Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
That is one way to define "value''. That is not the way I used it, nor the way I see it. A product's "value" is whatever a purchaser deems it to be. In this sense, the term refers to what the person buy deems the device "worth it" or "not worth it". It is independent of quality, market value, popular opinion, etc. The individual makes that determination at the point of sale.

I flatly disagree with this, from the perspective I am speaking from. From the business perspective, sure. But I don't buy individual devices based on the "business" opinion, or company-profits. I buy based on anecdotal, and first-hand, personal experience. That is where the truth of quality vs popularity lies. For example, the single greatest tool in a shopper's arsenal is Amazon's review system. I do not purchase anything without seeing what people say regarding a product, both good and bad. I don't go looking into a company's profit spreadsheet or accounting audits.

Saying that there are things that the iPhone can't do that I want to is the ONLY question to ask, from a customer standpoint. It's MY money, I'm going to put it where I feel it'll better serve ME. What Apple has done is find the best marketing team to sell their "good-enough" products. But I'm looking for the best.

None of this answers my question. How does Apple make such profits, given that they neither sell the most phones, nor make the best ones?

I think it's simply because it is a monopoly. Only Apple makes iPhones. So they can charge whatever they want for a device that is not (really) superior to their competitors. When you compare them against individual competitors, they look great. But the competitors are splitting the profits of the much, much larger pie.

In other words, it's all smoke and mirrors. The only way to tell if Apple is losing ground is to measure it against itself.
I think you were trying to ask a different question than you actually asked... I think you wanted someone to convince you that your opinion of iPhone was wrong and to take a stab at convincing you that you want one. You don't. Your opinion is a personal choice, and you're probably not missing anything.

That said, my answer did address your actual question. Apple dominates profits because enough people value having iPhones and, for whatever their reasons, are willing to trade money less or equal to their perceived value for a phone. The market as a whole values the iPhone more than the market values the components of iPhone, so Apple gets to keep the difference.

When I said "Value is measured by what a consumer is willing to sacrifice to acquire the product which is some combination of money, opportunity cost, etc." that is the same as your statement that "A product's 'value' is whatever a purchaser deems it to be. In this sense, the term refers to what the person buy deems the device 'worth it' or 'not worth it'." So we agree on that point.

Nobody should make their purchase decisions based on what's good for someone else (or some corporation), so we agree on that. I think you misunderstood where I was going though. It's not about business opinions and personal opinions. It's all about personal opinions which, when aggregated, lead to business results. People don't buy Apple because Apple makes a profit; Apple makes a profit because people buy their stuff.

Where we start to diverge is when you say "Saying that there are things that the iPhone can't do that I want to is the ONLY question to ask, from a customer standpoint." Surely that's not the only question. Asking what it can do must be important too. Asking how well it can do the things it does, and how easily, and how reliably must be important. Asking how much it costs to get that combination of things it can do (including the cost of not being able to do other things) must be important.

There is certainly a sense in these forums some times that people fixate on certain narrow things and give them importance beyond what I can comprehend. The process usually seems to go something like this.
  1. There's no feature X in iPhone.
  2. I want feature X.
  3. I don't want iPhone because it doesn't have feature X.
  4. Everybody must want feature X.
  5. Anybody who wants iPhone when it doesn't have feature X is stupid or deluded.
Step 4 is when things go off the rails. Up through step 3, it all makes sense-- we have different priorities, that's why there's choice in the market. Step 4 ignores that fact and tries to homogenize the market.

Apple does not sell the most phones, that's a measurable fact. (That also means they don't have a monopoly.) The problem you're having is that you're taking your definition of what's "best" for you and assuming the market is a billion people with your opinion. Doesn't work that way. 18%, or so, of people feel differently than you do and those are enough to fuel Apple's success.

So the answer to your question of what makes Apple so profitable is that they made the best device for the right 18%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0lf and Abazigal
I think you were trying to ask a different question than you actually asked... I think you wanted someone to convince you that your opinion of iPhone was wrong and to take a stab at convincing you that you want one. You don't. Your opinion is a personal choice, and you're probably not missing anything.

No, that wasn't it. And still isn't.

That said, my answer did address your actual question. Apple dominates profits because enough people value having iPhones and, for whatever their reasons, are willing to trade money less or equal to their perceived value for a phone. The market as a whole values the iPhone more than the market values the components of iPhone, so Apple gets to keep the difference.

