Google's Android is Eating Apple's Lunch

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by PatNY

And your post betrays an astonishingly poor ability to comprehend what people say. I never said there are "Android developers" and "iOS developers" per se, lol. A great deal of developers do cross-platform work and/or are trained to do both. What I have always said is that developers are opting to develop for the Android platform in far greater numbers than they are for the iOS platform. Meaning they are investing their time more often to Android development. This is a fact. These apps do not get created spontaneously out of thin air by themselves. Someone has to create them. Anyone using common sense would understand this. And it's a fact that Google apps have been growing far far faster than iOS apps.

Earlier in the thread, you wrote: "A having more apps than B certainly does mean that A has more developers. Of course it does."

Now you wax indignant that anyone would say you claim there are more Android than iOS devs. You can't even keep your arguments straight.

Murray postulated that it was merely porting of old iOS apps. But that's highly unlikely as most porting of old iOS apps would already have been done by now. And if it were just porting, Google apps wouldn't be more numerous than iOS apps as they are now. An example of an app where developers decided to invest their time just with Android and NOT with iOS is Calibre Companion. There is no iOS version.

Murray has given multiple reasons for the increased number of apps on Android. Your decision to focus on one while ignoring the others is not convincing.

Tsk-tsk-tsk. Read, read, again!

No, I am arguing that developers are betting that the longer term (1-2 years) profit potential of apps is greater with Android than iOS due to the fact that the platform itself is growing faster than Apple. They are saying if they go with Apple, they may be leaving money on the table.

You are simply wrong. It is not up for discussion that developing for Android first means eschewing profits. Devs can earn 4x as much money on iOS now, or wait for an unspecified amount of time (up to two years, according to your baseless estimates) to earn the same amount of money developing for Android.

You are literally arguing that people would choose to take up to a 75% pay cut for two years as an "investment."

Post a link to support those numbers. And make sure the data is relatively current and that you understand it yourself, lol. No hokey data like you always like to post, please.

App store revenue.
The ad revenue is in the Opera mobile network link, already posted a half dozen times.

By the way, hokey means "corny," not whatever you think it means.

Actually, for the developers of a successful app, it can be. But it's not necessarily leisurely if the developer decides to work on an entirely NEW app while the previous ones are pulling in the dough. It's their choice.

Can you please read? PLEASE??? It's such a waste of time when you continually mischaracterize what I write. I didn't say they have to wait for 2 years for any income. Geesh, try a little harder. But I'll repeat what I wrote in my previous post -- it's industry standard that developers are paid in increments over time as their app sells. It's essentially the same whether you develop for Android or Apple. You don't get all your money up front. Only in installments as the app sells.

This is irrelevant to the subject under discussion. Whether developers are paid monthly or bi-weekly has no bearing on the amount they earn. They earn significantly less developing for Android than for iOS, so there is no reason to accept your argument that developers are primarily financially motivated to develop for Android in preference over iOS.

LOL, I never said these ads can "only" be shown in the Opera browser. Show me where I used the word "only." You are amazing. Maybe you have dyslexia? Or are you just so upset at being proven wrong that you have to put words in other people's mouths to pretend you are correct?

--Pat

You did write "only," though you went back and edited your post to remove that word from your post. Anyone can check the timestamps, you know. The original is quoted in my reply to you.
Regardless, you are avoiding the point. Whether you write "only" or "specific to," you are claiming that this study is discussing only ads that are being displayed by the Opera browser. That has been shown to be incorrect over and over. You are denying that 80% of these ads are being shown in apps, which is quite clearly stated in the article. The other 20% are being shown in all mobile browsers, not merely Opera's.

Originally Posted by PatNY

Regarding this report, once again you are using hokey data that you quite don't understand yourself. It's hokey because it is not current. Moreover, it shows you didn't bother to read previous posts because Murray posted a link to this same report -- only he posted the most current data/version. Here's how I replied to Murray:

As for the IDC report, it's just a survey. The fact is, these developers are going for the android platform over iOS. Also, the chart breaks out "Kindle Fire" and "Google Nexus" separately. But they are also the Android platform. So if you add up the numbers given for those two devices PLUS the numbers given for "Android Phones" and "Android Tablets" it appears that the Android platform has more overall interest."

