> There are 181,000 apps with subscriptions out there, not millions
You said "That makes up a sizeable share of all apps", not "That makes up a sizeable share of all subscription apps". Whereas I said, "there are literally millions of mobile apps", not "there are literally millions of subscription apps". So you've offered two red herrings in a row.
My original point was that RevenueCat's report covers only subscription apps—a fact that I think nobody is disputing—and thus it's kind of bizarre to suggest, as the article title does, that a report exclusively about subscription apps explains "why devs beg for subscriptions", especially since the report itself says that the majority of those subscription apps are not doing particularly well.
To be clear, I was not arguing with RevenueCat's report; rather, I was arguing with the article's spin.
You said "That makes up a sizeable share of all apps", not "That makes up a sizeable share of all subscription apps". Whereas I said, "there are literally millions of mobile apps", not "there are literally millions of subscription apps". So you've offered two red herrings in a row.
My original point was that RevenueCat's report covers only subscription apps—a fact that I think nobody is disputing—and thus it's kind of bizarre to suggest, as the article title does, that a report exclusively about subscription apps explains "why devs beg for subscriptions", especially since the report itself says that the majority of those subscription apps are not doing particularly well.
To be clear, I was not arguing with RevenueCat's report; rather, I was arguing with the article's spin.