I think really the simple issue here is that 2020 is not 2008. Situations have changed on the ground as far the 'necessity' of the smartphone, the importance of ecosystems etc. I think apple will need to do something, before i gets to a point where they are forced to doing something that other people decide.
I would say apple will need to delineate the services they offer as part of the app store, and provide apps a chance to list on the store without paying for additional services like being promoted etc. (provided the apps follow app security guidelines ofcourse).
I can see a lot of people -- most prominently Hey's developer -- have never owned a physical business, particularly a business that operates in something like a mall.
To be fair, malls don't charge a percentage of your sales -- but they do charge for the costs of operating the mall and all the services thus provided (from security to parking to lights and janitorial) that are included in the rent, plus a healthy profit for the mall owner. From experience, this will be not very different than the amount Apple charges on sales.
If you're a large retailer, ie an anchor, it is very common for the mall owner to take a percentage of your sales in addition to a base rent. The percentage as I recall used to be around 6-10%, depending on the retailer's business type.
You would be correct that small stores within a mall typically pay rent only.
Why upgrade pricing? From a consumer POV, I don't want to pay extra for the refinement of their sloppy coding. Upgrade pricing is an outdated software marketing model and seems to me like the abuse of "this software is supplied to you as-is without any warranty whatsoever" rhetoric. If they add some extra features worth charging separately, then the In-App Purchases scheme exists just for that. IAP mechanism eliminates the need for upgrade pricing.
And this of course proves why Apple will never be able to please every one of us all the time.
As pointed out, Apple reviews and validates app submissions. Apple handles all orders, merchant services, payment processing fees, customer service, returns, reserves, and downloads.
Apple provides the store, the marketplace, and access to millions upon millions of validated, credit card paying customers who can and will buy your product at the click of a button.
So what's a "fair" price for all of that?
Try getting a product into Target or WalMart or Best Buy and tell me just how much profit one of those stores is going to want to skim off the top. Closer to 50%, actually, and that's after you've actually paid to build and produce and ship them a physical product.
So again, what's fair? 20%? 15%? 10%?
Tell someone a CD costs $20 and people will whine that it's not $10. Make it $10 and someone else will whine that it's not $5 and that $10 is totally "unfair".
The problem is that pretty much ANY number you name is going to be seen as unfair by someone else who just wants more money going into their pockets and not yours.
I'm an Apple developer and I think Apple is being more than fair.
Could Apple do better? Sure. More consistency is the review process. Paid app updates. There are lot's of things that Apple could do.
But 30%? Not a problem.
That is an Apples to Hand Grenades comparison about a physical good vs app store. If Apple was charging 30% to distribute physical goods then maybe it'd be an apt comparison. The right comparison is what does stripe, or shopify or charge. I'ts nowhere near 30%. Apple is only able to charge 30% because they are part of a duopoly and Apple owns 2/3 of the mobile app market. Any potential competition that could lead to lower prices is eliminated.
If they solved the consistency problem and eliminated the application of unwritten rules that would go a long way towards appeasing most complaints as at least then everyone would be on a level playing field.
But I tell you what. If you don’t think the App Store is helping you find paying customers then pull your apps, rewrite them for Android and reap the benefits of the larger markets.
My apps are already available on both platforms. Being told to simply abandon iOS is pretty unrealistic considering the size of its customer base and the enormous investments I've already made in that platform. I also don't see how telling developers to leave helps Apple or its customers.
I'm so tired of all the "free market" or "go somewhere else" arguments, all of which ignore the simple fact that iOS customers are not allowed to install apps from anywhere else. That breaks any comparison or analogy that has been made with other business models or forms of retail sales. I don't believe the 30% commission is the cost of hosting apps, "marketing" them or providing quality control. It's an arbitrary amount that Apple has set because they can, because there is no alternative to deliver products to customers who use their platform.
But clearly the focus here is defending whatever Apple has decided to do rather than looking realistically at areas that could be improved.
What does Microsoft charge developers for distribution in their Xbox online store?