Here is the link that Murray gave earlier:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/www.appcele...rt-Q4-2012.pdf

--Pat

Your suggestion that the developer interest for each platform should be added together to give us the "overall interest" in Android is more evidence that you don't understand basic math or statistics. The graph in question measures the percentage of surveyed developers who are 'very interested' in developing for a platform. You are suggesting that 216% of developers are very interested in developing for Android. Heh.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by shanghaichica

Quality in my opinion based on stability and functionality of apps that run on both platforms. Also availability of apps in both stores. Of course this is just my opinion, how would you objectively measure quality anyway? Not everyone would agree. What is good quality to one person may not be to another.

It's been documented many times that apps crash more often on iOS than on Android. Yet, people keep singing the praises of the iOS platform without backing it up with data. Yes, this is an old chart, yet not less valid.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by afv011

It's been documented many times that apps crash more often on iOS than on Android. Yet, people keep singing the praises of the iOS platform without backing it up with data. Yes, this is an old chart, yet not less valid.

And crittercism are??? That's about as valid as getting an opinion from Santa as far as I'm concerned... if you are going to cite a source then try to make it something that people have heard of...

"It's been documented many times..." is another dummy point, I haven't seen it documented many times, where has it been documented many times, what proof is there of it being documented many times, how anecdotal are these "many times" and how reliable? And why is this any more valid than any other antique chart??

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by elcreative

And crittercism are??? That's about as valid as getting an opinion from Santa as far as I'm concerned... if you are going to cite a source then try to make it something that people have heard of...

Crittercism is a startup company funded by, amongst others, Google Ventures.

Their funding was announced in 2011 by Android co-founder Rich Miner.

(Submitted without comment).

/JB

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by jbjb

Crittercism is a startup company funded by, amongst others, Google Ventures.

Their funding was announced in 2011 by Android co-founder Rich Miner.

(Submitted without comment).

/JB

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Earlier in the thread, you wrote: "A having more apps than B certainly does mean that A has more developers. Of course it does."

Now you wax indignant that anyone would say you claim there are more Android than iOS devs. You can't even keep your arguments straight.

No, I wax indignant that you continuously fail to read and comprehend my posts correctly. Instead of asking when you don't understand or would like clarification, you instead fill in the blanks with whatever fits your agenda.

It's gross mischaracterization and I don't know if you have some reading or mental disability or are just trying to be obnoxious. But if you don't make a better attempt to avoid distorting my opinions then I'm just going to have to ignore you. Your problem is really chronic.

It's really getting tiresome because you do it post after post after post. And what's notable is that you always neglect to use exact quotes because then that lets you paraphrase, twisting words into your own false concoctions. Only when asked to use a direct direct quote will you then produce one and then you start to insist it means what you tried to make it mean. But your failure to use exact quotes leads me to believe you're just doing this on purpose and it's not just some severe reading/mental disability of yours.

Take the phrase in question. This is exactly what I said:

"A having more apps than B certainly does mean that A has more developers."

Meaning:

"A having more apps than B certainly does mean that A has more developers creating apps for that platform."

This is how you chose to interpret:

"A having more apps than B certainly does mean that A has more developers creating apps exclusively for that platform."


It's you who put the exclusivity meaning in there when there was NONE in the beginning

Murray has given multiple reasons for the increased number of apps on Android. Your decision to focus on one while ignoring the others is not convincing.

And none of them made sense. If you think one does, then take up the banner for it and defend it.

You are simply wrong. It is not up for discussion that developing for Android first means eschewing immediate profits with Apple. Devs can earn 4x as much money now, or wait for an unspecified amount of time (up to two years, according to your baseless estimates) to earn the same amount of money developing for Android.

LMAO. Once again you don't know how to read. It's truly bizarre. This is exactly what I said:

No, I am arguing that developers are betting that the longer term (1-2 years) profit potential of apps is greater with Android than iOS due to the fact that the platform itself is growing faster than Apple. They are saying if they go with Apple, they may be leaving money on the table.

This means that developers, when they have an idea in their heads, can usually only tackle one platform at a time. So they are choosing Android first in the majority of cases. They choose to invest their time first where they think they will have the greatest potential for profits over a period of time -- perhaps 1-2 years. I've tried to explain to you several times already that I am not saying a developer is expecting to wait for 2 years to recoup any money at all, lol. I don't know where you get these crazy ideas from.

