Btw you can have apps that do not use any of Apple SDKs (for example engines will use the OS core and neither of the fancy GUI toolkits and languages)
Well i go back to my argument of isnt that like saying: "i like to use your ebook platform to sell my stuff, but i dont want to pay for it"
the fact that you switched from software to ebook does not change the fact that you want to choose to be able to sell without giving a commission to apple for the store they did set up
You are defending Apple not allowing developers to present their customers a simple text information, at least for now your banking apps are not taxed by Apple.
But what would be a fair price? Given how cheap bandwidth and storage is would $50,000 suffice? Surely that's closer to apples real costs than 30% of hundreds of million dollars they want now?
Why is web hosting so cheap and you have so many options? Because of competition, allow competition with at least 5 stores and you will see different prices and features.
Party B, after using your premuim service, decide he will use your service just as a frontstore, sending your customer to his own website to complete purchase.
in your opinion that is a fair situation?
If you want to start to sell ebooks (or anything really) you get an advantage by placing it in a well known store, you can prove me wrong but i think that is a fair statement.
So it is really hard for me to accept as fair a situation where you could build a store, build the brand reputation, host other people product and not get a compensation.
If you think the Apple Sore brand or "top apps" is important then have extra options (like web hosting). So I might not want my app to be promoted, I just want my users to be able to install the app I link from my website similar how they can install it on their PC. If my updates are eat6inb bandwidth then I pay for that, if I want to be promoted I can pay for that, if I want support I can pay for that, if I want an IDE I can pay for that etc.
I think you are putting popular apps like Netflix,Epic,Dropbox, my bank thagt have no choice to be on all platforms with some small video game or TODO app that benefits by getting exposed to people on a "Top apps" or "Similar apps" screen.
Also I don't believe Apple is incapable of creating more fair rules(maybe you can't come up with this rules but Apple has the money to spend on smart people to work a few months on this) they don't want to do it.
If I get kicked off of Epic’s platform. Where do I go?
Steam, GOG, Windows Store, itch.io put your app on mega/GDrive,Dropbox and share the link on Facebook and Twitter should I continue ?
Why does Epic get to be the only company that can sell virtual currency in Fortnite?
What if instead of buying apps with money, Apple made everyone by “Apple points” to buy things on the App Store like MS use to do?
There are more then 1 alternatives to Fortnite but I can't name them. This is a bad example, you compare 1 free game with a store. Stay on topic and let/s compare stores like Google Play, Steam, GOG etc. Is Steam taking 30% if you buy some skin in a game? Is GOG doing that? Are this stores blocking you showing a text with a link to your website purchase page?
Yes.
> We want access to all your platform and tools for free?
Well, they do pay the $99 annual fee + cost of a Mac required for submitting to the store :)
More seriously, you are wrong because Epic/Spotify/etc don't mind giving apple money when they use their payment infrastructure _but_ want to be able to also use their own infrastructure and sell things 30% cheaper.
And yes, for companies with multiple sale points (fortnite is also on PC and consoles ?), apple TOS forbids Epic selling things cheaper elsewhere which means in-game item prices are artificially increased by up to 30% on _all platforms_.
Or means that Epic takes a 30% hit on revenue on the App Store and Google Play Store in exchange for the services provided.
Do you honestly believe that this is about Epic trying to lower prices for their users? It's not, it's about Epic getting all of the pie instead of just 70% of the pie. If Apple had caved before this stunt then prices would have stayed the same, but Epic would be taking it all themselves rather than having to pay Apple the 30% cut.
Apple and google already allow certain companies (uber, netflix,... ) to pay much less which by itself is anti-competitive.
what would be apple alternatives that would not imply giving away services for free? i still have an hard time understanding this part: i understand that 30% cut i a lot i am not defending the 30% tax.
Still, there's a giant difference - Amazon's "customer pool" isn't forced to buy only on Amazon and Amazon doesn't force YOU to ONLY sell the same item to that "customer pool" (I like how you use a term that makes people seem like inanimate objects.) via Amazon.
This is a massive difference. All the benefits of free market (as opposed to command economy) are derived from customers being able to freely choose another vendor and product to purchase. Monopolized integrated services are just a corporate version of command economy where a single actor dictates pricing and eliminates competition leading to severe lack of innovation and worse products for everyone.
At this point the 30% is basically free money they get on someone elses hard work. And there is no consistency, some companies pay much less.
This is even more wrong in case of Spotify which is a direct competitor to apple music. Apple basically makes their competition 30% more expensive hence less competitive. (And you can by no means claim Spotify is big because of app store so the fee is fair, they exited before the first iPhone)
with that in mind isnt the request of Epic something like: "We want access to all your platform and tools for free?"