[mistercow]

Edit: Ignore me. I misread the parent comment.

"I've done the math before, and this post is wrong" isn't very compelling when the post in question shows the math behind its conclusion. What would be most compelling would be to point out the flaw in the post's math, and also to show us your own approach.

[mst]

Actually, he was saying "I've done the math before, and the results are actually even more skewed than the post suggests".

So you can take the post as right on the basis of the math in there, or even -more- right on the basis of saurik's calculations.

I think "The talk was recorded, and I believe has been posted in various places" was basically "you can find a citation if you look but I don't have one handy, sorry", which is fair enough for a brief HN comment; I, at least, still find the data point somewhat useful.

[saurik]

No. I was pointing out yet another quite specifically different number, and pointing out a way for people interested in this to learn more on this topic.

This article is focusing on a specific number that I actually found quite hilarious (money made from the App Store being swamped by developer hardware), and is not something I have previously analyzed.

[mistercow]

Oh I see. I misread your comment. My apologies.