It’s ridiculous that Apple takes 30% of a transaction between two independent third parties, one of which may have no idea their virtual attendees are even using iPhones.
For the app? Sure. Hosting, vetoing, version control, etc. (Even if we forget that developers already have to pay $99 a year). I'm fine with that. I would be more than fine if that $99 got more expensive the more app downloads you had.
For just processing an IAP? With no volume discounts? It's ridiculous.
Sure, they don't want the "free app + unlocking IAP" but they could think this better.
Similar ridiculous is that they effective prevent apps which just provide the service for existing member without any payment/sign-up services in the apple app.
This is a active intrusion on the free marked undermining the fundamental concepts of it (choice and transparency). At least in my opinion.
That's already the case for most games - the game is free but most of the stuff is hidden by IAPs
The only thing I blame Apple for is not allowing installing apps from third-party sources, after you tick a checkbox in settings, like Android does. I would even accept a loss of warranty on doing that, because I'm a big boy, I understand the consequences, and I want to take that risk.
Otherwise let's be honest, people actually love a curated app store, and you're in a tiny minority.
Btw, if you want to play the knowledge game, do the non-tech people know that Epic's Privacy Policy [1] explicitly allows them to sell their data for marketing purposes?
Personally, I'll always side with the company that respects my privacy.
So you are OK with Apple not allowing you to get informed about the 30% tax? If you are fine with this, why? is the information dangerous for you?
This isn't about being dangerous or not, but about Apple's App Store being clearly Apple's property. Like it or hate it, you don't go and shout on someone's property, against the host's rules, without expecting to be kicked out.
As a developer, if you don't like it, then don't distribute your apps on Apple's App Store. As a consumer, if you don't like it, then don't buy Apple's products. It's as simple as voting with your wallet.
And I realize that due to Apple's size, it's not easy to avoid their App Store. But complaining about it won't help.
Also, fuck Facebook, fuck Epic Games. I may regret this later, but I'm always glad when privacy-invading companies suffer.
Second question, why as a user you are OK with Apple preventing developer to inform you of better deals? It is just a piece of text with a link, you are not forced to click the link, is this information causing you some kind of "damage/distrss"? When the average user buys an iPhone do they get a giant EULA read to them and there it says in the clear "by using our product you agree that Apple will hide better financial deals for you because it can hurt our shareholders ?"
If judges in US will premit Apple to do whatever they want Google will have the green light to be as shitty as Apple, lock the store, do even more censorship, maybe Chrome and Google Search can also hide websites that Google does not like, you can use Safari if you don't like it.
This exact thread is over this "good dictator" being caught cheating and thinking about their own well being first, with their users being damaged and treated as second-class citizens.
The company have a great marketing strategy that makes you and others first you are first class, while in reality their goals and objectives comes first in detriment to your expectations about it.
But somehow this marketing campaign is so good, that even when caught in the act, a lot of their users are still in denial.
BTW, about mall cops and "pre-crime"; mall cops cant arrest anybody before they commit a said "crime". Also, the definition of what is a crime and not is pretty dangerous and used by people with malice over and over to resort some form of control and manipulation over public opinion (see Bush "War on terror" for instance used to bomb Saddam and cap citizens rights and get reelection, which is basically "War on drugs" 2.0).
Through might a a vendor specific change.
Also the idea that you must "protect" you customers from "external payment services which might grab you data" is ridiculous it's assuming the user is generally incompetent and can't do any decision by themselves.
Warning them is a different matter.
Requiring a min app price of 5€ (30% cut) or 1.5 (100%) cut for apps with non apple in-app payment would also be understandable.
But having intentionally vague formulated rules for which if you brake them you often either get no usable feedback or are called by phone is not ok.
Calling by phone in such situations is not good service but a common strategy to prevent paper trails which could show abusive behaviour.
Things like the windows store, snap store appear to be significantly hated for reasons of taking away control and auto-updating.
Same thing I guess with steam, origin, uplay, and epic's equivalent too.
I don't disagree with you, but I don't think it's specifically liking walled gardens: it's rather about hating fragmentation.
It's the same thing with gamers who complain about Epic exclusives that want their entire game library on Steam, or people who complain about Disney/Hulu/Prime licensing titles that were previously on Netflix.
People just don't want to have multiple accounts.
True, this is easy to see in the Netflix/Hulu/Prime example, with requiring multiple subscriptions.
Do you also think it holds true for the Steam and Apple examples? That's a legitimate question btw, I have no opinion of my own.
People just like to pile on. If it's a general issue, make it a general quest for a general solution.
A general solution would be great. The mobile operating system is the most important platform to discuss this issue. There are only two players in this space. And the anti-trust case against Apple is much much stronger than against Google. Therefore they rightfully get more attention.
That actually made sense because credit card processing fees were 0.25 + ~3%. So hey, yeah, 30% seems fair as processing fees will be 28 cents.
However when digital goods sell for $10 or $60 a 30% tax on top of a 60 cent or $2 processing fee is all of a sudden not so reasonable.
iTunes store came out April 2003. Steam came out September 2003. Xbox launched Nov 2001, but Xbox Live Arcade didn't launch until Nov 2004.
Digital sales of game console games didn't become a major thing until after 2010. I shipped a $15 digital-only XBLA game on X360 in 2010. People thought we were crazy to go digital-only.
The historical economics of video game physical distribution is very very different. A 30% digital cut was a massive improvement. Physical manufacturing, storage, distribution, brick and mortar middle men, platform fee added up to well over 50%. So a 30% digital cut was much better. Digital is now the majority of sales, but that is a very recent development.
Reasonable minds can debate and disagree over what digital cut would be considered "fair". In a healthy, competitive market we wouldn't have to debate "fair". The market would decide. The cost of digital distribution has massively shrunk as technologies have progressed from specialty to commodity. The fact that the digital tax has been the exact same for 20 years is clear evidence that it is not subject to market forces. Whether it should or shouldn't be is yet another question.
I think you meant to say: not directly visible by the user at the scale in terms of single-vendor profits. But that's a different thing which needs different treatment. Either antitrust laws or new laws will have something to say about that, because it boils down to 'power' that is currently legal as-is.
You can be emotional about it, but that doesn't help the discussion.