Apple on Sony: We Haven’t Changed Policies

| News

Sony is claiming its Reader ebook app for the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad was rejected by Apple’s App Store over sudden changes in the policies, but Apple is saying that’s not the case. Instead, Apple claimed that its policies are unchanged, but isn’t elaborating on exactly why Sony’s ebook reader app failed to pass the App Store review process.

“We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines,” Apple spokesperson Trudy Miller told The Mac Observer, then went on to add “We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase.”

Apple says in-app purchases go with Web purchases in apps

The take away is that ebook apps can offer purchases outside of the app, but they also need to include an option to purchase content from within the app, too. That stands in contrast to a statement from Steve Haber, Sony’s digital reading division president, that Apple was requiring all purchases to be in-app only.

Earlier today, Sony posted a statement on its Reader ebook Web site stating “Unfortunately, with little notice, Apple changed the way it enforces its rules and this will prevent the current version of the Reader for iPhone from being available in the app store.”

With little else to go on, speculation rose that Apple might be trying to block iBookstore competitors and that the company’s actions might push potential customers to dedicated ebook readers instead of the iPad.

Based on Apple’s statement regarding the Sony app situation, it looks more like the company wants to push developers into offering in-app ebook purchases as an option. For publishers, that means even though they offer Web-based purchase mechanisms, they’ll have to include an in-app option — and share 30 percent of those sales with Apple.

Apple didn’t say whether or not the dual purchase option policy applies to magazine publishers as well.

Sony has not responded yet to TMO’s request for a comment.

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

Comments

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase.

So customers will always have the easier option of giving Apple 30% and not giving the content seller any personal information.

I’m pretty creative, and I could not have come up with such an asinine scenario. It’s like in Steve’s absence, someone at Apple is thinking WWJD (“What would Jobs do?”) and came up with a very, very wrong answer. I have to think about it, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen Apple behave passive aggressively like this. It looks like a new twist.

mhikl

Sony has not responded yet to TMO?s request for a comment.

Of course not. Their spin dept. isn’t that quick.

Here is what JonGI said in a previous post on this discussion topic (Sony App Rejection Raises App Store Concerns): “Companies these days, have been trained to utilize politics, and the fickle emotions of people to play big games. . . .”

Apple’s offerings and expectations that more than one way to purchase be made available is called “choice”, something Sony obviously doesn’t believe in; indicating a “closed” attitude as opposed to an “open” way of doing business. Tides of desperation seem to be Sony?s game.

OldMorris

I must admit that I have bought more kindle ebooks than ibooks ebooks.
Only due to lack of availability on the ibooks store. On the other hand the in app purchase is really nice compared to the web purchase. So strictly from a user experience point of view I would prefer the in-app purchase.

don’t really feel that strongly about it though. wait and see attitude.

Lee Dronick

What format are the Sony ebooks?

What does the Sony app offer that may be different and/or better than other readers?

Nemo

Bosco:  I am not sure that there is a contradiction.  Reading Ms. Miller?s statement carefully, it seems to permit widget that takes a customers to a different website, because that is, I think, a web app and not a native app in the App Store, but Apple needs to clarify this ambiguity. 

Then there is the circumstance of actually offering content for sale in an app but not allowing the customer to actually purchase in-app but only permitting the customer to purchase somewhere else on the Web.  Here a person is using the App Store to market his content but conducting the actual sale outside of the App Store to avoid paying Apple?s commission.  That is like Harrods putting up a big sign in Macy?s saying that these great shirts are available at Harrods.  I think that Macy?s would object and so to Apple objects to you marketing on the App Store and using the popularity of the App Store to market your products but doing the actual selling elsewhere to avoid paying Apple its 30% commission.  I think on a common sense basis Apple is reasonable prohibiting a person from marketing on the App Store but conducting the actual sales elsewhere, and, on cursory analysis, I think that restriction is legal.

Sony?and, if Apple let Sony do this, others would soon follow?is trying to market its goods for free by using the infrastructure, goodwill, and popularity of Apple?s App Store, while avoiding paying Apple anything for those benefits by conducting the sale elsewhere.  That too is an absurd position, just as absurd as Harrods doing its marketing in Macy?s for free.

