5 ms·

The entity that makes Game A has a choice where the app is sold. So, for Example, EA sells games on Origin but also Steam. There are lots of apps that are in

The entity that makes Game A has a choice where the app is sold. So, for Example, EA sells games on Origin but also Steam. There are lots of apps that are in many stores. On an iOS device, the entity that makes the app has no choice of what store to be in, they must be in Apple's. That is a monopoly. As many have pointed out, if you only want to get your apps from one store-- like Apple's-- you could chose that. But currently you can't choose to use another app vendor.

babypuncher 6y ago
If that choice of app store actually matters to you, then you have the option to choose an Android phone instead of an iPhone. You're not being relegated to some obscure platform with no app support like people who didn't want to use Wintel in the '00s.
- joshuaissac 6y ago
  Google Play Store's revenue is half of that of the Apple App Store, so choosing only Android instead of both platforms would cut the expected app revenue by about two-thirds. Google also has similar app tax policies to Apple (and there is an ongoing lawsuit by Epic against them), so they really are relegated to the more obscure app stores.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    That's because Apple's app store has better quality apps due to curation. The minute iPhones are opened up, the value of the App Store will tank considerably, and many devs on here will be up in arms, complaining about all the flood of free apps that have destroyed their market. The fact is the App Store helps everyone. It curates apps for most people, it helps developers make more money (as you said, double the revenue, well worth the 1/3 cut, that no longer applies to small apps), and it helps Apple innovate on their hardware product.
    - joshuaissac 6y ago
      I do not agree that the revenue is necessarily because of higher-quality apps. Apple iPhones are regarded in many markets as luxury goods bought by people with more disposable income, so the increased revenue could well be attributable to having a wealthier customer base that is willing to spend more on app/in-app purchases. In this case, opening up the market to competition might be beneficial to existing App Store developers. App Store does help developers make more money than if they were not on it, but being on it is the only practical way for them to gain access to iPhone users (they could ask users to jailbreak their phones instead but that is impractical for most). If the courts order Apple to allow competing app stores, users would still benefit from Apple's curation, and developers would still benefit from the distribution by using Apple App Store, but they would have a viable choice of picking another app store without having to change to another OS (for users) or abandoning the largest market (for developers).
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        Sure it is - because Apps are curated, you can charge more for them. If there are free alternatives available everywhere, people will be less likely to pay. > In this case, opening up the market to competition might be beneficial to existing App Store developers. Only true if the 50% revenue increase disappears (Which is likely with a flood of free apps). Not only that, but more free apps = more privacy violations. > App Store does help..... So the App Store is a net benefit - what, exactly, is the problem? There is no demonstrable harm. The small apps got a cut on the fee earlier this year. Now it's just megacorps trying to get as much of the pie as they can, in a way that hurts consumers. Also allowing 3rd party applications to control critical features is a privacy/security issue I haven't seen addressed.
        joshuaissac 6y ago
        > Sure it is - because Apps are curated, you can charge more for them. That is not a sure thing. Having a wealthier customer base could be as much or even bigger a reason for the higher revenue. And curated apps still have to compete with each other. > If there are free alternatives available everywhere, people will be less likely to pay. If this were really the case, it would actually be an argument for increased competition because it would be better for the consumers. However, I do not think that it is true because almost 93% of apps in the App Store are already free.