And AFAIK Apple charges 15% if you earn less than a million in your net revenue, yet noone mentions that. Which, by the way, could be considered a sweetheart deal of its own, just like Steams tiered system. As for the Switch it's still 30% and to the developer it doesn't matter whether there's 5 percent going to the customer or not.
Apple only made that change after incredible pushback from their community, and it still doesn't address the real problem: Apple could be charging 2% and they would still have a monopoly on app distribution that deserves to be broken up. Steam isn't comparable, since it charges that 30% fee and competes against other distributors. Despite that, developers continue to choose Steam over alternative platforms like Itch.io or EGS. Likewise, Apple is free to charge whatever they want for their app store, they just need to compete with other service providers to ensure they're providing a fair deal.
More like "after Tim Sweeney suddenly became obsessed with Apple and started demanding things".
"...they would still have a monopoly on app distribution..." on the platform that they've created, supported and maintained over the years, in the market that already has alternatives.
"Steam isn't comparable..." ah, so Steam charging the same percentage is a whole different thing...i see.
"...competes against other distributors." on the Windows, Linux and MacOS operating systems, operating on a platform that is not exclusive to any manufacturer in partucular.
"...they just need to compete with other service providers to ensure they're providing a fair deal." They already do compete, look up alternative iOS stores.
Someone needs a tutorial on what "monopoly" means.
Controlling app distribution solely within your own platform is not a monopoly. You might wish it were. You might not like it; you might want it changed. But that doesn't magically mean you can call it a monopoly. It's not a monopoly.
If you open a market in the city, prevent any others from opening a market in the city, force all sellers to pay 10-30% to you, force all product makers to comply to your dictates about what can be sold or get kicked out then it's an effective and abusive monopoly.
Thankfully the EU in their wisdom has decided that Apple has abused their dominant position and we don't need to agree with your definition.
Except iOS devices aren't "markets in the city". It's a good thing that you decided to pick that as an example for this comparison (even though it's a bad example) as you have (on accident, i presume) contradicted yourself in a spectacular way. See, the aformentioned market is in...well, "the city" and chances are that that market is regulated by the city council/county laws/the laws of the country the market is in. The city provides infrastructure for the market as well as customers, perhaps some advertising...you get the idea. Hm, it seems that in that relationship, while AppStore is sure a market, the city that the market belongs to is...Apple? Whoops.
I hope that the wise EU is also going to decide that European car manufacturers and their infotainment systems are "abusing" their dominant position in their respective markets of manufacturer and model specific systems! Or that non-European companies should be able to provide "alternative software" to multi-billion euro manufacturing lines of European mega-manufacturers with the same disregard for any potential consequences, just to avoid any sort of "anti-consumer" behaviour. I sure hope so!!!(couldn't care less)
It originates from publishers. When Amazon was pressuring all the publishers to sell cheaper e-book versions for their Kindle, they were aggressively cutting prices to win consumers from competition. They'd then use their classic "70% of your purchases come through us, so lower your prices for Amazon or we will cut you from our store" to get more profits. The publishers obviously hated this, and especially seeing the brand damage of their brand new flagship type books on sale since it made them seem like they were in the bargain bin for not selling well. Since Amazon was a reseller, they could do whatever they wanted with the pricing.
Apple came in as a "savior" for the publishers and said that the publishers can set their own prices and take as much profit as they wanted... just as long as Apple got 30%. This 30% originally came from the music publishing industry (where they did set the price themselves, remember $0.99 songs?), went through books and now has been legacy'd onto apps. If nothing changes here it'll probably exist for metaverse stuff if they go there.
Steam's commision has also been (IMO rightfully) criticised but the situation is hardly the same because Steam doesn't (and can't) prevent other stores or direct app installations on the platforms it runs on so that 30% is much more justifiable as something the "free" market is willing to pay for the services Steam provides. Apple on the other hand doesn't even let anyone compete.
(Of course, Steam still greatly benefits from first mover advantage and network effects that IMO mean they should also be subject to more regulation, including being required to support alternate clients for all Steam services as well as federation for their social network and communication channels.)
They can't, because the platform it runs on doesn't belong to anyone in particular. It's absolutely not the same situation that Apple/console makers have.
No they shouldn't. Steam wasn't the first in digital distribution of videogames as some consoles offered similar system way before Steam. An argument can be made that "on demand" gaming options of the past can be considered the Steam of the past. And enforcing regulations for no reasons other than regulating on companies that are widely recognized as pioneers of their respective industries is the very definition of "punishing success".
