> I mean, in this case, the consumer is literally saving 20% for the same purchase. Seems good to me. I find it hard to believe a company like Epic would lower

> I mean, in this case, the consumer is literally saving 20% for the same purchase. Seems good to me. I find it hard to believe a company like Epic would lower prices in response. They want that 30% for themselves. Their claims of corporate altruism here are clearly overstated. That said, this might be true for indie developers that would like to charge less to increase their user base, so I think Apple should probably lower fees to 10-15%. I think that's far more reasonable. > Why isn't "let other stores sell software for iOS, and the market will set the rent those stores can extract from software developers" the reasonable compromise? > People who want the ease and security of Apple and are willing to pay their extra fees can do so. Those who don't don't have to. I agree with the premise that competition can lower prices, which is very pro-consumer. That said, I don't think a degraded UX, and potentially huge privacy disaster would be great for consumers. Cost isn't the only factor. In a third-party App scenario, Apple wouldn't be in a position to prevent privacy violations. The amount of data siphoned from this third-party store is likely to be game changing. Facebook could ask users to use their own store so they can track everything you do, and majority of users won't understand that difference. Not to mention countries like China would then likely demand all citizens use the app store full of spyware. Once again it comes down to security vs. usability debate that I think will always be at the heart of these issues.