People need to stop saying this - it’s obvious completely false.
As soon as other app stores are involved, there will be paid exclusives. Equivalent to Joe Rogan on Spotify, or any of the streaming video services who commission studios to make content just for their platform.
It will definitely be impossible to avoid using multiple stores if you want access to the popular apps.
That isn’t true.
In order for it to be true you would need to explain how this would be possible if stores buy exclusive rights to apps.
30% is industry standard.
> nobody is forcing you to use the third party app store if it does exist. If you continued to use apple's curated store, you will continue to get the existing benefits. Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you.
It hurts the ecosystem - and all its users. Splitting the apps in multiple app stores is a nightmare
I don't get the point: the whole idea of Apple is to have everything under their control. Nobody is forcing anyone to use Apple devices
That Steam, and others you mention, charge 30% categorically undermines the whinging about Apple’s 30% being out of line.
I’m also curious about people’s thoughts on Sony pulling CDPR’s Cyberpunk 2077 from their Playstation store.
Steam is the only one on that list that takes 30% that I know of. MS store went through a period where they would pay you to put your app there.
Certainly false - just like with streaming video, platforms will pay for exclusives from popular developers to force users to visit their stores.
Epic will, and this is what they want
> Almost every game on steam can be purchased somewhere else, like icth.io or the game's website. 30% is industry standard among monopolistic players (Google play store, Apple app store, Steam).
That is a very different use case
The "correct" amount is the amount that everybody is happy to pay. If Epic doesn't want to pay 30%, then 30% is too high for them. That's OK -- nobody is forcing them to pay it.
The competition you're describing isn't the cost of running the app store; it's the cost of maintaining the entire Apple ecosystem, including iOS, new iPhone hardware, etc.
> Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you.
Yes it can, and I just explained how. But let me try to spell it out.
1. New iOS "app store" starts up, but only charges 0.1%. This is possible because they don't write the OS or any of the infrastructure; they're a simple indexer
2. Everyone moves over to this app store because the fees are cheaper.
3. Apple's revenue drops precipitously
4. In order to maintain the OS, Apple either a) raises the prices of iPhones b) starts selling my information c) invests less in the iPhone and iOS.
All three of those possibilities hurt me; so yes, a new app store does hurt me.
Boohoo, the most cash rich silicon company will have to compete. Brew or Cydia never ate into Apples profit margins, instead it allowed users to do things apple couldn't be bothered supporting (Like Bluetooth audio on the 3g iPhone on iOS 2.0). Having multiple app stores will allow users to circumvent government censorship in countries where Apple is forced to follow the governments demands.
Where does this "should" come from? Just because you don't think that's the best way to run an ecosystem doesn't mean nobody should be allowed to do it. If it's a bad model, that's Apple's problem, not yours. If you think you have a better model, start a new company with a different model.
> Not only that, without developers, there is no ecosystem. An iPhone without apps is less useful than an iPod touch with apps.
The fact that Apple has a rich and thriving ecosystem demonstrates that their business model works just fine.
> Having multiple app stores will allow users to circumvent government censorship in countries where Apple is forced to follow the governments demands.
Won't one of those government demands be, "No third party app stores"? (Or, "No third party app stores that we haven't approved"?)
It just shows it works for Apple. It doesn't show it works for everyone else. It's like slavery was a good system because it made the slave-owners rich and they thrived because of it.
This is only valid in a free market with lots of competition and information transparency. The crux of the argument is that this does not apply to the app store ecosystem.
Apple was already paid handsomely for OS development through the device's purchase price.
> Apple's revenue drops precipitously
Apple has some of the highest margins in the industry. They'll survive.
> In order to maintain the OS, Apple either a) raises the prices of iPhones b) starts selling my information c) invests less in the iPhone and iOS.
See my previous point.
As an iPhone user I prefer the single app store approach. Multiple app stores fragments the user experience, ultimately harming the experience of owning an iPhone. Especially when apps become exclusives to different stores, because they will.
It's one of the main reasons that I moved away from Android. I completely understand the "open system" argument for Android, but a fragmented user experience is a byproduct of that openness. The last android phone I had came with a Samsung store, Google play, and I believe a Verizon app store. As well, going from my Android phone to borrowing a friends meant learning a completely new UX almost every time. "Oh, you don't have a Samsung Android, so you don't have that particular app store, so you can't get the app... Sorry"
It's been several years now, so maybe that's changed, but the biggest thing that makes me stick with Apple is the consistency of the user experience, in both its OS and app store ecosystems.
You can tell people about apps and they know how and where to get them. See an app you like on another iPhone? You can probably install it on yours fairly easily. There's less confusion around the entire ecosystem because of its simplicity.
But there are plenty of good smartphones with alternate business models. If you don't like the fact that your apps are more expensive because Apple charges a 30% commission, then buy an Android and install a third-party app store.
I really don't understand the attitude.
how did you work out that the amount apple gets paid (30%) is the "correct" amount? The only way to find out is via competition. But due to the monopolistic powers of apple, there cannot be competition on their platform. Thus, we do not know the true cost of maintaining this platform - only that apple is able to maintain it with at least 30%.
> Don't take that choice away from me.
nobody is forcing you to use the third party app store if it does exist. If you continued to use apple's curated store, you will continue to get the existing benefits. Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you.