Apple is more lucrative in the sense that people spend significantly more money on their App Store.

Read the above comment regarding FBs breakdown of revenue per customer by region.

Only by user count. Last I checked, apple's worldwide app store revenue was nearly 10x that of Google's app store revenue.

So are malware vendors looking for who spends the most on software or for biggest impact through sheer number of installations

I'm guessing they're looking for the users they can steal the most from in the least amount of time. Aka, the most lucrative.

Apple's ecosystem means that most of the devices are up to date, or close, and because they control the full pipeline, things behave better.

This means that targeting ios is easier (since they'll be on closer versions and behave uniformly) and that because they spend more money, which they have, means that targeting them is easier and more lucrative.

Most are looking to hack. If they're looking to build a botnet, android might be better.

> This means that targeting ios is easier

I don't think so? Android devices are much more likely to be vulnerable to well-known exploits. Stealing keys and passwords of course is much easier if your app can get root on the device.

Finding vulnerabilities on both will be complicated.

But targeting when there’s less device variances will make it easier, yes.

> In Q1 2022, Facebook had an average revenue per user (ARPU) of $48.29 in the US and Canada, $15.35 in Europe, $4.47 in Asia-Pacific, and $3.14 in the Rest of the World. Facebook reported a quarter-over-quarter decline in ARPU of 20% in the US and Canada, 22% in Europe, 18% in Asia-Pacific, and 5% in the Rest of the World.

https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/technology--media-a...

User count, yes. Expected value per user, and amount spent per user on software and computer services is far lower for Android, even if we only look at the US. That, combined with the relative ease of supporting a couple iOS versions on a handful of devices versus a whole universe of Android OS-device combos, is why a lot of apps go iOS-first if they're not doing dual-platform from day 1. The benefit for most monetization models is greater on iOS, and the cost of support tends to be lower.

>amount spent per user on software and computer services is far lower for Android

But why does that matter in this context

An alt-store stands to capture more value on iOS than Android, and spying on iOS users is probably a whole lot more lucrative than spying on Android users.

That, combined with the App Store restricting spying more than the Play Store does, is why we can't necessarily expect the iOS ecosystem to behave the same way as Android's, were iOS to get similar side-loading capabilities. A common argument goes that nothing will change on iOS, because it hasn't on Android, but the two markets are different enough that I don't find that a strong argument. Maybe it'll turn out to be right, but I don't think it's as much a slam-dunk argument as those advancing it seem to think it is.

> An alt-store stands to capture more value on iOS than Android, and spying on iOS users is probably a whole lot more lucrative than spying on Android users.

How so?

I think American Apple users just don’t realise how insignificant Apple market share is outside the US.

Android was open from the start. Giant like Amazon tried to kick start all stores. What did happen? Nothing.

I think people should stop drinking Apple fear mongering. It’s just aggressive lobbying to protect their cash cow.

- 27.71% worldwide is iOS.

- 56% in the US.

- 34% in Europe.

- 18% in Asia.

- 13% in South America. [2]

That all in mind Apple has 85% of the global share of smartphone profits. [1] Many Android players have a negative profit share.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-03/iphone-gr...

[2] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/

Those are numbers for smartphone sales, not the software on them. Hardware sales can be negative, sometimes even intended. Just look at console vendors for that.

Are you arguing that the average Android user spends more on apps than their phone is worth?

Anecdotally, most people I know might spend $20/year on App Store purchases (excluding streaming services if they don’t have a desktop computer).

I’ve made well over six figures for a few years and have never spent more than $100 in a year, the vast majority of those purchases for one off games/apps, not iap coins/tokens/etc.

That can't make the numbers look better, after all, Apple gets 30% of App Store sales, while Google takes the cut of Android apps sold through the Play store. And that gets even worse when you see Apple gets 67% of all app revenues too. [1]

[1] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/

Then just say that in the first place. I don't disagree that Apple users are much more likely to pay for software than Android users, but you don't need hardware sales to make that point.

I can see it your way. Point taken.

> > An alt-store stands to capture more value on iOS than Android, and spying on iOS users is probably a whole lot more lucrative than spying on Android users.

> How so?

What... part of this remains unclear? It's the same incentives that drive iOS-first development choices, with the added wrinkle that the App Store restricts the potential of certain monetization schemes (spying on users) more than the Play Store does. All that means the incentives to distribute apps outside the App Store, or to launch an alt-store, are stronger than on Android.

> I think American Apple users just don’t realise how insignificant Apple market share is outside the US.

I do realize. I think you may be overestimating how much all those Android users spend, and how much their eyeballs (and personal data) are worth to advertisers, compared with iOS users.

> Android was open from the start. Giant like Amazon tried to kick start all stores. What did happen? Nothing.

My entire point is that there are enough differences between the two that we can't assume they'll behave the same.

Obviously the implication is that only plebs are using Android and affluent people are on iOS

Income demographics are almost certainly part of it, sure. I expect iOS also makes users feel safer or more comfortable spending money than Android does, and that the average iOS device in the wild is generally more pleasant to use than the average Android device. There could also be age-related demographic factors contributing (that is, Android users may skew older, and older people might spend less on software, and may tend to use their devices far less than younger smartphone owners—this is just a guess, though)

Whatever the reasons, iOS device owners use their devices a lot more, and spend a lot more money through them, than Android users, on average.

> use their devices a lot more, and spend a lot more money through them

Dark patterns are the same, by any other name. I left MacOS because the squeeze got too rough, and didn't even consider iOS for daily use since it's file syncing options are a clown show. If Apple has reached this market position through unfair or anticompetitive means, I don't see why or how it would stop regulators from ruling in favor of competition.

I doubt you're right that Apple's more-strongly leveraging dark patterns (... do they?) is the reason iOS users use their devices more, and spend more money on them. There probably are several things that all contribute, but I doubt that particular one ranks in the top-10, assuming the effect even goes that direction at all, and I'd certainly not bet that it does.

I mean, hell, Apple goes out of their way to let you know how much you're using the device and where you're spending (or wasting) your time. And they make managing e.g. subscriptions dead easy. Sure seems counterproductive if the secret of their success is dark patterns tricking us into spending more time on the devices, and spending more money.

Unless your goal is propaganda, the incentive is measured in dollars etc., not eyeballs.

Pickpocketing is less of a problem in areas where people aren't carrying around cash and credit cards.