$1 on Apple's App Store is 89¢ on Kindle and 23¢ on Android

[wizwor]

from CNNMoney...

"As markets mature, rational economic behavior emerges," he adds dryly. "Based on revenue potential, we expect to see increasing numbers of developers support Amazon. We also believe that companies such as Samsung, the leading Android-supporting OEM, could also consider emulating Amazon's move to fork Android. "

This is a month old, but I only stumbled upon it today using Pulse on my Fire. I searched MR but found nothing, so I figured I'd share.

What I find interesting is that Amazon is generating revenue at a rate that exceeds its market share -- forget total sold units. This is kind of a big deal after only three months in the market.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by wizwor

What I find interesting is that Amazon is generating revenue at a rate that exceeds its market share -- forget total sold units. This is kind of a big deal after only three months in the market.

I don't think that's what's going on, although I had to go to the Flurry site to be sure. These numbers are for revenue per user, not revenue per app. In other words, the average Amazon purchaser of a particular app will spend 89% of what the average Apple purchaser of the same app does. This number doesn't depend on market share - it would apply if Amazon users were 10% of the market or 50% of the market.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by wizwor

from CNNMoney...



This is a month old, but I only stumbled upon it today using Pulse on my Fire. I searched MR but found nothing, so I figured I'd share.

What I find interesting is that Amazon is generating revenue at a rate that exceeds its market share -- forget total sold units. This is kind of a big deal after only three months in the market.

I agree but am puzzled.

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

These numbers are for revenue per user, not revenue per app. In other words, the average Amazon purchaser of a particular app will spend 89% of what the average Apple purchaser of the same app does.

I see what you're saying. I wonder if this includes revenue from free apps and books. Doesn't Amazon pay the seller even if the sale is compted? Still surprising to see buyers of the inexpensive device spending so much.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by wizwor

Still surprising to see buyers of the inexpensive device spending so much.

No, it's not surprising to see iPxx and FIRE owners spending more than other gadget buyers because their devices are designed and marketed as content consumption devices, not as computers or hobbyist platforms.
People who are interested in using tablets for something else are better served with other products and they properly go elsewhere.
What the report is saying is that Amazon designed and marketed FIRE to appeal to exactly the people they wanted to reach.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by wizwor

I see what you're saying. I wonder if this includes revenue from free apps and books. Doesn't Amazon pay the seller even if the sale is compted? Still surprising to see buyers of the inexpensive device spending so much.

Apparently they looked at a group of identical apps which cost the same on each platform, and then looked at the in-app purchases from those apps. So it looks like they didn't include free apps or books. It would be interesting to know exactly which apps they chose.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

No, it's not surprising to see iPxx and FIRE owners spending more than other gadget buyers because their devices are designed and marketed as content consumption devices, not as computers or hobbyist platforms.

And Android tablets are marketed differently?

People who are interested in using tablets for something else are better served with other products and they properly go elsewhere.

Nice spin, but wrong. People who are interested in using tablets for work use iPads.

What the report is saying is that Amazon designed and marketed FIRE to appeal to exactly the people they wanted to reach.

Or Android users don't have any money.

[fjtorres]

How many Android tablets have out-of-the-box access to music stores, video stores, or ebookstores? iPxxx and FIRE do.
It wasn't until recently that Google got serious enough about content sales to restructure their Android store around content and most Android tablets not only don't come with Google store access, they need hacking to install the app.

People who buy Android tablets are more interested in hardware features or very low prices. Certainly the FIRE is no great example of fancy hardware features. But if you look at FIRE marketing, what do you see? Prime videos, Prime ebooks, Kindle books, Amazon MP3s. Look at the iPad and you see iTunes all over.

Both platforms are primarily storefronts looking to sell content and consumers buy them to do exactly that.

[carpetmojo]

I suppose there's not even a remote possibility of the bubbling echo of tomes being simmered, is there ?

Or, as we say here in the vernacular, books being cooked ?

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Apparently they looked at a group of identical apps which cost the same on each platform, and then looked at the in-app purchases from those apps. So it looks like they didn't include free apps or books. It would be interesting to know exactly which apps they chose.

Games? Power Ups + Boosters, etc... While the apps discussed in the CNN article were not free it seems one of the best ways to make cash is via the "Freemium" path.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/te...ucts.html?_r=1

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

And Android tablets are marketed differently?

Nice spin, but wrong. People who are interested in using tablets for work use iPads.

Or Android users don't have any money.

Really? Ipads are the only option?

[leebase]

The apps need merely be the "same price" and "free" could be that same price. The catch was that "in app purchases" be a significant driver of the apps revenue...which it certainly is for freemium apps.

It's not at all surprising that Apple and Amazon customers purchase more. Google has promoted the free internet culture. Google is interested in eyes...for selling advertising. Apple and Amazon cultivate customers who buy things.

Lee

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by leebase

It's not at all surprising that Apple and Amazon customers purchase more. Google has promoted the free internet culture. Google is interested in eyes...for selling advertising. Apple and Amazon cultivate customers who buy things.

I use all three appstores and only buy the free apps. If it costs money, I don't need it.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

their devices are designed and marketed as content consumption devices

not really anymore. see apps hilighted here:

http://www.apple.com/ipad/business/ipad-at-work/
http://www.apple.com/ipad/from-the-a...apps-by-apple/

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I use all three appstores and only buy the free apps. If it costs money, I don't need it.

even very top quality apps? get what you pay for they say.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

even very top quality apps? get what you pay for they say.

Why do I need these "top quality apps"? I only use apps for information and entertainment.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Why do I need these "top quality apps"? I only use apps for information and entertainment.

Not to talk long but i like top quality entertainment. no spam when can eat ribeye. no mcdonalds when can have quality dinner with good service.

Life is too short. but To each their own.