Meanwhile a world of premium-priced alternatives or subscriptions remains out of reach because of Apple's 30% commission and $0.99 minimum charge, and lack of support for upgrade pricing (although Apple will happily launch competitor apps and take 100% of the proceeds, as well as giving itself premium search positioning).
Some of the biggest companies (eg. Facebook) might just buy carrier user data directly, actually worsening privacy.
This reads like a very big win for users if "the ecosystem" is adtech.
If 90% of the ecosystem survives just fine I would call that an unqualified success.
I agree it's hard to say how reducing income for app developers of free apps helps users.
We can buy $3-$4 cups of coffee every day, but $0.99 for an app is too much? Come on.
Peer: "You paid $30?!?! For an app?!?!" (I think it was OmniFocus)
Me: "Umm, yeah, because it's good and I use it literally every day across all my devices" (At the time I'd just ditched my Windows gaming PC, and my Linux instances were all VPSes or similar)
Peer: "But it's an app!" (like shouting louder explains something)
Me: "Right, which is what we make. You should understand, more than most, the actual work that goes into something like this."
Peer: Shaking head "But it's an app..." wanders off confused
Does the Apple Store have refunds? If a user could refund an app within 48 hours of purchase (no questions asked), might that increase sales? (An abrupt change in policy might negatively impact premium "one time use" apps though...)
I reckon trying to solve this as though it's rationally thought-out is wrongheaded. I didn't consider and decide that I didn't like paying for apps, I just got used to not paying for apps. And indeed, once I got used to paying for apps again,* I stopped worrying about whether the $1 app would actually do what I wanted.
* Since we're sort of discussing what would prompt people to spend money, for me it was games. Free-to-play games are so reliably so annoying that I eventually swore off downloading them.
On that same note, I’ve never asked a decent restaurant for a refund or exchange of a bad food or drink and not received it either.
This allows lots of new methods that aren’t possible for physical products.
For me, I buy software when it has a good value (I like Omni products) but the argument that people should buy apps because they buy coffee is disingenuous and not useful without more info.
I certainly wouldn’t buy coffee for 3-4 if it didn’t require a building and barista and shipping coffee across the world and roasting beans, etc. If coffee could magically appear in my hand for almost $0, then I certainly wouldn’t pay so much.
Of course, there are still costs like design for digital goods, but they are very different.
Over 4 years we asked people to pay, about, $120 total (regular dues, the better machine, and once to replace some broken cups or mugs), that's approaching $0 to get a coffee to appear in your hand (and for most of the people it was "magic" as they didn't operate the espresso machines, they showed up and a coffee was handed to them).
Like Docker asking you to upgrade to pro so you can click "Skip update"...
I strongly suspect that $3-4 for coffee is dictated by the unwillingness of the American public to have different prices for take away, counter or sit at a table with a computer for two hours. I live in Italy, and an espresso at the counter is on average 1 euro, go to a nice place sit down and have a waiter serve you and it can easily double in price, if you're sitting in a famous square in Venice it can go up to 5, but in any case you won't be able to order just one coffee and sit for two hours.
So my guess is that every Starbucks customer is just paying for rent, whether they use the table or not. (also possibly the fact that Starbucks can't overcharge you for alcohol is a factor).
"An advertisement (often shortened to advert or ad) is the promotion of a product, brand or service to a viewership in order to attract interest, engagement and sales."
They'd have to charge $4.28 - $5.71 to make the same as before - actually more, since demand would also be reduced due to the higher price.
Its likely that the cafe business would be basically completely uneconomic... we cannot anticipate the kind of ecosystem we could have if the platforms charged based on the service that they provide (which would be a few % points, with credit card fees as the main cost) instead of extracting monopoly rents.
No, but they do have to pay their landlord. In all likelihood, they pay even more than 30% to their landlord, especially when sales slow down. I can't tell you how many restaurants and cafes have closed during the pandemic.
No such ability exists on iOS.
Software developers have to pay rent too. And salaries, and for hardware, and finally for a giant 30% commission to Apple..
You are operating on the basis that a 30% commission from a platform owner is an established fact of the Universe, whereas I am suggesting it is merely an artificial cost tacked on to extract exorbitant rents and for no purpose other than to enrich an owner who faces zero competition.
Developers are free to take their business elsewhere, such as to Android or PCs, or even to some open source phones. Apple just happens to own the "mall" with the lion's share of the foot traffic and the wealthiest customers.