[etchalon]

I'm not sure why total revenue would be what to compare to the costs against.

Apple is profitable precisely because they don't, as a company, have many/any "loss leaders". Each unit within the company is expected to financially contribute to its margins.

That was one of the (many) changes Jobs brought to Apple when he returned.

I'm also not sure how a reviewers salary would be $50,000. Where'd you get that number?

[mthoms]

>I'm not sure why total revenue would be what to compare to the costs against.

Why not? I was just trying to do some back-of-the-napkin math to ballpark the profitability of the app store "for fun".

>Apple is profitable precisely because they don't...

Cool. That has nothing to do with this particular comment chain.

>Where'd you get that number?

The 50k was totally made up. Do you have a better guesstimate? Lower or higher? Keep in mind this would be the average among their global reviewer workforce, not just US.

But... it doesn't matter though, does it? Whether their reviewer costs are 0.5% or 1.0% of their revenue doesn't really move the needle. At all.

[function_seven]

"Total revenue" is probably a bad choice of words by parent. We're looking at just the revenue from the App Store. It does not include revenue from phones, computers, wearables, or anything else. Just the sum total they collected from their 30% cut.