New Years 2017 was the most significant App Retailer day ever with $240M in purchases

Now that 2016 is more than, some businesses are taking time to appear back and recap how they fared last year. And now Apple has shared some stats showing us how the App Shop did.

New Year’s Day 2017 was the single greatest day ever on the App Store – with iOS users spending virtually $ 240 million on apps. This is a little bit surprising, because you’d feel Christmas day is when people get new iOS devices and would buy the most apps.

For comparison, the company paid out a total of $ 20 billion to developers in the course of all of 2016, which itself is is a 40% enhance from final year. It also signifies that a total of $ 60 billion has been paid out to developers given that the App Shop launched in 2008 – with one third of that happening in just the final year.

In terms of exactly where this revenue came from, the U.S, China, Japan and the UK were the prime grossing global markets.

And China especially saw 90% development year-more than-year, which is a good sign for Apple. The Chinese marketplace is a important focus for the company’s international growth method, and it is a great sign that Chinese customers are not only downloading a lot more apps, but also spending a lot more money on them. Speaking of China – the two highest-grossing app developers were Tencent and NetEase, each companies primarily based in the area.

In 2016 the App Store’s subscription service grew to $ 2.7 billion, a 74% enhance over 2015. Netflix, HBO Now, Line, Tinder and MLB.com At Bat were the most common subscription solutions on the App Shop.

Lastly the business announced that there are now 21,000 apps on the iMessage App Store, which hopefully is a sign that developers are continuing to construct for the platform. For iMessage apps to truly thrive more than the lengthy term developers will require to move beyond the sticker apps and start off obtaining inventive – implementing factors like payments and video chat into iMessage apps – anything we’re now beginning to see.

TechCrunch

50 Years of Creating Hydrogen Vehicles, and Nevertheless No One Cares

The General Motors Electrovan celebrates its 50th anniversary asGeneral Motors

The year was 1966, and General Motors was working on the future. From January to October, some 200 people worked in three shifts on the Electrovan, the first electric vehicle powered by a hydrogen fuel cell. It had room for two, weighed 7,100 pounds, and could hit 60 mph in a not-quite-compelling 30 seconds.

But it was the first of its kind, a new way of doing things. Hydrogen-powered cars can be refueled in just a few minutes, are just as capable as their gas-loving counterparts, and emit nothing but water as a byproduct.

Today, GM heralded the Electrovan’s 50th birthday, noting it has since spent $ 2.5 billion developing fuel cell technology.

Rad, right? Yup, until you realize that for all that time and money, the automaker has made effectively zero progress getting humanity to ditch fossil fuels for hydrogen.

Plenty of folks are still pursuing this dream. Honda’s offering the Clarity Fuel Cell sedan in Japan. Toyota’s Mirai is available in the US, starting at nearly $ 60,000. Chevy just made a hydrogen-powered pickup for the US Army.

But no one’s solved the fundamental problems with hydrogen power: There’s no real infrastructure to get the fuel around the country and into cars. And while hydrogen’s the most abundant element in the universe, making it into a useable fuel often involves natural gas—hardly a zero-emissions process.

So yeah, GM marking 50 years of working on the stuff is like a a PhD celebrating his tenth year working on that thesis—and insisting he’ll be done real soon.

Go Back to Top. Skip To: Start of Article.

section-initial-s.jpgTesla

Ludicrous mode just got loonier.

Tesla Motors announced today its new Model S P100D model will hit 60 mph in 2.5 seconds, thanks to a bigger, 100-kWh battery. That’s an upgrade over the P90D’s 2.8 seconds, and just one tenth of a second slower than what the million-dollar Ferrari LaFerrari can do. Except that this is a four-door sedan. The P100D version of the Model X SUV will hit 60 mph in 2.9 seconds.

That’s the best stomach swirl for the money the auto industry has ever offered, and a terrific example of how much better electric cars are than internal combustion engines at delivering torque. The bigger battery will also offer 315 miles of range (up from just under 300) in the sedan, Tesla says—but not if you spend all your time enjoying that acceleration.

Of course, with great power comes great pricing. Well, great for Tesla, which is charging a base price of $ 134,500 for its fastest car ever. The P90D with “ludicrous mode” starts at $ 119,500. The Model X with the bigger pack starts at $ 135,500. If you’ve ordered a now measly-feeling P90D but haven’t gotten it yet, you can upgrade for $ 10,000. If you’re already driving one and now feel utterly lame, you can have the extra power installed, but it’ll cost you $ 20,000.

In June, Tesla introduced the cheaper Model S 60, powered by a 75-kWh pack running software that limits its capacity by 20 percent. Customers who later decide they want more power can hand over $ 9,000, for which Tesla hits a button to update the car’s software and “unlock” the battery’s extra capability.

It’s easy to imagine Tesla will do something similar with this bigger pack, for buyers who aren’t quite ready to spend the extra cash. Spend P90D money today, and once the 2.8 second sprint to 60 mph loses its edge, break out the credit card.

Is a 0 to 60 mph time improvement of .3 seconds worth the extra cash? Tesla hopes so, because it says every dollar it can make off its luxury models will help fund its efforts to build the long-awaited, affordable Model 3, which should enter production late next year.

Facebook has been exaggerating video views for two years

In a post on its marketing assist center, a Facebook employee announced the discrepancy and explained the distinction between how it defined the statistic, and how it was actually measured.

We had previously *defined* the Average Duration of Video Viewed as “total time spent watching a video divided by the total number of people who have played the video.” But we erroneously had *calculated* the Average Duration of Video Viewed as “the total time spent watching a video divided by *only* the number of folks who have viewed a video for 3 or more seconds.”

In response, Facebook says it really is introducing two new metrics:

Video Average Watch Time: the total watch time for your video, divided by the total quantity of video plays. This involves plays that commence automatically and on click. This will replace the Average Duration of Video Viewed metric.

Video Percentage Watched: reflects the percentage of your video somebody watches per session, averaged across all sessions of your video exactly where the video auto-played or was clicked to play. This will replace the Typical % Video Viewed metric.

As a user, this probably does not have an effect on you significantly. But even even though Facebook says the discrepancy did not affect billing, advertisers who relied on the numbers and outlets (like Engadget) who posted video to the platform might have far more questions. Bloomberg points out that Facebook is set to meet best advertisers next week during the Advertiser Week conference — we possibly haven’t heard the final of this.
Engadget RSS Feed