The argument here is that if you want to produce an app for iOS you have to provide it through the App Store and thus succumb to the 30% fee. The same applies if you're using Apples payment processing, which you actually have to use if you want to offer any in-app purchases on iOS. In addition Apple is the sole authority on what is and is not allowed on their storefront. If they deem your app is not acceptable, you have no alternative ways to distribute it to users. They can also kick you out if they think it's necessary, again leaving you with no alternatives.

Google does the same thing with Play Store. If you sell an app in Play Store, Google takes 30%. If you use Goolges payment processing, Google takes 30%. They can kick you out, not permit you in the store, etc. The difference is that a developer isn't forced to use the play Store or Googles payment processing.

You can distribute your APK in any way you want to and users can install any APK from any location they want to. You can absolutely sell your Android games on your own website and just provide an APK to a paying user and now you don't have to pay 30% out of every purchase. If you want to provide in-app purchases the user can provide their CC information and you're free to process the payment in any way you want to, again, circumventing Goolges cut.

This is the primary reason you can't get Fortnite from the play store, instead you have to download an install an APK. Epic also uses their own payment processing systems, so they don't need to pay anything to Google for IAPs. They can't do that on their iOS apps, meaning they're losing on some hefty profits simply because no alternative exists.

So it's not that Apple is jacking up the profits, rather you could say that you need to pay a hefty tax to provide your app to iOS users.

>This is the primary reason you can't get Fortnite from the play store, instead you have to download an install an APK. Epic also uses their own payment processing systems, so they don't need to pay anything to Google for IAPs.

One important point on this is that the Play Store does allow some apps distributed within it to do billing themselves [0], but not games, which is why Fortnite is distributed outside the Play store.

There are some other rules, but if you're building a cross-platform app, you should know that many Play Store distributed apps can do billing themselves on the grounds that they have "digital content that may be consumed outside of the app itself".

Spotify and Netflix do their own billing on Android, as opposed to iOS, where the Netflix app has a button to call a phone number that plays a voice recording telling you to go to netflix.com (web links to sign-up pages aren't allowed).

[0] https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/

I thought Apple was the originator of the 30% cut for app stores, and everybody else followed suit?

Yes, this is true.

People forget that there were phones before the iPhone decided all phones would be rectangles with touchscreens.

Those phones ran apps and games, and you downloaded them from app stores... there was in fact a cambrian explosion of app stores, when you made software you had to publish it to hundreds of them.

I can't remember the %, but it seems unlikely, in the fact of all that competition that it was as high as 30%.

> I can't remember the %, but it seems unlikely, in the fact of all that competition that it was as high as 30%.

Many of the J2ME etc app stores prior to Apple were run by network carriers, and their cuts were considerably higher than 30% - upwards of 50%, even more for things like direct carrier billing (the app would be charged to your phone bill).

Wouldn't Palm, Windows CE and Newton be a better analogue than dumbphones? The original iPhone had more in common with PDAs and the first wave of smartphones (Nokia N800 et al) than with little Motorola flip phones.

“dumbphones” had very useful and prolific apps with integrated carrier billing depending on the country.

Motorola phones might have been truely “dumb”, that wasn’t true for a Casio or a Panasonic phone for instance.

There were not really any public app stores like the Apple one. And cuts were, in general, much higher. Apple's app store took off so well because it offered a much better deal than the competition.

"App stores" were run by telcos back then. Usually a storefront selling J2ME apps via WAP and charging money to your phone bill. To be fair the most popular content was ringtones (of the MIDI type).

I think the BREW ecosystem had some solution to set up a store of this kind that they used to supply to carriers?

I have to give credit to Apple for taking power away from the telcos. They wanted to nickel and dime you for every app and feature. Getting even a dumb feature phone out the door required months of certification and the OS might get an update once in the device lifetime if at all.

Sometimes it takes an 800 lb gorilla (with fresh iPod $$$$$) to take on the other 800 lb gorillas, even if it mostly meant we spent the first 8 years or so paying ridiculous 2-year contracts for "subsidized" $700 phones.

>OS might get an update once in the device lifetime if at all.

And some how the lifetime of those phones were much longer than the iPhones, until they had to stop forcing updates which degraded performance.

Apple's updates often improve performance, and very rarely degrade it.

I can only speak for Japan, but all three major carriers here had app stores years before the iPhone launched.

(Apple's may have been the first store operated by a hardware maker rather than a carrier though.)

Yes, carriers had app stores, that were not generally open to anyone, and that took a much bigger cut than Apple.

> that were not generally open to anyone

Apple's store isn't open to anyone.

> and that took a much bigger cut than Apple.

AFAIK Docomo (largest carrier in Japan) took 9%. Are you sure you know what you're talking about here?

