I wrote not what you wish I wrote. Got that.
The dev get more money from IOS than from Android despite a smaller marketshare.
When you consider how much more it costs to cover the Android fragmentation and the potential support nightmare after the sale, the chasm grows wider.
This fragmentation also mean that App dev who want to target the highest end of the Android market, must forgo the lower end (which don'T run the latest OS) and be stuck with smaller pie than IOS (because IOS dominates the high end).
Apple getting most profits is important because it reflects the most desirable demos; you know MONEY.
Why would a dev give a shit if a platform has 90% of all users if those users buy NOTHING.
They might as well not exist; and seemingly they don't.
In a market, what matters is where the discretionary income is.
I think you're replying to me. I said in my original post that iOS's 20% was misleading because of android fragmentation, Apples lead in America, in enterprise and its high end base.
However platform still matters so the car analogy doesn't work (nor is the iPhone luxury in the same sense as a Mercedes Benz) and those of you who talk about android fragmentation and how that 80% isn't really the same as a more useful engaged 20% are both stating the obvious and admitting that platform does matter, but not in raw percentage terms.
Which is what I said.
That's also wrong. Vast majority of apps are sold to replace or augment websites, to add value to existing online services, to utilise mobile features not available in other formats to drive sales etc. Games are money makers, very few other apps are.
Which means if an Indian bank wants a mobile app it's android first. For now. Like Cook I think that emerging markets are more brand aware than price aware, and Apple has that brand.
That's also wrong. Vast majority of apps are sold to replace or augment websites, to add value to existing online services, to utilise mobile features not available in other formats to drive sales etc. Games are money makers, very few other apps are.
Which means if an Indian bank wants a mobile app it's android first. For now. Like Cook I think that emerging markets are more brand aware than price aware, and Apple has that brand.
Give me the stats with sources or desist, simple as that. I don't to hear you any crap anymore.
See my original post: because they know their tech and their market.
It very may well be whatever it is you're trying to develop and whether any Mac developer (including your own iOS) team wants to be associated with it.
You're right: this is not Windows tech, where there's different degrees of developer experience and quality due to years of schools bucket-dropping MSIE's. Market forces take control of the situation, putting many of those less talented and dedicated back into the market. Completely the opposite side of the fence versus Mac (or iOS) developers.
Oh... sure, certain professional programs are used on Windows. Most of that is due to the legacy snafu and difficulties getting OSX off the ground back in 2001 and Adobe betting (wrong) that Apple wouldn't make it, and stabbing them in the back rather than lending a helping hand. That from a company that owed it's existence to SJ and Apple.
While I fully understand the mentality and (probably) difficult decision from "some of" the original devs at Adobe, years later they had built a team that was in many respects hostile to Apple, when it should've been the other way around. Well at one time at least SJ called them out on it with their PR BS about Flash and not being on iOS.
BTW: have you considered "poaching" developers or possibly working with another company that develops similar software on OSX? Take a look around the App Store and look for some small teams that might be able or want to collaborate with you and your company. THINK outside of the box.
That's also wrong. Vast majority of apps are sold to replace or augment websites, to add value to existing online services, to utilise mobile features not available in other formats to drive sales etc. Games are money makers, very few other apps are.
Which means if an Indian bank wants a mobile app it's android first. For now. Like Cook I think that emerging markets are more brand aware than price aware, and Apple has that brand.
How is this going to make you any extra money? If the app only does what your web site is already doing, how have you earned anything with it? All those so-called customers would've gone to your web site if they didn't have the app. If you spend a million dollars to develop an app that doesn't actually earn anything, then it's an expense, not a profit. A billion downloads that don't pay anything is still an expense.
And no, people do pay for things other than games, but it has to be something worthwhile, not just an alternate presentation of what's already available on a web page.
But don't let me change your mind. Go ahead and spend all your time and money developing software that nobody will pay for. Your download count will make great bragging points when you show it to the people you work with at your day job.
For the love of Christ do your own research on iOS job openings. Or look on an average phone. Most used apps ( Twitter, Facebook, etc ) are free.
Also go to ignore. The second person on ignore in my decade here. I'm tolerant but you're not going to add anything to any conversation ever.
Who said anything about me?
You should tell that to the three banking apps on my phone, and my trading accounts like e-*trade. Or to Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Quora, Glassdoor, Groupon, LinkedIn, Amazon, Kindle, e*Bay, Youtube and so many others that not just have an app for what could just be -- and often is as well -- a mobile interface to a website or web service. Add to that most retail stores with online booking options. Add many if not most newspapers. Even forums like Apple Insider.
There are reasons. Stickiness. Notifications. Access to contacts. Single sign on. Location awareness. Touch ID. Watch integration. And customers want apps. In fact some of those mobile websites are forceful in directing you to their app.
Sure. Who said differently.
Where the **** did you get that lame arsed crap excuse for an ad hominem from? Did I even say I write personal apps? Was it when i said I work for a company that producess mobile apps and I manage the iOS and Mac team? For companies that pay us. For apps that are mostly free, but used to build the brand of the company or replicate or replace their website, or add some functionality to the website offerings like better location awareness etc. There are free apps for most events, even. You can hardly have a village festival without an app.
That's why actual market share matters not just the ratio of paying customers and why the size of iOS's share in India -- where we have a branch -- makes android more important. For now.
I didn't even say people who make apps should make them free but that the market size matters, not the paying customer size, for banking apps, for retail apps, etc etc etc.
3rd person on ignore in a decade.
Exactly. It depends on the size of market. Our country, smaller then New Yourk, local language and less then 10% share (my projection 300 000 users) it is not very friendly place for iPhone developers if it want to create local specific App. And you can see number of Apps that are Android only.
Originally Posted by shamino
But if all those potential Android users don't actually pay for your app, have you really gained anything? Again, the money is what's important, not the number (or potential number) of downloads.
You are correct. Especially from developer point of view. But when you counts free apps and user view. You are not. I was talking mainly about local free apps like public transport or so.