>On no other platform would we accept a scenario where the owner of that platform dictated not only the tools developers can use, but restricted the ways they talk about their products and pricing. We would call it unfair, monopolistic, and overbearing. But on our smartphones, it’s just a fact of life.<p>I am pretty sure game consoles have been doing this basically since their existence. None of them allow you to make 'A' rated games for example. (Considering the topic of the article, it should be obvious I am referring to "restricted the ways they talk about their products and pricing" here)<p>Retail stores keep some amount of control over signage, I doubt Walmart would be particularly happy if a sign said you could buy X device cheaper directly from the manufacturer.<p>In reality Apple is continuing a trend that is normal for store fronts, digital or physical.<p>However, the "walled garden" of Apple is largely why I stick with iOS. I don't want to be forced to trust every company with my credit card information (a developer implementing their own payment system will be an immediate delete for me, with very few exception... like Amazon for obvious reasons).<p>Also lets not forget that we keep seeing reports that iOS users are more likely to spend money than Android users. I would argue that the increased income from users makes up for the 30% cut.
As an end user I approve of the walled garden. I don't mind the limitations on other forms of payment. I think it helps prevent fraud and insecure transactions, and I like the freedom and ease of use that comes with knowing that apps on the ios store went through a fairly substantial review process.<p>As a developer (though it has been a few years since I wrote code for mobile) Apple's tools, documentation and libraries were so much better than Google's, though that may say more about Google than Apple. And I approve of app store revenue supporting those tools.<p>But 30% is really, really high. I don't work for Apple, or Google for that matter, so I have no insight into what portion of the money goes to the services mentioned above, but it seems to me that even 20% would be pretty hard to swallow, and 30% seems unreasonable.<p>I would love to hear from someone with actual knowledge of this how much of that app store revenue is profit.
> Here’s the thing: If you’re a developer for iOS or macOS and want to charge customers money, the Apple-provided payment tools, which demand a 30% cut, are the only ones you’re allowed to use. It’s not even a discussion.<p>Why does macOS keep getting offhandedly roped into these discussions? Not only is the Mac App Store not a requirement, it's rarely used.<p>Maybe Apple intends to change that some day, but that's speculation, not reality. And frankly, from where I sit, people have been predicting the demise of macOS sideloading for nearly a decade now, and they're still waiting.
Disagree. Every system has problems. Look at what happened with Zoom — unrestricted access to your entire user account on MacOS, for them to do whatever they want. Normal people should not have to even think about a virus or malware scanner on their system.<p>I like where Apple is going and I like the iOS model. Most of all, I know that people like my parents will be better protected from malware and spyware and crypto extortion.
The mobile app markets are operating at such scales, that there's a literal avalanche of scammers and assholes waiting to take advantage of you.<p>There is zero chance that I would send personal info or payment data to some no-name app and even most of the other well known apps.
I had a while ago calculated the actual download cost with S3's pricing on what each ~100MB Spotify update would cost if it was self hosted. Assuming each paid and free Spotify customer on the iOS platform updated the app was something to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars depending on how you estimate the marketshare of iOS for Spotify versus their other platforms.<p>What the App Store provides is not valueless, quite the opposite in fact. It's an entire system of distribution management.<p>Is it monopolistic? By definition, no, because Android is the #1 smartphone platform in the world.<p>Is it great that Apple has provided no alternative way of downloading software to the iPhone and iPad? No, that's not great either, but users knew that from day one (when the iPhone had no App Store at all).<p>In reality, iOS is no different than a game console like the PlayStation 4 or Xbox One, and yet we consider those closed marketplaces completely functional and normal.<p>If Apple was the only company making smartphones or if they even made a plurality of them, perhaps this would be a problem.
Even if Apple takes 30%, that’s still 70% that the app developer wouldn’t have if the App store didn’t exist. Without the App Store we would still depend on publishers to put us into stores, ask any author how that worked out for them.
Sorry, but the blog post is a hard sell. It's obviously from an app developer that would prefer not to jump through the hoops of the App Store, but as a customer, I like it.<p>It's not perfect but it appears to be much, much better than Google version.<p>What I don't like is the limited app discovery, and the bad rules in terms of apps just taking names and causing a lot of confusion so that I'm not sure if that's the app I really want to install.
It's worth going back to the App Store reveal video.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo9cKe_Fch8" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo9cKe_Fch8</a><p>30% might be high, and there's certainly a case to be made for conflict of interest in the Netflix/Spotify arena, but the App Store is solving a lot of problems: it's a single, universal way to get an app out to every iThing, it manages updates, and there's no nickel-and-diming in terms of processing fees or hosting or anything like that.<p>I thought it was in that keynote but maybe not: I remember someone comparing a 30% cut to the costs associated with getting a physical copy onto retail shelf, and if I recall correctly it was in the same universe.
