Users pay for the hardware platform.
I find games for the first time with the Epic Store. Market share isn’t really super relevant, they are the newest entry in the market.
It was telling that after circumventing Apple’s 30%, they didn’t offer their goods 30% cheaper - or even 18% cheaper (reflective of the 12% they think is “fair” in their own store), they made it 10% cheaper for the user, and kept 8% more for themselves than other developers on their own Epic platform would get.
Absolutely the App Store does a lot of discovery - just ask anyone what being a featured app does.
I find plenty of apps by searching.
Anyone whiteknighting for epic here is going to be disappointed in 5 years when they’re either successful with their store and raking other devs over the coals or they’ve shut their store down completely.
The history of mobile/online payments is littered with instances of users being confused/defrauded.
> Users pay for the hardware platform.
This isn't really relevant. Not only is an iPhone worthless without software, but subsidization of hardware by services is very common.
Obviously the iPhone is worthless without software, except it comes with a 1k price tag. Part of that is for the OS. The hardware certainly doesn’t cost that much (comparable offerings from hardware-only manufacturers cost less). This is not a case where the hardware cost is subsidized. Numbers from various sources suggest the iPhone sells for triple the cost of manufacturing.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/FY20-Q3_Consolidated_Fin...
But it still doesn’t matter, Apple is profitable, everyone knows that already. It is legal to be profitable, and it is legal to have parts of your business subsidize other parts.
What might not be legal is using a dominant market position to force out competitors.