[simondotau]

It's frictionless in part because it's exclusive and universal. I don't even have to think about what the payment method is, or whether I should trust it, or whether I should choose another one. I'm not necessarily arguing for this, just pointing out that friction can be as much about uniformity as it as about choice.

And let's be clear, this isn't an argument over competing methods of payment, it's an argument about whether Apple should be entitled to a percentage of revenue for iOS app sales, regardless how they are sold, regardless where they are sold.

We should be mindful to keep this question separate from whether there should be more than one place to acquire apps, or whether it matters if the financial transaction occurs prior to downloading or after the app is installed.

[cageface]

If you don't like the payment options the app offers then you're free to choose another app that does. Isn't that the same justification Apple's defenders always give?

[simondotau]

To be clear, are you arguing that what matters is a choice in payment methods even if Apple takes a percentage either way, or is your argument that Apple shouldn't be entitled to a percentage of revenue from apps built with their tools and libraries?

If it's the latter, then Epic disagrees with you.

Epic's own business model says they're entitled to a cut of your revenue if you use their tools and libraries. They don't care what payment method you use. They don't care if you sell copies or sell in-game hats. If you make revenue, they're entitled to a slice of it.

(Yes, Epic does waive their fee for low revenue games. That's very nice of them, though in reality it's obviously a clever strategic move to lure game developers over to their ecosystem, in the hope that more breakout indie successes happen to be built with Unreal Engine. But that doesn't change the underlying principle: they would be entitled to it if they had asked for it.)

[cageface]

I don't think Apple should be allowed to both require that all apps on the phone go through their store and that they get a cut of all the business that goes through that store. Either allow other stores or allow other payment methods in the one store they do allow. Unfortunately Apple has recently made it clear they will use their control over their store to disadvantage competitors.

[simondotau]

Yes, but separate to the question of marketplace and payments diversity, do you think Apple is entitled to a revenue share in return for the use of their tools and libraries, just as Epic are entitled to for their tools and libraries?

[cageface]

Maybe but I think that’s a separate issue that’s going to have to be hashed out in court and in legislation. Nobody would buy Apple hardware if those tools didn’t exist so in some sense they’ve already been extremely well compensated for the work they put into them.

[simondotau]

Fair enough. I just notice people arguing that the reason why Apple should face competition in app stores is because charging 30% for retailing an app is too high, as though the 30% was supposed to be a retail margin and nothing else.

Though I disagree with arguments about whether Apple are "extremely well compensated" already. Arguments of principle should not take into account any company's particular monetisation strategy. For example, it's often stated that game consoles are sold at razor thin margins, or even a slight loss, and this justifies why they can charge high license fees for games. I think that's a perfectly valid strategy, but the fact that the game consoles aren't a profit centre (whereas iPhones definitely are for Apple) shouldn't affect whether it's decided that a 30% manufacturer's margin on digital software sales is appropriate or not.