As for customer data, publishers and others want Apple to provide its customers’ personal data and have take any PR hit, resulting lawsuits, and regulatory sanctions.  This Apple has declined to do, taking the position that its customers have the right to give their informed consent about whether, how, and what ways their personal data is used.  As an alternative, Apple has offered that the publishers and others can directly ask its customers to consent to the acquisition and use of their personal data, after giving the customers complete and accurate information about how and in what ways their personal data will be used.  In other words, Apple steps aside and lets the publishers et al directly request a customer’s informed consent to use the customer’s data.  But the publishers and others haven’t wanted to do that.  I wonder why?

GrfxGuru

I have and will continue to get books from the Amazon store, I’ve yet to get anything from the Apple limited selection. I don’t think the iBooks app is anywhere near as good as some of the others apart from the eye candy.

Time will tell what happens with this situation, but I think it puts a less than favorable light in Apple’s direction with their constant attitude changing towards what is and is not going to be enforced on the AppStore.

Perhaps Animal Farm is now becoming Apple Farm and some apps are more equal than others?

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Nemo, By comparison… Google “allows” (as in does not disallow or even care for that matter) Android apps to use whatever in-app purchasing mechanism they want.

What you’re saying is that Apple’s store extends into the apps, supplied by third parties, that Apple resells in the App Store. Could you imagine if the local supermarket worked this way? You buy cereal for the kids, and then have to purchase the cartoon lunchbox offer through the grocery store instead of through the mail (or more likely a website today).

And not only that, but when we send you that cool lunchbox at a great price, we’re not allowed to contact you in the future about other things that might interest you because the grocery store doesn’t share that information. While that sounds great for privacy, what it will actually do is dry up the market for such content and/or raise the price. I expected the newsies to battle on this front with Apple, and am surprised it’s a division of a consumer electronics giant, but it was going to happen soon enough.

Tiger

equal, or compliant?

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Compliant works, in a Rodney King kinda way.

Nemo

You stated the wrong analogy Bosco.  The correct analogy is another supermarket advertising its wares in your supermarket.  Neither common sense or the law requires a retailer to let another retailer market that retailer’s products in your store.

As for Google, after the monstrosity of the Google’s Android ecosystem, I doubt that anyone can with certainty accuse Google of common sense.  But the reason that Google may not care about whether the sale is made in the Android MarketPlace is because Google insists that it provide and be allowed to provide advertising for apps.  Google also requires that any users of orthodox Android software get a Google account, which requires accepting Google’s privacy policy, which lets Google do pretty much what it wants to make money from its customers’ personal data.  So Google doesn’t care because it demands the rights to its customers personal data and demand the right to advertise with your app and pretty much exclusively provides, at least in practical terms, all in-app advertising.

So take your pick:  With Apple, if you market in its App Store, you must sell in its App Store; with Google, to use an orthodox Android device, a customer must agree to provide his personal data to Google, and developers must accept Google as the master of in-app advertising and information garnered from an app to target ads at its customers.  For my money, I’ll take Apple’s terms, as they are far less onerous to me than Google intrusive invasion of my privacy, and developers must with Google suffer that a subscription model simply won’t work in the MarketPlace and must share customers’ data and ad revenue generated from that data with Google.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

is because Google insists that it provide and be allowed to provide advertising for apps.?

Google doesn’t insist anything of the sort. I can write an app that uses whatever advertising engine I want, or that doesn’t use one at all. It will get the same treatment in the Android Marketplace. And no, they do not provide all in-app advertising on Android. (EDIT: Angry Birds was wrong example.)

And I do have the right analogy. An app you buy is like a box of cereal, not a mini grocery store.

Nemo

Bosco:  And quit misstating what I said and Apple’s position, which is contrary to what you stated.  Apple does not only not prohibit you from contacting the customers, it requires you to contact the customer to get the customer’s informed consent to use his data.  What the publishers and other want to do is avoid having to contact the customers to obtain their informed consents by having Apple, apparently without any customer’s consent, simply give its customers’ data to them.  Google’s privacy policy permits it do that, once a customer has consent to its policy, which he must do to use Android and any of Google’s services, but Apple’s privacy policy does permit it to so freely give its customers’ data to others.

jfbiii

In the google model, you are the product and the advertiser is the customer. In the Apple model, the product is the product and you are the customer.

mhikl

Great points, Nemo. You?ve probably already seen this, but it?s worth reminding.

