Or, there are just too many inputs into the system to know. Boeing didn't know how much it actually cost to make the 747, I imagine trying to figure out how much the app store costs to run, once you really get into the weeds of it, is surprisingly difficult.
If you don't know the cost to operate, then you can't calculate profit, only revenue.
If I were an investor, I would accuse him of malfeasance. Part of his job is ensuring the success of the app store, which in a capitalist system requires it to be profitable.
Putting aside the fact that the App Store is profitable.. why does it have to be?
Companies are not required to nickel and dime consumers for every offering, and often time goodwill generates more revenue as a whole than squeezing every penny.
In most cases consumers are driven away by being squeezed at every turn.
The only reason this works for the App Store is that the size of apple’s hand in the cookie jar is obscured from users.
>Putting aside the fact that the App Store is profitable.. why does it have to be?
Why does it have to be profitable? Because if it isn't it goes into debt and eventually shuts down.
>Companies are not required to nickel and dime consumers for every offering, and often time goodwill generates more revenue as a whole than squeezing every penny.
You are absolutely right. This is one of the reasons there are so many mergers; it allows companies to do this with little to no alternative. See cable companies, Ticketmaster, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. You want to squeeze your customer base without having to worry about them going to your competitor? Buy your competitor!
I simply don't believe that. He's either playing word games about the technical definition of "profit", or he's outright lying.
Given Apple's recent behaviour with respect to the EU ruling on alternative market places, I'm thinking it's more likely a combination of the two.