As a user, I am generally in favor of Apple requiring the option to purchase items and subscriptions through the App Store. I would never subscribe to, for example, HBO NOW if I thought I’d have to go through HBO (owned by AT&T) in order to unsubscribe. I want the guarantee of easy cancellation.
I am also fine with Apple collecting a modest fee for providing that service. That fee should probably be somewhere in the 2-3% range. Demanding what amounts to a 30% “introducer fee” is beyond absurd.
I also do not approve of how inconsistently Apple enforces their own rules.
> I would never subscribe to, for example, HBO NOW if I thought I’d have to go through HBO (owned by AT&T) in order to unsubscribe. I want the guarantee of easy cancellation.
Maybe it is just me but as long as I can cancel the subscription on a mobile website or a desktop website without talking or calling anyone, I really really don’t care.
Also the fact that I rarely have to do these subscribing/unsubscribing.
>I am also fine with Apple collecting a modest fee for providing that service. That fee should probably be somewhere in the 2-3% range.
Apple's cut isn't for payment processing, even if developers insist that's all they do. It's for access to their marketplace and their very large user base.
To me it seems more like paying for shelf space, and iTunes is probably a lot cheaper than what you used to pay for physical shelf space. However, physical games (and downloads) for the Switch (or other game systems) cost a lot more than 99 cent games for the iPhone and iPad.
But Apple does sell paid search/advertising results.
It is for processing payments, and for doing it in such a way that users are comfortable making payments.
It's for curating the marketplace and designing the OS to safeguard information, so that users can trust the apps they install.
It is for developing the features that serve as the backbone of the apps that developers create---cloud storage, augmented reality, machine learning, high performance graphics, cryptography, peer-to-peer networking.
Of course we can imagine different business models. This one certainly has negative tradeoffs. But I think developers get a great deal for the 30% tax, and the formula has undeniably been successful in producing a marketplace where users are more comfortable spending money---the App Store has nearly double the revenue of Google Play, with a fifth the market share.
(To me, the $99 developer fee seems more to do with anti-fraud than anything. With that you get two professional technical support incidents, almost guaranteed to cost Apple more than $99 in wages.)
Clearly, though, Apple's rules incentivized developers to handle payments outside the App Store, and now they're upset that they've created a situation where they're getting a 0% cut. And undoubtedly it hurts the user experience when you can't sign up on-device.
Those things are all true, but fundamentally their share isn't about any specific API or "service" they provide on the platform. That they do all those things makes it an attractive place to sell your product. But the basic reason is that they've amassed a large number of highly valuable users who are willing to spend money on apps on their marketplace.
Exactly. Apple as a market leader selling access, has monopoly over its own market, and is obliged to compete fairly when it distributes apps to that market. That's why the antitrust cases' result is pretty obvious even now.
It's cyclic - the developers wouldn't have been able to build software for the iPhone if Apple hadn't developed the iPhone and the App store in the first place. But the App Store would be useless (see Windows Phone et al.) if there were no software in it.
I am also fine with Apple collecting a modest fee for providing that service. That fee should probably be somewhere in the 2-3% range. Demanding what amounts to a 30% “introducer fee” is beyond absurd.
I also do not approve of how inconsistently Apple enforces their own rules.