That’s right. 30%
Not a great comparison as from what I see if we truly look at those with complaints it's not so much with developers who put an app on the store and sell it. It's those that offer an app and Apple's rent-seeking behavior to attempt to capture a percentage of revenue for services they have nothing to do with providing. If someone purchases an game in the XBOX store they are buying the game. And they are doing a hell of alot more than Apple does considering games are 10s of GBs in size and utilize XBOX servers for things like achievements. With an app like HEY, in month one, sure Apple facilitated the charge and delivered the app which they reviewed to a device. All that is great. But what is Apple providing HEY as far as infrastructure for their app to run? Not a thing, that is all done on Hey's infrastructure but Apple want's a cut forever more. There is no equivalent to that on the XBOX side.
If there was truly competition and Apple wasn't one half of a duopoly that owns 2/3 of the mobile app market I think we'd probably end up with them offering some kind of plan for those type of apps where they pay a fee + markup to cover review and distribution for those apps/services that would like to use a different payment processor don't care about using the AppStore for marketing their app. But again, Apple being a part of a duopoly that onws 2/3 of the mobile app market makes them immune from serious competition and they can continue to successfully engage in rent-seeking.
But I tell you what. If you don’t think the App Store is helping you find paying customers then pull your apps, rewrite them for Android and reap the benefits of the larger markets.
My apps are already available on both platforms. Being told to simply abandon iOS is pretty unrealistic considering the size of its customer base and the enormous investments I've already made in that platform. I also don't see how telling developers to leave helps Apple or its customers.
I'm so tired of all the "free market" or "go somewhere else" arguments, all of which ignore the simple fact that iOS customers are not allowed to install apps from anywhere else. That breaks any comparison or analogy that has been made with other business models or forms of retail sales. I don't believe the 30% commission is the cost of hosting apps, "marketing" them or providing quality control. It's an arbitrary amount that Apple has set because they can, because there is no alternative to deliver products to customers who use their platform.
But clearly the focus here is defending whatever Apple has decided to do rather than looking realistically at areas that could be improved.
Great point. I think opinions might change if more people paid attention to where Apple is now instead of still thinking of them as a scrappy underdog. The are part of a duopoly and they own 2/3 of the mobile app market. Things that are acceptable when you are an upstart fighting against bigger rivals in a competitive market cease to be acceptable when one is part of a duopoly and owns as large a percentage of the market that Apple does.
I'm so tired of all the "free market" or "go somewhere else" arguments, all of which ignore the simple fact that iOS customers are not allowed to install apps from anywhere else.
The primary point there is that from my viewpoint the second you start allowing "side-loading" or alternative stores we quickly end up with piracy. People crack application security features, install malware and start torrenting games and apps and the next thing you know it iOS is no better than Android or Windows and developers are now SOL since sales fell through the floor.
Since you're on Android I'll ask just how much effort you've put into making your apps work in stores other than Google's Play Store? AFAIK, there's Apple, there's Google, and then every other "store" is barely on the map. (I'll discount China here.)
As pointed out, Apple reviews and validates app submissions. Apple handles all orders, merchant services, payment processing fees, customer service, returns, reserves, and downloads.
Apple provides the store, the marketplace, and access to millions upon millions of validated, credit card paying customers who can and will buy your product at the click of a button.
So what's a "fair" price for all of that?
Try getting a product into Target or WalMart or Best Buy and tell me just how much profit one of those stores is going to want to skim off the top. Closer to 50%, actually, and that's after you've actually paid to build and produce and ship them a physical product.
So again, what's fair? 20%? 15%? 10%?
Tell someone a CD costs $20 and people will whine that it's not $10. Make it $10 and someone else will whine that it's not $5 and that $10 is totally "unfair".
The problem is that pretty much ANY number you name is going to be seen as unfair by someone else who just wants more money going into their pockets and not yours.
I'm an Apple developer and I think Apple is being more than fair.
Could Apple do better? Sure. More consistency is the review process. Paid app updates. There are lot's of things that Apple could do.
But 30%? Not a problem.
That is an Apples to Hand Grenades comparison about a physical good vs app store. If Apple was charging 30% to distribute physical goods then maybe it'd be an apt comparison. The right comparison is what does stripe, or shopify or charge. I'ts nowhere near 30%. Apple is only able to charge 30% because they are part of a duopoly and Apple owns 2/3 of the mobile app market. Any potential competition that could lead to lower prices is eliminated.
