At this point, I don't think it's an economic calculation anymore, if it ever was. I think it's moreso that Apple genuinely believes that third parties shouldn't have access to their platforms without prior review. Everything else has an explanation from that:
- We need to monopolize control over who can publish software for our platforms, so we can enforce our security guidelines.
(This includes banning third-party app stores, emulators, virtualization, alternative browser engines, and all the other fun things Android users chuckle at iPhone users about.)
- Hiring reviewers to check all the apps we ship for problems costs money, so we need to get paid for that review.
- However, we can't just charge developers money for review, as it would be prohibitively expensive and encourage developers to not fix broken software.
(At this point we need to review what Apple's competition was in this space at the time of the App Store launch. That is, game consoles, which have been universally locked down and monopolized since 1985. The companies that owned those platforms generally charged per software build submitted for review. The cost per submission was somewhere in the 5 figure range and could take up to a month to approve. Nintendo was extra spiteful, and would actually refuse to pay you after you updated your game, until you sold another 1000 units. Steam didn't really bother reviewing software submissions, not because it was a free-for-all, but because partnering with them used to be a legitimate challenge involving bugging several different Valve employees.)
- Therefore, we need to bundle how we get paid for reviewing software into the cost structure of apps. That way, we get paid when developers get paid.
- Thus, we can't have third-party billing, because that would let developers evade payment for our software review.
I didn't want to get into that part of it, but Apple definitely needs developers just as much as developers need them. They tried "just make webapps" (which is way better if your main focus is security over all else) for a year and realized very quickly on that they needed native software for their phones.
I know, it's not popular to be on the developers' side. But being an Apple developer many times feels like being an unpaid employee. Apple users get value from your work, for free. Actually, it's not even free since you have to pay a subscription and buy Apple hardware
Monetization is so broken.. the whole model is designed to discourage legitimate app sales. If I didn't enjoy my work I'd think I'm crazy
- We need to monopolize control over who can publish software for our platforms, so we can enforce our security guidelines.
(This includes banning third-party app stores, emulators, virtualization, alternative browser engines, and all the other fun things Android users chuckle at iPhone users about.)
- Hiring reviewers to check all the apps we ship for problems costs money, so we need to get paid for that review.
- However, we can't just charge developers money for review, as it would be prohibitively expensive and encourage developers to not fix broken software.
(At this point we need to review what Apple's competition was in this space at the time of the App Store launch. That is, game consoles, which have been universally locked down and monopolized since 1985. The companies that owned those platforms generally charged per software build submitted for review. The cost per submission was somewhere in the 5 figure range and could take up to a month to approve. Nintendo was extra spiteful, and would actually refuse to pay you after you updated your game, until you sold another 1000 units. Steam didn't really bother reviewing software submissions, not because it was a free-for-all, but because partnering with them used to be a legitimate challenge involving bugging several different Valve employees.)
- Therefore, we need to bundle how we get paid for reviewing software into the cost structure of apps. That way, we get paid when developers get paid.
- Thus, we can't have third-party billing, because that would let developers evade payment for our software review.