?About 20 percent of 48,000 the apps in the Android marketplace allow a third-party application access to sensitive or private information, according to a report released on Tuesday.
And some of the apps were found to have the ability to do things like make calls and send text messages without requiring interaction from the mobile user. For instance, 5 percent of the apps can place calls to any number and 2 percent can allow an app to send unknown SMS messages to premium numbers that incur expensive charges, security firm SMobile Systems concluded in its Android market threat report.?
Report says be aware of what your Android app does
by Elinor Mills, cnet news 22 June 2010

Nemo

Bosco:  Note that I said as a practical matter.  Google’s ad agency, in practice, gets most of the advertising business on Android.  And no matter what ad agency you use, Google gets the customer’s data directly from required Google’s services on Android.  That has the effect of not only invading the customer’s privacy but devalues that customer’s data for any third-party agency, which is probably why Google’s agency gets most of the business on Android.

The difference, and this is why your analogy fails, is that your grocery store gets paid its retail commission because it gets paid when a tangible product, the box of cereal, is sold at the cash register.  The manufacturer of the cereal can’t avoid paying that commission, which is charge at the cash register as part of the purchase price.  However, for an intangible good like software or even other tangible products, it is possible to separate the costs of hosting the marketing from the sale, and so avoid paying Apple its commission for hosting the marketing, if, as Sony is doing, the sale is conducted elsewhere.  Now can you follow why your analogy doesn’t work.

Sony is marketing its product in the App Store but selling it elsewhere.  That, unlike a box of cereal, divides the marketing from the actual sale, thus depriving Apple of any payment for hosting Sony’s marketing.  It is a simple rule:  no benefits from the App Store without paying a commission to cover the costs of providing those benefits; marketing content on the App Store is a major benefit, so those enjoying that benefit must pay for it.  And the same is true your grocery store, which charges a retail markup that covers the costs of marketing and selling the box of cereal in the store, but your grocery store has the advantage that its commission for stocking the cereal can’t be separated, as it can on the App Store, from the actual sale.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Nemo, I am going to grant that you have a very fair point on the retail commission, conditionally. To summarize your point in my own words, if developer X has a free (or discounted) app in the App Store, and Apple stocks it and distributes it (at some cost that might not be negligible or offset by the benefits that Apple gets for having the product in its App Store), it would be cosmically unfair for the developer to then charge customers directly for use of the app. I will grant that.

However, the way we get to this situation is important to consider. We get here because there is no other legitimate mechanism for installing apps on iOS devices for wide audience use. There is no Flash and no Java in the browser, no scripting allowed in other apps, so there is essentially no path for protected paid content on iOS devices other than through Apple and a 30% cut.

Look, if that’s how you guys, as users, want your content delivered with a 42.8% Apple pass-thru tax (take 30, divide by 70), it’s your prerogative. There is a lot of room there for competitors to undercut, which is why today feels like Atheist Christmas to me. Margin room aside, the pettiness of this arrangement just increases competitor satisfaction when they make a dent. It will make it more fun a year from now to ask you guys how Apple could have been so dumb to so quickly lose a market it created this way. Seriously, how long is it going to take to ruin the iPad brand when publication X costs $5 on Android and over $7 on iPad for the same experience. That’s where you’re headed.

ilikeimac

Question: Does the Kindle app provide a link to Amazon to buy more books, or does it simply provide the ability to sign in and use books already purchased?

At issue seems to be that Sony provides a link to an external purchasing experience. I’m wondering if Apple’s claim that ‘nothing changed’ stands up. If the Kindle app provides a link to Amazon, then something changed; if not, then maybe all Sony has to do is not link to their store.

Guess I’ll download the Kindle app and see.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@ilikeimac: The answer for Kindle for Android is that books can be purchased in app from a menu item, without dumping the user into the web browser.

If there is a difference with the iOS app, then an obvious question is why purchasing Kindle books is easier on Android. If there is no difference, an obvious question is which pigs are more equal.

ilikeimac

And the download finished. Sure enough there’s a “Kindle Store” button right there in the corner of the screen; tapping it takes you to Amazon, although I got a 404 page on Amazon.com (not impressive). So yeah, I concur with Sony that something changed. To be consistent, it seems Apple would need to boot the Kindle app off the store pending an update.

