[pneill]

> If customers don't like a ceratain app store, or solution, then they don't have to use it. I am trying to force other people to do anything with their own phones. I just want Apple to stop doing this to my devices, when they, for example, sue people who offer repair services.

This is an interesting answer. It sounds like you're not an app developer, so why do you care if Apple takes 30% cut of the developers app? Or is it that you're concerned about apps you like not being available due to contract disputes? Could you elaborate?

[stale2002]

> It sounds like you're not an app developer, so why do you care if Apple takes 30% cut of the developers app?

Because those costs inevitably either get passed down to the consumer, or mean that there are less resources to make the game, which results in a worse experience for me, the customer.

I don't want Apple to force everyone to give them a cut, because that is real money that would either stay in my pocket otherwise, or would provide more resources to game companies.

More money that stays in developers pockets means that they are incentivized to make more games or spend more resources on them. Or it can result in more developers entering the space, because there is more money overall to get.

Apple isn't providing any value to me here, that I could not get elsewhere, if there were competing app stores. I don't want them to force everyone to give them that money.

(And no, I dont' accept the argument that Apple's app store would always be significantly better than everyone else's, so much so that they deserve a full 30%, automatically. If they end up being better, thats fine, but I still want competition, and for other app stores to be able to compete fairly)

[pneill]

I get it. You're saying if Apple takes less of a cut, then that savings will trickle down to me.

The stunt by Epic, aside, has that ever happened to you? Has your Netflix bill ever gone down because they secured a better discounting with their cloud service providers due to their growing volume?

That's never happened to me (but maybe my experience is unusual)

But for the sake of discussion, let's explore how this might play out.

If a developer switches to a different payment services or store, they'll have to make a decision - pocket all the cost savings (and hopefully pass it on) or take some percentage of that saving and channel into their new acquired support costs. They'll have to support refunds, false charges, etc, right?

The big developers will hopefully act responsibly and balance the savings with their new support costs.

But what about the small(er) ones? Will these 2-10 people developer shops be prepared for the support costs? What if the support costs are greater than the savings?

What's your take?

[stale2002]

> The stunt by Epic, aside, has that ever happened to you?

Think about the opposite situation.

Imagine that Apple charged 90% of the costs of having a game on the app store. How many game companies do you think would make games for that? My guess: probably not many.

> If a developer switches to a different payment services or store, they'll have to make a decision - pocket all the cost savings

Also, even in this situation, with the game developer pocketing all the savings, I would much rather prefer them doing this, than Apple taking the money.

To re-iterate, even if we agree that the money would not go to the consumer, and not trickle down at all, I still want this to happen.

This is because now there is more money in the gaming industry, which means that there is now more reason for game developers to make games. So I still want that to happen. Because it means that there is more reasons for developers to make games.

That is still much better than if Apple gets the money.

> They'll have to support refunds, false charges, etc, right?

Yes, and those costs are much much cheaper than 30%. It is not even close. Paypal charges 3% costs. So that is where the prices would probably go to.

> What if the support costs are greater than the savings?

They won't be. 30% is a very large number. But even if we agree that they are, in some small percentage of cases, then those companies can feel free to continue to put their service on the Apple app store. So you can't use that argument.

If other app stores are bad, then people will just list it on the app store instead, and you can't use this argument.

I don't want to force companies to put their app on other app stores. I just want it to be an option. That way the best app store wins. Problem solved.

So, to say again, even if the game developers pocket all of the money, I still rather that happen than Apple getting a dime, by forcing people to use their app store.

I will go even further, actually, and say that even if there is zero proven benefit to consumers, by either trickle down prices, or because of more games being produced (due to game devs having more resources, by pocketing everything, and using those resources to make better/more games), I would still rather my money go to game devs, because philosophically I consider it to be their game, and they deserve the money more than Apple.