[cynix]

> it's not affordable for a hobbyist, a student or someone starting out in a low-income country, for example.

These are probably not their target audience then.

> they charge monopoly pricing because they're (currently) able to.

iOS has a 22% market share according to the first result on Google. That's not even remotely close to a monopoly.

[marbiru]

> iOS has a 22% market share according to the first result on Google.

that's worldwide, in the U.S. they're at 45%. And it's not a traditional duopoly in that there's huge lock-in -- I can buy Coke one day and switch to Pepsi the next (or whatever), but once a customer is on a particular phone they're locked into that platform's app store. So, yeah, I think they're exercising monopolistic pricing when selling access to their app-store.

[cynix]

Why does a higher market share in the US have any significance in this discussion? According to [1] the US only accounts for about 10% of the global smartphone market. As an Australian, I couldn't care less about their US market share.

And even if we go by 45%, that's still not close to a monopoly. You're not by any means forced to publish apps on their app store.

[1] https://www.countriestoday.com/smartphone-users-by-country/

[marbiru]

hmm, ok, I take your point that the US share specifically doesn't really matter so long as Apple is pricing the developer account globally -- it definitely matters to me (in the sense that many of my users are American iPhone owners) but maybe not for the pricing analysis overall. My bad.

I still do think that Apple is employing monopolistic pricing on the app store, though -- they don't have a monopoly on the smartphone market, for sure, and indeed their smartphone prices are (certainly premium but still) constrained by the prices of other competing phones. Once a customer owns an iPhone, though, the Apple app store is the only way to reach them. And Apple's pricing for developer accounts seems to reflect that - I really don't believe $99 is the equilibrium price here, nor that policies like kicking apps out the store as soon as the developer stops paying would survive in a competitive market.

I'm absolutely not forced to publish my apps to Apple, and obviously I'm taking the option not to publish them there now. And please don't get me wrong, my apps are super trivial and nobody will actually miss them when they're gone. But it does seem sad to me that both me and my potential future users will lose out (in whatever small way) because of Apple's non-competitive developer account pricing, even when I would have been very happy to pay the fair market rate for a developer account.

[marbiru]

also.. for the record, my main complaint is that they're kicking off apps that they've already approved if the developer doesn't continue to pay $99 every year. I don't see how that's justified by weeding out spammers or their target audience for developers or anything else.

[cynix]

As an end user, I would expect apps to be updated at least as frequently as once a year, given that they release major OS upgrades and new hardware each year. Frankly, if you can't be bothered to update your apps, I'd rather not see them in the store. Apple is optimising for user experience here, and developers who don’t keep their apps up to date for the best user experience clearly isn’t Apple’s top priority.

[skinnymuch]

There are definitely some apps I have or currently enjoy that have not been updated in a year. I’d much rather have them than not.

[cynix]

Sure, if the developer is willing to pay the annual fee and not get their money’s worth, that’s their choice. But the fee will likely discourage such practices. OP is living proof that there are devs who don’t want to pay the fee if they don’t intend to update their apps.