Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something.
Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something.
As long as Apple requires they make use of those services for me to install software on the computer I bought, and they prevent others from producing equivalent competing devices via patents (i.e. government granted monopolies), zero.
It's not that it's not worth something, it's that they're abusing their patents and monopoly to extract further compensation after I already bought the device.
> As long as Apple requires they make use of those services for me to install software on the computer I bought, and they prevent others from producing equivalent competing devices via patents (i.e. government granted monopolies), zero.
Right, that's the thing. And zero should also be their revenue and their asset value as long as they continue along that path. The fines should continue to escalate, and should also be applied to individual executives and board members, until they become high enough that the behavior actually changes.
$2 billion is a good start. Apple's revenue in 2024 was about $390 billion. Fines in excess of that amount should be considered.
That's a big enough number that the likely result is Apple would pull out of the UK altogether.
Does it matter? Apple paid around 300 million pounds of corporation tax in 2024. If the UK poses a landmark penalty of say 50 or 100 billion pounds, thats 167x or 333x the annual corporation tax paid by Apple in the UK.
What on earth makes you think that Apple would pay if they leave the UK?
I'm assuming if they pulled out they wouldn't pay.
Then good riddance.
That would be an amazing opportunity for competitors who chose to continue operating in the UK.
That's not what would happen. People will just import the iPhones from abroad.
You had the choice to buy another phone.
When you plug in a non-Apple USB cable to charge your iPhone, or use a third-party phone case, or use Anker power bank .. do you wish you had none of these choices, but only use whatever Apple branded cables, and phonecase and power banks existed?
If you want to buy Apple cables because you think it is better, sure - that's great. But preventing ugreen cables from working makes no sense.
You shouldnt say 'buy a different phone' if you want to use ugreen cables.
If you're a consumer, you should be on the side of more choice and more competition. If you're a Apple/Apple employee, you should 100% say what you just did :)
Being on the side of the consumer means being on the side of the free market. If you don’t like the charging options of an iPhone, don’t buy an iPhone. If you don’t like the OS of a Pixel, don’t buy a Pixel. If the consumer is choosy and doesn’t like the options available then there is a market opportunity for new entrants.
The nature of a free market is that someone wins the competition, and the winner is then happy to figure out ways to prevent anyone from competing at all (this kind of action doesn't require a complete winner either, but I'm focusing on a thought experiment here).
Ergo, if you care about maintaining a free market, then you care about limiting what kind of moves you can make in the free market, in order to preserve a free market. A truly free market with no rules has an end state where it is not a free market, more like a much more sophisticated version of the nobles of the land owning everything. So we declare many activities that make it difficult for others to compete that are not simply about manking a better product, "anti-competitive" and illegal.
Other than capital what prevents a new player entering the smartphone market? In the US Apple is at ~50% market share and Samsung ~30%. These are not colluding entities so there must be enough theoretical freedom to create a smartphone that claims significant market share.
Other than capital does a lot of work in that argument. Companies will not pop up and optimize much less micro optimize the tradeoffs. This isn’t a stock exchange; it’s a real capital intensive product.
Microsoft, Amazon and Meta have plenty of “capital” and they couldn’t create their own ecosystem for their own phone and convince software developers. The hardware is not really an issue. Any company with a few million can sell their own phone and get a Chinese ODM to customize it for them and white label it.
Outside of Apple and Samsung (only because they make a lot of their own parts), the phone market is a commodity race to the bottom
Amazon, Meta and Microsoft tried their hand at making competitive devices and enter the market, to varying degrees of effort but practically identical degrees of failure. All this to say, it takes a lot more than just capital.
Arbitrary software limitations such as apps not running on said phone.
The apple iPhone is a locked down system engineered in such a way to extract maximum value from consumers and developers. It is impossible to compete.
That's an incredibly naive take on economics and competition, because it ignores all of the forces that entrench existing participants and make new entrants basically impossible in many cases. You're coming off like a student of ECON100 who thinks they've got it all figured out.
"Free market" doesn't mean consumer rights go for toss. "Free market" also means a level playing field for everyone, which is why we have things like standardisation (e.g. USB-C) to make it easier for other businesses to compete. A monopoly or duopoly is not a "free market". Once a monopoly or duopoly emerges, it becomes an artificial moat to prevent competition and as "free market" has ceased to exist in such a situation, it is incumbent to change the rules to make sure a "free market" exists again and competition can thrive. (And ofcourse, all this has to be done without ignoring the rights of other stakeholders in the society).
> If the consumer is choosy and doesn’t like the options available then there is a market opportunity for new entrants.
And if new entrants can't enter the market because the existing monopolies make it impractical, then what?
This is the actual problem to be solved. The bureaucracy of forcing the hand of tech companies every time consumers scream loud enough is a shitty solution.