[1] So the 100% revenue difference probably would not disappear. And free apps would have to follow Apple's privacy rules, as they do now. > So the App Store is a net benefit - what, exactly, is the problem? Of course it is a net benefit. Even if overall fees were 99%, it would still be a net benefit to both consumers and developers because retaining 1% is still better than nothing for developers, and having a software repository is very valuable for users. No-one is suggesting shutting down the App Store. What is being suggested is for Apple to allow other firms to compete against it, because they control almost two-thirds of the market by revenue and can dictate the terms to the participants. > There is no demonstrable harm. That is for Epic to prove. They would try to demonstrate that they suffered harm after violating App Store terms by offering a competing payment method, and that it is anti-competitive for Apple to eject Epic's app, given its market position. Regulators would also have their own methods of determining whether harm occurred. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1020996/distribution-of-free-and-paid-ios-apps/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1020996/distribution-of-...
  - babypuncher 6y ago
    I wasn't talking about developer choice, I was talking about end user choice. Given that statistic, I think it is pretty obvious that we as developers stand to make more money on iOS than Android regardless of Apple's 30% cut. There are a few reasons for the discrepancy though. Someone else already mentioned the higher average quality of apps on the App Store. One facet is the difficulty involved in pirating iOS apps compared to Android, likely because Apple makes sideloading so difficult. Pretty much any kid can spend 20 minutes searching around on Google and figure out how to get paid games for free on their phone. Another variable is average user affluence. Apple is popular in developed countries with sizable middle class populations, and they position themselves as more of a luxury brand. Android devices run the gamut from ultra premium to ultra budget, catering to user in every socioeconomic class. Apple users on average probably have more spare cash to spend on apps.
spacedcowboy 6y ago
If EA win their fight, I can't really see them offering their app on the Apple App Store. So, really what this is about is choice for the big app-manufacturers, including games. It has nothing to do with user choice at all, and the cost is borne by the user (who has a far shittier user-experience than they do now).
- flohofwoe 6y ago
  If it makes EA more money, they will absolutely sell their games on other app stores, see Origin vs Steam.
  - spacedcowboy 6y ago
    But it won't, will it. That's the entire reason they want to do it in the first place - to make more money for themselves. They want in on the platform, without paying the fees that being on the platform requires.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      Sure they will. If apple reduced their fee to something like 5%, I am sure that even most large game developers would use it.
pwinnski 6y ago
Right, it's a monopoly for app developers, much more than for users.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  Users have even less choice then developers.
AmericanChopper 6y ago
Well, everything is a monopoly if you define the market specifically enough.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  You can abuse your market position without being a monopoly.
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    Of course you can. But the parent comment doesn’t put forward any argument for why they think that’s happening. They’re just saying Apple has a monopoly over Apple customers. Which is more of a truism rather than anything insightful.
    - georgeecollins 6y ago
      I think it is safe to say that if Apple allowed another company to offer an app store, even using all the same screening and security protocols Apple does, they would take a lower cut of app revenue. I believe that is what bothers Epic. If they don't like the cut Valve demands they can make their own store on Windows, and they do. Argument for why is that happening: So Apple can make more money. (Disclosure: I am an Apple shareholder.)
      - AmericanChopper 6y ago
        Well I don’t think that’s supported by the data, because they can do that on android, and Epic is suing Google too. You’re also framing the market in an arbitrary way to support your conclusions. Every company could be said to have a monopoly over their own customers. Any argument that Apple monopolizes Apple customer, or that Google monopolizes Play Store customers could also be used to say Valve monopolizes Valve customers, or Sony monopolizes PlayStation customers, or that Samsung monopolizes the market of Samsung smart fridge customers. You need a lot more than just that to make a compelling argument that the behaviour is illegally anti-competitive.

