[poundofshrimp]

To see why Apple’s mandatory commissions are absurd, compare phones to desktop computers. There is no fundamental difference between the two. So, why is it okay to install whatever you want and pay for it directly on desktops, but on phones it is not?

The “better security” argument just doesn’t make sense in this context.

[stouset]

Apple is hosting, distributing, and directly marketing apps in the app store. They are reviewing submitted apps for compliance with their policies and security requirements.

If you want to compare it to desktop computers, great! Compare it to the macOS App Store which… takes a 30% commission.

Whether or not you personally agree that 30% is a reasonable fee, you can't simply deny that operating the app store costs money and resources. Further, it isn't unreasonable for them to try to recoup those costs or even to make some profit off of providing the service.

[justinclift]

> Apple is hosting, distributing, and directly marketing apps in the app store.

Isn't that a forced situation though, unlike with macOS?

With macOS anyone can throw an application on a website (GitHub, etc) and the users can download the application and run it.

To get rid of the scary warnings, there's even a $99 dev membership that can be used to sign the macOS binaries.

iOS developers don't have any choices to host their binaries elsewhere though.

The EU "allow side loading" thing might allow for some improvement there (hopefully), but I'm not sure.

[xyzzy_plugh]

It's been a while but I'm pretty sure signing and notarizing is required on macOS now, without disabiling SIP. At least for things downloaded from a browser. My interpretation is that $99/year is required if you want to avoid your users needing to use the terminal.

[lxgr]

If they’d simply allow the same on iOS, I’m willing to bet that essentially all of their lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny would disappear overnight.

[kmeisthax]

Right-clicking an app bundle and clicking open gives you the option to run the app even if it's not signed and notarized by Apple.

[xyzzy_plugh]

This doesn't work if the app is quarantined.

[grishka]

It's not required. I made a macOS app recently and no way in hell am I paying that $99/year. People are still able to run it. But there is a scary warning.

On my own Mac I keep gatekeeper disabled.

[abhinavk]

You can still run an unsigned binary using right-click menu > Open.

https://support.apple.com/en-in/guide/mac-help/mh40616/mac

[justinclift]

Ahhh. I thought that there was still a button in "System Settings" -> "Security" (or similar) that let users launch an unsigned app anyway.

But it could indeed have been removed in some macOS version without my noticing. :)

[willsmith72]

> Apple is hosting, distributing, and directly marketing apps in the app store. They are reviewing submitted apps for compliance with their policies and security requirements.

They CHOOSE to do this. If there were a free and open market for app stores, competitors would pop up, who would similarly host, distribute, market, and "review" apps. And they would do it for a whole lot less than 30% and 99USD/year.

They charge 30% and restrict other installation methods because they can, but you cannot justify it based on those costs.

I firmly believe this model isn't going to last. If it didn't hurt Apple's bottom line so much, PWAs would be far more prevalent already than they are, and that's right now. In 10-20 years, this thinking will be gone. They just have to milk it as a long as they can for the shareholders.

It's their hardware, for now they can do what they want. Most consumers didn't even know about the 30%, and probably still don't. Guess who it benefits to keep that under wraps? Or convince the world they need an expensive app store to vet their apps before downloading them?

(And don't say "there's nothing like a native app experience". It's completely irrelevant. If there was a will to build it, the UX would be identical)

[selectodude]

>They CHOOSE to do this. If there were a free and open market for app stores, competitors would pop up, who would similarly host, distribute, market, and "review" apps. And they would do it for a whole lot less than 30% and 99USD/year.

Would they? There are plenty of storefronts that sell games on Windows, yet Steam is the dominant one and charges, you guessed it, $100 and 30% of gross revenue. Epic charges 12 percent and loses money on every transaction. It might actually cost somewhere between 12 and 30 percent to make it a profitable and sustainable venture.

[TillE]

> you guessed it, $100 and 30% of gross revenue

There is one interesting difference, which is that Steam charges a one-time $100 per game, rather than annually. It's very slightly cheaper in the long run, which is nice if you just want to distribute a completely free game on Steam, or if you're a part-time game dev with low sales.

[willsmith72]

if that were true then

1. they wouldn't have to fight so hard to keep their not-monopoly

2. the app store would be operating at-cost, with no margin

i think everyone agrees they have a margin, the question is how much. right now i think apple could make a profit with a 10% of revenue, and most likely at 5%. now they've done the hard work of creating an entire market, and invested huge sums to get there, so maybe they deserve a markup on that

but that's the beauty of startups and capitalism. a new product can skip steps, learn from your mistakes, work without your tech debt and bloated organisational dysfunctions, and disrupt your industry. it happens in every industry, and no company is immune. apple will fight to keep things as-is with everything they've got, but capitalism will win.