Ethan

@Bosco: Amazon should just add the extra 30% as a line item on each purchase stating to the user “this is an extra fee imposed by Apple on you.”  So should the others. They should all make sure the users know exactly how much extra Apple is costing them vs buying on line outside the iOS app eco-niche.

John Dingler, Artist

Trudy Miller may not know what she’s talking about or perhaps seems to have overstepped her authority when saying that the app must provide the in app method if it also provides the out of app method, where the contract does not make the second method as a condition to the first.

According to what I think are the relevant passages in the guidelines,

“Apps using IAP to purchase physical goods or goods and services used outside of the application will be rejected.”

And, “Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected

As a result, Miller is mucking up the guidelines by this surprisingly unfocused elaboration. If she is not at fault, then something else is happening internally at Apple, perhaps for the first time—and this is the evidence—as a result of Steve’s managerial absence. If so, this incident could be an indication of the unraveling of Apple’s focused messaging? I truly hope not.

Vern Seward

Like Old Morris, I prefer in-app to swap-web purchase, but only because it’s a cleaner interface. When I buy Kindle or Nook books I have to deal with all the crap on the web page before I can actually buy a book. In-app purchases are clean,

I’m sure someone has mentioned this already, i haven’t had tIme to read all the comments, but I think Sony’s issue is that in-app buys sidestep the advertising on the website. They want you as a captive audience.

I have never bought anything other than what I intended to buy at Amazon or B&N, and I wonder how many others ignore the ads to make a purchase?

Personally, I couldn’t care less if Sony has an app, there’s plenty of other options. They have poor eReaders, which makes me wonder if their app will suck too.

Vern

Nemo

Ethan and Bosco:  What you refer to as the Apple tax is going to be imposed by any online store, unless someone has a way to move the costs of establishing server farms, payment systems, costs of bandwidth, paying highly skilled system engineers, web designers, managers, etc. to zero, or some company with multiple revenue streams is willing to use that revenue to subsidize all or some of those costs.  Since that hasn’t occurred any online store, whether accessed through an app or the Web, it is clear that all online stores charge for their costs plus some margin for profit, which economist call the entrepreneur’s cost. 

Now, as the costs of running an online store go, one of the reason that the App Store and other iTunes stores are so successful is that Apple 30% cut of app sales to cover its costs is so low.  In fact, dramatically lower by previously prevailing standards.  Prior to iTunes, it wasn’t uncommon for developers to face fees for posting an app online of more than 40%.  Apple, because it makes most of its money from other sources, revolutionized the situation for developers by only charging 30%, which was not only much less than what then existed but was much less than the costs that any lone developers would incur in setting up his own online store.  Apple’s cost of 30% is so low for several reasons that are hard to duplicate:  (1) Apple simply doesn’t extract much profit from iTunes, as Apple runs iTunes a much lower margin that its other products; (2) Apple, as I said supra, makes most of its money elsewhere and so content with iTunes being only slightly profitable; (3) Apple is able to distribute the costs of its iTunes stores across a vast number of customers;  and (4) Apple has been so successful with iTunes that its economies of scale are vast so that iTunes set a new low point for costs of minimum efficient scale.  Minimum efficient scale is the minimum size that a firm must reach to be able to produce at the most efficient cost.  Apple lowered that cost so that only a handful of firms have sufficient scalar economies to compete, firms such as Google and Amazon.  The result is that Apple’s 30% tax is a fantastic deal and is far less than what almost any other method of online distribution would cost, including what it would costs even successful developers to set up their own online stores.  That even Amazon and Google, two firms with alternative streams of revenue and vast online server farms, haven’t been able to best Apple’s 30% is evidence of that what you two foolish call the Apple tax is in fact the Apple surplus for developers and their customers.

Ethan Estes

Nemo,  I think Amazon should have the price for a kindle book displayed (say $9.99) and if the user opts for in app then line item the extra 3 dollars noted as due to Apple’s fee for a total of $13. If the user is okay with it then great if they are not then they can jump into the web version and buy there.

MY point is make sure the user is aware of the extra cost on content. Maybe it’s a “Fantastic” deal, maybe not (you think it is, I don’t). Why not give the user full information and let them choose? If it is a “fantastic” deal then the numbers will show that over the first few months after Amazon puts that info in the app and gets it approved, wouldn’t it?