As I said in a previous post:

You do know that app profits are a continuous stream, don't you? Developers don't realize profits only at a set point in time. For at least a moderately successful app, the profits come in almost right away with initial sales, and will continue to grow if either (a) the app grows in popularity OR (b) the user base grows larger. So, since the android user base is growing exponentially faster than iOS, a developer can submit his app to Google Play tomorrow, start getting good profits almost right away, then sit back for the next few years and watch his profits continue to roll in (with maybe only a few app updates in the interim needed). So he's counting on the Android user base to be maybe twice the current size in 12 or 16 months, increasing his profit potential in tandem. It's like investing for continuous dividends and compounded growth. And in this case the developers are "investing" with Android more heavily.

Do you need further explanation? Do you understand this? Just let me know and I'll try to spell it out another way if you don't. But bottom line is that the way app evenue works is that it is a stream that starts shortly after the app goes on the market and will continue for another few years -- a continuous stream. This of course assumes an app is at least moderately successfully. I gave a period of 1-2 years because for the vast majority of apps -- be it iOS or Android -- I'm guessing that's the period of time when the majority of revenue will be realized. Many apps have a shelf life in terms of their revenue potential. Not all, but a good majority of them do.

You are literally arguing that people would choose to take a 75% pay cut for two years as an "investment."

No, I am not, lol. Either literally or figuratively. It's merely your typical distortion of my opinions in order to try to get them to fit your agenda.

App store revenue.

Where are revenues from the Amazon app store? And the revenues for the Apple store include items that don't involve developer revenues -- ie, newspapers and newstand sales. So, big FAIL!

The ad revenue is in the Opera mobile network link, already posted a half dozen times.

The Opera network is but a small part of the total mobile ad universe. Where are revenue for Airpush and AdMob?

By the way, hokey means "corny," not whatever you think it means.

I know what it means but it's an especially appropriate term for the hilarious reports you alway try to link to which either are (a) out of date (b) unread and/or misunderstood by you or (c) incomplete in terms of data or (d) otherwise don't support your arguments.

This is irrelevant to the subject under discussion. App development is not a lucrative business, on the whole. People with an interest in developing professionally need to be paid. Whether they are paid monthly or bi-weekly has no bearing on the amount they earn. They earn significantly less developing for Android than for iOS, so there is no reason to accept your argument that developers are primarily financially motivated to develop for Android in preference over iOS.

LOL, it's relevant because YOU were under the wrong impression (as usual) that I was saying developers were waiting for 2 years to be paid, lol. So I had to explain to you how app revenues work And regardless of which platform is paying higher at this exact moment in time, developers realize that Android's growth is far outstripping iOS so that's where they think the better profit potential is for the next few years. So they are choosing Android in greater numbers than iOS right now. A simple fact.

You did write "only," though you went back and edited your post to remove that word from your post. Anyone can check the timestamps, you know. The original is quoted in my reply to you.

Regardless, you are avoiding the point. Whether you write "only" or "specific to," you are claiming that this study is discussing only ads that are being displayed by the Opera browser. That has been shown to be incorrect over and over. You are denying that 80% of these ads are being shown in apps, which is quite clearly stated in the article. The other 20% are being shown in all mobile browsers, not merely Opera's.

Wow, what you just did in lying is truly utterly despicable. You have just accused me of changing a post when, in fact, the timestamps on the posts back me up and prove you are either lying or just so profoundly confused.

Anyone can see for themselves. In post #524 is my original phrase and it has a timestemp a full 20 minutes earlier than your post #526 in which you added the word "only." Shame on you.

I never said anywhere that the Opera report was referring to only browser-based ads, and I think you know it. You're just mad I had to explain the report to you in the first place, even though you were the one to post it.

Your continued mischaracterization of my posts, topped off by your false accusations, are disgusting and unless you apologize, I'll have to ignore you in the future. It's such a waste of time having to correct you so frequently and reiterate almost everything I say because you choose to distort it.

Your suggestion that the developer interest for each platform should be added together to give us the "overall interest" in Android is more evidence that you don't understand basic math or statistics. The graph in question measures the percentage of surveyed developers who are 'very interested' in developing for a platform. You are suggesting that 216% of developers are very interested in developing for Android. Heh.

