- App Store, and get 70% cut of X users
- Play Store, and get 70% cut of Y users
- Both, and get 70% cut of (X+Y) users
So as long as I can cover my development costs for both platforms, it makes sense to publish to both stores.
Let's say Google charged only 10%. Would that change which platforms I publish to? I would say no: I would still want to get 0.7X + 0.9Y.
Realistically, I'm sure the advantage would be so small so as to not amount to anything.
[citation needed]
A 10% change is not a 10% increase in profits, it's a 10% increase in margins. I could be going from 20% to 30%. I'd be making 50% more by porting my code to iOS than we previously forecast. Which also means I might invest more resources in doing it well which will also increase my profits. Because there is less risk involved with starting the project.
When you're trying to get a company to change directions, you need one really great reason or a lot of pretty good reasons. Sometimes one more reason is all you need.
The costs of porting are relevant to value of the new audience. The value to the old audience is negative (what are we losing while they are focused in something else). The value to the team is complicated, has to be weighed, and big changes like new APIs or new revenue structures tip that balance.
It's relevant to whether the rates are based on competition, or to put it the other way, whether competition affects the rate they can charge.
If Google charged a lower rate, would it change the calculation for porting to iOS, so that Apple might have to lower their rate too? No, because you can't reach iOS customers via Google Play, so if you want to sell to them you still have to pay whatever Apple demands:
> If iOS was profitable before it still is, if it wasn't it still isn't.
Distributing software through an app store is less expensive than distributing through brick-and-mortar retailers.
Other app stores and digital marketplaces often require users to use their in-app payment mechanism and forbid sellers from redirecting buyers to finish the transaction in another venue."
-- Apple's main findings.
The test should be whether Apple is charging a rate that is higher than it would charge under perfect competition. Not whether it's higher than traditional brick and mortar stores that obviously have higher distribution costs.
Indeed, the fact that both Apple and Google charge 30% could suggest collusion.