If they solved the consistency problem and eliminated the application of unwritten rules that would go a long way towards appeasing most complaints as at least then everyone would be on a level playing field.
Apple is only able to charge 30% because they are part of a duopoly and Apple owns 2/3 of the mobile app market.
If they solved the consistency problem and eliminated the application of unwritten rules ...
Starting with the later point first, AFAIK all of the rules are written down in the developer agreement. There may be some inconsistencies in applying them from time to time and Apple could do better with this, but rules are applied by human beings and human beings have been known to make mistakes. Shocking.
Back to the first point, according to Apple and other sources about half the revenue generated by the app store goes to maintaining the store, process, fees, and so on, so cutting that to 15% doesn't really work. And as I pointed out in my comment, part of the discussion boils down to what people think is "fair" and that's always a moving goalpost.
So here's the thing. Companies exist to make money. They propose a price for a good or service and people either buy or they don't. If they think the price is fair they buy. If they don't, then they don't and the company has to either attempt to adjust prices or give it up and try something else. The market decides what's "fair".
Apple has the most successful app store on the planet. They have millions of developers who've made billions ($155B) of dollars from it.
Seems to me that, by and large, the system is working and both Apple and Apple's developers are profiting from the experience.
As pointed out, Apple reviews and validates app submissions. Apple handles all orders, merchant services, payment processing fees, customer service, returns, reserves, and downloads.
Apple provides the store, the marketplace, and access to millions upon millions of validated, credit card paying customers who can and will buy your product at the click of a button.
So what's a "fair" price for all of that?
Try getting a product into Target or WalMart or Best Buy and tell me just how much profit one of those stores is going to want to skim off the top. Closer to 50%, actually, and that's after you've actually paid to build and produce and ship them a physical product.
So again, what's fair? 20%? 15%? 10%?
Tell someone a CD costs $20 and people will whine that it's not $10. Make it $10 and someone else will whine that it's not $5 and that $10 is totally "unfair".
The problem is that pretty much ANY number you name is going to be seen as unfair by someone else who just wants more money going into their pockets and not yours.
I'm an Apple developer and I think Apple is being more than fair.
Could Apple do better? Sure. More consistency is the review process. Paid app updates. There are lot's of things that Apple could do.
But 30%? Not a problem.
That is an Apples to Hand Grenades comparison about a physical good vs app store. If Apple was charging 30% to distribute physical goods then maybe it'd be an apt comparison. The right comparison is what does stripe, or shopify or charge. I'ts nowhere near 30%. Apple is only able to charge 30% because they are part of a duopoly and Apple owns 2/3 of the mobile app market. Any potential competition that could lead to lower prices is eliminated.
If they solved the consistency problem and eliminated the application of unwritten rules that would go a long way towards appeasing most complaints as at least then everyone would be on a level playing field.
Apple is only able to charge 30% because they are part of a duopoly and Apple owns 2/3 of the mobile app market.
If they solved the consistency problem and eliminated the application of unwritten rules ...
Starting with the later point first, AFAIK all of the rules are written down in the developer agreement. There may be some inconsistencies in applying them from time to time and Apple could do better with this, but rules are applied by human beings and human beings have been known to make mistakes. Shocking.
Back to the first point, according to Apple and other sources about half the revenue generated by the app store goes to maintaining the store, process, fees, and so on, so cutting that to 15% doesn't really work. And as I pointed out in my comment, part of the discussion boils down to what people think is "fair" and that's always a moving goalpost.
So here's the thing. Companies exist to make money. They propose a price for a good or service and people either buy or they don't. If they think the price is fair they buy. If they don't, then they don't and the company has to either attempt to adjust prices or give it up and try something else. The market decides what's "fair".
Apple has the most successful app store on the planet. They have millions of developers who've made billions ($155B) of dollars from it.
Seems to me that, by and large, the system is working and both Apple and Apple's developers are profiting from the experience.
