[Dylan16807]

> I honestly prefer to use Apple payments and Apple "Hide My Email" as I'm sure a non-trivial number of users do. If they could just refocus on making developers prioritize that flow for users over outside payment systems (e.g. create a flow requiring users to agree to disclose their private information to the app maker and third parties in order to use an outside payment system) then they'd keep most of their customers in the Apple ecosystem and keep the payment processing.

It's pretty good stuff.

But they seem to be admitting that the payment processing is only worth a 3% cut. And you wouldn't charge apps for the email hiding.

[wayoutthere]

They’re charging the apps for distribution, which is a lot of infrastructure and a lot of human-driven process that doesn’t come for free. There are good platform reasons for not allowing alternate distribution methods.

There are no wholesale prices for digital goods so they get tacked on as fees. All Apple is really doing is asking developers to give their customers an all-in price that they’ll display. You as a developer are free to raise your prices 30% on iOS, and many in fact do.

Every segment of every market does not need to be relentlessly competitive. Apple’s App Store rules are obvious, and if you don’t like them, you’re free not to develop for their platform (which itself is the product they sell to their consumers; not your app and of which the iPhone is only one component).

You are not entitled to be profitable any way you want; you have to find a niche in the market that’s profitable and if you can’t make money on iOS, the market solution is to just do something else. Countries — especially relatively small ones — that try to legislate around this are just as likely to be seen as more trouble for Apple than they’re worth to have an official presence in.

[Dylan16807]

> They’re charging the apps for distribution, which is a lot of infrastructure and a lot of human-driven process that doesn’t come for free.

Yes but they're overcharging.

> Every segment of every market does not need to be relentlessly competitive.

It's significantly better for consumers if a 27% distribution fee faces competition.

Alternate app stores are a poor way to achieve this, but that doesn't mean the status quo is good.

> You are not entitled to be profitable any way you want

Same to apple. They want to control things they shouldn't have this much control over.

> Countries — especially relatively small ones — that try to legislate around this are just as likely to be seen as more trouble for Apple than they’re worth to have an official presence in.

If they get that aggressive, then thank goodness for the EU.

[wayoutthere]

> Same to apple. They want to control things they shouldn't have this much control over.

I think that’s their right as a platform owner. They have no responsibility to sellers setting up shop in their walled garden. If the App Store was the busiest shopping mall in the world, they’re not obligated to make rent cheap; if your business model doesn’t work, apples rules are not new and you knew them before rolling the dice on an iOS app.

Under US law there is no guarantee it’s possible to craft a law that would stand up in court anyway.

[stale2002]

> If the App Store was the busiest shopping mall in the world, they’re not obligated

If there were only 2 major places in the entire world to buy things from, and Apple had 57% of that shopping revenue, then yes, absolutely they would be obligated to do a lot of things.