At least there is Firefox - which also gets most of its funding by the same BigTech company.
If the lack of alternate browsers are the only thing stopping app developers from making better PWAs, then why are all the same developers making iOS apps, Android apps and web apps instead of just making iOS apps and web apps?
And where are all of the successful profitable Android apps that are bypassing the Play Store?
If iOS had open browser engines I guarantee you two things :
- evolution of web standards would be different
- web mobile games would be a thing
The 30% cut would incentivise big distributors to invest in it (Epic/Steam). It was enough to get epic to risk getting baned from appstore
If Apple is holding back “web mobile games”, why aren’t developers making games for iOS and the web instead of iOS and Android? As a mobile game developer wouldn’t it be logical to skip making a native game for Android and just make one for the web that covers Android and computers?
So, how successful do you think a store would be if its made difficult to install and difficult to create software for? Is it any surprise there are no successful profitable apps?
> WebKit lock in is a way to prevent web apps from disrupting appstore cash cow
The Mozilla cooperation mostly survives because of Google funding it to be the default search engine. Even Microsoft decided it didn’t make sense to keep developing its own browser engine. How is a company going to make money creating browser? No company has successful made a profit from people paying for a browser - ever.
Yes, I was around and into computers when the first browsers came out. I was actually writing extensions to a custom Mac Gopher server before the web became popular.
Who is going to make a more secure browser? Google? Firefox? Every other popular browser is just a Chromium reskin outside of Safari and Firefox.
Besides, you can't compare the real world with digital. The real world isn't a near infinite space with millions of items are available in a single place for everyone in the country with a connected device to view and purchase.
Oh and guess what? Even when you buy a third party game from a retail store, the console maker still got their cut. Console makers have forced third party developers to pay a license fee for every game sold for over 30 years.
Retail is a physical space, rent applies to properties in the real world. Rent does not apply to near infinite digital spaces run by a single company.
It was cheaper to purchase in store than on the digital store, why is that? Is it because platforms only allow a single store to be available on their devices, their own. Imagine if there were competing stores? Im sure that 'rent' price would disappear really quick.
Just like Apple gets a cut of every app sold on iOS, the console makers do to. Even when you buy a physical disc
The original poster was calling it “rent seeking” when Apple got 30% of sales. This is what every distributor does - they mark up the price. The “wholesale” price is the price the original manufacturer sells it to distributors for.
You would think digital content would be cheaper, as it is not bound by real world restraints. It can be duplicated easily, moved quickly and made available at anytime to any person with a connect device.
Apple sets its own mark up of 30%, they can do this through anti-competitive practice of limiting sales to their store only. If companies where able to host their own digital stores and sell their own digital products, Apple could not afford to mark up to 30% on sales because no one would buy anything at the inflated prices on their store.
So do you think running the app stores don’t have a cost? Is any company not charging a mark up for being a distributor of digital content?
> You would think digital content would be cheaper,
The physical retail markup is much higher.
> Apple sets its own mark up of 30
As does all of its competitors.
> If companies where able to host their own digital stores and sell their own digital products, Apple could not afford to mark up to 30% on sales because no one would buy anything at the inflated prices on their store.
If that’s the case, why do companies that can sell physical goods on their own choose to sell on Amazon? Why don’t music companies sell their own digital downloads since they can be played on iPhones? Why don’t major publishers of books sell their books from their website? You can download a book from the web directly into the Books app and you can sideload on a Kindle?
The answer is simple, Amazon and Apple are where the customers are and there is no friction buying from either one because your payment details are already on file.
Marco Arment (cofounder of Tumbler and now a well known indie developer) said that one overlooked benefit of subscriptions through the App Store is that everyone keeps their payment information up to date with Apple.
From a consumer standpoint, canceling a subscription through the App Store is much easier than for instance going to the NYTimes abs trying to cancel it.
Now we are talking sale of physical items on Amazon. Amazon is popular, doesn’t mean it has no competition. I can easily buy things on eBay, or Walmart or any number of big chain stores. Amazon isn’t the most popular online store where I live, eBay is. Kindle has lock in aswell, side loading is not convenient. most people wouldn’t know what it is. There are however many alternative ebook stores and many people do sell directly from a personal website cheaper.
Many companies do sell their products on their own sites, Music can can be bought from alternative websites. Unlike the App Store, there is no rule that says these items must be sold from a single source.
I do not understand where you're going with all this? Are these continually changing arguments meant to justify Apple locking out competition that allows them to freely set their own pricing? That no one would use alternatives anyway? That it's no different from retail?
> companies where able to host their own digital stores and sell their own digital products, Apple could not afford to mark up to 30% on sales because no one would buy anything at the inflated prices on their store
Yet companies that do have a choice between selling products using their own distribution channels, overwhelmingly decide to sell through aggregators. Why is this?
You keep bringing up buying a game locally as opposed to buying it threw the PS store. My point is the platform provider is still getting a cut.
> alternative websites. Unlike the App Store, there is no rule that says these items must be sold from a single source.
Your argument was why would merchants sell on the App Store if they weren’t forced to. My Counterexample is that even when that choice is available, merchants still chose to sell through aggregators because that’s where the customers are.