"If an app is paid for by a company and managed by an administrator — think Salesforce, HR services, all the things no regular person ever pays for and are run entirely by IT departments — that app doesn't have to require in-app purchases."
There is nowhere in the App Store Guidelines where anything like that rule is documented. I hope you would agree that needs to be fixed, that developers should be able to trust that they won't be rejected for rules that don't exist in the App Store review guidelines.
I don't know what the right percentage is and I would have no problem if it remained 30% if there were alternatives. If an app could opt out of the AppStore and be charged for review and distribution only + a healthy markup to keep their margins at a nice level that would be a good solution. I think that would resolve the pending antitrust concerns they have upcoming for sure in the EU and likely in the US as well. That gets around any safety / piracy concerns and lets others compete on payment processing / marketing /etc...
Short of that, I think they should go back to the process they had before (and apparently still do with business apps if we assume the rule mentioned in the protocol article are accurate) where as long as there are no mentions on how to sign up in the app it's fine.
On the last point, I don't think it is working when I read John Gruber or Ben Thompson. It sounds like there is a ton of unrest out there but that developers are scared to speak up out of fear of retribution from Apple.
No one seems to mention that these fees have been enabling Apple to develop many of the hardware and software enhancements in iOS and new iOS devices. New iOS updates for features and security don’t come free. These are the very reasons that I’m on this platform and not android.
I don’t want developers having access to all aspects of my very personal device. I don’t even trust my family with access to my devices, why should I allow some developer with access to whatever they want to make money from my data. No thank you. We have the Apple review process to thank. I don’t go to other sites to find apps their apps. I don’t want to have direct contact with developers and get on another database that can be hacked for my personal and payment information. If you as a develop want my eyes and access to my funds then you’ll need to play within the rules of the platform of my choosing.
The next question is whether Hey is even a good app. If it’s anything like Basecamp, then no thanks, don’t need that kinda garbage. Their argument of being able to handle trial extensions, refunds, special discounts and customer support tells me that their software isn’t that great. I also want developers to be transparent with their pricing and not giving unfair deals not offered to everyone.
Like Phil said, there are many ways to work within the platform, the platform that many, like me, come to for a secure and privacy focussed device. Even if Hey did get their way, they wouldn’t get me to direct pay. If the way it is today is not okay, then just stay away or find another way.
The bottom line is that when developers put their app on the iOS App Store, what they are getting from me is a deeper trust. Trust that the app had been code reviewed by a third party, trust that my contact and payment information is secure and not strewn across hundreds of databases and sold unbeknownst to others, trust that I’m getting consistent pricing and equal treatment to other people using the platform, trust that the app is going to be upheld to the same privacy and security frameworks of other apps on the platform, trust that the app I purchase and download is available every time I need it, trust that it is coming from an authorized and secure source that is not able to be intercepted or code injected by an unknown source.
The argument that because another platform charges less fees is just BS. Just because their app is offered on those other platforms, do you think they are coded the same an abide by the same trust rules in place with the App Store? Heck no!
If I had to go to another store to buy the software, it would not buy from me any of that trust above and the developer would have to put in a lot of resources to create the same that trust relationship we have with the App Store, 30% for all the above seems like great value to developers compared to what they would get from me otherwise, which is absolutely nothing.
No one seems to mention that these fees have been enabling Apple to develop many of the hardware and software enhancements in iOS and new iOS devices. New iOS updates for features and security don’t come free. These are the very reasons that I’m on this platform and not android.
I don’t want developers having access to all aspects of my very personal device. I don’t even trust my family with access to my devices, why should I allow some developer with access to whatever they want to make money from my data. No thank you. We have the Apple review process to thank. I don’t go to other sites to find apps their apps. I don’t want to have direct contact with developers and get on another database that can be hacked for my personal and payment information. If you as a develop want my eyes and access to my funds then you’ll need to play within the rules of the platform of my choosing.
The next question is whether Hey is even a good app. If it’s anything like Basecamp, then no thanks, don’t need that kinda garbage. Their argument of being able to handle trial extensions, refunds, special discounts and customer support tells me that their software isn’t that great. I also want developers to be transparent with their pricing and not giving unfair deals not offered to everyone.
