>That's great. You should have that choice. But it should be a choice.
The choice is Android - the platform used by some 80 percent of software users. I don't see the argument for regulatory actions, when consumers can (and do) easily choose to use other mobile platforms, if they don't like the terms of the iOS App Store.
If consumers want to be in the walled garden, great, they should be free to make that decision. If they don't want the walled garden, then great, they're free to pick other platforms. I don't see why the government should force this option upon consumers.
This situation isn't like Microsoft Windows in the 90s, where consumers effectively had no choice but to use Windows.
Consumers have the choice, but developers don't. Its been proven countless times over the years that Android users are much less likely to pay for applications than iOS users.
As a developer, if you want to survive and make money from your application, you need to be on iOS, as Android is worthless in this regard.
And so, Apple gets 30% of your in app purchase revenue, while providing little value other than being a payment processor, for which the normal charge is less than 2.5%.
>Consumers have the choice, but developers don't. Its been proven countless times over the years that Android users are much less likely to pay for applications than iOS users.
Why should it be Apple's problem that Google can't monetize their dominant market share?
Apple values my blood sweat and tears at $0.99/user/lifetime - 30% Apple tax - government taxes.
I don't mean to compare it to a sweat shop, because I live in the first world and have opportunities, but this is a demeaning shakedown and devaluation of my pride, product, and work.
Apple:
1. Shifted where generic computing happens
2. Downplayed the web as the end-all, be-all of application delivery. (It could have been amazing with WASM and sandboxing back in the 00's!)
3. Prevents generic apps from gaining distribution outside of Apple's control and tax
They took advantage of open source, the web, and the Internet. Then they shit on it and offered up the App Store protection racket as salvation.
It's only one of several themes where the giants of today crush the little guy. Computing is less free today than it was a decade ago.
Before Apple I had reach and distribution. Now I have less than 50% of that. And I don't have liberty and control over my own narrative anymore.
Apple values my blood sweat and tears at $0.99/user/lifetime
While I oppose Apple's mandatory walled garden, this isn't their fault. The low price point is a signal that the mobile app market is oversaturated and that you should consider looking elsewhere for revenue.
I don't get that argument. You're saying developers don't have a choice because smartphone customers do have a choice. If you only care about customers who choose iPhone then shouldn't you respect the clear wishes of those customers and make software that is compatible with the rules of the platform they've chosen?
Couldn’t you make a similar argument against your employer, Playstation?
It seems like they charge the same 30% for roughly the same product — a locked platform to run applications where they take a cut of everything including micro-transactions?
And if this thread were about my employer and their policies, I may choose to weigh in on them also.
Saying that, console games are more often than not the size of a Blu-ray disc, with triple-A games exceeding 40-60Gb in size, sometimes larger. Some popular games come on multiple discs. An order of magnitude larger than the less than 100Mb size of most iOS and Android apps, which are downloadable over a mobile connection. The hosting, bandwidth, CDN, and sales costs for the digital versions of those games and their patches can't be cheap, and are often subject to flash traffic surges, particularly when million of players decide to download them (and their updates) the second they're released. This is to say nothing of the myriad of hosted services that are provided that are unique to consoles.
I don't know what business deals are in place, nor can I make a statement on the perceived value that the publishers who publish on consoles place on what's provided, however its worth noting that even before Fortnite was removed from the app stores, the target of Epic's complaint did not include Playstation, Xbox, or Nintendo.
Entirely fair, the comment was a bit of a snipe and for that I apologize.
There is definitely more of a "community" aspect around gaming, wherein everyone wants to get the midnight release or download the DLC the moment it is ready -- I can see how that creates technical differences in terms of the value console platforms may deliver to a developer.
I would be unkind, though, if I didn't say there does seem to be a rough equivalence. The value provided might be different, but we can clearly see the lines get more blurry with hybrid devices like the Nintendo Switch.
