Rephrased - Developers are up in arms because the cost of distribution on iOS is artificially high. It's artificially high because the cost is not subject to market forces. It's not subject to market forces because Apple has a vertical monopoly on hardware and software distribution. Vertical integration is illegal.
It's not a monopoly. Other phones and ecosystems exist.
On Windows I can buy a digital copy on the devs website and MS gets nothing.
On Steam, I could buy the game in another storefront (GOG), or Direct, and Valve would get nothing.
On Android I could use a separate AppStore and Google would get nothing…
In other words, in all those platforms devs can opt in to participate on a centralized store taking 30%, or keeping an alternative channel with higher revenues. On iOS, not so much.
Years ago, Apple had a loving relationship with Devs. Now Apple is an over demanding Karen yelling over her alimony payments every end of the month.
There is no way, on any major console, to "opt out" of the fee.
Mac has the same options available to developers as Windows.
Steam's third-party redemption mechanic is notable, and awesome.
On Android, different third-party stores have different fees. Samsung, for instance, charges the same 30% as Google. Epic's store charges 12%.
> It's not a monopoly.
I believe you have accurately described a cartel, however.
Steam also doesn't collect 30% for distribution (ie developer issued keys for things like bundles)
If Apple's platform doesn't work for their profit margins they are free to sell their software elsewhere, including a plethora of phones from a diverse set of manufacturers. But they don't want to do that because Apple's platform makes them a fuck load of money. They just want more of it.
How about this: Apple can charge Epic the same outrageous* 12% that Epic charges game developers. Do you think that would alleviate Epic's concerns?
> Vertical integration is illegal.
Can you provide a legal document or explicit law that states "vertical integration is illegal"?
* It's outrageous because Epic provides even fewer services (SDKs for example), still requires developer fees $100/submission, and has a much smaller user base. They're also not really doing anything. At least Apple makes the iPhone and improves the capabilities of it each year...
65% of domestic App Store revenue is on iOS, and the Apple app store is the only distribution channel. What market forces affect Apple's pricing power on commissions?
> Can you provide a legal document or explicit law that states "vertical integration is illegal"?
No, because like all things, it's about how you use it. Per the FTC - Exclusive dealing and exclusive distribution arrangements may be anticompetitive, however, if they are used to raise rivals' costs, exclude (or foreclose) competition, or facilitate tacit collusion. Exclusive dealing contracts may raise rivals' costs when the contracts are made with so many retailers, and lock up so much capacity at the retail level, that competing manufacturers are unable to attain minimum efficient scale in either the production or the distribution functions.
Apple is dealing with itself - maybe that argument holds in court (certainly has a shot with the current junta). It would certainly help if Congress would update the law for the 21st century. It's close enough to the line that it can be argued, and they are clearly nervous about it.
> How about this: Apple can charge Epic the same outrageous* 12% that Epic charges game developers. Do you think that would alleviate Epic's concerns?
Be mad at someone else. I don't know or care about Epic and I don't play Fortnite. I just know that private companies should not be able levy a tax or unreasonable tolls in restraint of commerce. It's hard to justify a 30% toll on 65% of a $100B+ market without at least knowing if a third-party marketplace would offer better rates and service.
That just proves that Apple provides a lot of value through its platform and that developers are hungry to develop for it despite the platform fees, it doesn't prove that Apple's App Store isn't "subject to market forces".
> No, because like all things, it's about how you use it. Per the FTC - Exclusive dealing and exclusive distribution arrangements may be anticompetitive, however, if they are used to raise rivals' costs, exclude (or foreclose) competition, or facilitate tacit collusion.
This broad definition would apply from any company ranging from Nintendo to Walmart to Tesla. It's not convincing. If you are going to make the claim that "vertical integration is illegal" you should provide factual evidence stating this instead of just your broad interpretation of "Per the FTC".
> Be mad at someone else.
Something something Apple tax, Junta, illegal something something.
Raising the rev share they take makes the developers less incintivized to develop for the platform. Lowering the rev share makes developers more incentivized to develop for the platform. Apple is competing against other app platforms over developers of which there is a limited amount of.
So for Apple to lower the amount they take there would need to be another platform that is stealing developers from Apple's ecosystem. If developers stop developing apps for Apple's devices then that makes them less desirable for users so they would be incintivized to let developers keep a bigger portion of the revenue.
Is it? The only related info I could find is https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012615/what-are-leg..., which says it _can_ be illegal (in the USA) if it is achieved through a merger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_integration mentions quite a few examples of existing vertically integrated companies, mentions a few court cases, but doesn’t say it’s outright illegal.
Also, if vertical integration is illegal in the USA, somebody should tell Musk he should split up Tesla and SpaceX.
> if vertical integration is illegal in the USA, somebody should tell Musk he should split up Tesla and SpaceX.
How are those companies related in terms of market power? I don't see it. Plus, space is so capital intensive and reliant on government contracts that pursuing it would be pointless.
