Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something.
It's not that it's not worth something, it's that they're abusing their patents and monopoly to extract further compensation after I already bought the device.
Right, that's the thing. And zero should also be their revenue and their asset value as long as they continue along that path. The fines should continue to escalate, and should also be applied to individual executives and board members, until they become high enough that the behavior actually changes.
$2 billion is a good start. Apple's revenue in 2024 was about $390 billion. Fines in excess of that amount should be considered.
If you want to buy Apple cables because you think it is better, sure - that's great. But preventing ugreen cables from working makes no sense.
You shouldnt say 'buy a different phone' if you want to use ugreen cables.
If you're a consumer, you should be on the side of more choice and more competition. If you're a Apple/Apple employee, you should 100% say what you just did :)
Ergo, if you care about maintaining a free market, then you care about limiting what kind of moves you can make in the free market, in order to preserve a free market. A truly free market with no rules has an end state where it is not a free market, more like a much more sophisticated version of the nobles of the land owning everything. So we declare many activities that make it difficult for others to compete that are not simply about manking a better product, "anti-competitive" and illegal.
Outside of Apple and Samsung (only because they make a lot of their own parts), the phone market is a commodity race to the bottom
The apple iPhone is a locked down system engineered in such a way to extract maximum value from consumers and developers. It is impossible to compete.
And if new entrants can't enter the market because the existing monopolies make it impractical, then what?
>It’s an admission we’re all at the mercy of Apple until daddy government steps in.
That has always been the case when market participants become too dominant e.g.
United States v. Paramount Pictures (1948)
United States v. AT&T (1984)
United States v. Microsoft (2001)
Anti-trust regulation would have dealt with Apple, Google and co by now if the lobbying weren't so out of control compared to previous times.
Or if you only want to use iPhones then it seems like the downsides of the locked down app store aren't worth switching in which case it seems like you've already made your choice.
The app sideloading changes they're about to introduce[0]? Affects their Pixels, Samsungs, OnePlus, Sony, etc, old and new. It can't be disabled. The work around is to use ADB to install apks.
So while you have more choice of hardware, Android skins with more or less features, different long term support, prices, etc, in practice you're stuck with what Google wants. Your options are Apple or Google.
---
[0] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/08/google-will-block-si...
I've always used this method: work out what are the most benefits, with the fewest annoying 'features', between various manufacturers that have items within your budget, and choose something. In my country we call it 'shopping'.
An unregulated market leads to monopoly and anti-competitive practices.
Capitalism is one of the best models we've discovered, but its markets must be appropriately regulated.
Capitalism should be difficult. An eternal treadmill. You shouldn't be able to wedge yourself into a market as a quarter-century long hegemon.
You shouldn't be able to capture the key touch point of all consumers to their digital life and then tax it for eternity. It's putting incredible strain on innovation and all other market participants.
Companies should die and be replaced by younger startups regularly. It's a renewing forest fire that de-ossifies technology.
Rewarding startups puts the capital rewards in the hands of innovation capital rather than large institutions. Large companies do everything they can to minimize labor costs. Venture funds are even hurting in that the monopolies put a cap on the number of startups that can reach decacorn or centacorn status.
And before I field any complaints that consumers don't care about this - most consumers are laypeople and do not understand what is happening to them. They can't articulate these points. This is why we require regulators to police the system.
And how to I get support for the products I just bought when your government regulators terminate the existing of the product developer / manufacturer.
Government trimming the weeds using prescribed rules and tests.
Get rid of monoclonal overgrowth to increase ecosystem diversity and health. Make the ecology better at exploring all the nooks and crannies.
You're saying, companies should be able to do whatever they want, even if it's bad for the consumer. How can you describe that position as "being on the side of the consumer"?
What makes you think the "free market" always produces the best outcome for consumers?
If Apple wants to take that defence, they should be required to have abandoned every patent they own on iPhones prior to my purchase of the device.
What matters is the competitive situation. Given that you're practically required to have either a Google or Apple device to participate normally in modern society, Apple and Google should be precluded from forcing customers and suppliers[0] to use their other services, like payment services, app stores, delivery networks, ad networks, etc.