I don't see a reasonable definition by which the Apple app store is not open to anyone to publish in.

It's open to anyone Apple certifies, and not to anyone else. How is that different from Docomo's model 5-6 years earlier?

This is just wrong. Nokia had the Ovi store launched at around the same time as Apple’s App Store. Palm OS also had its own if I remember correctly.

"Around the same time" means it wasn't around before, no?

Sure there were in Europe.

I had plenty of J2ME and Symbian apps before iOS was even born.

You didn't get them from an app store open to the public like the Apple one, though, and neither did their developer get to keep a full 70% of the price.

How come it wasn't open to the public?

Send SMS, get download link, done.

Use the Web store from the phone provider, done.

Open for publishing, not buying.

Easy, one just had to have a business and apply to it.

They even had contests for apps. I did apply to one at Vodafone when the Sharp GX20 was released, to show off the device capabilities.

https://www.gamedev.net/forums/topic/166989-vodafone-javatm-...

> Vodafone is pleased to annouce the Vodafone Java(tm) Games Challenge 2003 - a competition for J2ME games developers. The top three winners will receive: - A Sharp-GX20 - The new Vodafone live! handset with QVGA screen resolution - A commercial contract with Vodafone to deploy the winning games onto Vodafone live! in several countries Vodafone live! currently attracts 1.5 million customers across 13 countries. Register at www.via.vodafone.com and submit your games by August, 1st !

And while they had lots of trash, the gatekeeping kept it lower than current store offerings full of copy-cats.

Apple's App Store didn't really have competition. The iPhone was pretty much an entirely new class of smartphone. The sheer volume of users compared to early smartphones meant you could sell an app for $1.99 and make loads of money, compared to Palm/WinMo apps that were more like $10+.

It took off because it was a good experience (one stop shopping) and because of the popularity of the iPhone. And of course it doesn't hurt that it was the only App Store for iOS.

In Europe your phone providers were also one stop shopping.

Yes, it used to be much higher before Apple.

What are you referring to exactly?

The carrier-run app stores that existed before Apple's. They charged much more than 30%, and were much harder to deal with.

Presumably Nintendo, etc

Nintendo doesn't take >30%

Game stores (e.g. consoles) always took at least 30%. Someone else already said they think Valve took (takes?) 30%. Carriers probably took more.

I think Valve takes a 30% cut on Steam and Steam predates the iOS App Store.

Industry standard compared to what? Certainly not credit card processing, which typically runs 3% to 5%. If you're referring to Google Play, well they just copied Apple. And at least on Android you can side-load.

Sony. Microsoft. Steam. Nintendo. Many physical retailers.

> If you're referring to Google Play, well they just copied Apple. And at least on Android you can side-load.

It's ironic how some people seem to like saying "well they just copied Apple" and expect Google to be absolved of the actions they think are bad, but for everything else they would vehemently deny Google copying Apple.

I think the 30% is a rough industry standard in most Retail sectors. Apple was basically pricing the App Store like an Online Retail store.

Yes, it was a reasonable take way back. But technology moved on and is fact that most of the technology advances accrued with Apple and not with consumers or developers. And this power position is locked by technical and legal means thus there is no possibility for others to wade in.

The issue is that Apple is not allowing cheaper app stores even in theory. Android does.

There is more going on besides price. The review process is also completely arbitrary. I don't like the whole thing that the only place to get apps is the app store. I will never buy any apple device as long as that is in place.

That’s exactly what keeps me buying Apple for my family and I. I credit their locked down App Store with saving me from spending hundreds of hours of my time dealing with malware over the last 10 years.

I've used android phones for a decade now and never once been affected by malware. If the issue is kids installing shady apps, you should probably use a parental lock for that.

The issue is people clicking on every link that comes their way via email or whatsapp.

And since I can’t stop them from clicking them, my only solution is to have them use iOS devices.

I don't see it mentioned (at all), but my hypothesis for 30% is that it is because of money laundering. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to provide gift cards, would have to limit spending per app, cap all the prices, monitor whale spenders, etc. Easiest just to make it unprofitable.

Considering that:

* iTunes gift cards regularly go on sale for 60-70% of its value on third party markets, and * 30% is a reasonable, to cheap, price to pay for money laundering,

I think your theory is unfounded.

Where did you get the "30%"? Last time I researched, it was much less than that. Even at casual glance now, highest figures seem to be at most 15%.

https://www.piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/381/3iie3...

Gift cards would be the least efficient method here for large amounts, so I guess it would not surprise me it's not used there. No one's gonna go hunting small amounts of gift cards on discount on ebay to launder tens of millions of dollars. But who knows...

30% is a pretty small price to pay for money laundering.