brucemc

Isn't blathering on about stuff that Apple wants kept secret a way to not get the business...?

daven said:

rogifan_new said:

Can someone explain to me why Apple should get a cut of someone else’s subscription revenue? I’d ask the same question of Google or Microsoft or anyone else. Apple doesn’t host the content, they don’t do marketing or promotion. And if these companies could offer their own payment system in-app they would. If the argument is they wouldn’t exist were it not for Apple’s platform then why isn’t Apple taking a cut of every Uber and Lyft transaction?

For the same reasons all resellers take a cut of the price - operating expenses and profit. Any company is free to avoid the charge by creating their own app and selling the subscription on their own website. Using your logic, why do cable companies and satellite tv companies charge? Why do local tv stations insert their own ads in shows? Why does a company pay workers? Those darn greedy workers.

Rogifan has been b*tching about Apple's cut from the App Store for years.  Despite numerous responses such as yours, and dozens more, the person keeps bringing up the same question over, and over (and over) again.  It is not worth your time to respond...the information is not sinking in...

bobolicious said:

... as I suspected, or maybe feared ...

Indeed.  Leading the entire global industry in wearables, with a product that is sweeping the competition, and on track to cross the 50M units sold this year.

Such a flop....it just can compare to the great success that you are...

...because calling a framework/platform/APIs/etc "kit" is the only possible marketing term...

gmgravytrain said:

Wall Street and market share percentage. What makes market share percentage such an important metric to everyone? 

A few things to consider:
- "Wall Street" is often used to mean anything related to investing - analysts, traders, mutual fund / ETF companies, banks, hedge funds, etc.
- Analysts these days are just another form of media - seeking to generate eyeballs - and worthy of the same consideration...
- "the market" (all traders settling on prices) has always liked companies which can have "sort of" a monopoly, as that is a moat to protect the business, and 'possibly' grow better than average profits.  Couple that together with growth possibilities, and they value those companies highly (see: Google, FB, Amazon...).
- Large market share can provide monopoly-like features, at least for awhile.  IBM back in the day (nobody got fired for buying an IBM...), Cisco in networking equipment, Microsoft with Windows and Office etc.
- However, in most cases it is not marketshare on its own which explains the moat - it is usually accompanied by something else - and it is usually not based the extreme low end of device functionality.  I would say that Wall Street doesn't dig that deep.
- Apple is different from most other companies, in that it focuses on a design-first, premium end products with ability to differentiate via design, h/w and s/w, have high user sat, maintain margin, etc.  Thus they never have that traditional moat, and why they are always perceived by "the market at large" as being vulnerable.
- I personally like Horace Dediu's take, in that because Apple is always exposed to threats on all side, they have developed a very strong resistance (ala biology) and hence are one of the stronger companies which has a chance to endure.