[musicale]

> But as soon as someone buys my app, I have to pay 15% to Apple. What for?

Is this a trick question? It is the same walled garden model that game consoles have always had; have you noticed that most apps in the iOS store are games?

You'll run into the same sort of thing if you want to list your app/game on PSN, Microsoft Store for Xbox, Nintendo eShop - even Google Play, Steam, and Epic game store charge commissions, and brick and mortar stores add markup - the manufacturer or distributor rarely receives the full retail price that the customer pays.

The markup or commission exists so that the platform owner (or the retailer) can make money, some of which they use to invest in the platform, operate the store, pay their employees, pay dividends to investors, or just accumulate into a giant Scrooge McDuck-type pile of cash.

[erik]

On the PC, if I don’t want to pay Valve or Epic’s cut, I always have the option selling directly. That’s a significant distinction.

[chii]

exactly - this, rather than the %-cut that apple takes, is my real concern.

I do not like that apple can dictate what app i get to run on my iphone. It's not that i want to abolish the app store - for non-technical users, the appstore is fine as it is.

But there should be an option to side-load an app. There should be an option to hook into a separate store like how android has f-droid. The store-front can compete on features, rather than by apple's decree.

The 15%-cut in app-royalties apple takes is a red-herring. It gives apple an "out" when discussing this issue. It prevents further conversation of opening up the device for competing app-stores.

[webmobdev]

> Commissions to the platform owner.

You are being Pedantic. Yes, we all know it is commission. The iDevices are in effect portable computers. As Android and Sailfish run devices show us, nothing should stop Apple from allowing us to install and run softwares from outside their app store. The only reason to do so is to control our devices (they can disable any app, or even the whole device and make it unusable) and ofcourse greed to also gauge even more money from other developers.

The comparison with other closed devices, like gaming consoles, just attempts to divert focus away from Apple who is the most abusive in its attempt to control and dictate the apps that run on its platform. Obviously if developers are unhappy with Apple and Microsoft and Google's App store, they are also unhappy with the closed systems of consoles. And yes, what developers are criticising and demanding from Apple also applies to everyone else too.

[casouniquo]

https://in.pcmag.com/security/138196/android-users-need-to-m...

https://in.pcmag.com/security/138843/these-21-android-apps-c...

https://in.pcmag.com/reviews-and-price-comparisons-from-pc-m...

https://in.pcmag.com/news/134176/android-malware-abuses-app-...

https://in.pcmag.com/android/136057/eventbot-android-malware...

[jrek]

In what way is apple any more 'abusive' than microsoft, sony, or nintendo are? What difference does it make, legally, whether the iDevices are 'portable computers' or not? Why shouldn't a private business be allowed to control what third party software it allows on its platform? There's no misrepresentation to the customer, and the customer has other options if they aren't happy with it. Naturally the developers want to keep more money (motivated by the same fundamental drive - greed), but again, if they consider it uncommercial they don't have to release anything on ios and develop for android only.

Obviously they don't, because they won't make any money - but it's disingenuous to pretend that apple's dominance of the mobile application market and its ability to produce the best consumer hardware and software is a fact distinct from the way it has structured its business and revenue. Developers benefit from apple's strengths and relation with its customers. It's a fantasy to pretend that disruption to the model will simply rearrange the bottom line without doing structural damage to the entire endeavor.

[webmobdev]

> Why shouldn't a private business be allowed to control what third party software it allows on its platform?

There's this thing called "consumer rights" that exists to ensure corporates do not screw us with their products and services. That's why.

> There's no misrepresentation to the customer,

The consumer is being lied to here that this is all being done to protect their privacy where as the actual objective is to even more intrusively spy on its users through these controls, and use this data to exploit them more. And this control also works to exploit developers.

> ... and the customer has other options if they aren't happy with it.

That already assumes that corporates have more more rights over their products than their consumers who pay to own it. If a product is owned by a customer, they should be able to do what they want with it as they are the owners.

> Developers benefit from apple's strengths and relation with its customers.

No, they absolutely don't. Developers benefit better when they strengthen their own relationship with the customers, without Apple as a middleman dictating terms to them and charging them exorbitantly for the same. Apple even goes to the extent of limiting functionalities, to retain its control.

> It's a fantasy to pretend that disruption to the model will simply rearrange the bottom line without doing structural damage to the entire endeavor.

That's a huge exaggeration. Even otherwise, it doesn't matter if said disruption sinks Apple. Another will take their place.

[jrek]

"Consumer rights" is nebulous and meaningless in this context. No legal right is being infringed upon. It is not against the law for a private business to control its platforms, in fact its something that private businesses routinely do and have done long before apple came along.

Marketing and PR is also unremarkable and not peculiar to apple. iPhone customers are absolutely not being lied to in the relevant sense - there is no representation that an iPhone will allow you to run any software outside that approved by apple in the app store.

"The customer should be able to do whatever they like" is a nice sounding dogma, but has no legal basis and isn't supported by standard practice for many products. Your example only demonstrates a power imbalance if we assume that the customer has already been forced to own an iphone for some reason. In reality the corporate and the consumer have the same power - the corporate to develop and offer a product on its terms, and the consumer to either accept that offer or to purchase a different product.

Developers demonstrably do benefit from apple's strengths. Their revenues are overwhelming on the back of an ecosystem built and maintained by apple essentially from scratch. If developers didn't benefit, they wouldn't develop for ios, simple as that.

The point is, the developers are on the same boat as apple, so sinking it is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. And there already are 'others' - it's not apple's fault that they're shit.