[tptacek]

Isn't the premise of this case, that Apple's "monopoly" on the app store and 30% toll on developers is effectively jacking up app prices for consumers, pretty hard to support with evidence? My impression is that the modern app store coincides with (if it didn't actually cause, which is possible as well) an industry-historic decline in software prices for consumers. Things we pay $0.99 today for used to cost $50.

[kodablah]

The rising tide lifts all technological boats, so it makes little since to compare today with historical water levels. Things can be overall cheaper compared to the past, but still anti-competitively hamstrung. If you can compare to costs of things in the past, you probably won't find any technology more expensive.

[tptacek]

That's a colorable argument on a message board, but in court, if intervention is to be premised on harm to consumers through overcharging, Apple's opponents will need to present empirical evidence, not counterfactuals. Be that as it may: all the evidence available to me suggests that mobile app stores have drastically reduced the cost of retail software to consumers.

If anything, what I've seen is the opposite concern, which is that app stores make prices too favorable for consumers, at an untenable cost to the developers.

[forrestthewoods]

It’s a tricky claim to make for Apple.

But it’s easy to make across the full ecosystem of digital app stores which are near universally 30 percent rakes. I’m including games in that list; Xbox, PlayStation, Steam, etc.

That said, even if mobile apps are cheaper than they used to be many could be even cheaper if Apple took a 10% cut.

I don’t like living in a world where almost every major distribution platform has complete vertical integration. The 30% cut is a farce. But I’m not sure this is the best argument to end it.

[pvg]

The game app stores have also driven prices way down from their 'traditional' retail prices. The argument for government remedy has to be based on some kind of actual harm to consumers rather than a feeling that 30% is too damn high.

[Faark]

Digital game stores are a great comparison. Lets stick to windows gaming, since I'm most familiar with those. Steam & co did cut out physical media production and distribution, obviously driving the price down. But there is also competition. If EA doesn't want to give Valve a cut, they can try to reach me directly. Steam is my preferred store for games and the only client I let auto start, so that won't be easy. But doable for a good game / price.

Compare that to apple users. As a start, you'd probably have to convince those to buy a non-apple device. That's a huge barrier to entry. It might be justified, i you believe that's good for other reasons like security. But then we're far of from driving down app prices.

I want fine grained competition. It is what makes our economy more efficient. Market leaders in contrast don't want to compete on profitable parts of their business and as such, will employ any tactic possible to stop that. Like e.g. placing barriers to entry (see above). Or make it difficult do make informed decisions (stores reads quite a bit like printers and overpriced ink). Thus I have a hard time buying into those "this is for the good of the consumer" talking point.

[forrestthewoods]

And those prices would be reduced even further with a lower rake or storefront alternatives.

[pvg]

The prices would be even lower if Apple decided to have a profit margin of 4% instead of 40%. The question wasn't 'how could the prices be lower', it was 'what's the evidence Apple has engaged in illegal, consumer-harming practices'.

[wgerard]

> Things we pay $0.99 today for used to cost $50.

It's interesting because I imagine that'll be Apple's argument, and the natural counter-argument is that the $0.99 price is deceptive because of the "freemium" model of most apps.

Not sure how convincing they can make that argument, but it'll be interesting nonetheless. I imagine it'll involve putting an average "cost-per-app" including in-app purchases.

[brennankreiman]

$0.99 or free with all the important features a $19.99 in app purchase each.

[olliej]

The is a consumer choice - look at literally every new product announcement that comes with a >4.99 price tag. Basically you get people saying it’s unreasonable because making a copy of an app costs nothing. Because heaven forbid they give any value to the time required to design and create a piece of software.

It’s often followed up by claims that they could do it thenselves for much less in much less time, ignoring the realization that that is only possible because the original developer has done all the hard engineering and design work, and worked out how to make things fun, etc. (my most obvious memory of this was when Threes came out and it was instantly cloned by people who had full access to the game design)