Part of what Apple sell app developers is that piracy is hard on the App Store.
It also benefits developers and users that tweaking apps to cheat in games is as good as impossible.
A cloned or patched iOS that allowed users to install anything could change that by no longer checking app signatures.
This would be just as impossible in a well-designed version of iOS that allowed arbitrary app installation - iOS could do client-side attestation, and app developers could choose to prevent users from playing online matches with app versions that aren't attested by Apple (or a hypothetical Steam for iOS, for instance).
None of these properties are compromised by allowing arbitrary user-space code, which is what is one of the parents thought would happen.
With that in mind, I should be able to run any operating system on an iPhone I bought. Apple should not be required to actively support this, put in extra work to document things or whatnot, but they should not be allowed to actively make things harder.
I should be able to run any OS on my Samsung TV that I bought. Samsung should support it with an SDK. They should provide warranty and support for me if the OS I chose to install destroyed the screen.Do you see how silly the above statement is?
But I still disagree. Why does Apple have to allow a different OS to run on their hardware? That's absurd.
I don't demand that my refrigerator let me run my own software if I want to - nor do I demand that of my headphones, car, microwave, etc.
Let's just assert that it's false, then. Let's say 30% is unreasonable, and that iPhones would be as successful even with yet more unreasonable developer fees.
50% of your revenue, for delivering up to 140 bytes to a phone. Note that delivering a message was the only thing they did. You had to write the code to handle the incoming SMS message and send the reply. You had to host this service and serve the downloads (meaning you had to also pay for hosting and bandwidth). You also had to set this up for every single country you want to offer it in. None of this was discoverable, so you had to advertise your game/app as well. Also, the development tools were absolute shit (and you had to pay for those as well).
In comes Apple, who lets you keep 70%, provides excellent dev tools (I know it’s trendy to hate on Xcode, but even early versions of Xcode were heaven compared to the absolute shit show we had to deal with before). They host the app, they make it discoverable in their app store, they handle payments and make it all available worldwide.
So yeah, I’d say it was more than reasonable. Is it still reasonable in today’s market? Hard to say.
This might be due to a slightly different era and/or market, but I recall in the WAP and i-mode era, 50/50 would’ve been amazing.
More often than not, you’d be lucky if you got 30%, and you’d brag if you’d get 40%. In most cases, you’d be left with a measly 10%, and none of it included payment processing, which ate up a few percent more.
The worst part wasn’t the revenue split, though believe it or not, it was negotiating with multiple carriers over every little thing, and it could take months to get things going.
Discoverability was a bit better in this era than what you describe because carriers would have a little directory in which they listed apps. Of course, being listed in this directory, especially in a helpful way, would eat up more of your revenue share.
Carriers were also acting in a dirty way. If something was wrong and a customer complained, they’d charge you a refund but wouldn’t pass it along to the customer. Essentially, telling the customer they’re SOOL while telling the developer to pay up because their app didn’t work and then pocket that money.
The barrier to entry was also high and costly. Developer tools were shit, as you said, and the pipeline from development to sales was nearly non-existent.
So yeah, of course, in comparison, Apple was some kind of utopia, not despite the 30% but because of it, not to mention how hassle-free it is and, like you said, the excellent tools provided. I genuinely like Xcode despite the hate it gets, and I’d say that it’s been significantly improved over the last decade or so.
Similarly, the improvements and development of frameworks in the last couple of years are tremendous. I’d say all of it is well worth the 30%, but at the 15% I’m at now, it’s close to a steal.
Without exaggeration, the latest developments in frameworks really make my life easier, and some of what I do wouldn’t even be possible without it.
The framing around the commission is starting to irk me the wrong way.
In part because these big developers such as Epic, Spotify, and the like claim to speak for me, to make it look like they fight for “the little guy” and drum up support when they plainly don’t. Their interests and mine are miles apart and only marginally overlap and, in some cases, contradict each other.
In part, it is also because the effective rate for most developers is 15%, regardless of Apple’s motivations behind that discounted rate.
15% in exchange for the low barrier of entry and the solid tools that allow you to spin up an app and publish it on the App Store within a day or two is a pretty solid deal, in my opinion.
But what's happening is that this 30% is more or less a lock-in cost for the only official way to do business on IOS. And before this ruling, you weren't even allowed to mention in the app that consumers can also pay on your website. And now we come to this article saying "okay, you can show your website were still going to charge you 90% of our rate despite handling none of those transactions". And that's where things get really dicey.
With this new perspective, the question shifts to "is apple's 27% for distribution (minus payment processing) reasonable?" and I'm less sure. Especially when Apple can throw out my app for any reason whatsoever.
To use android for comparison, I can throw an APK up to download with relatively minimal effort, with zero regards for Google's rules and I owe Google 0% of my revenue. They still take 30% for using Google play as distribution. But it's nice knowing I could theoretically host it elsewhere if I don't agree with Google's pricing (minus some bribing issues Google is currently being taken to court for). There's none of that for Apple. Firefox is just a Safari skin because Apple says so. Emulator apps are in flux based on Apple's whims. Your app may be taken down for nudity as Apple profits millions from a few dozen games that barely try to hide it.
> this 30% is more or less a lock-in cost for the only official way to do business on IOS
As an app developer you're pretty much "screwed" TBH. You don't have a choice as to what platform your users choose (as long as you want to be in the market). Let's say Apple allows sideloading, but it is somewhat tedious and most users choose to stick to the official App Store -- then you're back to where you were, because you still want to sell your app/services to the users who stick to the official app store, and presumably your app is not so essential that users will actively switch if you dropped support for the official App Store.
If as an app developer you could influence the platform your users choose, then you would have asked them to move to Android and directly download your APK already, instead of bickering with the App Store (or even Google play store). The fact that you aren't proves that you're still at mercy to your users decisions, and whether they decide installing your app via sideloading is worth the trouble.
I'm not trying to denigrate you, but I suspect you might have unrealistically rosy expectations of the world where Apple is forced to allow sideloading.
There is no reason that sideloading is tedious. If it is, then that is a deliberierte choice, going from no sideloading to no sideloading that anybody will care to use. Just as Microsoft was forced to suggest alternative browsers to users instead of simply bundling Windows with Internet Explorer and Edge, one could even imagine to force Apple to let the user pick an alternative app store during setup.
In the absence of a competitive market we don’t know whether 30% is reasonable but it’s unreasonable (or naive) to suspect that a closed system has hit on an efficient fee structure, from the end users point of view.
More broadly — a competitive market would allow innovation on many many variables, not just different rent-taking numbers.