6 ms·

The 30% goes back to retail markup, i.e. the what the seller who buys and physically stocks your game could expect to keep for gross profit. Of course digital

The 30% goes back to retail markup, i.e. the what the seller who buys and physically stocks your game could expect to keep for gross profit. Of course digital store fronts do not have many of the costs associated with physical retail, but there is still value in them bringing the customer to you.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Of course digital store fronts do not have many of the costs associated with physical retail, but there is still value in them bringing the customer to you. This is inherently in conflict with having a single store for everything, because the everything store would then have all of your competitors in it too. It also doesn't explain why you still have to pay when you do your own marketing through some other means and the customer is already looking for you in particular.
- incrudible 3y ago
  You have to pay because Apple asks for a commission in exchange for you being allowed to sell your product in their store. I think what you're really asking is: Where's the value if I want to (or have to) do my own marketing anyway? The answer is trust. I'm more likely to trust you with my money, with you executing code on my device, if Apple allows you on their store. Even the big brands like Epic get this value, because who is judge that whatever "I look for" isn't being hijacked by some impersonator? Perhaps that trust is misplaced, but the effect is real, thus the value is there. Apple considers this worth a 30% commission, and 100% of developers on the App store agree, or they wouldn't be on there. The question whether you couldn't get more value by doing it all yourself doesn't even ask itself, because there is no alternative. Whether that is anti-competitive in the legally prosecutable way is a very interesting question that we're all eager to hear answered by the courts. Personally, I do find that a 30% (or 27%) commission on out-of-band purchases is outrageous and that phone platforms should be cracked open, but I can also see the argument from the other side, comparing e.g. to video game consoles or set top boxes.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Apple considers this worth a 30% commission, and 100% of developers on the App store agree, or they wouldn't be on there. This is where you get it wrong. If there were other stores for iOS apps and the difference was only Apple's vetting and developers were still choosing to pay Apple 30% vs. much less for some alternative, then you could say that what they're paying for is trust. But everybody including Apple knows that isn't true in general. As soon as there were other viable stores and developers could put the same app there for a lower price, the large majority of customers would take the lower price over whatever "trust" Apple is ostensibly providing. Unless Apple were to charge substantially lower fees for it. Which is the only reason they preclude the other stores. If customers actually wanted trust and it could only be provided by Apple then customers wouldn't have to be precluded from using alternative stores because they just wouldn't choose to. And when that isn't possible, you can't say that people are choosing Apple's store because of trust, when there is no choosing happening because there is no alternative installation method to choose.
    - incrudible 3y ago
      > customers would switch Would they though? Side loading exists on Android, but good luck foregoing the Play Store for some third party store or even marketing yourself. It exists, sure, but it does not eliminate Googles similar (but weaker) value proposition. Would the possibility of side loading put pressure on Apple to be more competitive in terms of fees? Possibly, but Apple users tend to be less adventurous. For Apple, there are various other reasons not to open up, like the brand image. It is really hard to make a naive user (like a child) completely screw their iPhone. Also, remember when porn videos were all Flash, and the iPhone could not display them? Steve Jobs literally told people to buy an Android phone.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Side loading exists on Android, but good luck foregoing the Play Store for some third party store or even marketing yourself. It exists, sure, but it does not eliminate Googles similar (but weaker) value proposition. Google recently lost an antitrust case over this. They allow the alternatives on paper and then suppress them from becoming viable. In general to make this argument you would need to explain why the platform company would be the only store the users trust. Why Google but not Microsoft or Disney or Samsung or Amazon or Epic or Mozilla and so on? > It is really hard to make a naive user (like a child) completely screw their iPhone. This could be straightforwardly solved by allowing the device to be put into a mode where no new stores can be added without a passcode or a factory reset. Then the parent or IT department or what have you chooses a set of stores that they trust and the naive user can't add any, but the owner of the device can.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> Of course digital store fronts do not have many of the costs associated with physical retail, but there is still value in them bringing the customer to you. This is inherently in conflict with having a single store for everything, because the everything store would then have all of your competitors in it too. It also doesn't explain why you still have to pay when you do your own marketing through some other means and the customer is already looking for you in particular.

incrudible 3y ago
You have to pay because Apple asks for a commission in exchange for you being allowed to sell your product in their store. I think what you're really asking is: Where's the value if I want to (or have to) do my own marketing anyway? The answer is trust. I'm more likely to trust you with my money, with you executing code on my device, if Apple allows you on their store. Even the big brands like Epic get this value, because who is judge that whatever "I look for" isn't being hijacked by some impersonator? Perhaps that trust is misplaced, but the effect is real, thus the value is there. Apple considers this worth a 30% commission, and 100% of developers on the App store agree, or they wouldn't be on there. The question whether you couldn't get more value by doing it all yourself doesn't even ask itself, because there is no alternative. Whether that is anti-competitive in the legally prosecutable way is a very interesting question that we're all eager to hear answered by the courts. Personally, I do find that a 30% (or 27%) commission on out-of-band purchases is outrageous and that phone platforms should be cracked open, but I can also see the argument from the other side, comparing e.g. to video game consoles or set top boxes.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Apple considers this worth a 30% commission, and 100% of developers on the App store agree, or they wouldn't be on there. This is where you get it wrong. If there were other stores for iOS apps and the difference was only Apple's vetting and developers were still choosing to pay Apple 30% vs. much less for some alternative, then you could say that what they're paying for is trust. But everybody including Apple knows that isn't true in general. As soon as there were other viable stores and developers could put the same app there for a lower price, the large majority of customers would take the lower price over whatever "trust" Apple is ostensibly providing. Unless Apple were to charge substantially lower fees for it. Which is the only reason they preclude the other stores. If customers actually wanted trust and it could only be provided by Apple then customers wouldn't have to be precluded from using alternative stores because they just wouldn't choose to. And when that isn't possible, you can't say that people are choosing Apple's store because of trust, when there is no choosing happening because there is no alternative installation method to choose.
  - incrudible 3y ago
    > customers would switch Would they though? Side loading exists on Android, but good luck foregoing the Play Store for some third party store or even marketing yourself. It exists, sure, but it does not eliminate Googles similar (but weaker) value proposition. Would the possibility of side loading put pressure on Apple to be more competitive in terms of fees? Possibly, but Apple users tend to be less adventurous. For Apple, there are various other reasons not to open up, like the brand image. It is really hard to make a naive user (like a child) completely screw their iPhone. Also, remember when porn videos were all Flash, and the iPhone could not display them? Steve Jobs literally told people to buy an Android phone.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > Side loading exists on Android, but good luck foregoing the Play Store for some third party store or even marketing yourself. It exists, sure, but it does not eliminate Googles similar (but weaker) value proposition. Google recently lost an antitrust case over this. They allow the alternatives on paper and then suppress them from becoming viable. In general to make this argument you would need to explain why the platform company would be the only store the users trust. Why Google but not Microsoft or Disney or Samsung or Amazon or Epic or Mozilla and so on? > It is really hard to make a naive user (like a child) completely screw their iPhone. This could be straightforwardly solved by allowing the device to be put into a mode where no new stores can be added without a passcode or a factory reset. Then the parent or IT department or what have you chooses a set of stores that they trust and the naive user can't add any, but the owner of the device can.