Like Phil said, there are many ways to work within the platform, the platform that many, like me, come to for a secure and privacy focussed device. Even if Hey did get their way, they wouldn’t get me to direct pay. If the way it is today is not okay, then just stay away or find another way.
Well nobody also mentioned that Apple derives substantial value from the App store independently from the 30 percent cut.
Assume for a moment that Apple would have the following choices: shut down the App store or continue operating it but with 0 percent commission. If you believe some of the arguments in this forum they should shut it down right away because it costs money to screen apps, maintain servers etc.
However, of course would not shut it down: these costs are minuscule compared to the benefit that Apple derives from adding utility to the iPhone and iPad which in return allow higher hardware sale prices.
The App store creates value for both apple and developers which is completely independent of the 30 percent cut.
The 30 percent cut is simply a reflection of the relative power of developers and Apple: most developers are small and compete with other developers. In contrast, Apple alone makes rules for it's platform and prohibits alternative app stores. Exceptions are powerful developers like Netflix where there is no obvious alternative and whocwho simply reject the 30 percent cut or walk away.
Let's do another thought experiment and let's assume that app developers would band together and go on "strike" unless they get the same treatment as Netflix. Would Apple cave in? Of course they would because they did so with Netflix and, as explained above, there is tons of value generated for Apple without any cut.
Why upgrade pricing? From a consumer POV, I don't want to pay extra for the refinement of their sloppy coding. Upgrade pricing is an outdated software marketing model and seems to me like the abuse of "this software is supplied to you as-is without any warranty whatsoever" rhetoric. If they add some extra features worth charging separately, then the In-App Purchases scheme exists just for that. IAP mechanism eliminates the need for upgrade pricing.
Actually, I had several apps, where I moved to the higher version and paid for upgrade only. The discount can be issued for any update if old and new app versions are bundled.
As pointed out, Apple reviews and validates app submissions. Apple handles all orders, merchant services, payment processing fees, customer service, returns, reserves, and downloads.
Apple provides the store, the marketplace, and access to millions upon millions of validated, credit card paying customers who can and will buy your product at the click of a button.
So what's a "fair" price for all of that?
Try getting a product into Target or WalMart or Best Buy and tell me just how much profit one of those stores is going to want to skim off the top. Closer to 50%, actually, and that's after you've actually paid to build and produce and ship them a physical product.
So again, what's fair? 20%? 15%? 10%?
Tell someone a CD costs $20 and people will whine that it's not $10. Make it $10 and someone else will whine that it's not $5 and that $10 is totally "unfair".
The problem is that pretty much ANY number you name is going to be seen as unfair by someone else who just wants more money going into their pockets and not yours.
I'm an Apple developer and I think Apple is being more than fair.
Could Apple do better? Sure. More consistency is the review process. Paid app updates. There are lot's of things that Apple could do.
But 30%? Not a problem.
That is an Apples to Hand Grenades comparison about a physical good vs app store. If Apple was charging 30% to distribute physical goods then maybe it'd be an apt comparison. The right comparison is what does stripe, or shopify or charge. I'ts nowhere near 30%. Apple is only able to charge 30% because they are part of a duopoly and Apple owns 2/3 of the mobile app market. Any potential competition that could lead to lower prices is eliminated.
If they solved the consistency problem and eliminated the application of unwritten rules that would go a long way towards appeasing most complaints as at least then everyone would be on a level playing field.
Apple doesn’t own app market. All developers own it.
Moreover, even in a theoretical case of duopoly, there is competition. You need just 2 sellers to have already a competition on the market.
I think really the simple issue here is that 2020 is not 2008. Situations have changed on the ground as far the 'necessity' of the smartphone, the importance of ecosystems etc. I think apple will need to do something, before i gets to a point where they are forced to doing something that other people decide.
I would say apple will need to delineate the services they offer as part of the app store, and provide apps a chance to list on the store without paying for additional services like being promoted etc. (provided the apps follow app security guidelines ofcourse).
You can decide right now. Don’t use anything from Apple. If no one is using anything from Apple because there are better and cheaper alternatives, then Apple will fail.
