3 ms·

In my opinion the 30% fee is reasonable because it provides access to Apple's user base. It's not as though they're specifically obligated to earmark that money

In my opinion the 30% fee is reasonable because it provides access to Apple's user base. It's not as though they're specifically obligated to earmark that money to improve the app store itself. The things you're complaining about are valid criticisms, but I don't think the have anything to do with whether or not the fee is appropriate. In return for 30%, Apple develops and maintains a centralized software distribution channel. It takes care of end to end payment processing, deployment and updates. If you don't believe 30% is reasonable in return for access to that market, you can choose not to develop for that market. But words like "reasonable" imply some obligation on the part of the company. Why would a company not charge a premium for access to a lucrative distribution channel? Clearly many firms are happy to trade 30% of sales in return for access to that market. From my perspective the issues you've outlined are orthogonal to whether or not Apple's fees are "reasonable."

stale2002 8y ago
> If you don't believe 30% is reasonable in return for access to that market, you can choose not to develop for that market Well, the counter to this is that it is not Apple's userbase. Apple doesn't own those phones. Consumers do, because those consumers paid for them. The alternative isn't "don't build for this market". The alternative is doing exactly what these companies are doing, and building their own marketplace/appstore/distributing on their own website like Fortnite does. People have the right to install whatever they want of phones that they own.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  I think this is more complex than what you've said in your last sentence. Theoretically you can literally run whatever software you'd like on hardware you've purchased. But I don't think operating system developers targeting that hardware have an intrinsic obligation to sanction arbitrary software installation.
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
There's a term that exists specifically to define things like "provides access to Apple's user base". It's called "rent-seeking".
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  You're stating that as though it's an argument, but I honestly don't follow the point you're trying to make. Under the rent-seeking analogy, yes, Apple built a vast and lucrative apartment complex. Are you saying it's unreasonable to charge a high fee to allow someone to solicit to the people living in that complex on the property it owns and developed? I get the sense we're not going to be able to come to an understanding here. Based on the way you used that terminology we likely have an axiomatic disagreement.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    Economic rent is not about renting an apartment. It‘s a terminus technicus.
britch 8y ago
I really doubt firms are "happy" to trade 30% of their sales for access to the iOS marketplace. They put up with it because it is literally the only way to reach ~50% of the US app marketplace. I think OP's complaint is that it feels like Apple isn't actually maintaining "the centralized software distribution channel." Apple built something that's good enough, and is in some sense holding their users hostage. Users would like the ability to buy apps. Developers would like to sell to them. But Apple has created a system where both parties MUST go through Apple. I think this is really key. I don't see a reason why the iOS App Store has to be the only place to buy apps other than that Apple makes more money that way. What incentive is there for Apple to add new App Store features, improve search, etc.? They've built a system where they're the only option. It doesn't take much to see how this is bad for consumers. Clearly Apple is providing some value through the app store and deserves a cut, but why 30%? If there was some competition Apple may be forced to lower their rate, but as it stands they can charge whatever they like. It's not a market rate, its whatever Apple can squeeze out of developers.

stale2002 8y ago

> If you don't believe 30% is reasonable in return for access to that market, you can choose not to develop for that market Well, the counter to this is that it is not Apple's userbase. Apple doesn't own those phones. Consumers do, because those consumers paid for them. The alternative isn't "don't build for this market". The alternative is doing exactly what these companies are doing, and building their own marketplace/appstore/distributing on their own website like Fortnite does. People have the right to install whatever they want of phones that they own.

throwawaymath 8y ago
I think this is more complex than what you've said in your last sentence. Theoretically you can literally run whatever software you'd like on hardware you've purchased. But I don't think operating system developers targeting that hardware have an intrinsic obligation to sanction arbitrary software installation.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

There's a term that exists specifically to define things like "provides access to Apple's user base". It's called "rent-seeking".

throwawaymath 8y ago
You're stating that as though it's an argument, but I honestly don't follow the point you're trying to make. Under the rent-seeking analogy, yes, Apple built a vast and lucrative apartment complex. Are you saying it's unreasonable to charge a high fee to allow someone to solicit to the people living in that complex on the property it owns and developed? I get the sense we're not going to be able to come to an understanding here. Based on the way you used that terminology we likely have an axiomatic disagreement.
- Tomte 8y ago
  Economic rent is not about renting an apartment. It‘s a terminus technicus.

britch 8y ago

I really doubt firms are "happy" to trade 30% of their sales for access to the iOS marketplace. They put up with it because it is literally the only way to reach ~50% of the US app marketplace. I think OP's complaint is that it feels like Apple isn't actually maintaining "the centralized software distribution channel." Apple built something that's good enough, and is in some sense holding their users hostage. Users would like the ability to buy apps. Developers would like to sell to them. But Apple has created a system where both parties MUST go through Apple. I think this is really key. I don't see a reason why the iOS App Store has to be the only place to buy apps other than that Apple makes more money that way. What incentive is there for Apple to add new App Store features, improve search, etc.? They've built a system where they're the only option. It doesn't take much to see how this is bad for consumers. Clearly Apple is providing some value through the app store and deserves a cut, but why 30%? If there was some competition Apple may be forced to lower their rate, but as it stands they can charge whatever they like. It's not a market rate, its whatever Apple can squeeze out of developers.