Grubhub: I brought you an order, give me 30%
Apple: I brought you a customer, give me 30%
Uber: I brought you a passenger, give me 30%
Competition can lower the industry rates for food & personal travel, though I suspect there is price fixing at play right now. But it cannot for Apple platforms. The antitrust proceedings _must_ happen for us to see progress here. You don't persuade the largest company in the world to change their ways. You legislate them to. Too bad our lawmakers have no teeth.
Considering (food & human) delivery is already a notoriously unprofitable industry, I think the more likely answer is that competition already occurred and these are somewhat fair prices we are left with.
Apple on the other hand, can host an app download on the app store without paying a human to use a depreciating asset (that burns fossil fuels) to travel several miles in meatspace.
To basically become some kind of monopolistic entity, or at very least part of an oligopoly with unspoken price fixing rules, and then micromanage your customers and contributors. Not a single penny goes unchecked for - or untouched, for that mater.
Now - as for Apple, I figure they'll argue that the system they're enforcing is good for the end-user, as it'll keep their own system robust, and probably weed out the low-quality stuff - scammers, even.
But it sure reeks of the same monopolistic behavior, that comes in many different shapes and forms.
You are right that increased competition would probably lower the costs, but I'm not sure how Apple, Google, etc. would open the floodgates to third-party marketplaces on their platforms. EVEN with legal papers saying they'll have to do so.
Is it not the same for Apple? You pay 30% tax and you have to implement their IAP. That's the cost of getting access to all the iPhone market share amongst other things.
One reason you have a nation-state in the first place is so you avoid local zero-sum games and you can force companies to compete on an open market, which has huge positive upside for everyone who isn't Apple.
You can still have access to the US stock market even if you are not a US citizen which is opposite of what Apple is doing.
> That's the cost of getting access to all the iPhone market share amongst other things.
Isnt the $99 fee the cost to access all the Iphone market?
>>Basecamp (DHH and Jason) can make their voice heard, but how many companies (specially the small) have faced the same thing and just succumbed to Apple’s “rules” and just had a 30% pay cut?
If you choose to use Stripe, are you taking a 5% (or whatever their commission is for your region) pay cut? Arguing for the amount charged is different, but calling it a pay cut (as if you were entitled to get that amount) is just idiotic. Remember that you are free to not release your app on the App store if you don't want to "succumb" to the rules. Is the marketplace forcing you to build the iOS app? Then blame the marketplace, not the gatekeeper. Or even better, go play a different game where the marketplace doesn't force these options on you.
DHH is acting like a whiny little baby, to be honest. How about: don't create an iPhone app. Isn't Basecamp supposed to be an amazing pioneer when it comes to SaaS? So see if you can chart a new path for others by refusing to build an iPhone app and see what happens? Will that become the new trend? Will Apple be forced to lower the commission or change these rules because everyone building a SaaS starts doing the same thing as Hey? Also, will people switch to using Android just so they can use Hey? It is not as if iOS is the only game in town.
I think apple is fair here.
