It will be smacked down hard is my prediction, because clearly Apple is trying to argue that they have an innate right to other parties' business income. It's the Mafia model: you have a partner in the business who wants a sizeable chunk of your gross without doing anything for it.
Of course they don't, those businesses are free to develop their own phones and not pay Apple at all.
Now maybe 15 percent is a more reasonable price, but Apple developed the phone, apple developed the SDK, apple made it available to everybody, heck Apple even developed the computer language used.
This is all available for anybody for a fixed percentage, which means that it scales pretty well with how much you make and it cost you nothing more than 100 dollars a year if you don't charge people.
This comment section is rich coming from a group that does thing like massively charge more for "enterprise plans" that are are basically nothing except SSO. You charge based on how much the person on the other side wants your stuff, not how much it costs to provide it. And businesses moving a lot of product on iOS definitely want it more.
But when you use the store, you need to pay for using and maintaining the store, which is the other 27%. Why would you expect to upload apps in the store and let them be downloaded for free?
Because that is the model that Apple has chosen for. If the downloads can be priced or can be free that is Apple's choice. Then they should raise the minimum price for distribution.
Distribution is a one-time expense, and it does not entitle you to a 30% cut of services that use Apps as endpoints. It's a mob move, taxation because you are powerful enough to harm another business, not because you have contributed to the business.
No, it's not. Distribution requires ongoing storage and bandwidth costs.
> It's a mob move, taxation because you are powerful enough to harm another business, not because you have contributed to the business.
This is just flaming. Apple absolutely have contributed to the business. They provide hosting, storage, versioning, a marketplace, storefront reviews, developer tools, various high-availability services (auth being one of them). We can argue all day how much that is worth, but it is definitely worth some number greater than 0, otherwise people would just ignore the platforms.
Explain please how distribution is tied in to the unknown price point at which the other company proceeds to do business?
Or are you arguing that the 30% cut is used to subsidize the remainder of the free apps?
You really should bone up on anti-competitive behavior before accusing people of flaming.
People are forced into this model, the alternatives have been degraded to the point that they no longer function for all intents and purposes you have to distribute your app through Apple.
This is a much more reasonable comment than your original coment.
> Explain please how distribution is tied in to the unknown price point at which the other company proceeds to do business?
This is not what you said, you said it was a one time expense. Those two statements are not the same.
> Or are you arguing that the 30% cut is used to subsidize the remainder of the free apps?
You're putting words in my mouth here. I'm not arguing the 30% cut is used to subsidise the remainder of the apps, I'm arguing that free apps still have distribution costs.
> You really should bone up on anti-competitive behavior before accusing people of flaming.
I stand by my accusation of flaming - just becasue you have a point doesn't mean it couldn't be made in a better way.
> People are forced into this model, the alternatives have been degraded to the point that they no longer function for all intents and purposes you have to distribute your app through Apple.
That I don't disagree with one bit, and if your initial comment had said that rather than " It's a mob move, taxation because you are powerful enough to harm another business, not because you have contributed to the business." I wouldn't have commented on it.
