8 ms·

This may be pedantic, but Steam was collecting its 30% long before the App Store opened. Thought maybe that was inspired by Apple's cut of music revenues in the

This may be pedantic, but Steam was collecting its 30% long before the App Store opened. Thought maybe that was inspired by Apple's cut of music revenues in the iTunes Store.

astrange 6y ago
Older app stores and especially physical retail collected a lot more than 30%.
adamsvystun 6y ago
And just to be complete, there is little preventing other people from creating their own Steam (many do) or not using Steam at all (developers can publish their apps directly to users). This is not the case with the App store.
grishka 6y ago
You pay 30% for all the hosting and listing and payment processing. But then you aren't required to use Steam to distribute your game — you could as well set up your own website. There's nothing preventing you. There's no predatory code signing on desktop OSes. On the other hand, you can't sideload apps onto iOS devices. You HAVE to go through Apple. You either publish on the app store, or you don't have an iOS app. That's different. That's very different. That's antitrust-can't-happen-sooner different.
- jodrellblank 6y ago
  You aren't required to use the Apple store to distribute your product. You can sell to Android users and desktop/laptop users. > "That's different. That's very different Is it? Why is it? You can't sell software to run on Kindle Paperwhite even though it's a full computer inside. What's the specific difference between that and iOS, other than "Apple's ecosystem and customers are desirable, so I want to use it" and "I don't want to pay for it"?
  - threeseed 6y ago
    There is no difference. Just like I can't run third party, unapproved apps on a Tesla, SNES, Gameboy, Samsung TV etc. Or even every website that has a marketplace and supports plugins e.g. Shopify.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    Your argument rests on the strange assumption that people who are against IOS restricting apps on the iPhone would for some reason support Amazon's restrictions on Kindle apps.
    - yellow_postit 6y ago
      I can also easily load PDFs and other formats to a Kindle even if I didn’t go through the Amazon store.
      - threeseed 6y ago
        And you can load content and view websites on your iPhone as well. We are talking about apps.
      - jodrellblank 6y ago
        And you can easily load PDFs and music onto an iPhone/iPad without going through the Apple store or iTunes store. So they're even and that's good enough for Kindle therefore it's good enough for iOS, right? Oh wait, on top, iOS has an app store so you can do more, so that's a win for iOS? And the app store can have free apps on it where Apple take no money, but still review and curate for some minimum standards of quality, which is nice.
        grishka 6y ago
        > but still review and curate for some minimum standards of quality It would've been fine if they only reviewed apps for "quality". Unfortunately, they also review the services that apps connect to, and the policies of these services.
- threeseed 6y ago
  You can side load apps onto your iOS devices. You just need to publish on the store in order to sell to other users.
  - ajconway 6y ago
    You can temporarily install your apps on your own device. They expire after 7 days, and you can't have more than 10 such apps installed simultaneously.
  - grishka 6y ago
    No you can't. Literally the only situation when you don't have to sign your app with an Apple-issued certificate is when the device is jailbroken and has signature enforcement disabled. You're probably referring to one of these things: - You can install any app on your own device. This requires an Apple ID (but no $99 membership) and a certificate that Xcode automatically gets from Apple. The certificate is valid for 7 days, after which the app no longer launches. The bundle ID of the app also has to be globally unique. - There's "enterprise" distribution that requires a developer ID and a certificate. Subject to terms of use. Apple can revoke it at any time. Sometimes Apple turns a blind eye to the misuse of this, but, again, it can and does revoke these certificates remotely disabling any apps signed with them.
heavyset_go 6y ago
I could walk into Best Buy and buy the game I want off the shelf. I have no such option if I want to buy an iOS app from a store or the developers themselves. Steam also don't engage in anti-competitive behavior and prevent billions of people from using alternative game distribution methods like Apple does. What we need is real competition in the mobile app distribution market to determine whether or not that 30% is actually fair, efficient and competitive. As it stands, there is no competition in mobile app distribution.
- simonh 6y ago
  That's simply not true, Android outsells iOS, it has multiple App Stores and allows sideloading. Plenty of phones come with 2 or 3 different app stores from the network, vendor and Google. The fact is consumers like app stores, they like consolidation because it makes it simpler for them and a lot of them like the benefits they get from a walled garden. Developers like consolidation too, which is why they have converged on the Play Store en masse on Android. These things benefit them, and the vast, vast majority appreciate those benefits more than they appreciate the benefits of managing multiple competing stores and side loading downloaded APKs. You can't magic those preferences away. Even if you forced iOS to become an Android clone with multiple app stores and sideloading you can't force people to like those things. You'd just be giving an extra option to a very small subset of techies who have Android now to do that on already anyway. The market has spoken and it likes nice simple well managed choices because that's what the people want. Why is it that Apple have to make the solution a small subset of people want. Why is that their problem to solve? Maybe these stores converged on 30% because it's a nice round number and a roughly 1:2 split makes intuitive sense. Consoles, music stores, Steam, mobile app stores, they've all circled around about that number for a very long time. Some have tried around 20/80 to grab market share but it never worked, Nintendo tried 35/65 for a while before going to 30/70. In the end it's natural that competitive forces will tend to a convergence.
  - amelius 6y ago
    > Why is it that Apple have to make the solution a small subset of people want. Why is that their problem to solve? Because otherwise they are a populist company. Imagine a company making clothes in sizes S..XL, but not XXL. Don't you think a company owes it to society to also offer the XXL size? Instead of thinking "what is better for us?", a company should think "what is better for our customers?"
addicted 6y ago
Steam charges that amount because it brought a customer to you. If I did my own marketing to gamers and they downloaded the game from my website I would have to pay 0% to any intermediary.