But if Apple were the 4th biggest phone platform with at most 10% of the market, Apple would definitely be entitled to remain a walled garden. Even if their phones had features no-one else can implement due to patents.[1]
0: E.g. app developers
1: I'd claim this is the only position that is consistent with being in favor of patents. But I'm mildly anti-patent, so YMMV.
I.e. I'm entitled to anti-trust protection. Or I'm entitled to patent-misuse protection. I don't really care which set of laws you put it under.
Even if Apple were 10% of the phone market they would still have 100% of the distributing software to devices with Apple's patented technology market, and that should be enough for anti trust protection to kick in.
(I'm also mildly anti patent, but I've been carefully selecting only arguments in this thread that I believe are entirely consistent with a pro patent belief system. E.g. if Apple treated their phones like their laptops - where they also have patents - all the positions and arguments I've taken would not have an issue with their behavior)
If Apple believes their portfolio of patents protecting the iPhone is worthless, they should abandon them. That they haven't precludes the argument that they are.
I don't think that supports your case that Apple's patent keeps other phones from being equivalent given that the sensor isn't in the iPhone and it's not even Apple's patent.
For what it's worth, I'm typing this on a Pixel which is also a rounded rectangle, so I'm skeptical that patent is really holding other phones back, either
I wasn't specifically thinking of that case, though it's likely why my mind chose that sensor as an example. Apple has patents on blood oxygen sensors, of course, because Apple has patents on basically everything they do. Here's a recent example that I just picked off of Google https://patents.google.com/patent/AU2024216430B2/en?q=(Oxyge...
Yes, all the other phone manufacturers also have patents. Yes, these also all hold Apple back. That's the deal we make with patents, you invent something, you get a monopoly on producing that thing.
All the other phone manufacturers are basically respecting that deal. Apple is not - they're taking that monopoly and extending it to a monopoly on distribution of software which just happens to run on the device with the thing. This is what anti-trust law, the doctrine of patent misuse, etc should prevent. Either they don't get a monopoly on the things they invented (and all the other phones get better) or they don't get to abuse that monopoly to extract money from people who already purchased the device - i.e. after the patent rights are exhausted.
Edit: I don't, for instance, have issues with how they use patents with macbooks. There they don't abuse their monopoly on certain hardware features to get and extract money from a secondary monopoly on software.
Equivalent as in a literal exact copy of an iPhone. Lots of factories can produce those, seeing as Apple contracts out production. If we get rid of those patents and give free choice to those factories and consumers, well they would be glad to produce a modified "Open" iPhone.
Lets make a free market by stopping this government intervention of the patent system that supports monopolies.
A duopoly is not a choice.
The Government needs to break up this duopoly.
Mobile should have hundreds of choices, three or four OS options, and free web-based installs without a gatekeeper or taxation.
Mobile providers shouldn't be able tyrannically set defaults for search, payments, or anything else either.
For small developers, like myself, this is great, because I don't have to put a large upfront capital to pay Apple to audit my app.
If 30% isn't the right number, what is the right number to pay for app store infra, payments, QA services, global tax audits and collection, global licensing limits, etc?
Maybe clever engineers at MacOS could help iOS engineers with this?
>I agree there should be personal accountability, but that clearly hasn't been working.
It has been working on Android just fine. And if Apple is supposedly so concerned with security, then why did it take them so damn long to implement a simple mechanism to stop thieves from simply changing your password using your pin? Only after relentless pressure did they implement additional security, which took them far too long. The "security" ruse is nothing but propaganda to protect Apple's monopoly on app distribution.
[0] https://tidbits.com/2023/02/26/how-a-thief-with-your-iphone-...
Most of the fraud at my job comes from the android platform, because the security model on android is much worse than Apples.
Why is Google citing fraud as a reason to lock down android if "its been working on android just fine"?
Apple is not a fast moving company, but they do have a great product and have addressed many of the big issues the community has raised.
You aren't confused, you just have a preferred narrative. Hardcore Apple fans and Apple shareholders share a similar bias with different variations of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'
>What do you mean its been working on Android just fine? Google just announced they are closing their ecosystem exactly for the reasons I stated.