But it seems that Apple charges appropriate fees and commissions since so many people/developers continue using it.
Theoretically, if all developers switched to Android only (because it is so much better /s) most of the consumers would have ditched their iPhones, because Android would have provided so much more value to them (apps vs no available apps). Strangely, it is not the case. Developers still prefer to develop for iOS (as well). If it is developer’s choice - they should stop complaining.
How much should Apple charge instead of ‘draconian’ 30%? Let’s say you suggest 10%. (Not considering that you don’t have any basis for deriving that number).
Now imagine your boss/client informs you that they are going to pay you 3 times less. So now take your salary/income and devise it by 3.
Would you agree to provide the same quality work as you do now for 3 time less money? Why not? Would you stay working with that company/client? Why not?
P.S. I should tell my landlord that she is getting only 1/3 of the money starting next month.
How much should Apple charge instead of ‘draconian’ 30%? Let’s say you suggest 10%. (Not considering that you don’t have any basis for deriving that number).
Now imagine your boss/client informs you that they are going to pay you 3 times less. So now take your salary/income and devise it by 3.
Would you agree to provide the same quality work as you do now for 3 time less money? Why not? Would you stay working with that company/client? Why not?
P.S. I should tell my landlord that she is getting only 1/3 of the money starting next month.
Allowing competition would resolve the upcoming antitrust issues they are definitely going to face in the EU and may or may not in the US. Anyone that looks at the mobile app market sees a duopoly where the two tacitly agree not to compete on price. By being more successful, with their 2/3 market share in the mobile app market, Apple is going to bear the brunt of government regulation to address that. Their margins are crazy high - 63.7% in 2019 and they are rising. Those kind of margins scream uncompetitive marketplace.
A remedy that I think would be fair is force Apple to allow developers to opt-out of the customer-facing parts of the app store. Developers would have to pay Apple for app review and distribution (for security) but could opt out of being accessible from the AppStore app. They would be responsible for marketing their app, payment processing etc... Then at least they'd have the option of deciding whether or not Apple provides enough value to justify their fees or if they'd be better off doing it themselves.
If a bunch of apps opt out because Apple is not providing good value they would have to adjust to win that business which is good for consumers. Right now what developers think of the App Store terms doesn't matter - they have no choice. The mobile app market is one where the two companies that make up the monopoly have tacitly agreed not to compete.
Comments
I would say apple will need to delineate the services they offer as part of the app store, and provide apps a chance to list on the store without paying for additional services like being promoted etc. (provided the apps follow app security guidelines ofcourse).
You would be correct that small stores within a mall typically pay rent only.
EDIT: Here's another source.
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/average-percentage-commercial-rent-3515423#
If they solved the consistency problem and eliminated the application of unwritten rules that would go a long way towards appeasing most complaints as at least then everyone would be on a level playing field.
I'm so tired of all the "free market" or "go somewhere else" arguments, all of which ignore the simple fact that iOS customers are not allowed to install apps from anywhere else. That breaks any comparison or analogy that has been made with other business models or forms of retail sales. I don't believe the 30% commission is the cost of hosting apps, "marketing" them or providing quality control. It's an arbitrary amount that Apple has set because they can, because there is no alternative to deliver products to customers who use their platform.
But clearly the focus here is defending whatever Apple has decided to do rather than looking realistically at areas that could be improved.
If there was truly competition and Apple wasn't one half of a duopoly that owns 2/3 of the mobile app market I think we'd probably end up with them offering some kind of plan for those type of apps where they pay a fee + markup to cover review and distribution for those apps/services that would like to use a different payment processor don't care about using the AppStore for marketing their app. But again, Apple being a part of a duopoly that onws 2/3 of the mobile app market makes them immune from serious competition and they can continue to successfully engage in rent-seeking.
Since you're on Android I'll ask just how much effort you've put into making your apps work in stores other than Google's Play Store? AFAIK, there's Apple, there's Google, and then every other "store" is barely on the map. (I'll discount China here.)
