[HN Gopher] Apple Releases App Store Monthly Active User Counts ...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple Releases App Store Monthly Active User Counts for EU to
Comply with DSA
Author : tech234a
Score : 140 points
Date : 2023-04-27 17:11 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com)
| smoldesu wrote:
| > because the goals of the DSA align with Apple's goals to
| protect consumers from illegal content.
|
| An interesting gambit. It sounds like they want to concede to the
| regulators while using "illegal content" as the new boogeyman
| stopping people from freely using their device.
|
| The freedom-loving part of me wants the EU to push the DSA/DMA
| further, damning all the "content" boogeymen that exist. The
| realistic part of me knows that this is an amazing deal for the
| regulator, a literal Golden Apple if you will. Apple is
| signalling cooperation here, and attaching it to a "think of the
| children/terrorists" sentiment that most politicians will jump
| on. It's a damn good strategy, and would almost be impressive if
| it wasn't used in a desperate struggle to stop the user from
| installing F-Droid on iOS.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > The freedom-loving part of me wants the EU to push
|
| I'd expect that writing this phrase caused actual physical pain
| from the cognitive dissonance.
| permo-w wrote:
| it's cognitively dissonant to believe that regulations cannot
| create freedom
| madsbuch wrote:
| Why? A big part of governance is to ensure individual
| freedom: Minimum salary, unions, etc.
|
| The comment seems to be perfectly congruent.
|
| (Though you have to accept a more ... European world view)
| sib wrote:
| Uhh, those are antithetical to individual freedom.
|
| If I want to work for less than the minimum salary, I
| can't.
|
| If I want to work at a company and not join a union, I
| can't.
|
| As someone once said, "the true minimum wage is zero."
| smoldesu wrote:
| It is possible to be free in a society that restricts
| some personal freedoms. The libertarian extremist model
| that you're suggesting doesn't resemble a society at all,
| and it's mostly a testament to why we can't provide total
| personal or market freedom. Without being able to
| disincentivize bad behavior, everyone will race to the
| bottom regardless of altruistic intent.
| Spivak wrote:
| You're describing freedom as in anarchy, the parent is
| describing freedom as in liberty.
|
| I am more free and able to use the software I want when
| the government forces Apple to unlock their devices even
| though it makes Apple less free.
|
| I am more free to travel when everyone follows the rules
| of the road even though I give up some autonomy to do so.
|
| I am more free to use wireless networks because everyone
| has to stick to their assigned bands even though I give
| up my ability to use other bands to do so.
|
| I am more free to live and sleep because of noise
| ordinances even though it means I can't play loud music
| late at night either.
|
| For people who value liberty, freedom means the ability
| to do the things you actually want to do. Social norms
| get enforced everywhere, even in the state of nature.
| smoldesu wrote:
| The freedom-loving part of me also cheers on the Right to
| Repair, even though it isn't a truly libertarian ideal. Is
| there a problem with that?
|
| Preserving individual freedom is what keeps the free market
| in check. It is precisely the thing stopping 1984 from being
| like 1984.
| owisd wrote:
| It's a balancing act between the negative freedom to be
| allowed to manufacture and sell a locked down device VS the
| positive freedom to install whatever software you want on the
| devices that you buy. I know libertarians skew very much
| towards the negative end, but they don't get to gatekeep the
| word freedom.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Apple tried their hardest to make non-iPhones "pedo phones",
| and they'll do the same thing here.
|
| Non-App Store apps help terrorists, criminals, pedophiles, etc
| someone please think of the children.
| csomar wrote:
| It'll be interesting if the plot is twisted and instead the EU
| requires Google to limit Android to only Google Playstore.
| knaik94 wrote:
| That would imply that Amazon app store or Samsung app store
| apps are illegal content. While they are not as popular in
| the US, these alernate apps stores have existed for years on
| android without issue.
| smoldesu wrote:
| It would be a hell of a pivot, but kinda unlikely given how
| the AOSP exists.
| rpgbr wrote:
| Less than 1% of European iPhone users have an Apple Watch, or am
| I misreading something? I really thought this percentage was
| bigger in such a rich place.
| pertymcpert wrote:
| We don't call them europoors for nothing!
|
| (I'm a European myself)
| ezfe wrote:
| I interpret this to be users of the service, not users of the
| device the service supports. Most users probably don't open the
| Watch app store and use the iPhone app store instead.