It has been working just fine and Google's claim about their consolidation and its motivations are about as credible as a Rail Robber Baron claiming that his monopolization practices are actually about "security" and not profit, the response to such propaganda was the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and today it is the DMA.
More elaborate articles regarding these bogus claims about "security" and its refutation:
https://makeuseof.com/androids-sideloading-limits-are-anti-c...
https://infrequently.org/2025/09/apples-antitrust-playbook
>Most of the fraud at my job comes from the android platform, because the security model on android is much worse than Apples.
Your personal anecdotes are not credible evidence, especially when they are coincidentally contrived to serve as anti-competitive business practice apologia.
Apple's "security model" is supposedly so much better, yet iPhone theft was absolutely rampant on iPhones due to an Apple "feature" that literally helped thieves steal a user's entire digital life. Androids were unaffected.
"A Basic iPhone Feature Helps Criminals Steal Your Entire Digital Life" - The Wall Street Journal, https://archive.is/oW0lD#selection-1872.0-1872.1
>Why is Google citing fraud as a reason to lock down android if "its been working on android just fine"?
For the same reason that Apple is using bogus claims about "security", because they can hardly be honest and say "We can't allow any competition, because it would threaten our taxation funnel"
As Cory Doctorow writes:
"In the meantime, Google’s story that this move is motivated by security it obviously bullshit. First of all, the argument that preventing users from installing software of their choosing is the only way to safeguard their privacy and security is bullshit when Apple uses it, and it’s bullshit when Google trots it out:
https://www.eff.org/document/letter-bruce-schneier-senate-ju...
But even if you stipulate that Google is doing this to keep you safe, the story falls apart. After all, Google isn’t certifying apps, they’re certifying developers. This implies that the company can somehow predict whether a developer will do something malicious in the future. This is obviously wrong." - https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-09-01...
>Apple is not a fast moving company, but they do have a great product and have addressed many of the big issues the community has raised.
There is no "community" - there is Apple, its profit motive and the consumers. Apple was relentlessly pressured to deal with their reckless "feature" that made a mockery of modern security practices, gravely endangered its users and it still took Apple way too long to introduce a basic fix. Apple is a trillion dollar company, so euphemisms like "Apple is not a fast moving company" won't cut it, especially when it comes to security - you know, the thing they pretend to value above everything else.
Another simple test is we can compare the amount of malware running on closed ecosystems with open systems. Which system hosts more malware: linux/windows or iOS?
I want to clarify that I'm not saying there are no financial benefits for Google/Apple. I am saying there ARE financial benefits to users and businesses on these platforms.
"In the meantime, Google’s story that this move is motivated by security it obviously bullshit. First of all, the argument that preventing users from installing software of their choosing is the only way to safeguard their privacy and security is bullshit when Apple uses it, and it’s bullshit when Google trots it out:
https://www.eff.org/document/letter-bruce-schneier-senate-ju...
But even if you stipulate that Google is doing this to keep you safe, the story falls apart. After all, Google isn’t certifying apps, they’re certifying developers. This implies that the company can somehow predict whether a developer will do something malicious in the future." - https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-09-01...
> A similar vulnerability exists in Google’s Android mobile operating system. However, the higher resale value of iPhones makes them a far more common target, according to law-enforcement officials. “Our sign-in and account-recovery policies try to strike a balance between allowing legitimate users to retain access to their accounts in real-world scenarios and keeping the bad actors out,” a Google spokesman said.
"according to law-enforcement officials" - they are clearly not experts in tech and are unaware of the crucial difference between Apple and Android in this scenario.
The most significant difference is that Google explicitly stated their system includes "reasonable time-limited protections against hijackers changing passwords or recovery factors" - but only if users have properly configured recovery options beforehand.
According to Google's official statement: "Google Account Recovery flows also have reasonable time-limited protections against hijackers changing passwords or recovery factors set up by the legitimate users - provided users have set up a recovery phone and/or recovery email."
