Every stupid app would have its own store if they did. As an iOS user, that would be detrimental to my user experience.
We're seeing a similar phenomenon in the streaming space now, and it's horribly obnoxious. Hardware lock-in is the only thing keeping app distribution on iOS sane.
Before the "but android" rebuttal, consider the more comparable (IMO) situation of wallet apps on android.
Paddle.com do this as a standalone service for any digital product (I use them for my SaaS).
It costs 5%, and that covers all payment transaction fees too, they handle local VAT for the whole world, includes subscriber management tools etc, and they directly handle support for all billing-related requests from your customers.
30% is extortionate.
If it is a reasonable price, why not compete against alternatives fairly?
If you are an iOS developer and and 2 other stores would exists, then you would publish on all to maximize your profit, and hard core Apple fans still get their app from the Apple store but it could cost a bit more.
I fear that the endgame of multiple App stores is that the guarantee Apple gives (for instance with the privacy labels) will be sidestepped by businesses like Facebook who will force people through their own store without them.
Seeing how many people don't read the small print and just install everything available to them that's the most probable outcome.
Exclusives are not that many and instead of fighting like idiots to have only one store we could ask laws to block artificial exclusives.
On PC is not a big deal to install Origin and play a game if you are desperate, on iOS you can't install stuff without a big effort to jailbreak your device (though you can do it on OSX and I did not see any malware/viruses or similar complaints)
I think we’d agree reducing/eliminating undue middle-men fees should be a goal whatever the amount.
In particular Spotify for instance gets little benefit from having Apple as a middlemen, while smaller players would sure appreciate the convenience. The argument would be to have a choice to rely or not on what Apple provides.
This whole perverse 'ecosystem' exists because of the skewed oligopoly dynamics of mobile phones.
This would not be permitted on other platforms, but mobile devices seem to have a new level of monopoly.
For the companies that can, that cost gets transferred to the purchaser.
But for those who can't, for example Spotify who has to compete with Apple Music that has no %, it gets absorbed by the company.
There is no way that the services that Apple provide are worth 30%. 10% would be already too much in my humble opinion.
But then again you have the advantage for apple music who can go 10% lower than the competition in price.
I spoke once to a guy who was selling English language courses on CDs in brick and mortar stores plus he was sending courses by snail mail. He's got interested in that new at that time App Store thing, so I've asked him about the fee. He said that comparing to his current packaging and distrubution costs, paying stores only to be able to put his product on a shelf those 30% is a laughably small fee.