App Store cash is often significantly discounted. You can often buy $100 iTunes cards for $83 at Costco, for instance. This spurs on a lot of spend on the platform given that it becomes a staple gift choice for a lot of younger relatives.<p>Further this is all very hand-wavy about abuse without mentioning the benefits that very same platform provides. It makes the whole discussion around it completely specious because it's inventing a victimization.
"For each card processed, a developer will pay an average processing fee of around 2% to 3%"<p>My understanding is that credit card processors, Stripe for example, charge $0.30 + 2.9% of the transaction amount. So for an $0.99 purchase that is roughly 33 cents. On large purchases your statement is true, but in-app purchases average $0.99.
There are many facets to this. First of all, the App Store performs a range of services. Payment processing, the app review, hosting. For the user it is a trusted platform, where credit card numbers are not transmitted to arbitrary locations on the web, the app review and the ability to withdraw malicious applications do offer quite some protection.<p>From this side, the App Store fee can be justified. Whether it is reasonable or to high depends on many parameters. A fair solution would be to have the fee start at 30% and decline with sales numbers, as the review process doesn't increase. Of course, large commercial entities, who do have their own servers/payment processors and don't need a trusted site to host their apps are less happy with the policies.<p>But beyond the discussion about the fee, there is the aspect that Apple prevents all software installations from outside the app store. This is something which has to change as Apple isn't only protecting against malware, but also limits a lot of benign applications from being available on iOS. The first thing coming to my mind is Termux, which would instantly make an iPad much more usable. And extending that, a whole range of development tools could run way better on the iPad than it is allowed on the App Store. Just imagine a Linux VM running on the iPad...<p>Apple should (or should be forced by regulators) to offer a Gatekeeper-like solution on the iPad/iPhone which gives the users a reasonable amount of control about their devices.<p>And there is of course the content question. Apple tries to enforce their idea of "morale" onto the users. This is fine for their storefront, so to say, but there should be a section in the App Store for adult content. Especially the safe payment process would make this a very attractive service. If Apple wants to keep the "service" story alive for the App Store, they should craft their services according to the user demands, not to their ideas of what users should consume and install.
I believe Apple users choose the Apple ecosystem specifically because they value the protection the App Store provides. I can't even imagine the nightmare if every app was allowed to redirect me to their website, register there and enter payment information before I can start using their app. This system would be abused as hell. The in-app purchases are transparent (I can review all my transaction in one single place) and I can approve my child's purchases remotely.<p>Also I am sure if the roles were switched, Spotify would no way in hell allow Apple Music to be priced the same way on their App Store for their ecosystem users. It's hypocrisy.<p>I agree 30% might be too much, but it's their App Store, their users, their infrastructure, their public trust at stake, their rules.
The restrictions and policy applied by Apple and to some extend Google makes it very hard to get traction, particularly for smaller developers.<p>It feels extremely risky to develop high-budget new apps in this environment as there is a real chance the app will be rejected in order to comply with hard to understand limitations or end up not being allowed to be published at all.
Apple's ecosystem is one of the best out there actually, pretty seamless experience with little flaws here and there that are ok to live with or they get fixed slowly.<p>Compare that to the alternatives and you'll find it marginally better
You could replace iOS with Android, altough it is even more broken though. Just in worse ways. Hello arbitary dev account bans with no human to answer. Byebye privacy.
I noticed that the author published this on a website that implements a paywall, doesn't allow much control over the look of their column, and tries to make you log into an official Medium account to read. I wonder why that is, if they're championing the open ecosystem so much?
all this whining about things not being fair. they created it, you use it. stop whining. I dont like it, I dont use it, simple.<p>It didn't exist before, it doesn't need to exist, and its purpose of existence is not to be fair to you.<p>this country is turning into a bunch of bitches
Is anyone familiar enough with Medium to know why someone would publish their blog on the platform, and lock users behind a paywall in order to read their blogposts?<p>Do they get a cut? I'm not even sure of price, but just see a screen that lets me know I've hit the end of my "Member Preview".
He is complaining about payments in Apple Store using annoyingly paywalled medium.<p>As an iOS Developer I think that's 30% cut is fair and it works. Just look at sales numbers on iOS vs Android. Most of sales comes from iOS.
As a user I hate then devs decide to skip MacOS store. For me it means I have to use some 3rd party payment and license management solution so they can save some money.
"Solution"<p>Something something "... should..." something something "... should..."<p>That's not a solution. That's not even hope. That's dreaming.