This is really only an issue with low-margin licensing subscriptions like Spotify and Netflix, where they would lose money on every purchase if 30% of their margins went to Apple. While I definitely think there are some problems with the App Store, the fact is that it is so easy and streamlined for people buying apps that it’s worth the 30% for the vast majority of developers.
> While I definitely think there are some problems with the App Store, the fact is that it is so easy and streamlined for people buying apps that it’s worth the 30% for the vast majority of developers.
If people would still choose it even if there were competitors, then why is competition prohibited?
The answer is that the App Store would still exist, but might have to charge less or lose business to lower cost competitors. So you would get everything you want and with lower costs.
> The security model is based on an entitlement system. Which other stores are trustworthy enough to be allowed to issue entitlements?
That's up to the user to decide. It's a lot easier to choose curators from among well-known companies like Apple and Amazon than to choose individual apps that are inherently developed by small shops or individuals.
> If the idea is that users would be able to vet which apps or app stores should get entitlements... well, we've seen how well that works on Android.
Exactly. Some of them do a better job than Google itself. There is probably less malware in F-Droid than on iOS.
And if you like Apple's store then... keep using it. Just because other stores would be available doesn't require you to use them.
I have to disagree where 30% is a low margin. This is different to real estate where there are actually foot traffic in front of your store. The App Store is more like a nation charging 30% tax regardless where you live, and that is on Revenue not Profits.
