View Single Post
Old 01-06-2013, 09:54 PM   #554
PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
PatNY's Avatar
Posts: 1,022
Karma: 47809468
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
Originally Posted by holymadness View Post
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.

PatNY is offline