I don't want a situation where 10 apps means 10 different privacy agreements. I also don't want to deal with app companies directly for returns or their custom payment solutions — an "Amazon" is way better.
I’m really curious what you mean by this. Which additional transactions do you wish Apple would take a 30% cut on? You DoorDash orders, your rent, your salary?
That's not what they said. Apple already handles payment processing via Apple Pay for real world goods (Amazon, Food delivery, Wish), and does not take a cut of the transaction. Some people see Apple controlling payments for many companies as monopolistic and overreaching, but some (like the parent poster and myself to a degree) see it as a safer alternative to having trust dozens of different companies.
They haven’t developed it to not make money off of it.
There are serious costs involved in running an international payments system.
But that's very different from a proper 30% style cut.
Apple has none of the risk and somehow thinks it is appropriate to charge per transaction AND customer. Yes, they charge the companies who wish to integrate with apple pay a quarterly fee per card.
Apple customers are footing this bill, of course, as vendors and banks aren't just going to lose money. Apple is way out of line, and apple customers would benefit from informing themselves.
Heading to a billion and beyond in the next couple of years.
Tempting...
(Just experimenting with the idea, not that I actually agree with this line of thought.)
Again, not that I agree with this...just playing devil's advocate here.
I don't want to pay 30% on any transactions!
There isn't a lol big enough
No one forces you to side-load. I don't see how you not wanting something turns into "no one else should have it"
There's an obvious trade off for security/reliability, but I've still come across my fair share of terrible iPhone apps. Android definitely has a more freeware/open source vibe.
You're just annoyed because you want third party apps, but you don't want to follow their ToS :)
Now explain why the rest of us have to be limited to your choice only on our $1000+ mobile computers.
If you want to be happy with using the store for all your life's needs - that's completely fine. Nobody will argue with you here.
Otherwise, people should be able to download as they please.
Imagine if your electricity company only allowed 'approved Toasters' on their electric grid, complete with special plugins, and a 30% cut of the device.
It's an anti-competitive practice as old as time.
You mean like the days when Ma Bell limited the selection of phones that people could choose from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_AT%26T#Monopoly: 'Each phone was leased from AT&T on a monthly basis by customers, who generally paid for their phone and its connection many times over in cumulative lease fees. This monopoly made millions of extra dollars for AT&T, which had the secondary effect of greatly limiting phone choices and styles. AT&T strictly enforced policies against buying and using phones by other manufacturers that had not first been transferred to and re-rented from the local Bell monopoly. Many phones made by Western Electric thus carried the following disclaimer permanently molded into their housings: "BELL SYSTEM PROPERTY — NOT FOR SALE."'
* Some level of guarantee that every app on my phone has been vetted (it's not perfect of course, but is better than nothing). It's unlikely that anything to nefarious makes can make it onto my phone, and if it does, it'll be removed.
* I get a better fit and finish. Apps on the iPhone very often have a better quality to them.
* I get the ability to refund when needed.
* Personally, my support requirements go down. When my nephew calls me with a problem, I know that he didn't go download some random app from instructions he got from a friend.
Clearly, there's also some profit in there.
Edit: Perhaps to get to my point -- these were ALL known when I bought my phone, and for me, were part of the reason I bought it. If I was not ok with this, I would have bought an Android phone.
Bandcamp, for example, provides both digital and physical assets, and only takes a 10% - 15% cut. They provide a secure experience for their customers free of ads, malware, spyware and spam.
One is payment processing, the other's a unified market of 155 countries and 1+ billion users where all the headache of payments, local sales taxes, APIs, etc are taken care of.
How about we do what's often suggested: we spin the AppStore off as its own non-profit governing body and they can disclose their operating costs and increase / decrease their fee as needed. The rules then apply equally to Apple vs. non-Apple companies.
It’s not just payment processing. They provide other critically valuable services to developers such as App Review, Hosting, International Distribution, CoMarketing, Store APIs, Security, etc, etc, and they all have thousands of employees and cost billions to provide.
Apple Services:
- AppStore $ 15 billion
- Licencing $ 10 billion
- Apple Care & Others $ 7.5 billion
- Apple Music $ 5.4 billion
- iCloud $ 4.5 billion
- Third-Party Subscriptions $ 3.6 billion
Total: $46 billion
Remember, you're stating that Apple isn't able break even at a 10% fee for the App Store. Recall that Apple charges developers a yearly subscription (99 USD for non-enterprise accounts per year) to be able to submit something to the App Store. And additionally remember that your "co-marketing" cost should include the money Apple makes from advertisers on its App Store [1].
The items you mentioned as costs are standard for many similar internet service (hosting, security, customer APIs, etc. etc,.) that do not make nearly the amount of revenue Apple does with its App Store.
Let's do a worst case and cut Apple's estimated App Store revenue from $15 billion to $5 billion a year to show how ridiculous the claim that they can't break even is.
And the $99 and ad revenues are service revenues. So their audited financials say, taking all of those revenues, that services expenses are roughly 32% of their revenues. Obviously this doesn’t include administration costs, interest costs or taxes.
32% of 30% is 9.6%, so it’s possible that’s their break even level, or even a little lower if App Store margins are higher than other services. But it’s unlikely because it’s likely the billions in the Google Safari placement check is close to 100% margin, meaning the rest of services has to have margins well under 68%.
Some people realized that they could sell each of those 100 slots at $5-10 to people who really wanted to use the beta (NB: previously iOS did not have public betas), hence "UDID registration".
Later, some of those people realized they could also sell you the code signing certificate that's generated by the real Apple developer account; valid for up to 1 year. That means you have the option of purchasing a real code signing certificate that allows you to sideload apps on non-jailbroken iPhones.
>Starting at $8.99, we also provide Certificate & Provisioning files that can be used to install any app, including apps you've created and those not found on the App Store.
Looks like they're essentially "sharing" developer accounts.
If Apple allowed sideloading the entire point would be, of course, moot, but Apple's continued refusal to allow this is really the biggest problem, IMO.