This may be pedantic, but Steam was collecting its 30% long before the App Store opened. Thought maybe that was inspired by Apple's cut of music revenues in the iTunes Store.

astrange 6y ago

Older app stores and especially physical retail collected a lot more than 30%.

adamsvystun 6y ago

And just to be complete, there is little preventing other people from creating their own Steam (many do) or not using Steam at all (developers can publish their apps directly to users). This is not the case with the App store.

grishka 6y ago

You pay 30% for all the hosting and listing and payment processing. But then you aren't required to use Steam to distribute your game — you could as well set up your own website. There's nothing preventing you. There's no predatory code signing on desktop OSes. On the other hand, you can't sideload apps onto iOS devices. You HAVE to go through Apple. You either publish on the app store, or you don't have an iOS app. That's different. That's very different. That's antitrust-can't-happen-sooner different.

jodrellblank 6y ago
You aren't required to use the Apple store to distribute your product. You can sell to Android users and desktop/laptop users. > "That's different. That's very different Is it? Why is it? You can't sell software to run on Kindle Paperwhite even though it's a full computer inside. What's the specific difference between that and iOS, other than "Apple's ecosystem and customers are desirable, so I want to use it" and "I don't want to pay for it"?
- threeseed 6y ago
  There is no difference. Just like I can't run third party, unapproved apps on a Tesla, SNES, Gameboy, Samsung TV etc. Or even every website that has a marketplace and supports plugins e.g. Shopify.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  Your argument rests on the strange assumption that people who are against IOS restricting apps on the iPhone would for some reason support Amazon's restrictions on Kindle apps.
  - yellow_postit 6y ago
    I can also easily load PDFs and other formats to a Kindle even if I didn’t go through the Amazon store.
    - threeseed 6y ago
      And you can load content and view websites on your iPhone as well. We are talking about apps.
    - jodrellblank 6y ago
      And you can easily load PDFs and music onto an iPhone/iPad without going through the Apple store or iTunes store. So they're even and that's good enough for Kindle therefore it's good enough for iOS, right? Oh wait, on top, iOS has an app store so you can do more, so that's a win for iOS? And the app store can have free apps on it where Apple take no money, but still review and curate for some minimum standards of quality, which is nice.
      - grishka 6y ago
        > but still review and curate for some minimum standards of quality It would've been fine if they only reviewed apps for "quality". Unfortunately, they also review the services that apps connect to, and the policies of these services.
threeseed 6y ago
You can side load apps onto your iOS devices. You just need to publish on the store in order to sell to other users.
- ajconway 6y ago
  You can temporarily install your apps on your own device. They expire after 7 days, and you can't have more than 10 such apps installed simultaneously.
- grishka 6y ago
  No you can't. Literally the only situation when you don't have to sign your app with an Apple-issued certificate is when the device is jailbroken and has signature enforcement disabled. You're probably referring to one of these things: - You can install any app on your own device. This requires an Apple ID (but no $99 membership) and a certificate that Xcode automatically gets from Apple. The certificate is valid for 7 days, after which the app no longer launches. The bundle ID of the app also has to be globally unique. - There's "enterprise" distribution that requires a developer ID and a certificate. Subject to terms of use. Apple can revoke it at any time. Sometimes Apple turns a blind eye to the misuse of this, but, again, it can and does revoke these certificates remotely disabling any apps signed with them.

heavyset_go 6y ago

I could walk into Best Buy and buy the game I want off the shelf. I have no such option if I want to buy an iOS app from a store or the developers themselves. Steam also don't engage in anti-competitive behavior and prevent billions of people from using alternative game distribution methods like Apple does. What we need is real competition in the mobile app distribution market to determine whether or not that 30% is actually fair, efficient and competitive. As it stands, there is no competition in mobile app distribution.

simonh 6y ago
That's simply not true, Android outsells iOS, it has multiple App Stores and allows sideloading. Plenty of phones come with 2 or 3 different app stores from the network, vendor and Google. The fact is consumers like app stores, they like consolidation because it makes it simpler for them and a lot of them like the benefits they get from a walled garden. Developers like consolidation too, which is why they have converged on the Play Store en masse on Android. These things benefit them, and the vast, vast majority appreciate those benefits more than they appreciate the benefits of managing multiple competing stores and side loading downloaded APKs. You can't magic those preferences away. Even if you forced iOS to become an Android clone with multiple app stores and sideloading you can't force people to like those things. You'd just be giving an extra option to a very small subset of techies who have Android now to do that on already anyway. The market has spoken and it likes nice simple well managed choices because that's what the people want. Why is it that Apple have to make the solution a small subset of people want. Why is that their problem to solve? Maybe these stores converged on 30% because it's a nice round number and a roughly 1:2 split makes intuitive sense. Consoles, music stores, Steam, mobile app stores, they've all circled around about that number for a very long time. Some have tried around 20/80 to grab market share but it never worked, Nintendo tried 35/65 for a while before going to 30/70. In the end it's natural that competitive forces will tend to a convergence.
- amelius 6y ago
  > Why is it that Apple have to make the solution a small subset of people want. Why is that their problem to solve? Because otherwise they are a populist company. Imagine a company making clothes in sizes S..XL, but not XXL. Don't you think a company owes it to society to also offer the XXL size? Instead of thinking "what is better for us?", a company should think "what is better for our customers?"

addicted 6y ago

Steam charges that amount because it brought a customer to you. If I did my own marketing to gamers and they downloaded the game from my website I would have to pay 0% to any intermediary.