What this seems to say is that Apple can charge far above the actual cost of the product because somehow Apple has convinced the market that the iPhone is worth more. Thus, people are paying more for an intangible item, like the name or reputation. And they are paying so much more that Apple's margins far exceed that of other manufacturers. That is the bit that I don't understand. How Apple did this (convincing).

When I said "Value is measured by what a consumer is willing to sacrifice to acquire the product which is some combination of money, opportunity cost, etc." that is the same as your statement that "A product's 'value' is whatever a purchaser deems it to be. In this sense, the term refers to what the person buy deems the device 'worth it' or 'not worth it'." So we agree on that point.

Nobody should make their purchase decisions based on what's good for someone else (or some corporation), so we agree on that. I think you misunderstood where I was going though. It's not about business opinions and personal opinions. It's all about personal opinions which, when aggregated, lead to business results. People don't buy Apple because Apple makes a profit; Apple makes a profit because people buy their stuff.

Right. And again, the question is how they get people to choose the iPhone over equally (or more) capable devices. I doubt that most people that buy iPhones have Macs too, so the real, tangible advantages that iPhone has over the competition don't apply there. But I could be mistaken.

Where we start to diverge is when you say "Saying that there are things that the iPhone can't do that I want to is the ONLY question to ask, from a customer standpoint." Surely that's not the only question. Asking what it can do must be important too. Asking how well it can do the things it does, and how easily, and how reliably must be important. Asking how much it costs to get that combination of things it can do (including the cost of not being able to do other things) must be important.

I agree I should have worded that better. The statement should replace "the iPhone" with "a device". I went with the negative side of the question (can't do) because it would always used in a comparison scenario. There already exists a kind of baseline of what a smartphone is expected to be able to do.

There is certainly a sense in these forums some times that people fixate on certain narrow things and give them importance beyond what I can comprehend. The process usually seems to go something like this.
  1. There's no feature X in iPhone.
  2. I want feature X.
  3. I don't want iPhone because it doesn't have feature X.
  4. Everybody must want feature X.
  5. Anybody who wants iPhone when it doesn't have feature X is stupid or deluded.
Step 4 is when things go off the rails. Up through step 3, it all makes sense-- we have different priorities, that's why there's choice in the market. Step 4 ignores that fact and tries to homogenize the market.

Apple does not sell the most phones, that's a measurable fact. (That also means they don't have a monopoly.) The problem you're having is that you're taking your definition of what's "best" for you and assuming the market is a billion people with your opinion. Doesn't work that way. 18%, or so, of people feel differently than you do and those are enough to fuel Apple's success.

I am not making any assumptions; I'm looking at the facts and asking questions:
-Apple does have a monopoly on iPhones, a unique device in the market.
-There are devices that meet and/or exceed the iPhone's capabilities both in hardware and software.
-Apple sells a fourth of the devices in the entire market.
-Apple makes the most profits when compared all smartphone sales.

Hmmmm.

So the answer to your question of what makes Apple so profitable is that they made the best device for the right 18%.

Indeed. The iPhone is the single best-selling device when comparing manufacturers. Seems to me that 18% is paying more than everyone else, and happy to do so because either the "intangibles" are worth more or the unique iPhone tangibles (integration, Apple's Customer Service) are worth that much. Enough to completely make the market share irrelevant. So the real question is how Apple was able to convince that 18% to pay that much more.

Hmmm. Interesting. But I'm too tired from thinking about this and will let it go. :D
 
There is certainly a sense in these forums some times that people fixate on certain narrow things and give them importance beyond what I can comprehend. The process usually seems to go something like this.
  1. There's no feature X in iPhone.
  2. I want feature X.
  3. I don't want iPhone because it doesn't have feature X.
  4. Everybody must want feature X.
  5. Anybody who wants iPhone when it doesn't have feature X is stupid or deluded.
Step 4 is when things go off the rails. Up through step 3, it all makes sense-- we have different priorities, that's why there's choice in the market. Step 4 ignores that fact and tries to homogenize the market.
Don't forget the variation
  1. iPhone meet need x
  2. I don't need x
  3. I don't want iPhone because I don't want to pay for need x.
  4. nobody need x.
  5. Anybody who wants iPhone and pay for need x is stupid or deluded.
What this seems to say is that Apple can charge far above the actual cost of the product because somehow Apple has convinced the market that the iPhone is worth more. Thus, people are paying more for an intangible item, like the name or reputation. And they are paying so much more that Apple's margins far exceed that of other manufacturers. That is the bit that I don't understand. How Apple did this (convincing).
Why are you here discussing that topic ? What do you gain ? Is that tangible ? Is it worth the time you spend ? Who convince you to do so and how ?
 
