[dlubarov]

I think it's useful to separate these scenarios -

1. A user knows they want to install a certain app; they do so using the app store since that's the only method Apple allows.

2. A user discovers an app while browsing the App Store, but Apple isn't involved beyond that.

3. A user discovers an app through Apple's marketing, e.g. from WWDC.

With (1), it feels very unfair for Apple to charge 30% just to essentially get out of the way. It's not too far off from Apple threatening to block websites from Safari unless they agree to a ransom payment.

With (2), Apple did refer the customer in some sense, but it still feels unfair in a way since the user was essentially forced to use their App Store for discovery.

With (3), at least Apple is putting in some kind of work (specific to the app) rather than purely rent seeking. Still feels morally questionable since developers have no choice to opt out, though.

[georgeecollins]

Even with case (3) there are many companies that would love to be the store / portal that you discover and new purchase apps through (with all the security and testing Apple requires) for less then a 30% cut. But Apple won't let them. It's clearly a price set without competition.

Keep in mind Apple sells advertising in the App Store. They make $ beyond just the 30%.

Disclosure: I am APPL shareholder and sometimes app developer.

[tcmart14]

I'd be really skeptical that there exists companies who would love to be the portal for a smaller cut then Apple. At least longer term. I can see someone, just to get their platform off the ground, trying undercut for a little while. But 30% is sort of like an industry standard. Google takes 30%. There are alternative app stores for Google, but really how prevalent are they and are they really worth mentioning. Nintendo takes 30%. Steam I believe takes 30% [1]. So even in markets where alternative app stores/portals can exist, 30% is still pretty much 'industry standard.' Gog is 30%. Microsoft store is 30%. Playstation is 30%.

[1] https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...

[chandler5555]

why wouldn’t microsoft make a portal and do 0%. they get all of the market share and analytics and good will, plus the value of being the main “other” store. they can break even on hosting fees with some ads

[tcmart14]

Because breaking even isn't stocks going up and to the right. If shareholders aren't seeing good returns on building a portal, it isn't gonna be a good time. That is true for most of these companies. Good will and analytics alone isn't enough for investors.

[flemhans]

I'd do it for 1-2%

[tcmart14]

You would. But would the venture capital firms you would need to bank roll the infrastructure and upstart costs be fine with this. I imagine most of them, might be fine short term with low percentage (to eat market share), but eventually they'll ask, why can't we take 30% like everyone else?

I do think this is why EpicGames only takes like 12%. It isn't really good will, or it is surface level goodwill. Its market share. They'll eventually crank it up to 30 like all their main competitors.

[flemhans]

Of course 1-2% will pay for the infrastructure. It's not such a huge deal. F-droid runs on donations.

Let's hope for more competition in the future, at least in EU.

[tcmart14]

On the scale f-droid runs at, with a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of android users, yes. As much as I would love it, I don't think f-droid could scale in such a way to really be competitive against the google playstore, eat a serious portion of Google's market share in android app stores. I hate it, but we see it time and time again. Open project requires infrastructure, which relies on donations. When its a small set of users its fine. When the user balloon up, the donations don't and the project has to shut down. Unfortunately, its only a hard core subset of users who donate.