If people actually just stood firm against the fees then viable alternatives would manifest.
The same way when automakers tried a similar game and then.. the government stepped in, slapped the tar out of them with regulation, and told them to play nicely with third parties or lose the ability to do business.
Or when utilities had natural monopolies were preventing competition and.. then the government put strict regulations on them, set pricing rules and allowed significant control of them.
The answer is that if the two dominant parties have managed to keep out competitors and basically engage in collusion, the government should correct the situation.
Comparing utilities, based on physical constraints, with digital goods doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t require any effort to make a web app relative to the status quo.
Furthermore your example doesn’t make any sense because you make money with Apple and pay a fee - you’re not paying for nothing. Natural gas, for example, has constraints around distribution and collection. These don’t exist for apps.
Ironically, if more developers just made web apps instead of going to app stores it would not only make their apps more accessible as they are inherently cross platform, but would likely lead to the creation of a web App Store to resolve the distribution problem.
No. No they don't. Oops.
Sorry, who is lying again?
You could just install Chrome.. oh wait no, no you can't. Apple won't let you.
no, you just need a webapp.
So should companies not be rewarded for making an awesome system so they can charge these commissions? I mean Amazon and Microsoft can't blame Apple for their failure to produce phones people want to use...they certainly had the resources, and still do.
That's a bold position to take. What makes you feel entitled to that? Did apple ever sell iPhones as a one-and-done purchase? I'm pretty confused about how you're justifying this argument. It seems to me that you think all developers have some kind of entitlement to make a profit off of Apple's ecosystem without Apple making a profit from an ecosystem they risked a lot to build, because Apple is already making a profit off the iPhone. Am I following that correctly?
Yes, the original iPhone 2G. It didn’t even have App Store on launch version of iOS. In fact, Cydia, the original jailbreak app store, existed on iOS before the official App Store. Saurik can speak to any fees for paid apps featured on Cydia. I remember an SMS app that allowed reply from notifications that I bought through Cydia, but I forget the name, maybe biteSMS? Most apps were entirely free, and Cydia supports adding arbitrary repositories.
So, arguably, the original app purchasing experience on iOS was free and open source. Apple and their App Store couldn’t compete, and thus the war against right to compute and jailbreaks.
I just don't understand where developers are coming from. Let's say I build a wildly successful theme park. It's the best theme park in the world and only a couple other theme parks exist that is as fun as my theme park.
Because I'm so good at building theme parks, do you have some kind of entitlement to put your ride in my theme park and charge people money to ride it?
I don’t get your theme park example. Here’s my spin on your analogy:
Apple built the theme park, and now they want to dictate that the independently-operated hotdog vendor may only purchase buns from Apple, and they further dictate that if they use the buns (totally optional), then Apple is entitled to 27% of the total hotdog purchase price.
You basically just described McDonald's business model. And yes, that's fair. Because if you as a hotdog vendor want to sell in Apple's theme park, then you play by Apple theme park rules. You can sell your hotdogs on the street if you don't like Apple's terms. What's so hard to understand about that?
It’s anticompetitive, and so folks are legislating against it. What’s so hard to understand about that?
It seems to me like the only folk legislating against it are European nations, who have historically very uncompetitive tech companies so this is their only way of getting a piece of the pie. Seems like everybody is motivated by money to me. Epic and co. can act like they are for the people, but in the end, they just want more money.
You can have a private theme park. You can't call 50% of consumers theme park attendees. You can't operate globally and lock down a device and charge punitive rates - and if you do, we will use the legislative to fix that.
It's really the 50% shouting on social media that hurts the most. Instead of maybe recommending your app, they will recommend one of your competitors that support both.
If I don't like the app store fees can I just not use it? You see what I'm getting at?
You only pay Apple store fees if you make money. Your comparison is dumb. Charge more to your users and be done with it a all of your Apple competitors are bound by the same rule.
Do you think this site you’re on is originally an iPhone app?