> For a start, everything would become much cheaper for you
That, I doubt. Most stuff already is dirt-cheap on the App Store (and riddled with ads). It’s not like, for example, getting into Apple’s App Store is so expensive that it adds dollars to the price of apps.
> Most stuff already is dirt-cheap on the App Store (and riddled with ads).
Are we using the same App Store? Anything of worth is behind a $10 monthly subscription. Apple has intentionally made subscriptions the only viable commercial model on the App Store. Then they take 30% (with some exceptions). They forbid competition, so developers aren't free to distribute to iOS customers in any other way.
> Apple has intentionally made subscriptions the only viable commercial model on the App Store
How do you think Apple has done that? They’ve always had the option for a one-time payment for apps, and those can be fairly high ($999,99 until December 2022 and $10,000 after that time, according to https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/6/23496734/apple-app-store-...)
Even if Apple did that, I don’t see any evidence that was intentional.
I think it’s more that the market has spoken, and said that “you can’t sell $100 apps on the App Store”. And even then, there are counterexamples.
The only thing Apple may hav head to do with that is that it ‘gave’ zillions of developers visibility for their $0,99 apps on the App Store. That may have led users to think software should be cheap.
1. They aggressively deprecate and modify endpoints. Microsoft maintains APIs for decades. Apple deprecates and modifies them with frequently little or no warning, necessitating expensive and time-consuming maintenance. This makes the one-time purchase unviable as a business model for developers.
2. Apple doesn't permit paid application upgrades (v2). Everything has to be done with IAP. This means developers can't abandon old versions and start selling and supporting new versions without losing all their SEO, affiliate links, marketing, branding, coupons, etc.
3. Apple doesn't facilitate wishlists, meaning sales are much less effective.
4. By disallowing competition, Apple ensures iPhone users are a captive audience. They can't purchase one-time software elsewhere. They have to accept the subscription to get the most value out of their phones.
This is entirely by design. It's hardly "the market" speaking. There is nothing free about the "market" on iPhones.
A difficulty developers have cited is that it isn't possible to have paid major version upgrades while keeping the same identity (links, reviews, etc...) for an app.
... but they have exactly the same business model, and people genuinely promote valve as if they want it to be a monopoly. (though I am aware that it's not one now- first-party launchers are universally reviled by gamers).
Valve allow you to install whatever game store you want on the Steam Deck. They win custom by making a better experience than everyone else, Apple win because they have formed an environment where you have no other option.
If Apple wanted the same business model, they would allow alternative storefronts, they wouldn't block updates if they decided they didn't like you anymore, and they wouldn't block you from even replacing the OS on the device you bought if you wanted to.
In fact, I'm not entirely sure apart from running stores that they are the same thing at all.
Steam was not appreciated when it launched. It made a foothold as a requirement for HL2. Valve has done a good job making relatively painless over the last 20 years, but it was originally reviled.
Merely being in the app store makes everything 30% more expensive! Including any subscriptions through the app, which is just ridiculous. This was the whole basis of the Epic lawsuit. And you can't tell people to sidestep the Apple cut by not putting the payment through them, that will get you banned from the app store.
I think that profit margin would often, though perhaps not always, go to the developers rather to the consumers. That some already offer same thing at 30% discount on their website may be a sign of cheaper future, or may be a way to get price sensitive people to buy more.
Subs, kinda agree.
Also it's only 30% for the top of the market (15% for a lot of apps), and only for digital goods (so not my banking apps or Amazon), and it has to be stuff bought in app (so not two of my last three employers).
And even 30% was good when it was new. Only looks bad now because the market grew so much — but the market did grow, and I was expecting monopoly action around when they first passed one trillion dollar valuation.
With Epic especially, that felt like one arrogant giant swiping at another giant. Especially due to concerns that Fortnite was designed to be addictive, that loot boxes are gambling.
Things are more than 30% more expensive. For a developer to get the same profit on the apple app store with Apple taking 30% of revenue they have to charge 43% more.
There will always be beneficial change for consumers if input costs drop in competitive markets. Markets are dynamic systems. Even if the costs don't drop, the person that is actually providing you value via the app will get the money where they can use it to hire more people to improve the product you use.
> The DMA is about developer choice, not consumers
Ultimately it is about both. The idea behind that is pretty much the idea of capitalism: competition drives innovation.
While I personally do not care about the alternative stores, I care very much about stuff like the in app purchases. I am not using Apples subscriptions and all the rules and steps to circumvent the rules make it horribly inconvenient to deal with subscriptions.
I also hate the fact that I cannot buy an ebook in app because of Apple‘s 30% cut
I think many, especially smaller, developers don’t realize the value they get for that commission: distribution, payment processing, billing, tax processing/collection, dispute handling, marketing (i.e. a storefront,) management of versions/updates for users, not to mention security benefits (for users.)
If people don’t like that, nothing is stopping them from choosing not to sell to Apple device owners. If Apple device owners don’t like it, they can switch to a competitor.
> If people don’t like that, nothing is stopping them from choosing not to sell to Apple device owners. If Apple device owners don’t like it, they can switch to a competitor.
The whole point of this regulation is to enable both sides to make that choice without having to give up on the iPhone and the rest of their app purchases etc. in that ecosystem.
That, I doubt. Most stuff already is dirt-cheap on the App Store (and riddled with ads). It’s not like, for example, getting into Apple’s App Store is so expensive that it adds dollars to the price of apps.