[kruuuder]

But it's all fixed costs. I don't see how the 30% change anything.

Say you need 100k profit after Apple's cut.

Scenario A: Apple takes a third of the App Store revenue. You need to sell in-app purchases for 150k. Scenario B: Apple takes no cut. You need to sell in-app purchases for 100k.

So the claim is, scenario B would be the dream, but scenario A is "nearly impossible"? What is fundamentally different between 100k and 150k revenue, if your expenses are fixed? This doesn't make any sense.

The comparison to Uber doesn't make any sense either, their costs aren't fixed. If they want to double their income, they must double their work.

[modo_mario]

The non indie dev companies often have fixed costs that are often proportionally lower. Apple has that and does not pay that 30% tax. The consumer always does tho. There may be more pressure to lower this if there were more alternatives to these walled gardens. For obvious reasons there's only 2.

Consider it similar to supermarkets or amazon. anticompetitive market practices and other dynamics make it so they are dominant. Now it's almost unfeasible to not sell your product in these places. They can now dictate you can not sell your product cheaper in your own store if you sell in theirs or the like. At any given time they might notice your success and decide to compete with you kick you to the curb with all advantages they can be expected to use.