Don't forget the variation
  1. iPhone meet need x
  2. I don't need x
  3. I don't want iPhone because I don't want to pay for need x.
  4. nobody need x.
  5. Anybody who wants iPhone and pay for need x is stupid or deluded.
You said all that. I didn't.

Why are you here discussing that topic ?

Because I can.

What do you gain ?

Knowledge.

Is that tangible ?

Depends on who you ask, and how you put it to use.

Is it worth the time you spend ?

Certainly.

Who convince you to do so and how ?

No one. I have an internal locus of control.
 
You said all that. I didn't.
Do I said you did ?

So, about your question :
Because I can.
Why do people buy iPhone ? Because they can
Knowledge.
What do they gain ? for example, let say image, or a community... whatever you want
Depends on who you ask, and how you put it to use.
idem
Certainly.
Is it worth the money ? Certainly.
No one. I have an internal locus of control.
How Apple convince them ? They don't, people have control.

This to say : if you want to understand how it works, monitor your own choices. You cannot be in peoples head, but can have a precise picture of your own. May be you can share how you were convinced it is the best place for you to spend time to gain knowledge ? How you were convinced this kowledge is more valuable than whatever ...

(when I say "convinced", it is the process that give you some insurance in your decisions, with or without the help of someone else)
 
Last edited:
Do I said you did ?

So, about your question :

Why do people buy iPhone ? Because they can

What do they gain ? for example, let say image, or a community... whatever you want

idem

Is it worth the money ? Certainly.

How Apple convince them ? They don't, people have control.

This to say : if you want to understand how it works, monitor your own choices. You cannot be in peoples head, but can have a precise picture of your own. May be you can share how you were convinced it is the best place for you to spend time to gain knowledge ? How you were convinced this kowledge is more valuable than whatever ...

(when I say "convinced", it is the process that give you some insurance in your decisions, with or without the help of someone else)

That was all very clever. However, I learned nothing. I want to know what action Apple took that led to iPhone users choosing it over other devices on the market, and why it worked, from the user perspective. I did not choose iPhone, so I cannot answer these questions. I'm merely interested in the other side's rationale.

The deal is that I've been getting a lot of defensive posts and not enough real info. I'm not judging, I'm trying to understand. But it seems like I have to justify that as well; that in this case being the why I want to understand. And so around and around in circles we go.

But as I said a few posts back, I can let go of my knowledge quest. Too much of a pain in the rear and wasted words. So I'll leave it at this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Analog Kid
Again, you missed the point. I never said Android users didn't have the same issue. I am talking about my issue and many others in the same situation in the Apple Eco system. And that is the point, after 9 years in a it, it is a hard choice to switch unless we were willing to forgo the investment we made into that eco system. I never blamed Apple for it, but if you want to read into it that way, be my guess. I choose the iPhone 9 years ago because it was the best at the time and for a lot of years after that. And yes, I bought into the Apple Eco system along with it.

As for your article, please so something that is relevant to TODAY. This article was written in March 2015 on data from 4Q of 2014. Look at todays numbers. How about this article since you start spewing them.

https://dazeinfo.com/2016/08/17/apple-iphone-sales-android-us-china-report/
or this
http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp

But you see, you want to think I am blaming Apple for the situation I am in. I never have and I never will, in the end it was I that choose to open my wallet for Apple, I was just making a statement about my situation and my thought that many others are in the same boat.
Understood but then your comment is sort of irrelevant since we are all in the same situation as you no matter how we feel.
 
That was all very clever. However, I learned nothing. I want to know what action Apple took that led to iPhone users choosing it over other devices on the market, and why it worked, from the user perspective. I did not choose iPhone, so I cannot answer these questions. I'm merely interested in the other side's rationale.

The deal is that I've been getting a lot of defensive posts and not enough real info. I'm not judging, I'm trying to understand. But it seems like I have to justify that as well; that in this case being the why I want to understand. And so around and around in circles we go.

