> The fact they were able to quickly halve their fee due to public sentiment and some lawmakers sniffing around means that competition was not working to even that out to costs plus some profit already
Apple's scheme was basically a flat tax but clearly they determined they could make it progressive with minimal effects on revenue. They could go even further if they wanted to: since the top 98% of apps supposedly account for 95% of revenue, Apple could basically eliminate fees entirely for the bottom 98% without greatly affecting their bottom line.
It's somewhat like how 96% of the US income tax is paid by the top 50% of taxpayers. So income tax for the lower 50% could be reduced drastically with minimal effects on revenue. A gradual/progressive tax scheme is more desirable than a strict step function to avoid weird paradoxes where your net income can go down even as your gross income increases (which is a problem with the Apple scheme.)
Regardless, having some entry fee (e.g. $99 developer membership) is probably helpful for reducing spam apps.
Apple's scheme was basically a flat tax but clearly they determined they could make it progressive with minimal effects on revenue. They could go even further if they wanted to: since the top 98% of apps supposedly account for 95% of revenue, Apple could basically eliminate fees entirely for the bottom 98% without greatly affecting their bottom line.
It's somewhat like how 96% of the US income tax is paid by the top 50% of taxpayers. So income tax for the lower 50% could be reduced drastically with minimal effects on revenue. A gradual/progressive tax scheme is more desirable than a strict step function to avoid weird paradoxes where your net income can go down even as your gross income increases (which is a problem with the Apple scheme.)
Regardless, having some entry fee (e.g. $99 developer membership) is probably helpful for reducing spam apps.