[thaumasiotes]

> and the ones who bought the cheapest phone they could find contribute market share only for free apps.

This can't really be true; it would imply that the actual value of all phone apps is zero, and the only reason people pay for them is that they need to get rid of some cash.

[dotancohen]

A more compelling argument might propose that the paid or expensive apps are simply not appealing enough to those whose primary factor when selecting a phone is price.

[jampekka]

If someting isn't paid for it has no value?

[beepbooptheory]

A very smart man a while back proposed that any given thing has two kinds of value: use value and exchange value. One does not necessarily overlap with the other, yet both can totally capture a things "value" depending on where you start.

[thaumasiotes]

If something has value of its own, then it will be purchased regardless of whether other unrelated products are or aren't purchased.

Thus, in order for people who don't find iPhones particularly valuable to contribute zero market share to the independent market for phone software, it can only be the case that phone software has no value.

[layer8]

It will only be purchase by people who can afford it and who find it worth the price. If someone doesn’t purchase it, there is no implication that they see zero value in it.

[throw10920]

...and if there's piracy involved, then even people who can afford it and find it worth the price may not pay for it.

[jampekka]

So e.g. Hacker News has no value? Or Linux? Or sex without prostitution?

[acdha]

It’s just that people who don’t have money don’t spend it. If you have a ton of senior citizens getting lifeline phones, it doesn’t tell you much about the spending habits of Android users who aren’t on fixed incomes.