But as I said a few posts back, I can let go of my knowledge quest. Too much of a pain in the rear and wasted words. So I'll leave it at this.

I can share my personal experience, for whatever it is worth.

I started with an iMac on 2011, after being frustrated with the crappy state of windows hardware and software. It worked great, and when it was time to get a new phone on 2011 (I was using a Nokia Symbian phone then), an iPhone 4s seemed like a logical decision (I thought that Apple hardware would work best with one another).

I would then go on to get an iPad 3, Apple TV and MacBook Air. And have proceeded to upgrade to iPhones (5s, 6S+) and iPads (iPad mini 2, 9.7” iPad Pro) down the road. So I am coming from someone deeply entrenched in the Apple ecosystem.

I like that my Apple devices work well together, and my iPhone is the glue which holds everything together. I sync my photos via iCloud Photo Library, use iMessage a fair bit, throw files around with airdrop, passwords are synced through iCloud Keychain, make calls using continuity, and I use several apps that are exclusive to iOS. I also like that I can pay once and download the same app for both my iPhone and iPad (I have numerous paid apps). Even niche features like mail drop get used from time to time, and boy are they handy when I need them.

As a teacher with an Apple TV in the classroom, it's nice to be able to tap on AirPlay mirroring with any device in my possession. Same with the iOS Lightning adapters that I own.

With my iPhone, I feel I have the best of both worlds - great hardware and stable, fluid software. My Apple devices may cost more upfront, but I feel they have more than paid for themselves in the form of greater productivity and fewer problems overall.

I guess one could argue that I am as much a prisoner of the Apple ecosystem as I would lose access to this tight-knit integration if I switch, but everything is working so well together that I see no reason to switch in the near foreseeable future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppleScruff1
I'm going to take your paragraphs out of order, hope that doesn't distort your intent...

I am not making any assumptions; I'm looking at the facts and asking questions:
-Apple does have a monopoly on iPhones, a unique device in the market.
-There are devices that meet and/or exceed the iPhone's capabilities both in hardware and software.
-Apple sells a fourth of the devices in the entire market.
-Apple makes the most profits when compared all smartphone sales.
Saying Apple has a monopoly on iPhones is like saying Ford has a monopoly on Mustangs. Every maker has a monopoly on their brand-- the question is whether they are a sole provider of a product without viable substitutes. There are plenty of phone makers, as evidenced by Apple's relatively low market share. The products are substitutable as evidenced by the number of people who switch back and forth (or carry both). So monopoly isn't really a relevant idea here from a business or economic perspective.

When you say that there are devices that meet or exceed the iPhone's capabilities, I suspect you're looking at it from a spec sheet perspective. RAM, CPU cores, pixels, etc. As you allude to later, this is the tangible part of the phone and, in iPhone's case, almost entirely attributable to other suppliers. Apple designs a few of the chips inside, but most parts are sourced entirely by 3rd parties, and the cost of those parts don't contribute to Apple's profit.
What this seems to say is that Apple can charge far above the actual cost of the product because somehow Apple has convinced the market that the iPhone is worth more. Thus, people are paying more for an intangible item, like the name or reputation. And they are paying so much more that Apple's margins far exceed that of other manufacturers. That is the bit that I don't understand. How Apple did this (convincing).

Right. And again, the question is how they get people to choose the iPhone over equally (or more) capable devices. I doubt that most people that buy iPhones have Macs too, so the real, tangible advantages that iPhone has over the competition don't apply there. But I could be mistaken.

Indeed. The iPhone is the single best-selling device when comparing manufacturers. Seems to me that 18% is paying more than everyone else, and happy to do so because either the "intangibles" are worth more or the unique iPhone tangibles (integration, Apple's Customer Service) are worth that much. Enough to completely make the market share irrelevant. So the real question is how Apple was able to convince that 18% to pay that much more.
This is really the meat of the discussion.

First, remember that certain "tangible" specs aren't apple's to apple's so to speak. Android takes much more RAM to operate as efficiently as iOS because of how Java handles garbage collection. Different devices have different battery requirements because of how much power the draw, etc.

You're right though-- the main reason people are willing to pay more is because of the intangibles. I disagree that it is the result of "convincing".

