That’s true globally, but in the US, iPhones are 60% of the smartphone market. In the US, iPhone users are also younger, more affluent, more educated, and I suspect more likely to fly than Android users. iOS users also dominate in app spending. And from a practical standpoint, 93% of iPhone users are on the latest version of iOS within six months, compared to 20% of Android users, which is huge when it comes to development costs.

Source: https://adapty.io/blog/iphone-vs-android-users/

I've seen many developers who released the same app on both iOS and Android and realized that Apple platforms still provide them with 80% of revenue for 20% of users.

Not that many people on Android are willing to pay $60 for an app.

>It means it's strictly unavailable for ~80% of people out there on Windows/Linux/Android?

Those platforms don't generate revenue

Ok, post that as a top comment, it's completely irrelevant to the comment that it replied to.

Like GP, I'm also a paid subscriber and I couldn't care less where else it's available. If anything, it being a native app rather than a multiplatform JS wrapper is a plus to me.

It's a business - they're targeting revenues. Making it multi-platform would take alot of effort and the value just isn't there for them right now. The smart move is for them to become awesome on iOS (maybe they're close?) and then create an Android CX.

BTW, them being iOS-only means they're probably getting lots of marketing support from Apple and other perks. That can really help a startup.

Yes, but the question is how it makes money, not whether it could make more money by expanding into other OS’s.