Live data from Hacker News

Apple-Developer Relations

marco.org

151–160 of 275 posts

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#151
post #115

"The “way” is already paid by the hardware — but Apple uses their position of power to double-dip." I understand the optics of this don't look good, but is it wrong to have multiple sources of revenue derived from the "way"? 1. what happens if supply chain dynamics and smartphone market competition negatively impact the hardware margins? What happens when consumer appetite for innovation in the phone stagnates and ma…

>How do we know the price of the hardware today isn't offset by services revenue? Unless you want to some doggy NRE number into accounting. Apple's hardware are extremely profitable doesn't matter how you spin or slice it. But, yes. Today's price are subsidise by their services revenue. The keyword here is price. Apple still gets to keep their same margin. Basically Apple shifted the cost of macOS, cloud and other so…

I don't think they shifted anything, they just added the new revenue on top and became more profitable.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#152
Yep. It is not surprising at all that the term “insulting” appears three times because that’s how it feels for so many reasons.

Remember:

- They pretend with a straight face like it was somehow impossible to sell software or reach customers before their magical store made it happen.

- They pretend like the current “search” feature of the App Store is not a sad reduction of what it used to be (or what it could be if a trillion dollar company put any effort into it at all).

- They pretend to have all these problems hosting apps that are somehow solved by fees, while completely ignoring all the free apps that clearly tax that same infrastructure.

- They conveniently ignore the absurd amount of money they must be making from scams that are constantly top-grossing to add insult to injury.

I could go on but there are entire blogs written about this by now.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#153
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not for long. The search page by default shows one non-contextual app above their ranked list of apps you might like.

Also, these ads along with ones in News and Stocks are targeted ads based on a user targeting profile from your data. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27261273

Personalized ads can be disabled in Settings -> Privacy -> Apple ads.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#154
post #119
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I've suspected that this often-quoted disparity has something to do with China, and how Apple still controls iOS app distribution in China but the Play Store has much lower usage. So, you get weird aggregates because the total revenue numbers don't include the Chinese specific Android app stores (which, by the way, are insane; Huawei takes a 50% commission on game sales in their's, and…

Somewhat true. There are 300M iPhone install base in China, on an equal bases you can take the 30% of App Store Revenue away to compare to Google's Play Store. But generally speaking iOS user spend double the amount of money compared to Android users. And to the OP's number, Apple has ~25% market share. Not 20%. Those numbers are shipments, not usage. which is for the 100th times meaningless in nearly all topics.

Right, yeah. There's just so many unknowns when it comes to "how profitable are App Stores" that any conversation about it is seriously pointless. Like, I don't even want to guess; I refuse to believe that iOS is more profitable than Android, because I'm not even sure if that's the right question.

All the data we have on global/domestic smartphone shipments, active users, monthly actives, daily actives, dollars spent, ruples spent, per app category, minus games, fiscal/calendar quarterly, it all comes from these dodgy "Global Insights" app consulting firms. You head to Google and search "App Store Quarterly Revenue" and you find a different Statista or BusinessOfApps or whatever site each quarter, all their data just linear extrapolations from active pings from trackers they pay apps to install which are increasingly getting blocked by OS security controls. Google and Apple almost never share explicit data (this Epic trial has been a nice departure from that, to be fair); if they share anything, its an overtly generalized market segment like "Services", which of course they're using to inflate the apparent revenue of bad business divisions they want to look good by combining them with the actually good divisions (same reason why Microsoft put Azure in the same shareholder-reported category as Office early on; of course, nowadays, its amazing on its own).

And then, re-read that last paragraph and realize I said "Google & Apple" and you didn't even blink. Sure, Google & Apple, that's who we're talking about. No; we're talking about Android & iOS. Android; that operating system that has unlocked computing for the entire world, including vast swaths of people who can barely afford plumbing and electricity, that's side-loaded and hacked to the ends of the earth, that's startlingly popular and preloaded with hardware-specific storefronts in countries that, traditionally, don't like sharing data with the west.

