And hopefully we shall see more open source projects flourishing on iDevices - Apple app store has crippled open source development on ios / iPadOS because it lets Apple exploits for-profit developers, while non-profit developers who can't or won't give in to the extortion are denied a platform for their software. It also has been in Apple's interest to not allow open source software to flourish here, as most of them are popular, free and avoid adware (which goes against Apple's tried and tested business model of extorting money from non-free software or pushing "free" apps to bundle ads through their ad platform).

Apple run their ecosystem like the British Empire ran it's trade, it rarely goes outside of it.

Hope this policy also applied to consoles. They also take 30% from game developers.

Devil's advocate here: For their cut, the console manufacturers provide more than Apple does. At the very least, you usually have actual humans you can talk to when there are problems. They have a much stronger argument for taking 30%.

Whether they provide more in exchange for a mandatory fee begs the question of whether the fee should be mandatory in the first place (I.e forced to use their store)

Yeah, I do think it would be nice if you could sideload or use other stores on consoles, but I also think that it would cause consoles to get a lot more expensive, and also make the barrier to entry to publishing a game on consoles higher.

Sony and Microsoft sell their consoles at a loss for a large part of the consoles' lifetime. (There was even news recently that Microsoft is still losing money on the latest gen xboxes.) They do this because they can recoup that loss via the cut they get from games. Once that becomes not as certain, the calculus will change, and likely more towards breaking even on the hardware from the start. Is Apple selling their hardware at a loss?

And again, Sony and Microsoft just straight up provide more support to console devs than Apple does to app devs. A lot of those additional services are related to either publishing itself, or to online services for players. How much does it cost to get a human being on the line from Apple, that can actually do something to help solve your problem?

I'm not sure that they would become much more expensive. While Microsoft is choosing to sell theirs for a loss, Sony and Nintendo are not and they both seem to be doing fine.

I also don't think that it would cause a landslide of games/gamers to move. E.g. The PC market is as free as they come, and Steam for all its flaws is the defacto game store.

Microsoft doesn't get to charge the 30% fee, but the games outside the store also don't get to use the XBox live network and the current developer support.

And again, while it's great that you get more help and support from Sony/Microsoft in exchange for the 30%, it doesn't change the fact that you're forced to pay it.

Steam for a long time also charged something like 30%, so that wasn't a free lunch. Even now it isn't. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a discussion on what the console manufacturers do and how much they take as their cut, but we should be careful to equate the two ecosystems. My worry is Apple going 'See, if they can do it, why can't we?'

If we treat the two as separate problems, though with similar outcomes, we might be more successful finding a cure to both rather than a bandaid to either.

Right, my point about steam was that even thought it charge a high amount AND the pc market is completely free, people (gamers and developers) still flock to it.

In the same way that while google allows side loading and competing app stores, essentially everyone uses the Play Store.

While I can see your concern, for that discussion to be had we’d need to first demonstrate that they should in fact be treated different. That isn’t a given.

I haven’t spelt it out, but reading https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?toc=OJ%3AL%3... I can’t find any clear indication that this act affects that for apps.

The closest I find is article 41:

“The ability of end users to acquire content, subscriptions, features or other items outside the core platform services of the gatekeeper should not be undermined or restricted. In particular, a situation should be avoided whereby gatekeepers restrict end users from access to, and use of, such services via a software application running on their core platform service. For example, subscribers to online content purchased outside a software application, software application store or virtual assistant should not be prevented from accessing such online content on a software application on the core platform service of the gatekeeper simply because it was purchased outside such software application, software application store or virtual assistant.”

that may mean third party App Stores would be free from paying the gatekeeper for access to their platform, but I’m not sure about that.