[mbenjaminsmith]

"[T]he obvious solution is to compel Apple to let people shop for applications wherever they want, which would open the market and help lower prices"

Is that a joke?

I'd love to be able to sell iOS software directly to users. Even if there were no viable channels outside of the App Store having the choice would make me rest a lot easier.

But to state that "Apple's monopoly" has driven the price of software up is to be laughably out of touch with reality. Maybe this has to be argued from the point of view of the consumer and they thought "monopoly driving prices down" wouldn't be a very good case?

[vosper]

Prices could be lowered by a store that takes a smaller commission, while passing the same amount of money onto the developer. That would lower prices for consumers without hurting developers. Or there could be commission tiers that mean that the more successful the app the greater percentage the developer gets.

[kossae]

Wouldn't the developer still price to market in this case? It would be ideal that the decrease in commissions would be proportionate in developers' price points, but more than likely you're still paying .99-1.99 on average for the app. The developer is just making more in this case, not necessarily benefiting the consumer any more.

[kbwt]

If developers can keep a larger share, there will be more competition and higher quality apps.

[xxs]

This is speculation, also outside US prices tend not to end at .99.

[tarboreus]

Not really, it's basic economics.

[prklmn]

The separate stores should compete, as they are doing now. If one becomes more appealing, users and developers can switch. I think of the logic behind your argument as saying that Walgreens should be forced to let CVS use a portion of its stores to sell in (for free), even though there's a CVS across the street....there's nothing stopping anyone from going to shop across the street as it currently stands, just as there is no outside force stopping anyone from switching to an android to be able to download play store apps. These 2 year contracts are an impediment, but these are signed at the consumer's discretion.

[vosper]

Except that going across the street to CVS to get the exact same product at a better price is very different to switching from iPhone to Android. Apart from just the big outlay for new hardware, you have to figure out how to migrate from (e.g.) iCloud, what happens with your chats in iMessage with all your friends, the different way that Android actually works. Don't underestimate the degree to which small differences confuse non-techy users. Even just upgrading from one iPhone to another, or installing an iOS update, can be confusing.

No-ones going to do that to get slightly cheaper apps (if they are actually cheaper, which I doubt, because I don't believe that the Google App Store is actually competing with the Apple App Store).

[jliptzin]

You can't be serious that walking across the street is the same as moving from iPhone to Android.

[tracker1]

I'm starting an application... plan on having a website, ios and android version. If my cost is $2/month/user, and I want to make even $1 a user, then I have to charge more for the Apple/Android store versions, because they charge 30%.

Beyond this, if I charge more for the Apple app than the website or google versions, then Apple may choose to ban my app. This means, my website app may be more expensive (higher margins, sure) because of Apple.

With Android, I can always bypass the Play Store (like Amazon does).

[yellowapple]

"But to state that 'Apple's monopoly' has driven the price of software up is to be laughably out of touch with reality."

I reckon the rationale here is twofold:

* The currently-mandatory 30% fee would now be optional, as would be the flat developer fee (if it still exists; I haven't really looked into it in a long time)

* The availability of additional stores means the availability of different apps that might not be available on Apple's store, thus increasing competition and driving down prices through more typical supply/demand curves.

[tracker1]

I think this will make iPorn a reality on iOS outside the browser... though seriously, I'd love to see an app store for only reviewed/paid apps with no spyware/adware guarantees. Facebook/LinkedIn wouldn't be available on it because of their spyware activities. That would mean actually higher-quality apps.

[draw_down]

Right, the App Store has driven prices to essentially zero (to be clear, this is bad). That doesn't make any sense.

[jliptzin]

I don't know what is so funny about this. Their monopoly allows them to tax 30% of every sale. I am an app developer and I absolutely charge more to my end users because of that 30% - after all I have to pay for servers and employees and that number would absolutely be lower if not for the 30% tax.

[eridius]

It's laughable because the market for iOS apps has driven the price as low as it can go already. You cannot go lower. The average price for an app is FREE, and for the paid ones it's usually one or occasionally two dollars.

[jliptzin]

Well I guess that's a different story, I am running a subscription service for about $10 / month.

[arielm]

Sounds like whoever wrote it doesn't know too much about the App Store as a consumer or developer.

The truth is that as right now, ~78% of apps in the App Store are free to download/play. The remaining ~22% that are paid stack around the $0.99 price point, which is the lowest possible price tier for a paid app.

I don't see how this "monopoly" is raising prices...

Opening the store in a way like the one being described would result in malware and low quality apps. It'd add clutter and an incredible amount of noise (aka. Competition) hurting developers and consumer.

It's a lose lose situation IMO.

If you need proof just look at Android. Lots of stores, low quality apps, and a very fragmented way for developers to monetize.

[tracker1]

Yes, because Apple Store is known for having such high quality apps[1] all around. There's definitely room for a mobile store than actually reviews every app, with a person running said app. Bans on spyware/adware, and only apps for purchase. An initial review could be as little as $50 to the developer, and update reviews paid out of the top of sales. Charging well below 30%.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+store+iphone+fart+app

[arielm]

You understand you're describing the App Store, right?

Apple reviews every app, there's no malware/spyware, apps are sandboxed.

[arielm]

By "it" I meant the original article. I assume this misunderstanding is why this response was downvoted :|

[sangnoir]

There's no misunderstanding - you just went on a tangent. It's not a matter of knowing the App Store but of interpreting the law.

[arielm]

The law is there to protect consumers. How does this protect consumers?

If you enable lower quality apps and increased competition?

[sangnoir]

You are conflating terms: in this narrow case, the 'consumers' are app developers.