babypuncher 6y ago

If that choice of app store actually matters to you, then you have the option to choose an Android phone instead of an iPhone. You're not being relegated to some obscure platform with no app support like people who didn't want to use Wintel in the '00s.

joshuaissac 6y ago
Google Play Store's revenue is half of that of the Apple App Store, so choosing only Android instead of both platforms would cut the expected app revenue by about two-thirds. Google also has similar app tax policies to Apple (and there is an ongoing lawsuit by Epic against them), so they really are relegated to the more obscure app stores.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  That's because Apple's app store has better quality apps due to curation. The minute iPhones are opened up, the value of the App Store will tank considerably, and many devs on here will be up in arms, complaining about all the flood of free apps that have destroyed their market. The fact is the App Store helps everyone. It curates apps for most people, it helps developers make more money (as you said, double the revenue, well worth the 1/3 cut, that no longer applies to small apps), and it helps Apple innovate on their hardware product.
  - joshuaissac 6y ago
    I do not agree that the revenue is necessarily because of higher-quality apps. Apple iPhones are regarded in many markets as luxury goods bought by people with more disposable income, so the increased revenue could well be attributable to having a wealthier customer base that is willing to spend more on app/in-app purchases. In this case, opening up the market to competition might be beneficial to existing App Store developers. App Store does help developers make more money than if they were not on it, but being on it is the only practical way for them to gain access to iPhone users (they could ask users to jailbreak their phones instead but that is impractical for most). If the courts order Apple to allow competing app stores, users would still benefit from Apple's curation, and developers would still benefit from the distribution by using Apple App Store, but they would have a viable choice of picking another app store without having to change to another OS (for users) or abandoning the largest market (for developers).
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      Sure it is - because Apps are curated, you can charge more for them. If there are free alternatives available everywhere, people will be less likely to pay. > In this case, opening up the market to competition might be beneficial to existing App Store developers. Only true if the 50% revenue increase disappears (Which is likely with a flood of free apps). Not only that, but more free apps = more privacy violations. > App Store does help..... So the App Store is a net benefit - what, exactly, is the problem? There is no demonstrable harm. The small apps got a cut on the fee earlier this year. Now it's just megacorps trying to get as much of the pie as they can, in a way that hurts consumers. Also allowing 3rd party applications to control critical features is a privacy/security issue I haven't seen addressed.
      - joshuaissac 6y ago
        > Sure it is - because Apps are curated, you can charge more for them. That is not a sure thing. Having a wealthier customer base could be as much or even bigger a reason for the higher revenue. And curated apps still have to compete with each other. > If there are free alternatives available everywhere, people will be less likely to pay. If this were really the case, it would actually be an argument for increased competition because it would be better for the consumers. However, I do not think that it is true because almost 93% of apps in the App Store are already free.[1] So the 100% revenue difference probably would not disappear. And free apps would have to follow Apple's privacy rules, as they do now. > So the App Store is a net benefit - what, exactly, is the problem? Of course it is a net benefit. Even if overall fees were 99%, it would still be a net benefit to both consumers and developers because retaining 1% is still better than nothing for developers, and having a software repository is very valuable for users. No-one is suggesting shutting down the App Store. What is being suggested is for Apple to allow other firms to compete against it, because they control almost two-thirds of the market by revenue and can dictate the terms to the participants. > There is no demonstrable harm. That is for Epic to prove. They would try to demonstrate that they suffered harm after violating App Store terms by offering a competing payment method, and that it is anti-competitive for Apple to eject Epic's app, given its market position. Regulators would also have their own methods of determining whether harm occurred. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1020996/distribution-of-free-and-paid-ios-apps/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1020996/distribution-of-...
- babypuncher 6y ago
  I wasn't talking about developer choice, I was talking about end user choice. Given that statistic, I think it is pretty obvious that we as developers stand to make more money on iOS than Android regardless of Apple's 30% cut. There are a few reasons for the discrepancy though. Someone else already mentioned the higher average quality of apps on the App Store. One facet is the difficulty involved in pirating iOS apps compared to Android, likely because Apple makes sideloading so difficult. Pretty much any kid can spend 20 minutes searching around on Google and figure out how to get paid games for free on their phone. Another variable is average user affluence. Apple is popular in developed countries with sizable middle class populations, and they position themselves as more of a luxury brand. Android devices run the gamut from ultra premium to ultra budget, catering to user in every socioeconomic class. Apple users on average probably have more spare cash to spend on apps.

spacedcowboy 6y ago

If EA win their fight, I can't really see them offering their app on the Apple App Store. So, really what this is about is choice for the big app-manufacturers, including games. It has nothing to do with user choice at all, and the cost is borne by the user (who has a far shittier user-experience than they do now).

flohofwoe 6y ago
If it makes EA more money, they will absolutely sell their games on other app stores, see Origin vs Steam.
- spacedcowboy 6y ago
  But it won't, will it. That's the entire reason they want to do it in the first place - to make more money for themselves. They want in on the platform, without paying the fees that being on the platform requires.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    Sure they will. If apple reduced their fee to something like 5%, I am sure that even most large game developers would use it.

pwinnski 6y ago

Right, it's a monopoly for app developers, much more than for users.

Daho0n 6y ago
Users have even less choice then developers.

AmericanChopper 6y ago

Well, everything is a monopoly if you define the market specifically enough.

Daho0n 6y ago
You can abuse your market position without being a monopoly.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  Of course you can. But the parent comment doesn’t put forward any argument for why they think that’s happening. They’re just saying Apple has a monopoly over Apple customers. Which is more of a truism rather than anything insightful.
  - georgeecollins 6y ago
    I think it is safe to say that if Apple allowed another company to offer an app store, even using all the same screening and security protocols Apple does, they would take a lower cut of app revenue. I believe that is what bothers Epic. If they don't like the cut Valve demands they can make their own store on Windows, and they do. Argument for why is that happening: So Apple can make more money. (Disclosure: I am an Apple shareholder.)
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      Well I don’t think that’s supported by the data, because they can do that on android, and Epic is suing Google too. You’re also framing the market in an arbitrary way to support your conclusions. Every company could be said to have a monopoly over their own customers. Any argument that Apple monopolizes Apple customer, or that Google monopolizes Play Store customers could also be used to say Valve monopolizes Valve customers, or Sony monopolizes PlayStation customers, or that Samsung monopolizes the market of Samsung smart fridge customers. You need a lot more than just that to make a compelling argument that the behaviour is illegally anti-competitive.