For many, their iOS device (iPad or iPhone) is their primary computing device.... it is not like a PS4, which is mainly for games.
Back in the 90's If Microsoft didn't get 'checked' with a threat to be broken up, we would have ended up with Pay MSFT 30% tax on every software you installed and purchased.
It it time to 'check' both Apple and Google on their practices... In this case, Google at least allows some sideloading, while apple doesn't at all...
So, I expect Apple is going to be the losing end of the history... but as long as they can keep doing it, and make profits out of it, they will be doing.
I was alive and working during the 90's and a massive linux/freebsd user then. What Microsoft was doing, forcing the hardware manufacturers to install windows or lose their business - forcing the bundling of internet explorer, is absolutely and completely different than what Apple is doing. It's their platform, the are not forcing any one to do anything.
Windows is their platform, their choice for what's installed with it and who can sell computers with windows on it
A monopoly is a monopoly, friend.
> No one is forced to make games for Apple.
Monopoly laws supersede this argument.
> no one has the right to walk into that store and tell me I can't take a cut of the profits
Actually, if a business has a monopoly on a certain market, then there absolutely are things that a person can demand that they do.
The problem with Apple Pay is a) it is forced as the only option, and b) it is hidden from the user; you may never realize that all these years you have been paying for a service on your iPhone, you could have instead gone to the publisher's website and saved a lot of money.
It just goes to show 30% is far from unusual - especially in the gaming industry. In fact 30% seems to be the benchmark.
Retailers like Best Buy take 30% of video game sales too.
Here's an article with a useful graphic that shows the cut through common gaming distribution channels: https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...
For games, 30% is not unusual for distribution.
Would this just result in every app being free, but using (non-apple) IAP to gain access to any content beyond the opening screen?
If I were Apple, I'd make my payments optional. They're so seamless that as a customer, I'd probably still use them unless I were getting a substantial discount to do otherwise, and sometimes even then. They could do something like give developers the option to sign up to use it exclusively for a reduced rate. It'd be one less bullet for the anti-trust regulators, and app store revenues are only about 4% of Apple's revenue anyway.
Yes, but all IAPs now go through Apple and they get their 30% cut.
> hey're so seamless that as a customer, I'd probably still use them unless I were getting a substantial discount to do otherwise, and sometimes even then
Well, every app would easily be able to offer you a 25% discount (30% - 5% to account for transaction fees), since they would not be paying the Apple fee.
Since when have companies passed on fee decreases to their customers instead of accepting the effectively free higher margins?
Since companies had to compete with other companies. The moment the Apple tax is lifted, at least one company will lower prices. Other companies will be forced to follow suit. I'm not saying ALL the price decrease will be passed to consumers, but some of it definitely will. Especially since a lot of these goods are currently sold at a mark up on the App Store right now.
App developers set their prices at whatever maximizes revenue (which is often determined by testing) and the payment processing fee has no effect. It's more like Coke pricing at an airport than Coke pricing at a gas station with another gas station next door.
I expect they'd offer whatever discount maximized revenue, so the real question is how much of a discount do they need to offer to get you to switch from app store payments to some other method? Other methods are largely pretty seamless these days too, so the answer is probably not much. I expect consumers would barely benefit.
(Source: been doing games with IAPs for 13 years).
Now if I'm given the options of accepting App store payments at 30%, and let's say PayPal at 3%, I'm going to offer the customer a little discount to switch to PayPal. That too will be whatever discount maximizes profit. That wouldn't be too hard to determine with testing, and would depend on how easy the payment methods are and how much customers love the convenience/security of Apple's payment system.
For me as a consumer, if I got offered a 10% discount and had something comparably easy to use I'd probably go with it on small transactions. If I had to enter a credit card, I'm not going to bother on a $1 or maybe even $10 purchase for that little.
If Apple allows non-apple payment without major restrictions, it's revenue from app store will trend towards zero (save for inertia).
I think it's fine. It's a tiny part of their overall profits. Like sub 5%. If it gets antitrust regulators off their back it's well worth it.
As far as I know, you can't use Apple's store without Apple's hardware. So my point is that Apple is getting paid.