Sure, "your" app was more profitable per-install on iOS than Android. An excellent, informative experiment. The assertion is that iOS has "special sauce" that makes consumers money-drunk, and they spend more. Did we control for income disparity? Surprise; No. Did we aggregate a broad swath of consumer application categories, including (especially) gaming, as gaming is by-far the largest source of consumer application spending, globally? Surprise; No.

How's this sound: People spend a shit-ton of money in apps. This fact, alone, is reason enough that letting a single company gatekeep the experience for any significant number of people is unacceptable. Justifying Apple's monopoly by saying they're better at making consumers money-drunk is psychotic.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read my argument I'm saying the optics don't look good because the margins on phones are high AND they are taking platform fees on top of that. As the margins on phones decrease in the future, the optics won't look as bad.

So basically in your opinion businesses making a lot of money makes for bad optics.

I would have to agree with that. Excessive greed is bad optics.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#156
OK, if developers hate Apple so much for taking 15-30% of their revenue, why aren't they:

- banding together and suing Apple together

- still writing apps for Apple and giving them money?

Aren't iPhones about 20% of the smartphone market? Wouldn't you make more money from the Google Store or are they extorting the same rates?

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#157

Yep. It is not surprising at all that the term “insulting” appears three times because that’s how it feels for so many reasons. Remember: - They pretend with a straight face like it was somehow impossible to sell software or reach customers before their magical store made it happen. - They pretend like the current “search” feature of the App Store is not a sad reduction of what it used to be (or what it could be if a…

> - They pretend with a straight face like it was somehow impossible to sell software or reach customers before their magical store made it happen.

I've never heard them claim that. The claim is that for an appliance like a phone - rather than a general purpose computer - device reliability trumps all, including the ability for the consumer to run arbitrary code on the device.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read my argument I'm saying the optics don't look good because the margins on phones are high AND they are taking platform fees on top of that. As the margins on phones decrease in the future, the optics won't look as bad.

So basically in your opinion businesses making a lot of money makes for bad optics.

Apple is literally the world's largest company. I would argue that increasing their market share of anything, anywhere is harmful to the future of humanity, full stop.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#159
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, I generally take the pro-Apple stance on this. I don’t want side loading or third party stores. It’s Apples product and they get to decide what features it has, IMHO. I don’t want government committees dictating the security model and software architecture of my phone, thanks. However Marco’s argument is spot on. Apple is saying in Senate hearings that App developers are picking up crumbs from the App Store’s fl…

I also "don’t want government committees dictating the security model", but IMHO it's a big leap from that to advocating against consumer choice within a general purpose product.

I don’t think it’s a big leap at all. On summers have a choice if they buy a product. They don’t get to dictate what products a company is allowed to make. Safety and consumer protection, fine, but I don’t see this as about consumer protection. It’s about some people wishing Apple would change their phones to suit their preferences, but there’s no obligation on Apple to do so.

People have always wished Apple would sell computers with this or that feature, this or that peripheral or option. That’s not how it works though. If they don’t sell a device that suits your needs, you have the same recourse the rest of us have.

But do you really think they would stop with specifications for side loading and App Store APIs, security profiles and associated OS services? How about specs for police and security services back doors, tracking and surveillance. They won’t be able to help themselves. And if the US can pass laws demanding these things, that creates a precedent for Russia, China, Saudi Arabia etc to follow suit.

Re: Apple-Developer Relations

#160

"The “way” is already paid by the hardware — but Apple uses their position of power to double-dip." I understand the optics of this don't look good, but is it wrong to have multiple sources of revenue derived from the "way"? 1. what happens if supply chain dynamics and smartphone market competition negatively impact the hardware margins? What happens when consumer appetite for innovation in the phone stagnates and ma…

Marco literally states that it’s not wrong pointing out that it’s their business prerogative and further they aren’t known for being very generous anyways. So you’re arguing a straw man. And if the service revenue was supporting hardware revenue Apple’s services wouldn’t largely be limited to Apple devices. Besides, Apple is a public company and we can see how those revenues break out. Further, we can guess that even…

I was just arguing the quote "Apple uses their position of power to double-dip"

Double dip has connotations that they are taking twice when they should only be taking once. I am simply saying that diverse revenue streams to capture value from a product is not wrong. Therefore, calling out "double dipping" behavior is unfair.

Post reply on HN