Yet, let's say this were true, or even the most likely scenario. Now you have 3 scenarios, ALL of which portray "Apple = bad, Basecamp = good."
When I see something that one-sided, I'm immediately suspicious that there's something missing here that we're not seeing...
HEY is far far far from the only example of Apple abusing their position as gatekeeper to iPhone users
In comparison, with computers there's a much clearer separation between the device itself and third-party integrations. Almost everyone customizes their computer by installing software on it, and the computer and OS itself don't provide the main value - instead, it's a tool to run different software applications on it, and so Apple's attempt to control third-party software based on the fact that they make the hardware and OS is an attempt to use their power in one market to interfere in another, rather than just an attempt to control their product.
And to take this further: supposing that cars were people's primary computing devices, and everyone began using apps on their car, I would argue that car companies would be obligated to let people install the apps of their choosing.
I think the market share argument also tends to ignore the economics of how the software business works (and as you stated, all the high-paying users are on iOS, because they're generally higher-end devices than Android). If I create a new service that Apple won't allow, and it's only available on Android, iOS users aren't going to switch no matter how good my service is (because that involves spending hundreds of dollars on a new device and transferring all your other services, which is a ridiculously high bar to clear). And without those users, the chances of my service surviving are much lower, so it's most likely going to disappear from Android as well. The result is that even though Apple has a minority market share, they end up controlling the entire ecosystem. And in turn, that means that when consumers are choosing a phone, they don't actually have a free choice to avoid Apple's policies, because even if they buy an Android phone, Apple's policies will affect the services available to them. (And since the available services end up being the same, more people buy iOS devices for various reasons, which increases Apple's power even further).
Let's assume that everything has been calculated. That DHH knew this would happen and that the whole thing was going to blow up the way it has.
On that assumption, is it truly disingenuous to anyone but Apple? It seems like it only benefits customers and smaller businesses, at least economically.
I can see the argument that the in-app purchase API is better and easier for customers to use. I actually really enjoy paying for things with Apple Pay. That benefit makes sense, from a consumer perspective.
On the other hand though, a 30% commission benefits only Apple. If this was a 5% cut it would be expensive, but comparable to Stripe and Braintree, which fall in the 1-3% range. Even a 10% cut would be similar. In this scenario, Apple would get a substantial amount of cash, users would get the Apple Pay experience, and it would be easier for developers to stomach the cost. The fact of the matter is that the 30% amount is entirely arbitrary. That cost is either eaten by customers or by developers, and doesn't benefit anyone but Apple.
Running the App Store isn't free. I can definitely see them asking for some amount of cash for bandwidth or maintenance, and I can see justifying _some_ percentage fee or some proportional fee. It's just that for a lot of people, 30% is exorbitant for the value offered.
Also it's Apple's decision to subsidize all the free app with fees from the paid apps. Why not charge some fee to free apps after 100k / 1 million downloads or something instead of having all the burden on the paid apps?
They decided it's worth it to have this free stuff on the app store to juice up their numbers, so why should it be so expensive for paid apps developers?
I'm not sure the support developers get from that 30% cut when they have app store problem really feel like it's worth it.
There are so many more reasonable fees level and structures they could try, but no. They're stuck to that level from 2002 when apps were new.
The value offered isn't the service of processing the payment or being listed in an app store directory. These are small things. What you're really paying for is the ability to access the iOS market: one of the largest and most successful platforms in the world. That has tremendous value.
How many developers look at the fee, see the app they want to make and realize they would never be able to charge enough to make it worth it after the cut and the sales taxes? I think that's one reason the iPad software is not the success it could be.
This idea that the only value the store has to apple.is the fees from app sales is missing the actual value of the store
It makes the iPhone more valuable allowing them to charge a premium price for the hardware
Their push of security and privacy in the store give the ecosystem more value. I know many people that have choosen to by iPhone over Android for this policy.
The appstore is one of apples market separataing feature to sell the iphone
When you enter a store and get robbed by the owner, 'well don't go to that store anymore' is not a very good response, because before you know it, every store will decide to rob you and what happens then?
That's why we have a legislative branch of government that makes laws to protect citizens from one another and a judicial branch to interpret the laws to make sure we're doing what's best for everyone involved.
We have a legislative branch of government that has ruled 'protection' fees illegal.
You and many others seem to be failing to grasp this point - just because you write something down and call it terms of use, does not mean those terms of use will not or cannot be overruled by the legislative branch of government.
They can be overruled and many people feel like they should be overruled in this specific instance.
1) win, and are seen as "David beating Goliath" , or
2) lose, and Apple comes off as the bad guy trying to fleece a private company.
(They could also lose because they weren't clear on the actual policies, a la the "malice vs. incompetence" rule of thumb. However Basecamp and its team have been in the game long enough to know what to expect with the App Store. I don't KNOW that, but that's my analysis here.)
My argument around this goes back to market share: iOS owns, at best, 25% of the global market share for mobile operating systems [1]. Android is 3x that.
If you don't like the platform policies, they're a minor share of the market - you don't _have_ to use them.
"But $s3r3nity, that is where the paying users are!"
Yes, and the spend per person for lamborghini owners probably is much much higher than Prius owners, even though the latter vastly outnumber the former. That doesn't mean the former needs to support any company that wants to make a carplay / carOS service.
[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
EDIT: grammar / spelling