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Come on Nemo. We’re talking Sony’s Reader, not Sonny Boy’s ebook. They already have all the bandwidth they need to distribute the app and the books. They already have payment processing to handle transactions. Apple’s 30% cut is nothing but a toll for the privilege of having these apps and content on iOS devices. Which is fine. It’s Apple’s prerogative. And it’s your prerogative if you want to pay an extra 42.8% so that Apple can continually be the most profitable company in the mobile space. Hell, if I could pay that and feel as good as many of you do about paying it, I would pay double!!

When my little 6 year old niece comes up to me one day soon and asks, “Uncle Monkey (long story), how come books for iPad cost 40% more (she is precocious with the maths and also knows when not to use precision) than they do on your Android tablet?” I will tell her the truth, that this is what happens when greedy people don’t share and play fair, when they just make up rules as they go along so they can take more for themselves.

And, being the inquisitive little bug that she is, she will followup asking, “But Uncle Monkey, why would people pay 40% more for the same thing?” And I’ll say, “Give it a year, they won’t.”

Ethan Estes

Nemo, also your argument is focused on the app itself, and distribution of the app itself. What kind of deal is it when the content you want to buy for your iOS Kindle app is 30% more? Apple didn’t build the app, they were paid by the developer to get the app in the store, the user paid them for a device, they did not write the book, don’t own it, none of their bandwidth was used to download the book (the subscribers data package was used or a wifi). Apple has incurred zero costs by a user buying a book for the kindle app-yet now they want to get a 30% cut.

That is a “Fantastic deal”... for Apple.

Nemo

Ethan:  Amazon could do that, but Apple could just as easily show that the price that Amazon charges for content on its website includes a cost that is no less than Apple’s 30%, and, in the case of books, as publisher were happy to attest, when Apple offered its agency model for selling ebooks in its iBook app, Amazon was charging much more than 30%.  Since iBooks, Amazon was forced to accept the agency model and greatly reduce its take.

Bosco:  And under Apple’s rules for the App Store Sony can do just that.  That is, Sony can elect to abandon the App Store and market and sale on its own online store, or, if one markets on the App Store, Sony and others must then make available for in-app purchase the best deal that they offer customers elsewhere online.  Note that even then, Apple does not prohibit Sony from selling elsewhere online but only requires that the best offer that one makes elsewhere online be made available to customers in the App Store.  So, if Sony chooses to market it wares in the App Store, it is not obliged to sell only in the App Store, for it can sell elsewhere, but it must also make its best online offer available for in-app purchase in the App Store.

We return to rule of yesterday, if you choose to market in the App Store, you may sell elsewhere, but you must at least make the best offer that is available elsewhere also available in the App Store for in-app purchase.  This is simply a common sense rule so that you can’t market in Apple’s App Store and screw Apple and place it at competitive disadvantage but selling exclusively or on better terms elsewhere and, thus, market on the App Store without giving the App Store a fair chance to compete for its 30% commission.

The fairness and pro-competitiveness of such a policy is so clear that it shouldn’t need any explanation or defense for any reasonable and fair person who is proceeding in good faith.

Nemo

Finally, for I have to return to my day job, no one has any moral or legal right to insist that Apple in its App Store charge in particular price for any thing on offer in the App Store.  Your only recourse, as a customer, is to take your customer elsewhere, if you don’t like the price that a particular retailer charges.  So if you don’t like what Apple charges for any an app or for apps in general, you have Windows Phone 7, many Android phones, and Nokia to choose from.  They all offers apps, and I am not aware of any evidence that all of those firms aren’t vigorously competing with Apple and with each other.  So, for customers, if the App Store doesn’t suit you, go elsewhere.  Certainly with respect to protecting your privacy, price, type of applications, and many other vectors of competition you have choice.

For developers, there are online stores (Market Place, Nokia’s store, Microsoft’s) that vigorously compete with the App Store.  Android, in particular offer some unique features, such as competing with its own Android developers and rampant piracy of apps, which will surely toughen an independent developer, so that if he can survive Android he can certainly survive and make money on the App Store.