In this case (and this case only) I did use imprecise phrasing. I didn't mean a literal "add" but instead meant that theoretically, based on that chart which is broken out pretty poorly, the number of people interested in developing for the android platform could be higher than for the iOS platform, depending on where any overlaps could be in the responses. Moreover, I think it's pretty clear that if you consider the positive responses to each option (vs percentages) then indeed, "it appears that the Android platform has more overall interest." (my original exact quote) So my original conclusion still stands.

--Pat

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

There are a huge number of developers on various platforms who give away their code for free.

Yes, I know that. But can you substantiate your contention that a main reason the Google app store is growing far far faster than the Apple store is due primarily to "a massively larger hobby coder population" as you put it?

You have to sign up for Apple's development programme at $99 a year. Not noticeable to commercial developers, but offputting to hobby ones.

Fine, but do you know you also have to pay fees to Google to put apps on their store?

So, under your logic, why does Linux exist?
Why does the GNU toolset exist?
Why does calibre exist?
They are hard to write, and (at least initially) generated no revenue, so there was no incentive to write them, yes?
Thre is a very large free software community that is happy to give away code for free, even if you don't think that makes sense.

Aren't Linux and GNU essentially large collaborative projects that evolved over time? I don't know how you can compare those projects with how a developer goes about deciding he'd like to write an app for an app store.

As for Calibre, it exists because of the goodness of Kovid Goyal!

And the fact that free software is developed still doesn't explain why Google Play is outpacing the Apple Store so quickly.

No it doesn't. It just doesn't.
Each developer is allowed to release more than one app.

OK but then it involves more investment of development time and effort. More commitment. So the point remains the same.

Profit is not the only driving force. If you don't see that, I suspect we aren't going to get much further.

Agreed. Not for everyone at least. And that goes the same for those developing apps for iOS as well. But that doesn't mean my original point still isn't true. And still doesn't explain the huge disparity in growth rate between the two app stores.

And developers are not free to develop for both A and B, or rather are not free to develop all the same apps on A and B. There are categories of app which cannot be released for iOS.

Yes, I know there are more restrictions for iOS. But for the vast majority of app categories, there is just as much freedom to code for iOS as there is for Android. For example, most games, alarm clocks, note applications, calculators, etc.

--Pat

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

You said

Which gives the impression you think the numbers in the report were only those for the Opera browser. It fact I'm not really sure how else to read it.

No, I never said "only." Are you confused by "all browsers?" That is not the same thing as saying "all ads."

--Pat

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by PatNY

No, I wax indignant that you continuously fail to read and comprehend my posts correctly. Instead of asking when you don't understand or would like clarification, you instead fill in the blanks with whatever fits your agenda.

It's gross mischaracterization and I don't know if you have some reading or mental disability or are just trying to be obnoxious. But if you don't make a better attempt to avoid distorting my opinions then I'm just going to have to ignore you. Your problem is really chronic.

It's really getting tiresome because you do it post after post after post. And what's notable is that you always neglect to use exact quotes because then that lets you paraphrase, twisting words into your own false concoctions. Only when asked to use a direct direct quote will you then produce one and then you start to insist it means what you tried to make it mean. But your failure to use exact quotes leads me to believe you're just doing this on purpose and it's not just some severe reading/mental disability of yours.

Take the phrase in question. This is exactly what I said:

"A having more apps than B certainly does mean that A has more developers."

Meaning:

"A having more apps than B certainly does mean that A has more developers creating apps for that platform."

This is how you chose to interpret:

"A having more apps than B certainly does mean that A has more developers creating apps exclusively for that platform."


It's you who put the exclusivity meaning in there when there was NONE in the beginning

Retroactively adding words to your posts and claiming you meant things that you didn’t write is just embarrassing, PatNY. Your original meaning was very clear.

You claimed that because Android had more apps, it “has more developers.” (Your words) There continues to be no evidence of this, as with the remainder of your assertions.

And none of them made sense. If you think one does, then take up the banner for it and defend it.

To recap:

PatNY claim: More developers are developing for Android first because of the platforms greater profitability.
Fact: Android is 350-400% less profitable to develop for, regardless of whether apps are monetized by ad revenue or user purchases.

By contrast, murraupaul’s hypotheses, combined with jbjb’s additions, are very compelling. On the contrary, it is you who have failed to prove any aspect of your argument. You offer no proof of any claim. Every statistic is against you. When confronted with your falsehoods, you pretend to have said something else.