I think the simplest way to say it is if you give Apple a bag of parts, they make an iPod. If you give Microsoft essentially the same bag, you get a Zune. The market looked at the two and was willing to pay much more for the bag of parts when they were fashioned into an iPod. It's the same "tangibles" going in, but very different intangibles being added by each company.

In many contexts, these intangibles are referred to as "Value Added" which is the first two letters of the Value Added Tax that many countries use in place of a sales tax. A VAT recognizes that each company in a chain of suppliers leading to a final consumption sale add value beyond the value provided by the components they acquired and each company only gets taxed on that part.

In practice these intangibles are generally in the form of IP and design. You could probably calculate how much value Microsoft destroyed by coloring the thing babysh*t brown.

For some reason people seem to look at marketing like it's a form of hypnotism and it makes people do things that are against their personal interests. Sure Apple has a marketing department, and they try to create a feeling around their brand, but if they were really getting people to go against their own interests that would only really work once and iPhone has been dominating profit share for as long as it's existed. So I think it's less about convincing and more about that 18% of customers really valuing the intangibles that Apple provides-- and being intangible makes it hard for me to be to specific about what they are exactly.

It's probably different for different people, but I think most people would tell you design, ease of use, and reliability are the main driving factors.

The spec sheet means less to me, for example, than the overall device. So the efforts of other manufacturers to put more stuff into their phone at the same price isn't going to work on me. I'm happy with what I have and don't assign much value to the other stuff. More RAM, micro SD slots, more pixels than my eye can comfortably resolve... Doesn't do it for me. Sure more is better than less, but I'd have to sacrifice whatever intangibles I enjoy to get it. So they're adding all that stuff, cutting into their margins on all of their sales, but they're not gaining me as a customer. That's not a path to profitability. Profitability come from finding the combination that the most people find most valuable.

For every extra $100, you're only paying something like $0.15 a day if you replace your phone every two years (I do it less often than that). Given how much time people spend using their phones, for many people that's not a lot of money to expend on what they individually consider a better experience.
 
I'm going to take your paragraphs out of order, hope that doesn't distort your intent...


Saying Apple has a monopoly on iPhones is like saying Ford has a monopoly on Mustangs. Every maker has a monopoly on their brand-- the question is whether they are a sole provider of a product without viable substitutes. There are plenty of phone makers, as evidenced by Apple's relatively low market share. The products are substitutable as evidenced by the number of people who switch back and forth (or carry both). So monopoly isn't really a relevant idea here from a business or economic perspective.

When you say that there are devices that meet or exceed the iPhone's capabilities, I suspect you're looking at it from a spec sheet perspective. RAM, CPU cores, pixels, etc. As you allude to later, this is the tangible part of the phone and, in iPhone's case, almost entirely attributable to other suppliers. Apple designs a few of the chips inside, but most parts are sourced entirely by 3rd parties, and the cost of those parts don't contribute to Apple's profit.

This is really the meat of the discussion.

First, remember that certain "tangible" specs aren't apple's to apple's so to speak. Android takes much more RAM to operate as efficiently as iOS because of how Java handles garbage collection. Different devices have different battery requirements because of how much power the draw, etc.

You're right though-- the main reason people are willing to pay more is because of the intangibles. I disagree that it is the result of "convincing".

I think the simplest way to say it is if you give Apple a bag of parts, they make an iPod. If you give Microsoft essentially the same bag, you get a Zune. The market looked at the two and was willing to pay much more for the bag of parts when they were fashioned into an iPod. It's the same "tangibles" going in, but very different intangibles being added by each company.

In many contexts, these intangibles are referred to as "Value Added" which is the first two letters of the Value Added Tax that many countries use in place of a sales tax. A VAT recognizes that each company in a chain of suppliers leading to a final consumption sale add value beyond the value provided by the components they acquired and each company only gets taxed on that part.

In practice these intangibles are generally in the form of IP and design. You could probably calculate how much value Microsoft destroyed by coloring the thing babysh*t brown.

For some reason people seem to look at marketing like it's a form of hypnotism and it makes people do things that are against their personal interests. Sure Apple has a marketing department, and they try to create a feeling around their brand, but if they were really getting people to go against their own interests that would only really work once and iPhone has been dominating profit share for as long as it's existed. So I think it's less about convincing and more about that 18% of customers really valuing the intangibles that Apple provides-- and being intangible makes it hard for me to be to specific about what they are exactly.

