> “There’s a rationale for this on console where there’s enormous investment in hardware, often sold below cost, and marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers.”
I guess it really just comes down to console makers acting like a partner whereas Apple acts more like a mobster running a protection racket.
1) https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/3/17645982/epic-games-fortni...
I don’t think it’s any different from consoles. The main difference is that with a console you know what the deal is.
With an App Store app, the problem is you don’t know if Apple is going to deny your app on an inconsistently applied rule after spending 2 years making it.
Right now they are double-dipping, not because of value they are adding, but because of the power they have given themselves over the consumer/developer relationship.
The App Store is a service.
If you allow 3rd parties to sell something, you create a market. That market should be free and competitive.
If you want to keep it a service, don't allow 3rd parties in.
With consoles the primary justification was always that the hardware is sold below cost. This is purely to the benefit of the game developers, all the risk falls on the console maker, so they accept it for that reason. The iPhone is not only not sold below cost but its price has never fallen in the entire lifetime of the product, from what I recall.