I guess my point is that App Store metrics (total revenue, subscription revenue, average revenue per user, etc) continues to grow and maintain their lead over Google Play so the chilling effect can't be too bad.
I suggest that in terms of metrics, Apple's App Store vs Google's Play Store isn't really the right comparison to see the chilling effect I'm talking about, because both mobile ecosystems have broadly similar dynamics. A more telling comparison might be something like iOS app developers vs. web developers offering SAAS. How many businesses that run successful SAAS websites charging subscription fees for access also offer an equivalent mobile app where customers can subscribe, accepting Apple's 30% cut and other restrictions?
And let's be clear, this isn't an argument over competing methods of payment, it's an argument about whether Apple should be entitled to a percentage of revenue for iOS app sales, regardless how they are sold, regardless where they are sold.
We should be mindful to keep this question separate from whether there should be more than one place to acquire apps, or whether it matters if the financial transaction occurs prior to downloading or after the app is installed.
If it's the latter, then Epic disagrees with you.
Epic's own business model says they're entitled to a cut of your revenue if you use their tools and libraries. They don't care what payment method you use. They don't care if you sell copies or sell in-game hats. If you make revenue, they're entitled to a slice of it.
(Yes, Epic does waive their fee for low revenue games. That's very nice of them, though in reality it's obviously a clever strategic move to lure game developers over to their ecosystem, in the hope that more breakout indie successes happen to be built with Unreal Engine. But that doesn't change the underlying principle: they would be entitled to it if they had asked for it.)
Though I disagree with arguments about whether Apple are "extremely well compensated" already. Arguments of principle should not take into account any company's particular monetisation strategy. For example, it's often stated that game consoles are sold at razor thin margins, or even a slight loss, and this justifies why they can charge high license fees for games. I think that's a perfectly valid strategy, but the fact that the game consoles aren't a profit centre (whereas iPhones definitely are for Apple) shouldn't affect whether it's decided that a 30% manufacturer's margin on digital software sales is appropriate or not.
But I would also argue that when the software in question is a game, a game console can indeed be a relevant analogy. Games are games—whether you are buying them to play on a smartphone or a GameBoy or an Xbox. The "business models" and "stakes for society" are the same regardless.
If I were in charge of Apple, I would lower their store percentage to a very low 10% for non-game apps. 30% might have been a reasonable amount in the early days, but Apple's market success means they don't need it. (I would also completely abandon their pointless stance over reader content and allow Spotify, Netflix etc to bill customers directly in-app.)
But for games, I would have Apple match the prevailing percentage set by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo—which I believe is 30% across the board.
I suppose you could bolt a rudimentary spreadsheet feature onto Call Of Duty but that doesn't stop it from being any less of a video game. This isn't interesting and it certainly isn't clever.
A more interesting question would be if Microsoft Excel iOS had a little Sudoku mini-game buried in a submenu.
They would do this by transparently showing the markup to the user, and allowing the user to choose if they want to pay 30% more or not.
That seems like a pretty reasonable solution to all of this. Give users the choice to buy on the app, and have them pay the full fee if that is actually what the user wants.
I suspect the best way to bust those marketplaces and reduce them to making profits commensurate with the true value they offer is to prohibit them from handling any financial transactions between the two parties at all. Instead, let them simply get paid by the sellers on some agreed terms. If they offer enough value to justify the rate they ask, the sellers will pay it. If they are too greedy, the sellers will go somewhere else. And if they have a monopoly or monopsony position, they are subject to the same competition law as any other business buying or selling anything else in an exclusive or dominant position.
Apple literally made the town in which their marketplace resides. They attracted residents to their town from the goodwill of their brand name, through the creation of a desirable product, and through substantial investments of marketing. People are continually attracted to this town because the crime rate is low and the city council's ordinances are suitable for the vast majority.
Apple literally built all of the existing buildings, provided anyone who wanted to participate in the economy with a garage full of tools, provided free and near-free training to anyone who wants it, and supplied people (again, for free) many of the basic raw materials which people used to build products.
Apple literally built the marketplace itself. They did an imperfect but not terrible job at minimising the number of outright hucksters. They made it so financial transactions were perceived as secure transactions[0], and that merchants' customers felt confident opening their wallets more often than in the adjacent town.
[0] This is more important than you remember. Ten years ago the concept of trusting your credit card through an app on your phone was new. By making the system highly trustworthy from the get-go, people's trust was rapidly won and rarely shaken.
But even if you do insist on separating them, you don't get to arbitrarily bisect them wherever you want to suit your argument. The "retail" App Store is only the surface layer of the iOS app ecosystem which Apple has developed, it's certainly not the totality of it. There's the toolchain, APIs, documentation, training resources and many other things besides, which are all necessary parts to that marketplace's existence.
You might argue that Apple chose to give away their developer tools rather than license their use with a revenue share arrangement (like Epic does with Unreal Engine). You might argue that Apple charges for their tools with the $99 annual developer fee. I disagree that these are relevant. How Apple chooses to monetise their own work is up to them. For example, Apple could have instead defined their 30% revenue share requirement as a license condition for the use of their tools and libraries. The outcome for consumers and developers would be largely identical, but the "store monopoly" argument would make a lot less sense.
Even Epic themselves understand that developer ecosystems are valuable and it's fair for a percentage of top-line profit to go to them regardless how the app is sold or how payments work.
More broadly I must admit some occasional frustration by people who insist Apple must change, as this insistence is all too often paired with a somewhat arrogant paternalism, that they know better than I do what I should want. "Free market" is certainly the simplest argument to side with and the easiest one to wax lyrical about, but that doesn't automatically make it the best one.
I'm not going to spend too much time explaining why I think the iOS ecosystem would be worse if "free markets" were forced upon it, because unfortunately Hacker News debates on this topic generally see more people throwing down-votes rather than engaging with the debate. But fundamentally I see the difference of opinion stemming from whether you see the smartphone as a computing platform or an appliance bundled with systems administration services from the vendor. I think of my smartphone as an appliance, despite being a software developer by trade. But I'm glad that the market includes many brands of Android phone so that everyone who cares can have a choice.
The question of what's been done elsewhere isn't relevant, because there are many elsewheres, each with their own origin stories. Most of them look more like iOS than macOS—the personal computer marketplace is something of an outlier when it comes to software distribution.