[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.

[cageface]

This is exactly why Epic is trying to claim that Fortnite is more than a game right?

[simondotau]

I haven't read that particular detail but it wouldn't surprise me. Though it's not a particularly clever line of argument since fundamentally it is a game, even if it does have a sprinkling of non-game aspects to it. I'd argue that when a game has aspects which are "more than just a game", the error is in our description of what a game is.

I suppose you could bolt a rudimentary spreadsheet feature onto Call Of Duty but that doesn't stop it from being any less of a video game. This isn't interesting and it certainly isn't clever.

A more interesting question would be if Microsoft Excel iOS had a little Sudoku mini-game buried in a submenu.