liqorice

OK, there's a lot to unpack here; Why is it a problem for any platform holder to take cut on a platform they own and maintain? as well as require companies to abide they're platform rules? Is this really an issue? If the question is how much is a given platform holders cut worth then I think that's a slightly different conversation? For example I'm a game developer, and I have shipped titles on pretty much all the platforms (Switch, PS4, Xbox, PC, iOS, Android etc..) , and I can tell you that there are some platform holders who do not do anything for there cut, whereas my experience with apple, with the support and backend they have, there is a big difference in how much and how they re-invest there resources back into the ecosystem and trying to support developers. It's not perfect, but in comparison to all the others out there, its a big difference.

In my opinion, 30% is a lot, but the question is what do I get from a platform holder taking 30%? Do I think that I am getting 30% worth of platform holder support during and after development?

I watched the CNBC interview, and there was an interesting line/quote;

"They are preventing an entire category of businesses and applications from being engulfed in their ecosystem by virtue of excluding competitors from each aspect of their business that they're protecting," Sweeney said of Apple.

So lets dive into this a little bit more, should macdonalds allow burger king to sell they're (BK) food in mcdonald's retail stores, and allow burger king to use there own payment system? Maybe this is too much of an analogous example? How about this one, would this mean that Epic Game Store, would allow Project xCloud (Microsoft) or EA Origin, Nike Store, Or Netflix on to the Epic Game Store, for free, and allow them to use they're own payments system, and bypass Epic's payment system? 

"Apple has locked down and crippled the ecosystem by inventing an absolute monopoly on the distribution of software, on the monetization of software," Sweeney said. 

Epic game store needs approval from epic for you to get in and sell your games, It is not an open store, even though they make it seem like it is, and if you submit a game built with Unreal engine (Epics software) it does not guarantee you access, in fact if you are rejected, a lot of the times you won't know why and they won't give you a reason. And that's if your lucky to get a reply.

If you've ever used steam you know that it is very open, any one can release anything, but the problem now is that there is a lot of junk, malware, questionable content that drowns out other more justified content. And don't get me started on the piracy. If you email someone from Steam (Valve) as a developer for any question or for help, you'd be lucky to get a reply. Do I think Valve earns there 30%? No. But that's a personal opinion, and I don't know how much it costs to maintain the back end, to make it so  developers do not have to deal with privacy laws in countries, to process the payments on your behalf and transfer it into your account, to share market research with you etc....

Do I think any platform holder deserves they're % cut? If so, how much do I think they deserve? What is the cost of maintaining the platform? What is the value they bring (Users, awareness, reach, security)?

So swinging back to Sweeney's comments' based on how epic games conducts its own store, its somewhat hypocritical. 

So back to the question, is 30% too much of a cut for platform holders? I don't know, any answer I give would be uninformed. 

Does a platform holder deserve the right to take a cut? Yes. You created the store and platform, in order to maintain it you need to generate revenue from some where and some how. 

Should platform holders allow other developers and stores on to they're store and let them use what ever payment system they like? Ultimately its there choice, but in my opinion, god no, I hated the early days of having to create unique user ID's for different apps, and having different passwords, and/or payment details etc.... If you look at other digital stores that allow the dev's to have what ever payment scheme/system they want, the trend has always ended up being that the store is too and  fragmented and not beneficial for the user. In fact it potentially becomes harder for the smaller teams to be able to stand out, compete, in the end they sign up or work with a payment, server, provider which ever one is easiest to implement and easy for the users to use as well. A place that grantees security, ease of payment processing, accountability, erm... kind of like what the app store has now.

As some one quoted above, the iOS app store doesn't qualify as a monopoly (Based on legal definition), It seems as though Sweeney definition of monopoly is that if you have to go through apple to get your game/app onto there store, and that they have rules you need to adhere to in order to qualify for releasing your game/platform on they're store? Isn't this the exact same way the Epic Games Store works? You need to request approval from epic, You have to go through epics server and payment systems, you have to adhere to epics rules when using/releasing onto they're store? 

Sorry for the long post and if you read so far, thanks!