LMAO. Once again you don't know how to read. It's truly bizarre. This is exactly what I said:

This means that developers, when they have an idea in their heads, can usually only tackle one platform at a time. So they are choosing Android first in the majority of cases. They choose to invest their time first where they think they will have the greatest potential for profits over a period of time -- perhaps 1-2 years. I've tried to explain to you several times already that I am not saying a developer is expecting to wait for 2 years to recoup any money at all, lol. I don't know where you get these crazy ideas from.

As I said in a previous post:

Do you need further explanation? Do you understand this? Just let me know and I'll try to spell it out another way if you don't. But bottom line is that the way app evenue works is that it is a stream that starts shortly after the app goes on the market and will continue for another few years -- a continuous stream. This of course assumes an app is at least moderately successfully. I gave a period of 1-2 years because for the vast majority of apps -- be it iOS or Android -- I'm guessing that's the period of time when the majority of revenue will be realized. Many apps have a shelf life in terms of their revenue potential. Not all, but a good majority of them do.

No, I am not, lol. Either literally or figuratively. It's merely your typical distortion of my opinions in order to try to get them to fit your agenda.

LOL, it's relevant because YOU were under the wrong impression (as usual) that I was saying developers were waiting for 2 years to be paid, lol. So I had to explain to you how app revenues work And regardless of which platform is paying higher at this exact moment in time, developers realize that Android's growth is far outstripping iOS so that's where they think the better profit potential is for the next few years. So they are choosing Android in greater numbers than iOS right now. A simple fact.

Once again, there is no evidence that developers are “choosing Android first in the majority of cases.” The available evidence that we have, the developer survey linked to above, shows that Android consistently ranks below iOS in attractiveness for professional developers.

No one has denied app revenue is a continuous stream. All that has been explained to you is that this fact is irrelevant to the argument you are trying to make. App revenue on Android is still 400% less profitable, regardless of how that money is paid out. An iOS-first developer is also being paid in a continuous stream, but his revenue stream is 400% larger than his Android-first analogue.

No rational economic actor, given a choice between the two platforms, would ever develop for Android first over iOS when motivated by potential profitability.

Where are revenues from the Amazon app store? And the revenues for the Apple store include items that don't involve developer revenues -- ie, newspapers and newstand sales. So, big FAIL!

These are feeble objections. If you have contradictory data, please present it. If you can demonstrate that adding Amazon developer revenues and subtracting newsstand subscriptions can make up a 400% revenue gap, please do so. Otherwise, simply accept that you are wrong.

The Opera network is but a small part of the total mobile ad universe. Where are revenue for Airpush and AdMob?

If you have data that contradicts what has been posted so far, then post it. You have presented not one single fact or figure in this thread to date. You are simply refusing to admit what the available evidence represents. The Opera report looked a very large sample size over a sizeable period of time, at multiple platforms and delivery mechanisms (apps and browsers). If you have a problem with its statistical margin of error, state what you think it is and explain why.

I know what it means but it's an especially appropriate term for the hilarious reports you alway try to link to which either are (a) out of date (b) unread and/or misunderstood by you or (c) incomplete in terms of data or (d) otherwise don't support your arguments.

No, I don’t think you did. That lesson is free of charge, but I suggest you invest in a good dictionary in the future.

Wow, what you just did in lying is truly utterly despicable. You have just accused me of changing a post when, in fact, the timestamps on the posts back me up and prove you are either lying or just so profoundly confused.

Anyone can see for themselves. In post #524 is my original phrase and it has a timestemp a full 20 minutes earlier than your post #526 in which you added the word "only." Shame on you.

You are quite aware of your actions, feigned outrage notwithstanding.

For the benefit of observers: PatNY wrote his reply as it is quoted in my post #526. I immediately clicked reply and started composing my reply. During that time, he went back and edited his post. Because it was a long reply, I spent 45 minutes or so on it, which is why my post appears after the timestamp of his edit. Then PatNY, to distract from his untenable position, accused me of misquoting him.

I never said anywhere that the Opera report was referring to only browser-based ads, and I think you know it. You're just mad I had to explain the report to you in the first place, even though you were the one to post it.

Your continued mischaracterization of my posts, topped off by your false accusations, are disgusting and unless you apologize, I'll have to ignore you in the future. It's such a waste of time having to correct you so frequently and reiterate almost everything I say because you choose to distort it.