I would assume Epic is targeting Google and Apple because they have much higher gross margins on services (I think 60-70%, which is pretty normal for SaaS, vs around 30% for something like Xbox Live), plus the additional scrutiny mobile phones are under in general. Probably makes the case much easier. The cut does seem pretty hefty when considering most of that money is just going straight into profit margin. Irrespective, I wouldn't be surprised if decisions in the mobile realm find there way as precedent in other, similar cases.
Thanks, I appreciate that. And while I do see their offerings as vastly different in many ways, I do see the parallels you mention.
Speaking personally, and as as a lifelong gamer, I place great value in being able to play my games decades from now. I own collections of discs and cartridges, new and old, which I still enjoy from time to time and look forward to being able to share with my kids one day. I do worry that when the various digital storefronts phase out (as many have done), the hard disks which the DRM'd digital copies live on will eventually die, and the games will disappear forever.
It is somewhat comforting to me that the major consoles still have alternative avenues of publishing and distribution - that of the veritable disc and cartridge, which at least in my mind, helps alleviate many of the anti-competitive concerns. That developers can choose between consoles, publishers, retailers, etc, and that consumers can choose to resell, trade, or give away their games, like good old fashioned property - something which is becoming rarer and rarer these days.
This ecosystem (particularly the physical one) provides a level of competition that doesn't exist on phones, and so, at least in my mind, (and along with the differences I mention in my other post), presents a major difference between the business models.
No, of course not, but Apple is essentially triple dipping in this regard. Lets break down the costs.
1. A $100 annual developer subscription. It could be argued that this goes towards SDK development, developer tooling, and App Store publishing systems.
2. The 30% fee when selling your app. Similarly, it could be argued that this fee covers application hosting and distribution, as well as advertising, and I guess as a "general fee" for selling your app through the App Store.
3. 30% on all in-app purchases. Given that Apple has no part to play in this (the application was already advertised and distributed, no additional hosting fees as developers are responsible for implementing/unlocking whatever happens once the purchase goes through, etc), what does this cover other than payment processing, which is normally charged at 2.5%~?
Your argument is "When you choose a technology provider you must accept everything that they do without complaining" which is so obviously wrong it's actually hard to know where to start with formulating a response.
This situation isn't like Microsoft Windows in the 90s, where consumers effectively had no choice but to use Windows.
There was an alternative then though - MacOS. And a lot of people defended Microsoft on the basis that they couldn't possibly have a monopoly because you could always buy an Apple computer instead, just as you're arguing that people can switch to Android now. It was a bullshit argument back then too. No one should have to accept that Apple intentionally hides useful information (like alternative ways to buy things in apps) by blocking apps from the app store in the name of their own profit.
>Your argument is "When you choose a technology provider you must accept everything that they do without complaining" which is so obviously wrong it's actually hard to know where to start with formulating a response.
That may be how you've decided to interpret it, but, no, that's not my argument.
>There was an alternative then though - MacOS. And a lot of people defended Microsoft on the basis that they couldn't possibly have a monopoly because you could always buy an Apple computer instead, just as you're arguing that people can switch to Android now
Macintosh computers were only accessible for consumers that were willing to spend an astronomical amount of money on computers. Unless you were loaded with cash, the typical consumer had no choice but to buy from Microsoft if they wanted a PC. That is not the case with smartphones. I'm sure you can go find a very capable Android phone for $50, if you wish. Ultimately nobody has been in a position where they've been forced to purchase an iOS device in order to access a smartphone
The choice is Android - the platform used by some 80 percent of software users. I don't see the argument for regulatory actions, when consumers can (and do) easily choose to use other mobile platforms, if they don't like the terms of the iOS App Store.
If consumers want to be in the walled garden, great, they should be free to make that decision. If they don't want the walled garden, then great, they're free to pick other platforms. I don't see why the government should force this option upon consumers.
This situation isn't like Microsoft Windows in the 90s, where consumers effectively had no choice but to use Windows.