| ffitch wrote:
| Probably just mean the users visit watch store less often than
| they visit ios app store
| Jtsummers wrote:
| This is monthly ??? Store users. Having an Apple Watch does not
| imply they use the Apple Watch App Store every month, or even
| any month. Even having an iPhone does not mean they'll use the
| iPhone App Store each month (though it's probably more likely).
| jd96 wrote:
| What even is the Apple Watch store? Isn't that just the iOS
| store?
| Jtsummers wrote:
| > What even is the Apple Watch store?
|
| Apple Watch _App_ Store. It 's an app store on the Apple
| Watch showing Apple Watch apps. Many of which, but not all,
| have an iPhone/iPad companion app.
| gumballindie wrote:
| All those riches are taken back as taxes. So while it sounds
| like europeans are rich it's just on paper. But they take
| comfort in projecting their own status on similarly poor people
| from parts of europe that are developing faster but are bit
| behind since you know they only recently became free. It's
| hilarious to observe and funny in a sad way.
| jd96 wrote:
| Far better to live in a low tax, failed state with extreme
| economic inequality. At least we've got Apple Watches, am I
| right?
| [deleted]
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Wait, why is this a regulation? Why should a corporation have to
| disclose MAU? I'm holding off my cynicism, asking for a friend.
| Someone wrote:
| There's fairly broad political pressure to regulate large
| players in online platforms such as Apple and Google.
|
| As a result, the EU regulated online platforms. As is often the
| case, they aren't stupid, and put more stringent requirements
| on large players than on smaller ones.
|
| So, they have to know which players are smaller and which are
| larger. They chose to use number of active users as the way to
| measure whether players are large, with 10% of the population
| (45 million) a cut-off point.
|
| That's why they require all digital services companies to
| report # of active users.
|
| (Aside: it turns out that Wikipedia is a very large online
| platform, too. See https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/
| detail/en/ip_23_...)
| [deleted]
| greycol wrote:
| To comply with section 24(2) of the DSA. You need to publish
| that information about your number of EU users.
|
| Currently there's no strict rules on how you calculate or even
| necessarily the information you publish. Other than saying
| based on your calculation your number of users is below 45
| million (in the EU). In the future there will be delegated
| articles on how the calculation must be done.
|
| Obviously the regulation was made in comitee with team of
| lawyers but I expect the justification for "Why should a
| corporation have to disclose MAU?" is something like:
|
| * The majority of businesses will with minimal work be able to
| tell the difference between having under say 4 million EU usere
| and having 45 million eureopean users so they'll know if
| they're in a range where they should be concerned about the
| regulations.
|
| * If they're getting to a size where they have millions of
| users (in europe alone) they should have the resources to put
| in place logging/policy to figure out if they're approaching
| the 45 million EU users with more confidence.
|
| * By making them publish a statement saying they've done what
| they believe is due dilligence on making sure the rules don't
| apply then enforcement becomes much easier. Auditing only needs
| to be done randomly on a handful of sites that declare they're
| just under the limit and on those who look like they are taking
| the piss saying they're well below the limit or seem to be
| growing but keep saying they're just under the limit
| declaration after declaration.
|
| So these numbers are shown in Apple's case because it's in a
| companies best interest to show they're acting in good faith in
| working out these numbers (Especially since in Apple's case
| they're trying to differentiate the services so that they can
| try to reserve the right to not apply the DSA to some of those
| services in a possible future). Stating a number (or that
| you're well below the user limit) implies you've done a real
| calculation (i.e. I only get 44 million site visits from
| anywhere in the world every 6 months so I can't have 45 million
| EU users) and in the case of an audit where it's not the case
| shows you were acting maliciously/with gross negligence/with a
| calculation tha needs to be changed, making any enforcement
| much more justifiable.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jsnell wrote:
| > iOS App Store: 101 million
|
| > iPadOS App Store: 23 million
|
| Asserting that the iPad App Store is distinct from the iOS App
| Store - and totally isn't in scope for the regulations - is
| certainly a bold strategy.
|
| I wonder why iTunes and Apple TV+ aren't included, and why
| Podcasts is only counting paid subscribers. Is there some obvious
| reason why these kinds of services would be out of scope?
| alberth wrote:
| > _I wonder why iTunes and Apple TV+ aren 't included, and why
| Podcasts is only counting paid subscribers. Is there some
| obvious reason why these kinds of services would be out of
| scope?_
|
| Probably because they don't exceed the 45MM MAU threshold.
|
| > Online platforms with 45 million or more average monthly
| active recipients
| jsnell wrote:
| Most of the services they listed were nowhere near the
| threshold, so that can't be it.