It's probably different for different people, but I think most people would tell you design, ease of use, and reliability are the main driving factors.

The spec sheet means less to me, for example, than the overall device. So the efforts of other manufacturers to put more stuff into their phone at the same price isn't going to work on me. I'm happy with what I have and don't assign much value to the other stuff. More RAM, micro SD slots, more pixels than my eye can comfortably resolve... Doesn't do it for me. Sure more is better than less, but I'd have to sacrifice whatever intangibles I enjoy to get it. So they're adding all that stuff, cutting into their margins on all of their sales, but they're not gaining me as a customer. That's not a path to profitability. Profitability come from finding the combination that the most people find most valuable.

For every extra $100, you're only paying something like $0.15 a day if you replace your phone every two years (I do it less often than that). Given how much time people spend using their phones, for many people that's not a lot of money to expend on what they individually consider a better experience.

I can agree with a lot here. But the way I see it is that the iPhone has been leading in quality for so long, that now its fans may not be looking at the actual product, and what the competition is actually offering today. They both dismiss the competition and choose Apple because of "history".

While I can concede that this is not true in every case, I'd be remiss to say it is not an important factor. I believe that to be the intangible that most of those that purchase Apple devices today value most.

But of course, it's only conjecture and opinion.

Until I decided to ignore my history with Apple, I thought the same way. Only to discover that yes, I can have a device that better fits my needs, that doesn't have an Apple logo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Analog Kid
I can agree with a lot here. But the way I see it is that the iPhone has been leading in quality for so long, that now its fans may not be looking at the actual product, and what the competition is actually offering today. They both dismiss the competition and choose Apple because of "history".

While I can concede that this is not true in every case, I'd be remiss to say it is not an important factor. I believe that to be the intangible that most of those that purchase Apple devices today value most.

But of course, it's only conjecture and opinion.

Until I decided to ignore my history with Apple, I thought the same way. Only to discover that yes, I can have a device that better fits my needs, that doesn't have an Apple logo.
There probably is a certain amount of inertia as well. I'd call the history you're talking about "good will", which is definitely an intangible but real value. I think there's also familiarity-- when I say I'm not as comfortable with Android I'm sure a large dose of that is muscle memory telling me how to do things on iOS when they're done differently on Android.

I hadn't thought of that when I listed intangibles, mostly because the first thing that came to mind was the monetary cost of changing platforms and I think that's overblown. If you're going to buy an $800 phone, repurchasing the handful of critical $0.99 apps you need isn't much of a barrier. But you're right, there's also the fact that people fall into a groove and don't always look around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: melendezest
There probably is a certain amount of inertia as well. I'd call the history you're talking about "good will", which is definitely an intangible but real value. I think there's also familiarity-- when I say I'm not as comfortable with Android I'm sure a large dose of that is muscle memory telling me how to do things on iOS when they're done differently on Android.

I hadn't thought of that when I listed intangibles, mostly because the first thing that came to mind was the monetary cost of changing platforms and I think that's overblown. If you're going to buy an $800 phone, repurchasing the handful of critical $0.99 apps you need isn't much of a barrier. But you're right, there's also the fact that people fall into a groove and don't always look around.

I have invested hundreds of dollars in iOS apps, a significant number of which aren't available on Android (fantastical, Overcast, 1Password, tweetbot, iWork's suite, Apple Music, just to name a few). Some may not look as great or work as well.

So in the very least, I expect some modicum of app parity between the two platforms before I even start entertaining the notion of switching.
 
I have invested hundreds of dollars in iOS apps, a significant number of which aren't available on Android (fantastical, Overcast, 1Password, tweetbot, iWork's suite, Apple Music, just to name a few). Some may not look as great or work as well.

So in the very least, I expect some modicum of app parity between the two platforms before I even start entertaining the notion of switching.
I'm sure there are people who are more locked in because of app investment.

I've invested hundreds of dollars too, but if I'm honest with myself, I really only use a few of them regularly. Worst case it's a one to one cost penalty. If you can save $100 moving to Android (or, more accurately gain $100 in perceived value) then it's worth repurchasing $100 in apps. In truth though, it's probably not one to one-- if you are gaining perceived value year after year and only make the repurchase once then the costs amortize, and apps often go through paid upgrade cycles, etc.

And I suspect that there's a similar lack of awareness in available apps in the other platform that mirrors what @melendezest is describing in lack of awareness of platform capabilities as well.