In contrast, the WSJ article describes how on iPhone:
- Thieves could immediately change the Apple ID password using just the device passcode
- there was no waiting period or time-limited protection mentioned
- Once changed, victims were instantly locked out with no grace period
- Apple's Recovery Key feature could be enabled by thieves to permanently lock victims out
Android users on the other hand could proactively:
- Set up recovery email and phone numbers that would be retained for 7 days after changes
- Enable Google's Advanced Protection Program, which specifically blocks PIN-based password resets entirely
- Configure multiple recovery options that created additional barriers
Apple users had limited options, the article mentions security keys could be added, but testing showed "security keys didn't prevent account changes using only the passcode, and the passcode could even be used to remove security keys from the account". This made Android's vulnerability more preventable and recoverable for users who had properly configured their security settings in advance, whereas Apple users were stuck and vulnerable to the pin-hijack until fixed, because iOS did not offer any similar protections such as time-based safeguards.
But Apple implemented features to block that over a year ago.
I did not say that the article is wrong, don't misquote me. You are also still failing to understand what the crucial difference is:
An iPhone was vulnerable to the pin-hijack, because of its limited security options - a security aware user was as vulnerable as an amateur.
An Android phone was only vulnerable if it was NOT properly secured.
So 100% of iPhone users were vulnerable, while Androids were only vulnerable if misconfigured.
So I was and I am still 100% correct, but you simply decided to nitpick that one sentence of mine that was prone to being nitpicked without bothering to understand what the significant difference between the systems were.
>But Apple implemented features to block that over a year ago.
Yes they did, after a lot of time and pressure. And if you read my comment again, you can see that I have already stated that they have implemented it. So what's the point of you telling me something that I have already mentioned several times?
"I should have elaborated even further, because I already suspected that someone would nitpick that phrasing . So let me explain the difference:" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45690226
After me clarifying what I've meant, the response wasn't "Oh I see now what you intended to say, thanks for elaborating", but misquoting me and making hostile and snide comments. That is someone who wants to be confrontational and lacks honesty in trying to understand what was meant in the first place.
Apple bans all such activities, has held the entire app ecosystem and seeks rent. If they think their offering is superior, then they should be OK competing. The fact that they have not opened it up says that they are happy to overcharge.
Remember, competition is always good. Let Stripe and Apple duke it out on payment processing, and let the best one win.
Let games me hosted both on Epic Store and App Store, and let users decide where to download it from.
That will be fair.
And also not require those apps to be also approved by Apple, which they are trying to do with AltStore and the DMA.
Users should be able to go to a dev's website, pay them directly, and download the ipa and install it with a click from the website. Having to go through any kind of "app store" at all should be optional.
The competition will find the most profitable process, not the one that serves customers best necessarily.
The biggest change the iPhone users are going to see an increase in spyware. They'll also notice in a few years a bunch of websites go Chrome only.
Why is that for one platform, everything needs to go through AppStore while the other it is OK - and both are equally secure?
Are you sure you're not falling for Apple's reality distortion field?
iPhones outnumber Macs something like 10:1. The user base tech literacy is lower on average. The usage habits are different.
The payoff for creating freemium and ad slop stuff on iOS is way higher.
Apple completely opens up the iOS platform. Do whatever you like.
Also, an XCode license is now $20,000/year. Don’t like it? Build your own.
And people will. That's how competition works. If someone thinks they can make a profit by offering a) better product b) same product at a cheaper price, you'll see investment.
VCs will be pouring money to capture that market.
And it will likely be much better too.
The idea that devs owe Apple for use of their SDKs and API development is absurd. Apple already profits from it as people by their phones due to the amount of third party app support. See how Apple's profits go when WhatsApp, Instagram, Spotify, Netflix Uber, banking apps, are all no longer available on their devices.
What Apple really needs to do is mimic their old policy of no fees except for games. Let everyone develop for it, and then rug pull by making the fees apply to everything
But they can’t do it twice. So the Vision Pro ends up with no ecosystem
It's entirely possible to build apps to run on OSX without touching Apple tools .. except for notarization, which they force you to use.
We would be back to the real days of computing.
That's what people literally did, multiple times, for multiple systems, and did a much better job than encumbents
Add a licensing fee for UIKit, Core Data, Core Text, Core Audio, Core Graphics, Metal, Network, SwiftUI, Quartz and all the other libraries apps use constantly.