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _iPad App Store is distinct from the iOS App Store_
|
| the whole idea that applications written in software shouldn't
| handle screensize differences (and dynamic changes)
| intelligently is just so broken. I get that feeling in the pit
| of my stomach like "who let these people in? is the door wide
| open out there?"
|
| i mean, to each their own, that's just me, but that's how I
| feel software should be written, and while we're at it, give
| the user some input/options at runtime.
| threeseed wrote:
| iOS/iPadOS does allow you to have one code base that
| dynamically responds to screen sizes.
|
| But almost always the experience for iPad users is terrible.
|
| Which is why Apple's initial approach of forcing developers
| to build distinct iPad apps was the right one and a large
| reason why its tablets dominated the market versus Android
| competitors.
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _iOS /iPadOS does allow you to have one code base that
| dynamically responds to screen sizes. But almost always the
| experience for iPad users is terrible._
|
| are you saying the tools aren't there for developers to
| create equally pleasing (mutatis mutandis) apps, or simply
| that the developers aren't able to create equally pleasing
| (mutatis mutandis) apps? Or that designers can't grok the
| mapping between their equally pleasing ideas and the tools
| available?
| threeseed wrote:
| There is no tool that can scale a mobile app to tablet
| size whilst maintaining a great UX.
|
| You need to optimise for the particulars of each device.
| selykg wrote:
| Having worked on an app that, at least in my opinion, was
| pretty well done for each platform (phone and iPad), this
| is the case.
|
| Our UI for the iPad was a completely separate one. The
| core code was shared via various internal libraries, but
| the UI was entirely different. Adding a feature to iPhone
| required one entirely separate set of code compared to
| the iPad app. The app was a universal binary though and
| one app ran on both device types.
|
| This was, at the time, an absolute requirement. There was
| no way to scale the app from iPad to iPhone in such a way
| that it would give a great experience on both iPhone and
| iPad. It just wasn't possible to give an excellent app.
|
| I've long since left and the app does seem to be written
| in SwiftUI now and seems to be one shared codebase. But I
| wouldn't say it's as good as it was previously.
| heisenzombie wrote:
| A phone and a tablet are just wildly different devices.
| Screen size --sure-- but also usage patterns, input
| methods, workflow conventions, etc.
|
| The "mutationes" that must be made reach deep into the
| functionality of an app, not just UI-level stuff. The
| whole purpose of the app should probably change. It's
| therefore a big and challenging job to make an app scale
| seamlessly from one device to another. That's irreducible
| complexity. The tools available will always be at best
| "necessary but not sufficient".
| zamnos wrote:
| I'd say it's on the other end. users can't find the apps
| which are properly designed for tablets, and get tired of
| wading through crap to find them. the tips are totally
| there, but if you search for, eg, python, you can be sure
| the iPadOS app is decent and designed for ipad, vs you
| have no idea if the Android app is actually pleasing on
| tablet.
|
| That developers have the tools and can or cannot use the
| tools is secondary to that, imo.
| [deleted]
| zamnos wrote:
| The iPad store didn't break away from the iOS store until
| 2019. The original app store came out in 2008, eleven years
| earlier. While you have as certain point, the division is
| meant to highlight apps which treat the iPad as a mini
| laptop, with a keyboard and pencil, vs just a bigger phone.
| If you've ever coded a website to resize, that's child's
| play. to actually get an app working properly across both
| sizes, you've got to put in significant work for each. For
| developers that don't want to put in that work *, listing in
| one or the other is fine, and possible Uber the current
| regieme.
|
| * the developer for papers please's blog about the mobile
| port is indicative of the work that goes into supporting
| other screen sizes. Asking developers to have infinite time
| and motivation is just not realistic. also note that it took
| a few years for the mobile port to be released.
|
| https://dukope.com/devlogs/papers-please/mobile/
| scarface74 wrote:
| This is not true. From the day that the iPad was
| introduced, you have always been able to sell separate iPad
| versions of an app then iPhone versions.