I still think the differences are personal preference more than anything, but it is true that contentment tends to lead to lack of curiosity... I know for myself, I feel that the iOS ecosystem has a better selection of well developed apps, but some of that may be because I haven't really been motivated to do the deep research necessary to know for sure.
 
Obviously not infinite profit. Infinite percentage of a grand total of zero profit. Worse, if the rest had a loss of 100M + 1 dollar, then the total profit would be minus $1, and Apple's percentage of minus $1 would be minus 10 billion percent :-(

The fact is: In the time measured, all of Apple's competitors together didn't make money, but a loss. If that happens, and Apple makes more money than the total loss of the competitors, then Apple makes more than 100% of the total profit. That's maths. But other from that, it doesn't say much at all about Apple's profits. What it means is that Apple is the only one (this time) making profits. Beyond that, what people should look at is how much profit. And in the past, it has happened several times that Apple and Samsung combined were the only one making profits.


Lol...I meant it as a bad joke (divide by zero). Technically would be undefined I guess.
 
I can share my personal experience, for whatever it is worth.

I started with an iMac on 2011, after being frustrated with the crappy state of windows hardware and software. It worked great, and when it was time to get a new phone on 2011 (I was using a Nokia Symbian phone then), an iPhone 4s seemed like a logical decision (I thought that Apple hardware would work best with one another).

I would then go on to get an iPad 3, Apple TV and MacBook Air. And have proceeded to upgrade to iPhones (5s, 6S+) and iPads (iPad mini 2, 9.7” iPad Pro) down the road. So I am coming from someone deeply entrenched in the Apple ecosystem.

I like that my Apple devices work well together, and my iPhone is the glue which holds everything together. I sync my photos via iCloud Photo Library, use iMessage a fair bit, throw files around with airdrop, passwords are synced through iCloud Keychain, make calls using continuity, and I use several apps that are exclusive to iOS. I also like that I can pay once and download the same app for both my iPhone and iPad (I have numerous paid apps). Even niche features like mail drop get used from time to time, and boy are they handy when I need them.

As a teacher with an Apple TV in the classroom, it's nice to be able to tap on AirPlay mirroring with any device in my possession. Same with the iOS Lightning adapters that I own.

With my iPhone, I feel I have the best of both worlds - great hardware and stable, fluid software. My Apple devices may cost more upfront, but I feel they have more than paid for themselves in the form of greater productivity and fewer problems overall.

I guess one could argue that I am as much a prisoner of the Apple ecosystem as I would lose access to this tight-knit integration if I switch, but everything is working so well together that I see no reason to switch in the near foreseeable future.

Very informative, well thought out post. Thanks for sharing.
 
I can share my personal experience, for whatever it is worth.

I started with an iMac on 2011, after being frustrated with the crappy state of windows hardware and software. It worked great, and when it was time to get a new phone on 2011 (I was using a Nokia Symbian phone then), an iPhone 4s seemed like a logical decision (I thought that Apple hardware would work best with one another).

I would then go on to get an iPad 3, Apple TV and MacBook Air. And have proceeded to upgrade to iPhones (5s, 6S+) and iPads (iPad mini 2, 9.7” iPad Pro) down the road. So I am coming from someone deeply entrenched in the Apple ecosystem.

I like that my Apple devices work well together, and my iPhone is the glue which holds everything together. I sync my photos via iCloud Photo Library, use iMessage a fair bit, throw files around with airdrop, passwords are synced through iCloud Keychain, make calls using continuity, and I use several apps that are exclusive to iOS. I also like that I can pay once and download the same app for both my iPhone and iPad (I have numerous paid apps). Even niche features like mail drop get used from time to time, and boy are they handy when I need them.

As a teacher with an Apple TV in the classroom, it's nice to be able to tap on AirPlay mirroring with any device in my possession. Same with the iOS Lightning adapters that I own.

With my iPhone, I feel I have the best of both worlds - great hardware and stable, fluid software. My Apple devices may cost more upfront, but I feel they have more than paid for themselves in the form of greater productivity and fewer problems overall.

I guess one could argue that I am as much a prisoner of the Apple ecosystem as I would lose access to this tight-knit integration if I switch, but everything is working so well together that I see no reason to switch in the near foreseeable future.
taken note of thanks for analysis
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.