"The data in this report is specific to the Opera browser." - PatNY

It has been explained to you several times that this is incorrect. There is no mischaracterization of your position. Your position is there for everyone to see.

You continue to avoid answering the questions that would expose your incorrect understanding of a very basic document. You persist in refusing to acknowledge that the data in this report is not specific to the Opera browser, but that it applies to the Opera mobile ad network which appears for the most part in native apps.

In this case (and this case only) I did use imprecise phrasing. I didn't mean a literal "add" but instead meant that theoretically, based on that chart which is broken out pretty poorly, the number of people interested in developing for the android platform could be higher than for the iOS platform, depending on where any overlaps could be in the responses. Moreover, I think it's pretty clear that if you consider the positive responses to each option (vs percentages) then indeed, "it appears that the Android platform has more overall interest." (my original exact quote) So my original conclusion still stands.

So your premises are all incorrect, but your conclusion still stands. You are a funny guy PatNY.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

For any devs that this is actually a difficulty factor (as opposed to just pure laziness on their part), I'd really hate to see them try and deal with coding for the desktop. It'd be a complete nightmare for them...

Are you questioning that this would be the case? I can give you one example. I have Audio Xciter on my iPod Touch. About 4 months ago I went looking for it on Google Play. It wasn't there so I e-mailed the developer and asked him if he planned to port it to Android. He emailed back: "Still testing the Android app. There are over 1,000 Android phones/tablets. Makes testing things very complex. I prefer Apple - three devices to test."

The app still isn't available on Android. And I can't believe it's because he's lazy. Actually, the company is Aphex and they seem very high-tech and professional to me. So, bottom line is I think that in many cases, it may be harder to develop for Android. And to be clear, that may not be because of the coding itself, but rather the difficulty of making one app work smoothly on a huge variety of devices with different OS overlays as well.

BTW, anyone who is looking for a DSP music app, I highly recommend Audio Xciter. It's excellent.

--Pat

[DaleDe]

Moderator Notice
This thread has crossed the line several times. It is ok to point out errors in someone's data or conclusions based on the data but IT IS NOT OK TO ATTACK THE PERSON. Personal attacks will cause the person attacking to be removed from the MobileRead forum. Please be civil. Attacks of this nature are no tolerated. This is a warning.

Dale

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Yes, I know that. But can you substantiate your contention that a main reason the Google app store is growing far far faster than the Apple store is due primarily to "a massively larger hobby coder population" as you put it?

I never said it was the main reason, please don't put words in my mouth.
Do you think there are more or less hobby developers on iOS or Android?
From an earlier stat, the proportion of free apps to paid on the Google store is 2:1 vs 1:2 on the Apple store.

Fine, but do you know you also have to pay fees to Google to put apps on their store?

a) You don't have to pay a fee to develop the app in the first place
b) You don't have to buy a different computer just to develop on (if you don't already own a reasonably recent Mac)
c) You don't have to distribute the app through the Google store
d) Is there actually a fixed fee to distrubute an app? Rather than a percentage of cost, which would of course be zero for free apps.

Aren't Linux and GNU essentially large collaborative projects that evolved over time? I don't know how you can compare those projects with how a developer goes about deciding he'd like to write an app for an app store.

Linux started off as a single guy writing code.

As for Calibre, it exists because of the goodness of Kovid Goyal!

A single cuy writing code. (Actually a couple of guys now)

OK but then it involves more investment of development time and effort. More commitment. So the point remains the same.

Laughs.
So when you adamental insisted that more apps meant more developers, and now you agree that it doesnt, the point remains the same?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by PatNY

No, I never said "only." Are you confused by "all browsers?" That is not the same thing as saying "all ads."

You said: "the data in this report is specific to the Opera browser."
When in fact the report was about all browsers, not just the Opera one.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Retroactively adding words to your posts and claiming you meant things that you didn’t write is just embarrassing, PatNY. Your original meaning was very clear.

What must be embarrassing is your knowing I didn't but you having to lie to save face.

Anyone can look for themselves. The time stamp of my post (#524) is 20 minutes prior to your post (#526) in which you decided to change my words. You can't get much lower than that.

You claimed that because Android had more apps, it “has more developers.” (Your words) There continues to be no evidence of this, as with the remainder of your assertions.