| glompers wrote:
| You can still do it without doing it well. That's
| probably not at issue so I think the parent is not false
| glompers wrote:
| I like your comment and not because I polemically see this as
| correct compared to the other people who disagree with you. I
| think it is a good comment although I don't agree with you,
| so thanks, and (on second thought I suppose you comment
| frequently so I am not referencing any other comments in
| general but) happy to hear more of your sensibility in
| various threads.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Software that dynamically changes to fit different form
| factors is difficult to write and rarely comes without
| compromises to the UX.
|
| I prefer it when my iPhone and iPad apps have separate
| bespoke UIs that take full advantage of the different sizes
| and shapes.
| fsckboy wrote:
| writing software is about writing the hard-to-write parts
| one time, so that users aren't confronted with the
| anomalies all the time. Computers are our servants, we need
| to let them figure things out for users, and take care of
| the headaches, not simply declare "here, this is a
| headache".
|
| yes, what you are pointing out is the challenge. solve it,
| don't slough it onto the user.
|
| However, the same app can appear on different sized screens
| with different skins, it doesn't have to be a different
| app.
| babypuncher wrote:
| I'm not saying we should slough it on to the user. I'm
| saying there is no true substitute for hand tailoring
| your app for each platform you choose to support.
| cube2222 wrote:
| It's worth noting that they assert still wanting to comply on
| the other platforms:
|
| > Nonetheless, Apple intends, on an entirely voluntary basis,
| to align each of the existing versions of the App Store
| (including those that do not currently meet the VLOP
| designation threshold) with the existing DSA requirements for
| VLOPs because the goals of the DSA align with Apple's goals to
| protect consumers from illegal content.
| flipbrad wrote:
| Yes, but the regulatory fee you pay annually is calculated by
| reference to the in-scope service(s)' userbase, so by slicing
| you reduce what you pay, and your rivals end up footing more
| of the cost (since it's a cost-share system). Well played,
| Apple.
| wildredkraut wrote:
| I don't think they will be out of scope, because they all uses
| the same AppleID backend and users can cross login with the
| same AppleID everywhere. To be out of scope, Apple would have
| to block iOS AppleIDs and iOS purchases from working on the
| other gadgets and stores.
| threeseed wrote:
| They share the same AppleID backend.
|
| But users don't have to use the same login for each store.
| shaky-carrousel wrote:
| Yeah, in the EU bold strategies are pretty expensive. But sadly
| Apple is a slow learner.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| Eh, I get the position here. Different device classes,
| different markets.
|
| I've gotten more than a few apps approved on tv, watch, Mac,
| iOS, iPad. They are distinctly different. As much as Apple is
| helping us leverage 'one code base to rule them all' there are
| so many gotchas and detail required to make great experiences
| on each.
| eptcyka wrote:
| Yeah, sort of how Microsoft could argue that there exists two
| separate markets for Windows running on stationary compute
| devices and Windows for mobile devices. Except this is a sad
| joke and letting Apple get away with two devices running the
| same OS would be playing into their hand that they stacked
| years ago when they split them off. What is up with the
| enormous amount of people on this site who are inexplicably
| apologetic to Apple and other FAANG giants.
| [deleted]
| beaned wrote:
| I don't think it's apologetic, it's two different
| approaches. MS has chosen to try to kill 2 birds with one
| stone, and Apple has allowed their devices to become more
| focused. As someone with an iPad, I appreciate Apple not
| trying to force that iPhone and iPad apps be the same
| thing. The experience is better.
| Twisell wrote:
| This is hilarious considering that the classical, yet
| irrational, fear amongst long time MacOS users is that
| Apple might be secretly planing an OS convergence. This is
| usually perceived as doomsday for MacOS and have been
| feared by some for up to 15 years.
|
| You are basically stating the opposite while completely
| ignoring the actual complexity of such an hypothetical
| merge for codebases that forked 15 years ago. They share a
| kernel and some API, but on the UI side recent cross
| platform framework are more like a proof of concept than a
| production ready thing.
| downWidOutaFite wrote:
| Another thing that's hilarious[1] is in the Epic lawsuit
| Apple wanted to define the market as big as possible
| while here they define it as small as possible.
|
| [1] not actually hilarious
| _the_inflator wrote:
| I agree. Almost anyone of these one size fits all approaches
| hits a wall sooner or later. Besides very basic applications,
| I would never make use of frameworks like Flutter or React
| Native. Same goes for Windows Universal Apps. Great concepts,
| but not very feasible in reality for slightly complex apps
| with good UX.
