4 ms·

The issue about distribution is never the technical aspect you are describing, it's about getting people to visit that website/app store in the first place. If

The issue about distribution is never the technical aspect you are describing, it's about getting people to visit that website/app store in the first place. If it were that aspect aspect companies like T-Mobile, Equinix, Vodafone, Orange would dominate it. Even after the the app store is available in Europe, these companies have no chance of success. That is what it looks like will be very undesirable because it will be fragmented and competing with an all-world app store that is bundled with iOS. If you were a developer you would prefer 1000 sales at 30% cut, vs 5 sales with a 0% (supposedly still 30% if the chatter is right on Apple charging for sideloading) cut, so that would kind of feedback loop and make less people list on those app stores, which in turn makes them undesirable.

red_trumpet 3y ago
How would "charging for sideloading" work? If I publish an app on my website, I wouldn't have a contract with apple, right? Would they charge the user?
- arlcode 3y ago
  They could try some shenanigans like requiring "certification" to side load anything and that would come with a contract. It would be struck down by the courts and version 2 of this regulation but for a few years it would be there. I'm hoping apple doesn't do that but at this point I think they'll try anything they can to protect their golden goose (aka app store) even from minor competition.
jrockway 3y ago
I'm not sure if the App Store is the amazing marketing tool that it's sold as. There are millions of apps, nobody is going to find yours. The biggest problem with Apple's revenue model is that they want the 30% for people that aren't really benefiting from the App Store. Spotify built their brand without Apple, and if you want their app, you just click the link they email you.
- dwaite 3y ago
  Spotify both acquires new customers because of their iPhone app and directly _through_ their app via in-app purchases. That is the value that Apple intended to charge them for, and Spotify has continued to begrudgingly think that value is worth the headaches.
anticensor 3y ago
Depends on the friction imposed by the way 30% cut is implemented.

red_trumpet 3y ago

How would "charging for sideloading" work? If I publish an app on my website, I wouldn't have a contract with apple, right? Would they charge the user?

arlcode 3y ago
They could try some shenanigans like requiring "certification" to side load anything and that would come with a contract. It would be struck down by the courts and version 2 of this regulation but for a few years it would be there. I'm hoping apple doesn't do that but at this point I think they'll try anything they can to protect their golden goose (aka app store) even from minor competition.

jrockway 3y ago

I'm not sure if the App Store is the amazing marketing tool that it's sold as. There are millions of apps, nobody is going to find yours. The biggest problem with Apple's revenue model is that they want the 30% for people that aren't really benefiting from the App Store. Spotify built their brand without Apple, and if you want their app, you just click the link they email you.

dwaite 3y ago
Spotify both acquires new customers because of their iPhone app and directly _through_ their app via in-app purchases. That is the value that Apple intended to charge them for, and Spotify has continued to begrudgingly think that value is worth the headaches.

anticensor 3y ago

Depends on the friction imposed by the way 30% cut is implemented.