But what neither customers or developers have any general right to do is demand that Apple do what they or any of them want it to do.  Except for certain limited legal circumstances, developers and customers are limited to taking their business to wherever else they think that they can receive a better deal.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

But what neither customers or developers have any general right to do is demand that Apple do what they or any of them want it to do.? Except for certain limited legal circumstances, developers and customers are limited to taking their business to wherever else they think that they can receive a better deal.

Actually, not quite true. A company with the market power of Sony may wish to use a public disagreement with Apple as part of its own messaging to consumers. Steve Jobs did that with Flash, and you guys ate it up like fresh slop.

My hope is that Apple continues this insanity while their market share crumbles and apologists like Gruber claim that the global warming actually caused this particular winter storm. It is hilarious theater. Meanwhile, Google announced and demoed in-app purchases today. Google’s cut is far south of 30% and they’ll have carrier billing for those who like to pay that way. Developer friendly and customer friendly. Not trying to conspicuously take profits at every possible corner, nor making every corner a possible profit taking corner.

Recognize the undercurrent. Just like last year.

Ethan Estes

“The fairness and pro-competitiveness of such a policy is so clear that it shouldn?t need any explanation or defense for any reasonable and fair person who is proceeding in good faith.”

The diff is that a user buying a kindle book actually costs Amazon something in infrastructure. If the user buys an ibook then Apple has incurred a cost. When I buy a book in the kindle app Apple has not incurred any cost. When Apple takes 30% on content that cost them nothing (and were completely uninvolved with) that is where it’s a dick move. That’s using their control to hurt the very developers they state they want to help make money. The double dipping is just greedy and will hurt them in the long run.

Hopefully Amazon/Sony/etc can figure a way around like an extra credit you get if you buy direct (say 30% of the price tag) to offer better value. If it’s an Amazon credit then it’s not part of the sale price ( it’s a benefit of being an Amazon customer) and Apple can stuff it.

Nemo

Ethan:  First, Amazon benefits from being on the App Store, and that is a benefit, a substantial one, which Apple has every right to charge for.  It is a rare things, that is probably an artifact of selling intangible products online, for one store to be allowed to market in a competitor’s store, but that is what Amazon is doing with Kindle in the App Store and for that it is being made to pay.

And as for whether anything in addition to the Kindle app is being hosted on Apple’s servers, you either have the advantage of me in that you know exactly what the arrangements are between Apple and Amazon and what precisely is being hosted on Apple’s servers, or you are talking through your hat.

Dear Bosco:  I can’t argue with you about the future, because, unlike you, I am not blessed with the gift of prophecy, so I will simply let the future unfold.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Dear Bosco:? I can?t argue with you about the future, because, unlike you, I am not blessed with the gift of prophecy, so I will simply let the future unfold.

The cool thing about the TMO boards, especially the finance board, is that once it does unfold, you can pretend it didn’t. Today, seriously now, from the front page, they are “debating whether or not Android has the better chance to chip away at the iPhone?s position”. An interesting debate for a year ago, but now that Android has surpassed Apple, RIM, and Nokia in smart phone sales, not even an academic argument.

Another cool thing… Google showed off Honeycomb today, and they STOLE widgets on the home screen from Apple! STOLE them! Mountain View, get your copy machines warmed up!

Nemo

Surpassed in what way?  Apple has just 4.2% of the entire cell phone market and just around 17.5% of the world-wide smartphone market, yet it generates 51% of all cell phone profits world-wide and about 22.5 of all cell phone revenues world-wide.  See http://www.asymco.com/2011/02/01/the-iphone-share-17-25-of-smartphones-4-2-all-phones/. 

Even hobbled by not, until 10 February 2011, having adequate distribution on carriers networks.  Apple activates more iOS devices per day internationally than Android.

And the price that Apple is able to charge carriers for the iPhone has increased rather than decreased.  And every carrier, which doesn’t have the iPhone and the iPad is dying to get them, even though they all have the latestest and greatest Android device.  In fact, they have excess Android Galaxy Tabs, because consumers are returning them at such a furious rate.

The Apple Store has three times the number of apps as Android’s Market Place, and the general consensus, even at Google, is that the apps on the App Store are of generally higher quality.  And this should be dear to your heart, iOS developers are making much more money on average than their Android counterparts.

Yet, Android has more devices and somewhat more market share for what its worth, which apparently isn’t very much.

Log-in to comment