| rnk wrote:
| I strongly disagree. This is just big companies
| artificially separating their market segments to argue
| against too large of a market, and preserve their enormous
| profits with their huge percentage take. The world would be
| much better off with multiple stores. It will take legal
| action by the eu, and it will be hard, these rich companies
| are very influential. In the us we have too much capture of
| federal politicans, I only hope the eu can push it.
| nextos wrote:
| I hope multiple stores shake a bit the iPad ecosystem.
| It's a great device and, unlike in mobile, there's no
| competition.
|
| Android tablets are pretty bad. Google dropped the ball,
| although they seem to be coming back.
|
| iPads could be fantastic devices to program in, but they
| are quite crippled by limitations.
|
| Boutique software companies, such as Panic or Omni Group,
| plus other developers could really extend the ecosystem
| beyond content consumption and simple document creation
| tasks.
| makestuff wrote:
| Do you think it is worth the increased time to start out as
| a native app, or is it still worth rolling your MVP as
| flutter/reactive native?
| karmelapple wrote:
| IMO, roll your MVP with something like React Native,
| although it all depends how important the user experience
| is for your end users.
|
| Snapchat built with some platform-independent UI toolkit
| would have felt kind of wrong, and the speed at which
| I've seen teenagers use it (this was years ago) shows
| that they would have been frustrated with anything that
| is slow-ish. I assume similar trends dominate for TikTok
| and Instagram today.
|
| So unless you're attracting a very hip, fast-moving,
| perhaps even young-person's market, you probably just
| want an app that basically works and is available to
| folks on whichever phone they use. React Native, Flutter,
| Xamarin / .NET MAUI will all get you there.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| They wouldn't base their strategy on numbers but function.
| MBCook wrote:
| iTunes and Apple TV aren't app stores.
|
| The Apple TV App Store is listed.
| jsnell wrote:
| That explanation does not work. The DSA isn't a law
| restricted to App Stores.
|
| Also, podcasts and ebooks are not apps, but they listed their
| ebook store and podcast subscriptions platform in this
| disclosure. Why not the music store, the TV series and movie
| subscription service?
| cma wrote:
| Don't purchases literally work between the iPad and iOS stores
| in most cases?
| scarface74 wrote:
| I have one app that doesn't have an iPhone equivalent - Duet.
|
| But a developer can sell separate iPad versions of an app.
| Most don't anymore.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Note that this is the Digital _Services_ Act compliance, and
| not the Digital _Markets_ Act which affects sideloading.
| wildredkraut wrote:
| Yes I know, and they share the same AppleIDs/AppleID
| Backend/Purchages. These AppStores are not fully independent
| and have to be seen as one. Many Apps even share the same
| binaries and are cross Apple Device available. You can
| install iPhone Apps on iPads, and you can install iPad Apps
| on Macs.
|
| That won't work on court.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| > That won't work on court.
|
| How do you know? If there was no chance of it working, you
| would think Apple's lawyers would have said so.
| wildredkraut wrote:
| There is a reason why they bend over for EU's DSA.
|
| They can view the stores as they want, but they know that
| per law they aren't distinct online platforms, as long
| their Userbase, AppleIDs, AppleID Backend, Hosting
| Services, Databases, iCloud Services, Apps, Games and In-
| App Purchases are cross-wired and shared between all
| Apple devices/stores. The DSA sees it as one(1) united
| Online Platform and would not care for Apple's Store
| breakdown.
|
| This is just the typical Apple FUD: Without prejudice to
| further consideration of the legal characterisation,
| Apple views each version of the App Store as a distinct
| online platform under the DSA, and only the iOS App Store
| may qualify as a VLOP. Nonetheless, Apple intends, on an
| entirely voluntary basis, to align each of the existing
| versions of the App Store (including those that do not
| currently meet the VLOP designation threshold) with the
| existing DSA requirements for VLOPs because the goals of
| the DSA align with Apple's goals to protect consumers
| from illegal content.