Heck, why not for the OS itself? If you don't want to pay, they could conceivably dump you into an isolated VM and force you to write your own OS and userspace device drivers.
We used to pay for OSes and OS upgrades. Heck, you still have to pay for Windows.
Or provide alternative ways to install software.
This is a problem of their own creation.
How do you solve that problem for side-loaded apps?
If they ignore the warnings and get scammed because they are unable to identify reputable software from disreputable software, they learn a life lesson. Life goes on. There should be no societal expectation that everyone is prevented from ever taking an action that could bring themselves harm, by preventing them from taking actions at all.
This shows that younger kids aren’t using traditional PCs, at least not to the same degree. They just use phones and tablets. At best they may play games on their PC by installing via Steam. Very few of them are becoming proper technologists (able to install and use any software, script the computer, or write their own software).
The phenomenon you're talking about now is so completely in another universe that it's insane you would conflate the two. I actually can't finish typing this response properly because it's hurting my head every second I continue to think about your argument. To sum it up really shortly: smartphones universal, required to even participate in society, people now given smartphones from early age, multi-functional as phones, cameras, etc, they fit in your pocket, more than sufficient for normie use cases and in fact more suitable for many use cases that don't entail sitting at a desk at home, computers are specialised tools for specialised functionality that many people have no need for. There are 100000000 reasons why smartphone usage displaces PC usage that aren't because they explicitly abandoned PCs for the crime of allowing them to choose what software to install, which was your claim. Not even having mentioned that globally, 75% of smartphone usage is Android which doesn't lock its users in the cage (for the time being).
Edit: It's also telling that you need to go back to XP to make your case. It's 2025. Security practices have improved a ton to give people more protection from themselves without outright taking away their freedom to make choices.
Also, let's again re-iterate that Android usage outnumbers iOS by three-to-one, so it is clear in practice that people are in fact willing to adopt a phone that allows them to make mistakes (if they try very hard to).
Now you have a multibillion-dollar supranational corporation playing judge jury and executioner for any of your choices.
E.g. App Store prohibits adult content (which is not illegal). Prohibits emulators (which are not illegal) [1]. Prohibits or hinders the use of better alternatives to pre-installed apps (Photos, Camera, Maps, Siri) [1]. Removes any and all apps if there's a hint of displeasure from wannabe dictators.
Basically, you don't have your range of choices. You have Apple's range of choices.
[1] Some of these choices are now better on iOS precisely due to Apple losing the fight against governments. They finally allowed emulators after they lost a battle against alternative app stores. They finally gave options to change some default apps (but not all, and not in all countries, see e.g. https://mjtsai.com/blog/2025/03/14/dma-compliance-default-ma...)
Which actually makes the case for "Apple cannot control what people install on their devices or demand that apps pay them and can't even use other payment providers"
That’s how fine PC’s have been doing software.
Search for your preferred PC brand and list of CVEs.
I’ve had Windows / malware roll back a BIOS update to a previous version that had a know (published CVE) remote code execution vulnerability complete with published proof of concept.
Having a single way to pay, subscribe, cancel, browse apps, beta test versions, and update apps, proved to be a huge game changer for making software accessible while also minting millionaires around the world in terms of small development teams.
Incidentally, while looking this up, I discovered that 2/3rds of that $522b in app revenue comes from in-app advertisements. And here somebody was trying to mock Windows for being adware friendly circa 2005. Good lord.
What percentage is consumer vs corporate spend in each category? How much of that 373b is SaaS revenue vs local installed apps?
> And here somebody was trying to mock Windows for being adware friendly circa 2005.
The adware in 2005 was actively hostile and infested entire systems. It replaced browsers, search engines, and even injected itself onto every webpage you viewed. In contrast mobile ads are interstitials during game play.
Just by companies listed on the stock market who got that data "legally" in our current walled and "safe" garden.
I appreciate a lockdown for kids and elders, but let's not pretend our data is locked safely away in this walled garden.
It would be a total disaster!
