[genericpseudo]

This observation is the single most important thing you need to know if you work in consumer mobile.

To first order, iPhone owners spend money. Android owners don't. This is because your average iPhone user cares more about what phone they're using and simply uses it more.

This is a first-order approximation. The small percentage of people who actively choose Android do spend and do use their phones a lot, and by goodness are they vocal, but the more useful way of thinking about the market is not two-segment, it's three-segment:

* Vast majority: don't care about their phone OS, won't pay for anything

* Significant minority: want iPhones, will most probably spend money

* Significant but even smaller minority: actively want Android, will buy premium Android phones (e.g. Nexus, high-end Samsung), will either spend money or, with roughly equal likelihood, jailbreak and pirate everything in sight.

From this perspective iOS remains the most compelling mobile OS to target. Additionally, iOS users – on average - use apps more and for longer, though again that effect is small when you control for the kind of Android devices people go out of their way to choose.

[Symbiote]

> From this perspective iOS remains the most compelling mobile OS to target.

That fine if you're trying to make money, but it still annoys me when something like a government or non-profit targets iPhone first.

[genericpseudo]

Absolutely, yes. Your moral argument there is pretty undeniable; I'm speaking purely to propensity-to-spend and that's a pretty narrow lens.

In fact, I'd say "target the web" if you're going for maximum accessibility and you're not driven by commercial factors, though that doesn't work for every app and the usability/discoverability issues can be real. Favoring any commercial platform as a government is a very uncomfortable place to be.

[klodolph]

Yes, that's annoying, but Android development is more expensive.

[caf]

If the first segment won't pay for anything, and 50% of Google's mobile revenue comes from iOS products, that implies that the second and third segments must be of roughly equal size?

[genericpseudo]

It's even more dramatic than that. Google make money on advertising, not direct sales, so what you're saying is "the (usage * advertiser desirability) from the entirety of group 2 is roughly equal to groups 1 and 3 combined".

Given group 1 is many times bigger than group 2, that's a very strong statement, but it's borne out in all the data I've ever seen, both public and private.

[Naritai]

roughly equal _spend_, perhaps, but not size (since by 'size' I assume you mean # of users)

[lisardo]

This is a great insight, thank you! Do you have some source of information to dig further?

[swiley]

>To first order, iPhone owners spend money. Android owners don't. This is because your average iPhone user cares more about what phone they're using and simply uses it more.

More like, is willing to spend $700 on a phone.

The problem with android is that even the "high end" android phones (in the US anyway) are still just wrappers around the snapdragon 8xx SOCs. They're all exactly the same and feel almost as closed as the iphone.

[genericpseudo]

Turns out paying $700 is a pretty good proxy for "caring", though!

[feld]

Can you even get an iPhone for $700 anymore? When I got the 6S (not plus) with 128GB memory for myself and my wife they were $1100 each I think?

[danmaz74]

This is because your average iPhone user cares more about what phone they're using and simply uses it more >>> has more money

FTFY

[genericpseudo]

More "chooses to spend what money they have on a phone" plus "has the money to spend", which is almost but not quite what you're saying. I know some very rich people with whatever Android device the network gave them. They just don't care that much.