6 ms·

This is a fine bit of research, but exclusivity should be the first question--the high-order bit. There has been essentially no market discovery of prices becau

by herf 6y ago

This is a fine bit of research, but exclusivity should be the first question--the high-order bit. There has been essentially no market discovery of prices because of exclusivity. Since 1992, there has been "free" distribution online for software (e.g., Quake launched this way in 1993), and makers of software were able to find their own distribution models without retail in the middle. This is also how the entire web happened, when Netscape Navigator launched in 1994. To compare pricing in mobile app stores to things like brick and mortar boxed software is a mistake. It ignores the internet entirely, and how the industry worked for the 15 years before the iPhone launched. There are much more price-efficient models than this.

mattl 6y ago
Doom is 1993. Quake is 1996.
dfabulich 6y ago
As the report shows, all of the major stores charge 30%, not just Apple, even when the store has no exclusivity. Apple App Store charges 30%, and it's the only way to publish a native app on iOS, but the Google Play Store charges 30%, too, and Android supports sideloading. The Windows Store and Steam both charge 30%, too, even though it's trivial to download games for Windows from any web site. It would be reasonable to guess that Apple would exploit its market position to charge higher rates than the Google Play Store or Steam, but that hasn't happened, and it doesn't seem like it's ever going to happen.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  I'm no legal strategist, but I would take the position that even if Apple's store charged double or triple what others do, that is not the standard by which what is legal should be measured. Apple (or any platform) provides a service for people / companies to voluntarily develop software to offer to the users of that platform. What cut they take is an agreement entered into based on people's assessment of the costs and benefits provided, and people are free to decline it and take their efforts elsewhere. Their terms for their platform are not hindering people from competing and offering services on another platform. Each developer is free to make his/her own judgement about whether that commission is tolerable and desired, for the value created. If the agreement if free and voluntary, Apple could set any price it desires. You, in your own business are free to (and probably generally also try to) set the maximum price you desire. By some similar logic, all apps should charge the same price to be seen as fair. What principle says that one platform's price has to be in line with others? It's what your offering can justify, and what people are willing to pay, with free choice.
  - dfabulich 6y ago
    I wasn't making an argument that Apple isn't doing anything illegal, but I think it's not credible to argue as @herf did that "there has been no market discovery of prices due to exclusivity." The market for Android and Windows app stores has settled on exactly the same rates as iOS apps, which is exactly same rate as game-console platforms that have only one exclusive store. 30%, across the board. Android alone is sufficient evidence that sideloading doesn't force the dominant app store (Google) to lower its rates to compete.
    - supernova87a 6y ago
      Oh, sorry, I wasn't speaking in the form of direct "you", I was just piggybacking on your comment to state a parallel point.
- hadrien01 6y ago
  Windows Store is not 30%, it's 15% or 5% depending on whether the user used the Windows Store search or a link from the developer's website.
  - dfabulich 6y ago
    From TFA: * 30% on games * 30% on all sales in Business and Education stores * 30% for Windows 8 devices * 15% otherwise
- RealStickman_ 6y ago
  The thing is that you can easily avoid paying those cuts to these stores while still distributing your program on that platform. It is much more difficult to sideload an app to an iphone. You can not expect the average user to sign the app they downloaded every few days so they can keep using it. Hell, even the Android system policy favours Google way too much in my opinion and there you "only" have to toggle one switch.
- SyneRyder 6y ago
  > The Windows Store and Steam both charge 30%, too... That's probably the easiest way to discredit this report, their Windows Store numbers are wrong if they're claiming all sales are charged 30%. Microsoft only charge 5% for a sale referred from another website, and only 15% for a sale that originated in the store: https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2018/05/07/a-new-microsoft-store-revenue-share-is-coming/ https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2018/05/07/a-new-... Google seems to already be out in front of the likely ramifications. I got a Google survey last week asking opinions on spinning the Play Store off as a separate non-Google owned company, how much I would pay to use the Play Store, and opinions on competing sideloaded stores (eg Epic Games Store, Amazon)
simonh 6y ago
Games consoles platform owners controlling access to their platforms to third party software predate the internet by decades. There is nothing whatever new about the model of commercially licensing access to a platform to software vendors, it’s almost as old as the consumer computer industry.