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| This sounds like something I would expect from China.
| nottorp wrote:
| > Without prejudice to further consideration of the legal
| characterisation, Apple views each version of the App Store as a
| distinct online platform under the DSA, and only the iOS App
| Store may qualify as a VLOP.
|
| LOL LMAO ROFL. I really hope there is some EU directive that this
| is breaking so they can be fined just for being asses.
| apetresc wrote:
| Given that the definition of a VLOP is >45M MAU, and the iOS
| store is the only one that's even remotely close to being over
| that, what do you object with in this characterization?
|
| Also you left out _the very next sentence_ , which completely
| reverses the interpretation you're trying to imply:
|
| > Nonetheless, Apple intends, on an entirely voluntary basis,
| to align each of the existing versions of the App Store
| (including those that do not currently meet the VLOP
| designation threshold) with the existing DSA requirements for
| VLOPs because the goals of the DSA align with Apple's goals to
| protect consumers from illegal content.
| 988747 wrote:
| I think the point is: App Stores for iPhone and iPads are in
| reality one and the same. Apple tries to artificially split
| them, so they can avoid regulations for at least one of them.
| bunbun69 wrote:
| Show me where apple is avoiding regulations here
| [deleted]
| nottorp wrote:
| > the iOS store is the only one that's even remotely close to
| being over that
|
| What iOS store? They're all one and the same. You can install
| iOS apps on iPadOS right?
|
| It doesn't matter that they "voluntarily comply". They just
| shouldn't have the nerve to split them.
| scarface74 wrote:
| You can't install iPad only apps on iPhone though.
| andrejguran wrote:
| you can if you check one checkmark during publishing of
| your iOS app (same with mac).
| CostcoFanboy wrote:
| I'm surprised there are more Apple TV users than Apple watch
| users. It always felt like a fairly niched device.
|
| On a somewhat unrelated side-note, as a hardcore Plex user for
| the last 5-6 years, Apple TV has been an amazing Plex client.
| Second only to a Nvidia Shield Pro downgraded to 8.2.3 firmware.
|
| Honestly with the quality of their TV boxes, screens and the
| "ecosystem", I'm kind of surprised they didn't dive into the TV
| business.
| TYPE_FASTER wrote:
| The Apple Watch will automatically install the watchOS app for
| each iOS app you install on your phone by default, if a watchOS
| app exists for the iOS app. I don't know if the auto installs
| count towards user visits to the watchOS App Store. I don't
| think I've ever used the watchOS store, and my watch is full of
| apps.
|
| https://support.apple.com/guide/watch/get-more-apps-
| apd99e3c....
| jasongill wrote:
| I'm actually NOT surprised by this stat - keep in mind these
| numbers are the number of active users of the stores, not of
| the devices themselves. I've had an Apple Watch since day 1 but
| I can't remember the last time I went to the App Store on my
| watch itself. On the other hand, I have to use the AppleTV App
| Store once every couple months to download whatever app is
| required by the newest streaming platform the family want to
| use. I suspect most people are like me as well in that they use
| their iPhone to manage the "apps" on their watch (or, don't
| manage them at all), but are forced to download apps on the
| AppleTV periodically, which causes it to have higher usage
| stats.
| mperham wrote:
| Note these counts are for *European* users. The Apple watch
| seems really successful in my American suburb but that may not
| be true in the EU.
| [deleted]
| eddieroger wrote:
| Apps aside, my house has two adults with Apple Watches and four
| TVs with AppleTVs. I don't think it's surprising that the aTV
| outnumbers the Watch.
| idk1 wrote:
| I would say it's more about accessibility of the store and what
| you can do with the device. There's not many games you can play
| on the Apple Watch, not many TV channel apps to download, I
| expect it's more to do with that than users of the device. They
| may well have sold more Apple Watches, but the Apple TV has
| sold less and there's more TV App Store users. This is totally
| over the top, but just as an example, what if 1% of Apple Watch
| users use the Watch App Store and 75% of Apple TV users use the
| Apple TV App Store.
| theseanstewart wrote:
| > Second only to a Nvidia Shield Pro downgraded to 8.2.3
| firmware.
|
| What's special about 8.2.3 vs the latest firmware? I've only
| owned my Shield for a few months so I'm curious what I may be
| missing.
