[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.

[cageface]

I don't think game consoles are a useful analogy for the mobile market. Different business models and different stakes for society.

[simondotau]

I actually agree with that, to an extent.

But I would also argue that when the software in question is a game, a game console can indeed be a relevant analogy. Games are games—whether you are buying them to play on a smartphone or a GameBoy or an Xbox. The "business models" and "stakes for society" are the same regardless.

If I were in charge of Apple, I would lower their store percentage to a very low 10% for non-game apps. 30% might have been a reasonable amount in the early days, but Apple's market success means they don't need it. (I would also completely abandon their pointless stance over reader content and allow Spotify, Netflix etc to bill customers directly in-app.)

But for games, I would have Apple match the prevailing percentage set by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo—which I believe is 30% across the board.