Yes, it has more developer hours being committed to it. That's the only logical conclusion. Apps don't appear out of thin air.

To recap:

PatNY claim: More developers are developing for Android first because of the platforms greater profitability potential.
Fact: Android is 350-400% less profitable to develop for, regardless of whether apps are monetized by ad revenue or user purchases.

I fixed it for you (in red). And you have yet to substantiate your numbers.

By contrast, murraupaul’s hypotheses, combined with jbjb’s additions, are very compelling. On the contrary, it is you who have failed to prove any aspect of your argument. You offer no proof of any claim. Every statistic is against you. When confronted with your falsehoods, you pretend to have said something else.

Their theories were not compelling at all. And your stats/reports are nothing but hokey. And you are the one who is lying. It's in the timestamps!

Once again, there is no evidence that developers are “choosing Android first in the majority of cases.” The available evidence that we have, the developer survey linked to above, shows that Android consistently ranks below iOS in attractiveness for professional developers.

LOL, it doesn't matter what any survey says. The fact is they ARE choosing android over iOS. No matter how much it hurts your little apple heart, that's the undisputed truth. The only thing in dispute is why.

No one has denied app revenue is a continuous stream. All that has been explained to you is that this fact is irrelevant to the argument you are trying to make. App revenue on Android is still 400% less profitable, regardless of how that money is paid out. An iOS-first developer is also being paid in a continuous stream, but his revenue stream is 400% larger than his Android-first analogue.

Actually, you seemed to not understand that fact in one of your earlier posts which is why I had to explain it to you. And, again, your numbers are unsubstantiated.

No rational economic actor, given a choice between the two platforms, would ever develop for Android first over iOS when motivated by potential profitability.

Then I guess then that all the developers responsible for Google's Play impressive growth rate the last year must be irrational!

These are feeble objections. If you have contradictory data, please present it. If you can demonstrate that adding Amazon developer revenues and subtracting newsstand subscriptions can make up a 400% revenue gap, please do so. Otherwise, simply accept that you are wrong.

Once again, you miss out on the fact that not only do the iOS store numbers include things like magazines and newsstand purchases, but there are no ad revenue in that report.

If you have data that contradicts what has been posted so far, then post it. You have presented not one single fact or figure in this thread to date. You are simply refusing to admit what the available evidence represents. The Opera report looked a very large sample size over a sizeable period of time, at multiple platforms and delivery mechanisms (apps and browsers). If you have a problem with its statistical margin of error, state what you think it is and explain why.

Actually no comprehensive data exists on mobile ad revenue. That Opera report certainly is not comprehensive and represents only a small fraction of the total mobile ad market. It basically comes down to common sense vs. your defensive desperate attempts to make the Apple look more shiny.

You are quite aware of your actions, feigned outrage notwithstanding.

For the benefit of observers: PatNY wrote his reply as it is quoted in my post #526. I immediately clicked reply and started composing my reply. During that time, he went back and edited his post. Because it was a long reply, I spent 45 minutes or so on it, which is why my post appears after the timestamp of his edit. Then PatNY, to distract from his untenable position, accused me of misquoting him.

Total fiction and you know it is. You are the one who is underhanded and a vicious liar here. The time stamps are undeniable proof of your errors.

"The data in this report is specific to the Opera browser." - PatNY

It has been explained to you several times that this is incorrect. There is no mischaracterization of your position. Your position is there for everyone to see.

And it was explained to you immediately after that was written it was referring to the lack of data regarding other browsers such as Dolphin. Yet you wanted to interpret it fit your agenda.

You continue to avoid answering the questions that would expose your incorrect understanding of a very basic document. You persist in refusing to acknowledge that the data in this report is not specific to the Opera browser, but that it applies to the Opera mobile ad network which appears for the most part in native apps.

LOL, I've answered any question you've ever had as they are soooo easy. The data in the report is specific ONLY to the Opera mobile ad network and doesn't cover other browsers and ad networks. You do know there are other mobile ad networks, don't you?

So your premises are all incorrect, but your conclusion still stands. You are a funny guy PatNY.

No. It's your distortions of my premises which are ALL incorrect. So my conclusions still stand. Unfortunately, your lies and distortions are not so funny. They are actually pretty sad.

--Pat

[poohbear_nc]

Moderator Notice
This thread is now closed pending review of participants by the moderation team.