Starting with the later point first, AFAIK all of the rules are written down in the developer agreement. There may be some inconsistencies in applying them from time to time and Apple could do better with this, but rules are applied by human beings and human beings have been known to make mistakes. Shocking.
Back to the first point, according to Apple and other sources about half the revenue generated by the app store goes to maintaining the store, process, fees, and so on, so cutting that to 15% doesn't really work. And as I pointed out in my comment, part of the discussion boils down to what people think is "fair" and that's always a moving goalpost.
So here's the thing. Companies exist to make money. They propose a price for a good or service and people either buy or they don't. If they think the price is fair they buy. If they don't, then they don't and the company has to either attempt to adjust prices or give it up and try something else. The market decides what's "fair".
Apple has the most successful app store on the planet. They have millions of developers who've made billions ($155B) of dollars from it.
Seems to me that, by and large, the system is working and both Apple and Apple's developers are profiting from the experience.
"If an app is paid for by a company and managed by an administrator — think Salesforce, HR services, all the things no regular person ever pays for and are run entirely by IT departments — that app doesn't have to require in-app purchases."
There is nowhere in the App Store Guidelines where anything like that rule is documented. I hope you would agree that needs to be fixed, that developers should be able to trust that they won't be rejected for rules that don't exist in the App Store review guidelines.
I don't know what the right percentage is and I would have no problem if it remained 30% if there were alternatives. If an app could opt out of the AppStore and be charged for review and distribution only + a healthy markup to keep their margins at a nice level that would be a good solution. I think that would resolve the pending antitrust concerns they have upcoming for sure in the EU and likely in the US as well. That gets around any safety / piracy concerns and lets others compete on payment processing / marketing /etc...
Short of that, I think they should go back to the process they had before (and apparently still do with business apps if we assume the rule mentioned in the protocol article are accurate) where as long as there are no mentions on how to sign up in the app it's fine.
On the last point, I don't think it is working when I read John Gruber or Ben Thompson. It sounds like there is a ton of unrest out there but that developers are scared to speak up out of fear of retribution from Apple.
Assume for a moment that Apple would have the following choices: shut down the App store or continue operating it but with 0 percent commission. If you believe some of the arguments in this forum they should shut it down right away because it costs money to screen apps, maintain servers etc.
However, of course would not shut it down: these costs are minuscule compared to the benefit that Apple derives from adding utility to the iPhone and iPad which in return allow higher hardware sale prices.
The App store creates value for both apple and developers which is completely independent of the 30 percent cut.
The 30 percent cut is simply a reflection of the relative power of developers and Apple: most developers are small and compete with other developers. In contrast, Apple alone makes rules for it's platform and prohibits alternative app stores. Exceptions are powerful developers like Netflix where there is no obvious alternative and whocwho simply reject the 30 percent cut or walk away.
Let's do another thought experiment and let's assume that app developers would band together and go on "strike" unless they get the same treatment as Netflix. Would Apple cave in? Of course they would because they did so with Netflix and, as explained above, there is tons of value generated for Apple without any cut.
Let’s say you suggest 10%. (Not considering that you don’t have any basis for deriving that number).
Would you stay working with that company/client? Why not?
Allowing competition would resolve the upcoming antitrust issues they are definitely going to face in the EU and may or may not in the US. Anyone that looks at the mobile app market sees a duopoly where the two tacitly agree not to compete on price. By being more successful, with their 2/3 market share in the mobile app market, Apple is going to bear the brunt of government regulation to address that. Their margins are crazy high - 63.7% in 2019 and they are rising. Those kind of margins scream uncompetitive marketplace.
A remedy that I think would be fair is force Apple to allow developers to opt-out of the customer-facing parts of the app store. Developers would have to pay Apple for app review and distribution (for security) but could opt out of being accessible from the AppStore app. They would be responsible for marketing their app, payment processing etc... Then at least they'd have the option of deciding whether or not Apple provides enough value to justify their fees or if they'd be better off doing it themselves.
If a bunch of apps opt out because Apple is not providing good value they would have to adjust to win that business which is good for consumers. Right now what developers think of the App Store terms doesn't matter - they have no choice. The mobile app market is one where the two companies that make up the monopoly have tacitly agreed not to compete.