> I've never understood why video game consoles are the relevant platform.
From the courts’ perspective, it isn’t. The relevant market definition, as established by the courts, is digital mobile gaming transactions.
I’ve called into the District Court’s hearings almost every day, and many days were spent on determining the relevant market, but the long and short of it is that this definition was chosen because:
- The impetus of the case was Fortnite
- Epic was unconvincing in establishing their EGS was more than just a gaming storefront, which limited the scope of the case to gaming
- the court established that free-to-play games generated the vast majority of the App Store revenue
You also have to remember that the court can’t just hand out judgments that affect things beyond the case in front of it.
This case was Epic v Apple and not, say, a class action by multiple app developers, so the court's conclusions will be limited to the facts that pertain to those two parties.
In other words, other markets might exist, but they might not be relevant to the case at hand.
Additionally, civil courts prefer to split the baby; in this case, this seems to be a middle ground between Apple’s proposed relevant market (games in general) and Epic’s (Apple’s App Store).
An interesting tidbit is that Nintendo’s Switch made a minor cameo of sorts because you can make transactions on it on the go (i.e., it's mobile). Still, the main competitor, according to the court, was Google, leading the court to conclude that Apple is primarily in a duopoly with Google.
Personally, I think video game consoles would be part of the relevant market because of the similarities in market dynamics. The way the payment for IP is structured (commission), the way entry to the market is managed (certifications, similar to app review), the way there’s a single brand market (i.e., monopoly by manufacturers), etc.
While the purpose of the devices might be different, the underlying products are the same (software), and the market mechanics are nearly identical.
Even the platform limitations are artificially created by the platform holder (i.e., what you can and can’t do on iOS is artificially limited, just like what you can and can’t do on consoles is artificially limited by Sony and Microsoft).
Drilling it down further, you’ll find that on Xbox, you have access to non-gaming apps, and plenty of people use their iPads as a game device for their kids. Further blurring these lines of purpose.
> As an Apple user, I don't even play video games, on either iPhone or Mac
You might not, but it wouldn’t come as a surprise to you that others might.
I, for example, play games on my Apple devices, as do others in my household.
> And as an Apple developer, I don't write video games either.
Same here. I mainly write apps, but I dabble in games and know plenty of other devs who make games.
> Games are 100% irrelevant to my computing life.
What I’m trying to say is that anecdotal arguments aren’t solid. This is not a dig at you; mine aren’t either.
> The problem is that the iTunes Music Store was based on selling 99 cent songs. 30% of that is just 30 cents.
I don’t follow this logic.
Does it matter if $300,000 is extracted via a million $1 transactions or 10,000 $100 transactions?
Ultimately, you end up paying $300,000 in commissions.
> Before the App Store, computer software was almost never in the 99 cent price range.
There’s a lot to unpack with this simple statement.
First is, of course, that the race to the bottom is a pro-competitive symptom.
If we, as devs, didn’t have to compete so hard, we wouldn’t have to sell our software at low prices.
Ironically, this is good for consumers, but the devaluation of software isn’t so great for us developers.
Secondly, this, of course, undermines your iTunes $0.99 argument. Whatever it used to be, it’s now the same as with songs via iTunes.
Does this mean you’re ok with the 30% commission or 15%, whichever applies to you?
This is why I’m saying I have a hard time following your logic because I guess I don’t know exactly what you’re trying to say.
Lastly, before the App Store, the revenue cut developers got was abysmal. I don’t know if you’re old enough to recall any of this. I barely am, but it wasn’t pretty.
In brick-and-mortar times, you would have a good deal if 40% made its way to you, but more often than not, it was a 70/30 split, with only 30% making it to you, with outliers as low as 10%.
Specifically for “smartphone” software, this continued for a while, with carriers being cutthroat regarding revenue split.
In the years before the App Store, things got better with Nokia and BlackBerry, who adopted a revenue split closer to 50/50, and Qualcomm’s BREW actually was “good” at times with an 80/20 split in favor of developers.
The problem with those, however, was that the barrier to entry was relatively high and costly.
Then Apple came along with their 70/30 split, which, as you said, was a copy-paste from the iTunes Store. Still, because both an all-encompassing commission (payment processing wasn’t a separate charge as was typical before then) and because of the abysmal revenue splits in the decades before while also having a comparatively low barrier of entry, it was received with literal cheers.
Although I think people were also happy not to have to deal with carriers anymore, that was a huge pain.
Sure, App Review can be a pain for some, but it’s a utopian publishing pipeline compared to the hoops one had to jump through and the negations you’d have to go through every time before the App Store came along.
Does that mean that Apple is perfect?
By no means, there’s plenty they can improve on, but within the historical context of the time, it was like offering someone a glass of ice water to someone who was stuck in hell (to paraphrase a quote from Jobs on iTunes on Windows that didn’t age well).
I couldn’t care less about the commission. I was content with 30%, and I knew what I eagerly signed up for. The 15% discount was a nice bonus, and I think I got, and still get, my money’s worth and then some.
While my experience is overwhelmingly positive, I think there are other, more pressing matters for me as a developer that Apple can improve on.