On the other hand, if they offer a recipe app for free (because it contains no recipes, and let's face it, that's how you get quick user interest), then purchase recipes for $1.x each to cover the amortised app creation cost, you're basically just sidestepping the app store cut by any other name.
The dominant ios business model for apps currently is a basic version free to download, bigger functionality unlocked via in app purchase. Up front app costs are fading.
The first I think is obviously right the second is insane (and in between there are an infinite number of cases).
I don’t think the status quo is acceptable though.
Ah that sounds like a fair point at first, but it could be argued that you gained access to those sales because of Apple.
More importantly, they're processing payments for you, and every payment processor out there takes a cut, one way or the other.
How does the Windows Store and Xbox Marketplace work?
What about Epic's own games store?
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/windows
Windows/Android are different because the operating system itself is the product. People don't necessarily buy a Google phone or a Microsoft desktop, but they can still buy and run the operating system separately from the physical product.
The question is: if Apple should be forced to open up the iPhone ecosystem, why shouldn't Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo be forced to open up their systems for third party stores? Why are they allowed to take a mandatory cut from anyone that wants to publish on their platform, but Apple is not? To me it seems like a double standard if only Apple is forced to open up, but Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo are not.
Perhaps all hardware that is sold should be open and customisable, and I should be able to install a fresh OS on any piece of hardware I buy. That makes sense to me, but then that doesn't actually solve the problem at all. People will still buy an iPhone and use iOS, so now the OS itself needs to be open in some way. How do you write any of this in law at all?
On an iPhone, apple has made plenty of money already.
In any case, the main thing here is not the 30% that they charge when you buy the software, is that they want to keep getting 30% for the services and such, which is crazy.
Jokes aside, I'm sure you can find processors charging < 2% for customers with high volume. But you're right, it's certainly not standard. Maybe 2-4% is a more accurate range.
Point stands that it's a lot lower than 30%.
That seems directly comparable. The store wouldn't have any sales without the mall's infrastructure so it seems like they would be owed a cut of everything that happens in the store
I consider Amazon and the Apple App store to be not like stores or malls but like streets or cities. They are the market, not in the market, and if someone wants to enter the market they have to pay Apple/Amazon for the privilege. They bought/built the street and now instead of charging a cut they are charging a tax.
I did get access to a market/users via the store but I still don’t think that makes Apple eligible for a cut of sales in all apps that they don’t process.
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-gam...
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-windows-10-sweetene...
No one is angry about cuts from app prices (or prices that are effectively upgrades of an app e.g. from trial to full).
What I'm angry about is when apple wants X% of the price of content whhen they don't produce the content, they don't process the transaction. All they do is host the store where the $0 client app sits. I don't think it makes sense.
Which is excellent. Apple taking a cut for apps I have no problem with. They have support, I trust them with privacy/security and so on. That costs money.
The interesting discussion is how much apple can claim to own a part of profits made in the apps, by selling content (in-app purchases).
On one hand: if a game is free for a trial, and you can unlock the full game I think that should count as an app purchase (the alternative would be to not have in-app upgrades and just have 2 apps, which was a worse situation).
But on the other hand: if I buy a recipe app for $10 and then recipes for $1 a piece which I could also buy on the corresponding website, then I don't think apple should have a cut at all.