DanielEran

rufwork said:

[That 250 mil includes this and that...] and App Store continuing payments.

Oh, DED. Of course if you include every freaking HBO, Showtime, MLB, Overcast, NY Times... subscription, Apple has more than Amazon. 

But those aren’t Apple’s subscriptions. They get a cut, and that’s great for my AAPL, but let’s not compare Apple’s apples to Whole Foods’ oranges.

(◔_◔)

The comparison isn't a pissing match. The fact is that 100M paying subscribers is a significant accomplishment for Amazon, and it is similarly important to understand that Apple already has +250M paid subscriptions that it is making money on.

Amazon's Prime memberships are not pure profit. It's not selling a software license, it's providing a range of shipping/streaming services and other perks that cost money to deliver. Apple Music and iCloud both also involve expenses to serve. 

But what you take the most issue with is Apple's subscription cut from app and service partners, which is much closer to being pure profit for Apple. It goes directly into subsidizing the rest of Apple's Services business, infrastructure and merchandising in the App Store. And somehow you think that is less significant than a Prime membership? Please explain your logic! 

Also, Prime is a single fee commonly stretched across individuals, such as a household. An individual user may have several paid subscriptions in the App Store: Apple Music, iCloud, HBO, Netflix etc. In fact, if you're a subscriber of one you're more likely to be a subscriber to other Apple-sold services as well. And many family members either buy a shared family membership to Apple Music or have their own. So Apple's subscriptions are more valuable, stacked higher and cross-sell each other. And Apple is selling 2.5x as many, most of which probably return higher margins than the Prime fee.

Again, on what planet is it "better" that Amazon sells fewer Prime versus Apple's multiple subscriptions per person? 

mbenz1962 said:

I think this statement: 

AppleInsider said:

Amazon's 100 million Prime subscribers pay between $49 and $99 per month

should be: 

Amazon's 100 million Prime subscribers pay between $49 and $99 per year.

Yes, thanks for catching that.

franklinjackcon said:

AppleInsider said:

but both Google and Android enthusiasts note that shopping outside of Google Play is exceptionally dangerous due to the malware and spyware that satiates open software markets.

This is a bit like saying walking outside is dangerous. Yes, it can be, if you have must or choose to frequent dangerous areas. But the vast majority of people buying outside of the play store (in the US, as this data looks at) are giving their money to established companies like Spotify and Netflix on a desktop.

DED, it would be interesting to see an unbiased look at the two different business models. Rather than saying Google fails at being Apple, why not look at what it is actually trying to do. Its goal is to get many devices into hands and make money from advertising in apps rather than clip the ticket on app purchases. The world is better if we have competing business models.

If Google weren’t trying to emulate Apple that might be true. Google tried to sell cheap hardware and failed. It then tried selling premium hardware and failed even more.

So no, Gools has not just been focused on mobile ads. And it hasn’t even performed well in mobile ads. 

Mobile ads pay far less than display ads on PC, and display ads are generally not very valuable anyway. Google’s main revenue source was never generic ad banners but paid placement of advertising next to search results.

In mobile, people do not search Google so much. They go use dedicated apps. And nobody playing a game cares about banner ads. There’s little real value in in app ads. 

If we can criticize Apple for failings with Mobile Me, early iCloud and iAd, then why do you think Google needs to be handled like a child after if blew through many billions and laid off thousands of workers in hardware, and is now (the subject of this article) falling behind in services despite having so many more low value accounts tied to its Android platform?

adm1 said:

franklinjackcon said:

I second this, again possibly because I live in Scotland within the EU that I enjoy such high customer service from them - 2nd to none in my experience.

As for the narrative on this article, it IS possible to, you know, NOT connect the devices to the internet and NOT actually USE them if they are pre-installed in your home. No need for the tin-foil hats.

That’s like saying it’s possible to not use Facebook. That doesn’t really impact the reality that Facebook is killing rational thought and a culture of privacy and data security.

I can also refuse to use Facebook and my contacts and shadow profile are still out there and people still post my photos and announce where I am. So no, i can’t really choose not to be on Facebook at all. 

Also, I can unplug my Alexa but if apps and devices were to grow dependent on it, it would be hard to sit out any use of it. Just like it’s hard to not have a smartphone today. 

But it imagine if the only smartphone one could buy was an android device from China that was as shitty of an experience as the typical 1998 Windows PC, blowing out spam and popping up ads while crashing and deleting your work from virus infections. 

We choose the future. Warning of the problems of poorly conceived tech is what the media should be doing.