>> Not sure about Google, but Apple has deliberately prohibited developers from itemizing the 30% fee for consumers.

> As a consumer, I don't care if the fee is 30%. I have no idea if that's a lot

I think you're right about this particular example. But that's because rebelos identified the wrong problem. I would identify a different gag as the problem -- Apple prohibits you from directing your customers to other payment methods.

"Make your in-app purchase as conveniently as possible, right here and right now" vs "Pay 25% less by visiting our website" would kneecap Apple's app store revenue. Itemizing the fee is pointless.

> I think you're right about this particular example. But that's because rebelos identified the wrong problem. I would identify a different gag as the problem -- Apple prohibits you from directing your customers to other payment methods.

You're absolutely right that this is another angle that could be looked at. A third argument, particular to Apple, is simply that there is substantial harm to the consumer when a company maintains a stranglehold on software distribution for what might reasonably be considered a general purpose computer.

However, I vehemently disagree with the insinuation that disclosing the fee wouldn't provoke market forces to lower it to some more reasonable percent above cost. Sure it's a duopoly at present, but I suspect that might be enough to get competitive forces working properly.

> I vehemently disagree with the insinuation that disclosing the fee wouldn't provoke market forces to lower it to some more reasonable percent above cost.

100% is a fairly normal markup "above cost" for each step in a supply chain; it also makes Apple's 43% markup look modest.

And then you get into unresolvable arguments about what is and what isn't a cost.

Normally that supply chain involves many physical steps, manipulation, storage, inventory, loss prevention, etc.. here the supply chain is trivial and cheap. Comparing those as equivalent is not exactly honest.

So Apple's doing much less work and taking a much smaller markup.

You're absolutely correct that Apple is adding no value, which is a bigger reduction in value added than the reduction in their markup. But the problem isn't that they're applying an objectively high markup. They aren't. The problem is that there's no reason for them to be involved at all.

"Google and etc won't even let us tell you about how insane their tax is" is a much easier fight to win than "...also please legally mandate they allow us to run whatever we want on their phones, thanks" and both fights will probably lead to the same outcome.

Our phones. We own the phones.

their phones might have been referring to the user's phones in this context.

Is this true for Android? I guess rooting is a _bit_ of a problem, but otherwise you could do run alternative stores? I mean it's hard to actually make money off of that, of course.

For iOS it's essentially impossible, from my understanding. But there's stuff on android to let you install apps, after all?

Sure! But your notifications are liable to be killed off in the background, as you shouldn't be relying on Google Play Services while shipping on Super-Awesome-Store.

And if you want your users to install your app store, they'll have to know where to go and tell the OS "I want this installed, it's not malware".

And every time any single app through there requires an update, it must be manually approved and installed by the user. Google's evergreen background updates are exclusive to them.

And if Google Play Protect decides you store is malware because it distributes apps that Google thinks harms users, any user with (the heavily pushed) Google Play Protect turned on likely won't be using your store for long.

But it is technically possible.

In America many stores advertise their prices without tax. Then they add "+ Tax". If that tax would be 30% there would probably be a revolt.

But few advertise "wholsesale price" and then they add "+ Our profit".