Hacker News Reader

Comment by gok | Hacker News Reader

> the definition of a platform being when revenue generated by software running on the device far outpaces revenue generated by sales of the device itself

By this logic smartphones are not a platform?

View on HN

They absolutely are. Apple makes money from the iOS ecosystem in two ways: through device sales, and through App Store purchases.

I'd agree that iOS is an example of a restrictive platform, in that ~30% of all revenue goes to a single gate-keeping party.

In any case, I messed up the quote a little, another commenter found the source and real comment: 'Gates said something along the lines of, “That’s a crock of shit. This isn’t a platform. A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it. Then it’s a platform.”' [1]

[1] https://stratechery.com/2018/the-bill-gates-line/

But the revenue from hardware is far and away higher than software.

What's the total annual income of the App Store these days?

2018: 46 billion.

Edit: iPhone does something like that amount per fiscal Q.

There's a lot of consumer surplus.

If that’s the litmus test - that the owner is a gatekeeper that keeps a share of the profit - you have to include all of the console makers and Kindle.

I would say consoles are definetly a platform, people even call them "gaming platforms". The Kindle as well, but that seems less clear to me.

I agree. But the litmus test where one gatekeeper takes a fee making it not a platform is nonsensical. That’s what the parent poster said.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com