> I'm the opposite, as looking at android, where do we see this?
1) Android hasn't made things as hard for malware vendors as Apple has, and
2) Android's not as lucrative a market as iOS
Those together mean incentives are significantly different, so we might not see the same behavior on iOS as we have on Android, from companies that are upset about not being able to to distribute as-effective malware as they'd prefer. Like Facebook.
User count, yes. Expected value per user, and amount spent per user on software and computer services is far lower for Android, even if we only look at the US. That, combined with the relative ease of supporting a couple iOS versions on a handful of devices versus a whole universe of Android OS-device combos, is why a lot of apps go iOS-first if they're not doing dual-platform from day 1. The benefit for most monetization models is greater on iOS, and the cost of support tends to be lower.
An alt-store stands to capture more value on iOS than Android, and spying on iOS users is probably a whole lot more lucrative than spying on Android users.
That, combined with the App Store restricting spying more than the Play Store does, is why we can't necessarily expect the iOS ecosystem to behave the same way as Android's, were iOS to get similar side-loading capabilities. A common argument goes that nothing will change on iOS, because it hasn't on Android, but the two markets are different enough that I don't find that a strong argument. Maybe it'll turn out to be right, but I don't think it's as much a slam-dunk argument as those advancing it seem to think it is.
> An alt-store stands to capture more value on iOS than Android, and spying on iOS users is probably a whole lot more lucrative than spying on Android users.
How so?
I think American Apple users just don’t realise how insignificant Apple market share is outside the US.
Android was open from the start. Giant like Amazon tried to kickstart alt stores. What did happen? Nothing.
I think people should stop drinking Apple fear mongering. It’s just aggressive lobbying to protect their cash cow.
> > An alt-store stands to capture more value on iOS than Android, and spying on iOS users is probably a whole lot more lucrative than spying on Android users.
> How so?
What... part of this remains unclear? It's the same incentives that drive iOS-first development choices, with the added wrinkle that the App Store restricts the potential of certain monetization schemes (spying on users) more than the Play Store does. All that means the incentives to distribute apps outside the App Store, or to launch an alt-store, are stronger than on Android.
> I think American Apple users just don’t realise how insignificant Apple market share is outside the US.
I do realize. I think you may be overestimating how much all those Android users spend, and how much their eyeballs (and personal data) are worth to advertisers, compared with iOS users.
> Android was open from the start. Giant like Amazon tried to kick start all stores. What did happen? Nothing.
My entire point is that there are enough differences between the two that we can't assume they'll behave the same.
Income demographics are almost certainly part of it, sure. I expect iOS also makes users feel safer or more comfortable spending money than Android does, and that the average iOS device in the wild is generally more pleasant to use than the average Android device. There could also be age-related demographic factors contributing (that is, Android users may skew older, and older people might spend less on software, and may tend to use their devices far less than younger smartphone owners—this is just a guess, though)
Whatever the reasons, iOS device owners use their devices a lot more, and spend a lot more money through them, than Android users, on average.
> use their devices a lot more, and spend a lot more money through them
Dark patterns are the same, by any other name. I left MacOS because the squeeze got too rough, and didn't even consider iOS for daily use since it's file syncing options are a clown show. If Apple has reached this market position through unfair or anticompetitive means, I don't see why or how it would stop regulators from ruling in favor of competition.
I doubt you're right that Apple's more-strongly leveraging dark patterns (... do they?) is the reason iOS users use their devices more, and spend more money on them. There probably are several things that all contribute, but I doubt that particular one ranks in the top-10, assuming the effect even goes that direction at all, and I'd certainly not bet that it does.
I mean, hell, Apple goes out of their way to let you know how much you're using the device and where you're spending (or wasting) your time. And they make managing e.g. subscriptions dead easy. Sure seems counterproductive if the secret of their success is dark patterns tricking us into spending more time on the devices, and spending more money.
Those are numbers for smartphone sales, not the software on them. Hardware sales can be negative, sometimes even intended. Just look at console vendors for that.
Are you arguing that the average Android user spends more on apps than their phone is worth?
Anecdotally, most people I know might spend $20/year on App Store purchases (excluding streaming services if they don’t have a desktop computer).
I’ve made well over six figures for a few years and have never spent more than $100 in a year, the vast majority of those purchases for one off games/apps, not iap coins/tokens/etc.