by herf 6y ago

mattl 6y ago

Doom is 1993. Quake is 1996.

dfabulich 6y ago

As the report shows, all of the major stores charge 30%, not just Apple, even when the store has no exclusivity. Apple App Store charges 30%, and it's the only way to publish a native app on iOS, but the Google Play Store charges 30%, too, and Android supports sideloading. The Windows Store and Steam both charge 30%, too, even though it's trivial to download games for Windows from any web site. It would be reasonable to guess that Apple would exploit its market position to charge higher rates than the Google Play Store or Steam, but that hasn't happened, and it doesn't seem like it's ever going to happen.

supernova87a 6y ago
I'm no legal strategist, but I would take the position that even if Apple's store charged double or triple what others do, that is not the standard by which what is legal should be measured. Apple (or any platform) provides a service for people / companies to voluntarily develop software to offer to the users of that platform. What cut they take is an agreement entered into based on people's assessment of the costs and benefits provided, and people are free to decline it and take their efforts elsewhere. Their terms for their platform are not hindering people from competing and offering services on another platform. Each developer is free to make his/her own judgement about whether that commission is tolerable and desired, for the value created. If the agreement if free and voluntary, Apple could set any price it desires. You, in your own business are free to (and probably generally also try to) set the maximum price you desire. By some similar logic, all apps should charge the same price to be seen as fair. What principle says that one platform's price has to be in line with others? It's what your offering can justify, and what people are willing to pay, with free choice.
- dfabulich 6y ago
  I wasn't making an argument that Apple isn't doing anything illegal, but I think it's not credible to argue as @herf did that "there has been no market discovery of prices due to exclusivity." The market for Android and Windows app stores has settled on exactly the same rates as iOS apps, which is exactly same rate as game-console platforms that have only one exclusive store. 30%, across the board. Android alone is sufficient evidence that sideloading doesn't force the dominant app store (Google) to lower its rates to compete.
  - supernova87a 6y ago
    Oh, sorry, I wasn't speaking in the form of direct "you", I was just piggybacking on your comment to state a parallel point.
hadrien01 6y ago
Windows Store is not 30%, it's 15% or 5% depending on whether the user used the Windows Store search or a link from the developer's website.
- dfabulich 6y ago
  From TFA: * 30% on games * 30% on all sales in Business and Education stores * 30% for Windows 8 devices * 15% otherwise
RealStickman_ 6y ago
The thing is that you can easily avoid paying those cuts to these stores while still distributing your program on that platform. It is much more difficult to sideload an app to an iphone. You can not expect the average user to sign the app they downloaded every few days so they can keep using it. Hell, even the Android system policy favours Google way too much in my opinion and there you "only" have to toggle one switch.
SyneRyder 6y ago
> The Windows Store and Steam both charge 30%, too... That's probably the easiest way to discredit this report, their Windows Store numbers are wrong if they're claiming all sales are charged 30%. Microsoft only charge 5% for a sale referred from another website, and only 15% for a sale that originated in the store: https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2018/05/07/a-new-microsoft-store-revenue-share-is-coming/ https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2018/05/07/a-new-... Google seems to already be out in front of the likely ramifications. I got a Google survey last week asking opinions on spinning the Play Store off as a separate non-Google owned company, how much I would pay to use the Play Store, and opinions on competing sideloaded stores (eg Epic Games Store, Amazon)

simonh 6y ago

Games consoles platform owners controlling access to their platforms to third party software predate the internet by decades. There is nothing whatever new about the model of commercially licensing access to a platform to software vendors, it’s almost as old as the consumer computer industry.