IIRC Epic Games internally calculated that for their store the break-even point was around 9%. (They mostly run it as a loss leader at a default 12%, but with tons of giveaways and deals, so that percent can go as low as 0%.) So I think somewhere around 15-18% might feel “fair” to me, trying to take into account the value of the platform.

Why wonder whats fair when we could let the market decide?

E-feudalism isn't capitalism.

The gatekeepers are governments without democratic representation. Wondering what fair exploitation looks like is choosing a warped perspective.

That is exactly what happens if they can enforce payments: "you don't get to be on our store if you're bypassing this"

But it isn't what is happening if they are staying on the platform's marketplaces and also bypassing payments. There is no "market" effect there.

Not saying I agree with the 30%, but third party app stores exist. That is the market avenue (and no one uses them).

"There is no market effect"? Why do the market effects disappear if some of the players don't play completely according to the desires of other players? Why couldn't it be that the optimum includes some amount of fee dodging?

The app store obviously gives value to the app developers. When you put your app on the store you agree to the 30%.

You didn't answer my question. Why can't the optimum include some fee dodging? I agree that the app stores provide value to the developers, but it's also true that apps provide value to Google and Apple. If no one developed any apps, no one would use iOS or Android. Therefore it's possible that Google and Apple benefit more from an app that dodges fees but brings in users than from neither having the app nor those users.

They created a market and they are charging to be on the market. If you're saying "I want to be on the market but by my own rules" that's not a free market effect, it's breaking a contract.

If you say "fine, I'll go on another app store" then that is a free market in action - but good luck getting anyone to download your game.

When two entities control essentially the whole "market" for mobile OSes and associated app stores, and use their position to force their app stores on everyone, you no longer have a market. If we just forcibly split Google and Apple into smaller companies with separate app stores then maybe we could see what markets would do.

Third party app stores exist, and they work on android.

But the problem is that when everyone has gravitated to the two biggest app stores, there's no scope for market competition. The point is not just to have third-party app stores, it's to not have huge app stores that capture the whole user base.

Retail stores have always charged 30-40% so that's where the number comes from. You can see the exact breakdown in Europe: it's x% for payment processing, y% for app review/downloads/updates, and z% for recommendations etc. They're fighting to hold on to it because it's billions of dollars of profit. Obviously the app stores do not need or deserve 30% but that argument could apply to any profitable company.

30% has been the video games cut going as far back as the NES. Mobile app stores adopted that standard figure.

because the app store needs to build hardware cartridges....

30% on the App Store was an answer to Nokia’s Ovi store some 70%!

Damn that's absolutely ridiculous. It makes me feel less bad for Nokia CEO's burning platform speech.

It’s a fascinating story:

One of their last Symbian phones, the N8 (and if you ask me, one of the most beautiful ever designed), sold very well, some 4 million units! But the ground was shifting so much, that even that couldn’t save them.

The fact you're thinking 10% is good enough is why you're not part of the cohort which is driven to be 100+ billionaires, more powerful than states, people

If more people would just be insanely greedy they would probably be billionaires too!

Many people are insanely greedy. Becoming a billionaire is exceedingly difficult. It’s not a matter of others simply not wanting it enough.

Maybe we should be identifying those types of people and preventing them from ever controlling anything?

I mean, if we ever want society to improve at all

Maybe we need to limit them a bit more, but there's an evolutionary factor or purpose or something at play. I remember a psychology lecture where they talked about it and how in hunter and gather societies most people would be content for a while when they found a good gathering area, they would hang out and gather the food and eat. But they had certain people that didn't want to stay they just wanted to move on to find the next better gathering area and would practically be forced to eat and carry enough food before they could keep searching. Those people were important too, and I feel that's the psychology of billionaires today. There is never enough they don't even actually care about the bounty it's just the idea of getting more and more.

I also remember an experiment found that something like 8% of people swerve over to purposely hit turtles on the shoulder of the road. I would be much more interested in identifying and containing those people.

I don't think most billionaires are the people seeking new berry patches. At best they once found a great berry patch, now they mostly are paying other people to find berries for them

All I'm saying is that if there aren't enough berries to go around, maybe we should be taking a long look at the people hoarding enough berries to feed thousands of other people

doesn't sound like freedom to me

If you want absolute freedom for people to exploit society for their personal gain, then I want absolute freedom to use a brick to cave in the skulls of anyone who behaves that way

The fact is that any decent society has restrictions on absolute freedom for good reasons

There's a long gap between "absolute freedom" and "you have personally been deemed too greedy to operate a business" (by whom is the most dangerous factor)

they probably regret not making it higher, they're making mountains of money

It's an ungodly corrupting amount of money.

The market owner sets the rates. If you are not happy, good luck creating your own market with your huge user base.

> even 10% would still give quite a profit to stores

In other words, 30% would give quite a profit to stores, plus 20%. That's why giants are fighting tooth and nail to keep it.