[eblanshey]

But they don't allow alternate app stores.

[charcircuit]

>So, why is it okay to install whatever you want and pay for it directly on desktops, but on phones it is not?

On desktop you have similar stores like Steam. The store takes a 30% cut from all sales on the platform and they require apps on the platform to use their payment processing so that they can take that cut.

The difference between Windows and iOS here is that third party stores can be installed without being limited to PWAs or requiring hacky workarounds like AltStore.

Why does Apple have the sole app store on the device? Well it's because it ensures they have a closed platform that they fully control. They made this app platform so it's up to them to decide how open it should be from a range of first party only to fully open to any app from the internet. It's up to Apple to decide what kind of openness will allow them to provide the most value to users. Apple designs their app platform from the hardware all the way up to the operating system and libraries for developers to use. Apple has created a great app platform that brings value to a lot of users.

[sundvor]

PC platform: Steam doesn't care if (case in point) Eagle Dynamics allows direct downloads from their website of DCS World - in fact they embrace it, by offering account linking APIs.

So on PCs, unlike on iOS, users can buy their content as they choose.

And it's not as if Microsoft forces everyone to use their (exceptionally crappy) store either.

[xyzzy_plugh]

Indeed there are many free-to-play games on Steam with micro-transactions that are not required to give Valve a cut.

[sundvor]

Just to be clear, in the DCS World example you do have to make a choice between using Steam for the game download and purchases, or to use the Eagle Dynamics website/downloader directly. External modules purchases do not import to the Steam account, IIRC.

My point was probably that Steam doesn't force users to only use their platform.

To further illustrate the non lock in culture, you can do a transfer of content from Steam into your Eagle Dynamics account if you want to change the account type.

I'm guessing that seasoned DCS players like the direct account method (more frequent sales, for one), whereas beginners are more likely to discover it through Steam.

(iRacing also has a similar relationship with Steam, although in that case Steam only managed the subscription - not the car/track purchases.)

[charcircuit]

They are required to for in game purchases, but they are likely too small for Valve to care else have a custom agreement with Valve.

[fenomas]

I believe the rule you're talking about only applies to literal in-game transactions - i.e. the binary you put on steam cannot itself implement a non-steam wallet. But there's no business rule against selling in-game content elsewhere, like apple is doing.

[charcircuit]

I claimed Steam was similar. I did not claim that they share all of the same policies.

[maximus-decimus]

Steam has a literal button on your library's page to add any game you have already installed and the definitely don't charge you 27% to do that.

[charcircuit]

That button does not give that game a store page, a discussion form, etc. That is not what I am talking about.

[maximus-decimus]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this whole post, but isn't it about having to pay 27% even when you don't use the store?

[fenomas]

> Steam. ... they require apps on the platform to use their payment processing

That's not true at all. Steam literally lets you sell steam keys for your game from other stores, and takes no cut from those sales.

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys

[charcircuit]

It is true. Other stores are not your app.

[fenomas]

You might have meant something else, but what you wrote is:

> they require apps on the platform to use their payment processing so that they can take that cut.

Which is not true. Both steam apps and in-game content for steam apps can be sold in other stores with steam's blessing, and steam expressly supports developers to bypass their payment processing (by offering steam keys and account integration).

[charcircuit]

My statement was specifically referring to the app itself. The app is what has to use steam wallet and not something else. Selling a steam key on a website is not selling it in the app. The requirement applies to the app and not the website for the app.

[fenomas]

Set app selling aside - I only mentioned that because it's a counterexample to your original post as stated.

What TFA is about is selling in-app content from external stores. Apple used to ban that entirely, and now wants a revenue share for it. Steam has never done either - they explicitly support it (via account integration). The two are not similar.

[sircastor]

> There is no fundamental difference between the two.

Are the input devices the same? The screens sizes? The situations you use them? The means of network connectivity? The social conventions around them?

There are tremendous differences between phones and desktop computers. Really the only way that they’re not different is that they’re both Von Neumann machines. But that describes so many things around us these days that it’s a distinction without a difference. By the same virtue a modern television is no different.

[etchalon]

It's OK because that's just how it worked out.

One platforms norms developed before the internet and one developed after.

[zerohp]

Compare phones to game consoles.

[CubsFan1060]

If there is no fundamental difference, then did you just define the market as all phones, tablets, and pcs? If so the the iPhone is a small minority and can’t possibly be forced to change anything, right? You can just replace your iPhone with a pc if you want to install things?

[poundofshrimp]

Both phone and desktop consumers can install third-party apps on their devices. From this point of view, there is no fundamental difference. Yet, on desktops, people are free to install freely, but on the iPhone, Apple controls all third-party installations.