2. Apps are actively encouraged by Apple and Google to be spyware.
3. An app store cannot prevent spyware.
4. Sandboxing is unrelated to an app store.
5. Most source code is not available on the app store, and Apple and Google are actively hostile to open source apps.
6. There is zero source auditing done on the app store.
I have vivid memories of loads of relatives in the Windows XP era with browsers laden with toolbars that spy on everything they do and slow the computer to a crawl. Those users see something like the iPhone as a massive breath of fresh air. Nothing you install on the App Store can inject adware into the rest of the operating system like that.
That has literally fuck all to do with the app store. That's called sandboxing - the app store has nothing to do with sandboxing. They are different things.
Why are we being dishonest.
They do not review source code. There is malware on the Apple app store, because they do not review apps for malware. Because they do not review source code.
Any other opinion is just not true.
If there's any benevolent gatekeeping, I'm not seeing it.
That is before I get into my personal objection to having to ask permission to put software on a computer I bought. I own an iPad but I can't just install anything I want on it, Apple needs to approve the software first. For me that's just anti-creative and anti-everying-I-love-about-computers.
All I really want as a software developer is to be able to write software and have people use it if they choose to. I don't want Apple or any other company inserted as a middle-man.
Outside of the absolute bare minimum to check this box for a plurality of observers, I can’t imagine anyone actually saying the App Store has a quality control process with a straight face, especially not one that would be championed as acceptable as a market practice.
That being said, this is the UK, where even in a reasonably competitive job market people can still sue their employer for "unfair pay" [1], so maybe the thinking here is a bit different than my silly classical liberal brain
Macs have allowed apps from "untrusted" sources for decades - and they’re doing just fine. So no, this isn’t about security. It’s about control and monopoly.
Meanwhile searching on Apple's App Store gives you unrelated crypto scam app as first hit. Apple looks so off-brand these days.
Beyond that, the app store is worth something in aggregate to app developers, but it's worth _more_ to Apple. Without the app store the iOS ecosystem doesn't exist. Without Apple, developers work on the next best platform. Under that framing, shouldn't Apple be paying developers to not leave the platform?
The fact that neither of those things is happening (total rent is disproportionately larger than the services provided, and the net flow of cash is toward the beneficiary of value rather than away from it) points to a monopoly worth breaking down. Those aren't hard rules, but they're suggestive facts.
Actually answering your question: Payment processors charge up to 5% and do more due diligence and have more overhead than Apple, so if I had to name a percentage on every transaction (a viewpoint I already disagree with), 5% would be a hard upper bound. IME, the value Apple provides from their "services" in that space is usually negative aside from the fact that you have to do business with them, so I think the actual price should be much less.
The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) believes it is 17.5%.
One issue, IMO, with this determination is the existence of Steam, which reportedly also takes 30% yet operates in a competitive market on open platforms. So there is a case to force Apple to open the platform to other app stores, but the argument to regulate Apple’s pricing is much weaker.
I'd be okay giving Microsoft whatever they wanted on the Windows app store as long as they loosened their grip on being able to run what you want, from where you want, without their explicit blessing.
Same applies to Apple. If their App Store is really that good, it can compete on a fair playing field with other options (and no, 3rd party app stores that still require Apple's blessing and taxes don't count).
Ran into this fun issue a while back[1].
Running signed apps doesn't require you to know a cursed arcane ritual to run the apps you want to run, you just double click them. Having to travel through several circles of hell, each time being urged to turn around immediately, just to run unsigned code means the vast majority of users are shit out of luck when it comes to running something they want if it's not in good standing with Microsoft.
[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/4270245/...
Edit: Everything I can find says that taking away the "run anyway" button is not default. If a user or their sysadmin changes that setting I don't really blame Microsoft.
> I'd be okay giving Microsoft whatever they wanted on the Windows app store as long as they loosened their grip on being able to run what you want, from where you want, without their explicit blessing.
I am talking about their grip on what you're allowed to run with or without their blessing, not that you "can't run unsigned binaries at all". They have a tightened grip, in that without their blessing, running what you want is an exercise in futility for 99% of users.