That can't make the numbers look better, after all, Apple gets 30% of App Store sales, while Google takes the cut of Android apps sold through the Play store. And that gets even worse when you see Apple gets 67% of all app revenues too. [1]
Then just say that in the first place. I don't disagree that Apple users are much more likely to pay for software than Android users, but you don't need hardware sales to make that point.
> In Q1 2022, Facebook had an average revenue per user (ARPU) of $48.29 in the US and Canada, $15.35 in Europe, $4.47 in Asia-Pacific, and $3.14 in the Rest of the World. Facebook reported a quarter-over-quarter decline in ARPU of 20% in the US and Canada, 22% in Europe, 18% in Asia-Pacific, and 5% in the Rest of the World.
I'm guessing they're looking for the users they can steal the most from in the least amount of time. Aka, the most lucrative.
Apple's ecosystem means that most of the devices are up to date, or close, and because they control the full pipeline, things behave better.
This means that targeting ios is easier (since they'll be on closer versions and behave uniformly) and that because they spend more money, which they have, means that targeting them is easier and more lucrative.
Most are looking to hack. If they're looking to build a botnet, android might be better.
I don't think so? Android devices are much more likely to be vulnerable to well-known exploits. Stealing keys and passwords of course is much easier if your app can get root on the device.
Yeah, I suppose this stuff isn't common-knowledge outside the commercial mobile development space.
There are complaints in this very thread about how shit the software selection is on the Play Store compared with iOS. This is why. Companies that have to, for whatever reason, pick only one platform to start on, usually pick iOS. If they add on Android later, they expect it not to make as much money as the iOS app, so may half-ass the port. In some cases, good apps that have enough revenue to keep them alive on iOS, may judge that an Android port won't be worth the added cost (especially smaller apps—think, one or two developer sorts of operations, they may run the numbers and project only a 20% revenue boost from adding an Android port, which may not be enough to cover the dev, testing, administrative, and support time the platform would require). There's a perception that, basically, Android users won't buy apps (which is... kinda true) and that's why the iOS version of an app might be ad-free and paid, while Android only gets an ad-supported variant—the vendor doesn't think creating and supporting a paid option on Android is worth the extra overhead.
I used to be a mobile developer, and I literally got death threats for charging $6 on Android. People just paid it on iOS and got on with using the app.
Spend more, and use their devices a lot more, both Web and Apps. At least, last time I looked at market research data like this, which was admittedly 4-5 years ago.
Something that I think is often not considered when thinking about mobile device usage stats is the proportions of types of users the market is comprised of.
While I don't have any links to back the idea up, I suspect that Android's marketshare is somewhat inflated by users who'd normally be using feature phones — these users don't need anything more than the ability to make cell calls and maybe text occasionally, and even the absolute cheapest of cheap Android phones checks those boxes. There's no point in these users buying even a low-midrange Android phone, let alone a flagship or an iPhone. So while these users are technically Android users, they're not really smartphone users.
Also, the difference in rates of usage extends beyond phones. I think I read some of the same reports you did and compared to iPads, Android tablets are much more likely to end up forgotten in a drawer or collecting dust on a shelf. Having a recent low-midrange Android tablet myself (for Android app dev purposes) I would guess that this is at least partially due to how ridiculously low-spec cheap Android tablets are… mine cost almost as much as a refurbished iPad 9th gen on sale but doesn't perform a fraction as well as that model of iPad. Even my old Pixel 3XL runs circles around it.
Agree with the user base portions. My parents (in their 80's) each have 3 android phones because my dad keeps buying them for some reason. We never know which of their phones/features are currently active. My mom wasn't getting my texts and we just figured out that she doesn't have texting enabled. Not sure if it's a setting or that my dad picked a 90 day phone plan without text support. :-)
As someone used Android and Apple co-currently, this is it. Android apps I supported (camera and photo apps, some music) all went down in some form and were gone in some time. Furthermore, the quality was always lower than any iOS counterparts.
Apple apps almost never have these problems and are higher quality.
1) Android hasn't made things as hard for malware vendors as Apple has, and
2) Android's not as lucrative a market as iOS
Those together mean incentives are significantly different, so we might not see the same behavior on iOS as we have on Android, from companies that are upset about not being able to to distribute as-effective malware as they'd prefer. Like Facebook.