I do not agree that the revenue is necessarily because of higher-quality apps. Apple iPhones are regarded in many markets as luxury goods bought by people with more disposable income, so the increased revenue could well be attributable to having a wealthier customer base that is willing to spend more on app/in-app purchases. In this case, opening up the market to competition might be beneficial to existing App Store developers.
App Store does help developers make more money than if they were not on it, but being on it is the only practical way for them to gain access to iPhone users (they could ask users to jailbreak their phones instead but that is impractical for most). If the courts order Apple to allow competing app stores, users would still benefit from Apple's curation, and developers would still benefit from the distribution by using Apple App Store, but they would have a viable choice of picking another app store without having to change to another OS (for users) or abandoning the largest market (for developers).
Sure it is - because Apps are curated, you can charge more for them. If there are free alternatives available everywhere, people will be less likely to pay.
> In this case, opening up the market to competition might be beneficial to existing App Store developers.
Only true if the 50% revenue increase disappears (Which is likely with a flood of free apps). Not only that, but more free apps = more privacy violations.
> App Store does help.....
So the App Store is a net benefit - what, exactly, is the problem? There is no demonstrable harm. The small apps got a cut on the fee earlier this year. Now it's just megacorps trying to get as much of the pie as they can, in a way that hurts consumers.
Also allowing 3rd party applications to control critical features is a privacy/security issue I haven't seen addressed.
> Sure it is - because Apps are curated, you can charge more for them.
That is not a sure thing. Having a wealthier customer base could be as much or even bigger a reason for the higher revenue. And curated apps still have to compete with each other.
> If there are free alternatives available everywhere, people will be less likely to pay.
If this were really the case, it would actually be an argument for increased competition because it would be better for the consumers. However, I do not think that it is true because almost 93% of apps in the App Store are already free.[1] So the 100% revenue difference probably would not disappear. And free apps would have to follow Apple's privacy rules, as they do now.
> So the App Store is a net benefit - what, exactly, is the problem?
Of course it is a net benefit. Even if overall fees were 99%, it would still be a net benefit to both consumers and developers because retaining 1% is still better than nothing for developers, and having a software repository is very valuable for users. No-one is suggesting shutting down the App Store. What is being suggested is for Apple to allow other firms to compete against it, because they control almost two-thirds of the market by revenue and can dictate the terms to the participants.
> There is no demonstrable harm.
That is for Epic to prove. They would try to demonstrate that they suffered harm after violating App Store terms by offering a competing payment method, and that it is anti-competitive for Apple to eject Epic's app, given its market position. Regulators would also have their own methods of determining whether harm occurred.
A fair portion as well is that Apple takes paid/subscription apps on the store more seriously. Apple believes people should be willing to pay money for things (since Apple sells products) and Google believes people want advertising-supported free content (because that is _their_ business model).
> Apple takes paid/subscription apps on the store more seriously
I understand what you wrote about the two companies' motivations but what do you mean when you write that Apple takes paid apps more seriously? What app store policy differences are you thinking of, for example, between Apple and Google, that suggest a more serious attitude?
I think users would stop benefiting as soon as some critical service they use like Gmail or Instagram moves to one of these third party app stores to avoid Apple's increasingly aggressive privacy requirements.
App Store does help developers make more money than if they were not on it, but being on it is the only practical way for them to gain access to iPhone users (they could ask users to jailbreak their phones instead but that is impractical for most). If the courts order Apple to allow competing app stores, users would still benefit from Apple's curation, and developers would still benefit from the distribution by using Apple App Store, but they would have a viable choice of picking another app store without having to change to another OS (for users) or abandoning the largest market (for developers).