> Edit: Everything I can find says that taking away the "run anyway" button is not default. If a user or their sysadmin changes that setting I don't really blame Microsoft.
It's exactly what I experienced when running an unsigned binary in a fresh Windows 11 VM with the default Defender settings, which are all on by default. This is how SmartScreen works by default with binaries it doesn't like.
> what I claimed
Your first comment was fine. Your response to nandomrumber was the problem. They asked about "can't run" and you gave a big list of situations that are interference but not "can't run".
The 30% app store cut is just rent seeking.
It's almost 100% platform development. The iPhone is a walled-garden game platform and Apple treats it like one.
To answer your question, it probably isn't sensible to expect Apple to charge a drastically different platform fee in its game store compared to what is charged for other walled-garden game platforms and stores like the Nintendo eShop.
It may be worth noting that Amazon's Luna game service can work on the iPhone in a web browser, so game streaming isn't exactly an Apple-enforced monopoly.
This would create a more fair market. This would allow for competition. Which would allow prices to even out and be more fair.
Long winded way of saying, I don't know what the fair percentage would be. But I know as it stands now, we cannot even begin to know it.
Case in point: Steam is taking 30% too. But you've heard much less fuss over it, right? Why? Is it because of players' cult-like behavior around Steam? (probably partially) But more importantly it's because Valve doesn't own Windows and Steam Deck is a far smaller fry.
A closer example is game consoles, whose associated stores also take 30%, and nobody seems to complain about.
I'm not sure what you mean. Every game dev now refers what Steam algorithm gives you "organic sale."
It's difficult for me to really trust this stat though because purchasing decisions are complicated.
Apple is incredibly strict with the content they allow to the point that it feels like a they exclusively cater to children. It’s easier to vibe code the apps that I want under my own developer account because at least I can side load those.
Steam does allow this. But, has recently started restricting some adult content [2].
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2010/04/19/steve-jobs-android-porn/
[2] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/whats-going-on-with-steam-and-...
It's because Valve doesn't routinely screw over developers and gamers. Steam never removed a game from Steam because it could cause "customer confusion" because it was too similar to one of Valve's own games. When Valve released the Steam Deck, they didn't layer on a bunch of trash for "safety", they sold gamers a portable Arch Linux box that, other than running Windows games on Linux, also runs local LLMs, games from GOG, and development environments. You can write games for Steam on a Steam Deck, compile them, and run them. It's the exact opposite of what Apple is doing - Valve offers total control, and you can use it to do awesome stuff without having to pay a tithe to some overlord corporation that thinks they still own hardware that you purchased from them.
Cult-like or not, I find it reasonable to support companies that do things which you agree with. Valve's non-adversarial approach to business (as opposed to many rent-seeking corps these days) probably helps that perception.
Apple is not bringing its users value by prohibiting sideloading of arbitrary apps. Rather, this is an extreme example of rent-seeking which has affected almost all countries around the world. It needs to be regulated away.
1. I didn't know iPhones are free. Or iPads. Or Macs. Or Apple developer program
2. Apple could just... not host apps or provide payment services, and allow people to install apps from alternatives and let devs use other payment systems
Pre iPhone this is how all software was sold.
Not defending Apple, but independent developers ended up with far smaller piece of the pie.
That’s one of the reasons devs flocked to the AppStore. At the time 70% was exceedingly generous compared to other distributors.
It's quite ironic how the company that disrupted the frankly predatory pricing model standard at the time is now itself predatory.
Somewhat tangential:
It's also complicated by the markets changing: PCs used to be the ubiquitous platform (where you could distribute whatever you wanted however you wanted [1]), and the mobile phone was a luxury-ish product (tightly controlled by distributors). Now mobile phones are the ubiquitous platform everyone depends on... and they are extremely tightly locked down and controlled.
[1] Has anyone paid for their WinRaR license yet? :)
Apple _already_ gets its money from users of their overpriced devices. They even get at least $300-$400 a year from developers in hardware depreciation because you have to use pretty expensive Apple devices to write software for iOS.
The Apple App Store sold more than one trillion USD in 2024, how much of their 30% cut (300+ billion) covers operational costs? ¿10%?