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| I think its about external storage: https://www.reddit.com/r/
| ShieldAndroidTV/comments/yjt6aq/wha...
|
| Not really relevant if you're mostly streaming on the box or
| streaming locally from a file/plex server
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I'm not sure either, are they referring to the shitty new
| home screen courtesy of Google? That comes in separate of the
| firmware.
| DRW_ wrote:
| >I'm surprised there are more Apple TV users than Apple watch
| users.
|
| I don't think these stats suggest that there are more Apple TV
| users than Apple watch users.
|
| They say more people use the App Store on tvOS than use the App
| Store on Apple Watch.
|
| As an Apple Watch user, I'm not surprised by that all. Why
| would I want to browse the app store directly on my watch?
| That's annoying and cumbersome. I do it on my phone, it's
| quicker and easier and therefore I assume that'd be counted as
| iOS app store usage.
|
| And I also reckon most Apple Watch apps people use are
| companions to apps they installed on their iPhone anyway,
| rather than Apple Watch only apps.
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| Spot on, nobody uses the App Store on the Apple Watch, most
| people either never use third-party apps on the watch or only
| use companion apps which are installed alongside iOS apps
| ericpauley wrote:
| Wow, TIL there's an app store on the watch...
| karmelapple wrote:
| I had zero idea there was an App Store on the Apple Watch
| until this thread. There's some neat apps listed on there -
| glad everyone in this thread talked about this!
| mk89 wrote:
| Let me guess, you're using the grid view? :)
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Family setup Apple watches are the most likely situation
| where people are browsing the app store from their watch.
| No companion iPhone.
| Hamuko wrote:
| It's much cheaper. Especially the non-4K models were dirt cheap
| for Apple products.
| ryanfreeborn wrote:
| Purely anecdotal but I know way more TVs with an Apple TV
| device than I know humans with an Apple watch. In most cases
| they are households with many TV-Apple TV pairings, and maybe
| one or two people in the household have an Apple watch.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Apple sells far more watches than AppleTVs by every estimate
| that you can find.
| tpmx wrote:
| Apple TV (the hardware, not the streaming service) is so
| underappreciated. The smooth task switching alone makes it
| worth a buy. I think it's severely undermarketed.
|
| And the old touch remote that so many people hated.. I like it
| so much.
|
| (Haven't tried the newest remote that has a combined
| d-pad/touch area because of troglodyte customer feedback ( ;) )
| but I suspect I will hate it since the touchpad area is so much
| smaller.)
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| Wow, they may 'sell' millions in the market, but many end up in
| a drawer, or rarely seen as anything other than a wrist worn
| notification device. This information is beautiful! Reaffirms
| the true value of these things.
|
| (Well that, or the metric is truly skewed not including
| companion apps - though that would feel disingenuous)
| stirlo wrote:
| Most apple watch apps are installed and managed through the
| watch app on your iPhone not from the app store on the apple
| watch itself. I just checked and I've never even opened the
| app store app on my watch but I have configured dozens of 3rd
| party apps using the Watch app on my iPhone.
| vezuchyy wrote:
| I don't have Apple Watch, but have Garmin. I used the store
| once during the initial setup and I don't see why it should
| be different for AW users.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| A lot of Watch apps also get installed through the attached
| iPhone when you install the associated iPhone app. I think
| it was the default, I turned it off, to have "Automatic
| Downloads" on for apps. So if that's still the default (or
| the present setting for the watch) then if you download
| Strava for iPhone you'll get Strava on your Apple Watch
| without ever touching the Watch App Store.
| izacus wrote:
| But it's still Watch App Store which installed and
| delivered the app right? And the developers must use it
| to give you the application?
|
| Just because you didn't open the UI it doesn't mean the
| developers weren't forced to go through that app store to
| reach you.
| mostlysimilar wrote:
| I don't find this surprising. Apple TV probably has nearly 100%
| penetration of app store usage, you download your streaming
| apps as a necessity (Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Disney+ are all apps).
|
| Meanwhile there's almost zero useful watchOS apps. The device
| is great out of the box and doesn't need much else.
| plufz wrote:
| > I'm surprised there are more Apple TV users than Apple watch
| users
|
| Anecdotal but everyone in my proximity that uses apple products
| have an apple tv. My mother, my father, etc. Very few have an
| apple watch. That's like me and my developer friends or friends
| who are more nerdy about workout.
| babypuncher wrote:
| You can thank me. I've been shilling the ATV to any friends or
| family I hear complain about their Roku/Fire Stick/smart TV.
|
| I went through literally all of them before getting an ATV,
| even the Shield, because for a long time I refused to believe
| Apple could make a good TV experience.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-27 23:00 UTC)