And that is exactly the problem that is being solved. It's not about "consumers screaming", but companies, consumers and governments realizing that anti-competitive behavior is harming everybody except the gatekeeper. The solution is competition. Since Apple is such a great and innovative company, they surely won't be afraid of competing on merit.
It just props up the monopoly. Appeased consumers have no reason to buy other products. There is no financial motive for Apple to do good because they can do bad until government forces their hand, and they have no reason to fear competition. It’s an admission we’re all at the mercy of Apple until daddy government steps in.
The fact that even a whiff of potential competition incentivized Apple to half their tax for specific cases shows that anti-trust regulation works and that it's the only thing that will ever force a gatekeeper to reconsider their anti-competitive business practices.
>It’s an admission we’re all at the mercy of Apple until daddy government steps in.
That has always been the case when market participants become too dominant e.g.
United States v. Paramount Pictures (1948)
United States v. AT&T (1984)
United States v. Microsoft (2001)
Anti-trust regulation would have dealt with Apple, Google and co by now if the lobbying weren't so out of control compared to previous times.
This is true of an idealized perfect free market with perfectly rational consumers, but not so much in the real world. The simple fact that profits on phones haven't been competed to zero is enough to show it's not a perfect free market. I don't think the average consumer spends much time considering the long-term health of the app ecosystem when they purchase a phone. Maybe the wisdom of the crowds is correct here and it's truly not important or beneficial, but to me it seems more likely that it's outside the bounded rationality of most consumers. Markets have blind-spots and they tend to be short sighted.
I don't like any of the options but still need a phone, now what?
That's pretty unfortunately but if you articulate some of your issues with the options, I'm sure I can find an Android option for you that works. Despite Google's attempts, Android is still quite open and many phones allow you to do whatever you want with them.
Or if you only want to use iPhones then it seems like the downsides of the locked down app store aren't worth switching in which case it seems like you've already made your choice.
Android itself is fine, but in most of the world you need Android with Google services, otherwise banking apps, contactless payments, some games, etc, don't work.
The app sideloading changes they're about to introduce[0]? Affects their Pixels, Samsungs, OnePlus, Sony, etc, old and new. It can't be disabled. The work around is to use ADB to install apks.
So while you have more choice of hardware, Android skins with more or less features, different long term support, prices, etc, in practice you're stuck with what Google wants. Your options are Apple or Google.
---
[0] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/08/google-will-block-si...
Whose fault is it if banks, etc require Google services? There's a line somewhere, where punishing a company for providing a great product that everyone chooses to use is blatantly unfair
>I don't like any of the options but still need a phone, now what?
I've always used this method: work out what are the most benefits, with the fewest annoying 'features', between various manufacturers that have items within your budget, and choose something. In my country we call it 'shopping'.
"the free market is the solution!" you say while defending monopolistic practices
> Being on the side of the consumer means being on the side of the free market.
An unregulated market leads to monopoly and anti-competitive practices.
Capitalism is one of the best models we've discovered, but its markets must be appropriately regulated.
Capitalism should be difficult. An eternal treadmill. You shouldn't be able to wedge yourself into a market as a quarter-century long hegemon.
You shouldn't be able to capture the key touch point of all consumers to their digital life and then tax it for eternity. It's putting incredible strain on innovation and all other market participants.
Companies should die and be replaced by younger startups regularly. It's a renewing forest fire that de-ossifies technology.
Rewarding startups puts the capital rewards in the hands of innovation capital rather than large institutions. Large companies do everything they can to minimize labor costs. Venture funds are even hurting in that the monopolies put a cap on the number of startups that can reach decacorn or centacorn status.
And before I field any complaints that consumers don't care about this - most consumers are laypeople and do not understand what is happening to them. They can't articulate these points. This is why we require regulators to police the system.
I’m not convinced the solution to anything is government picking winners, nor telling other people what they, the government themselves, are going to do with their, the people / companies, money.
And how to I get support for the products I just bought when your government regulators terminate the existing of the product developer / manufacturer.
What other mechanism can there exist that would have the power to change the behaviour of these giant corporations, except government?
> government picking winners
Government trimming the weeds using prescribed rules and tests.
Get rid of monoclonal overgrowth to increase ecosystem diversity and health. Make the ecology better at exploring all the nooks and crannies.
I personally think this is a reasonable argument in theory, though in practice it's not a free market when governments and large mandatory institutions (like banks) put in place things that force your hand (Digital ID on your attested device, banking apps that require attestation, etc). It also falls down when you realize the barriers of entry are absolutely enormous. Even Amazon and Microsoft couldn't get through them, so what chance do new entrants have?
>Being on the side of the consumer means being on the side of the free market.
You're saying, companies should be able to do whatever they want, even if it's bad for the consumer. How can you describe that position as "being on the side of the consumer"?
> Being on the side of the consumer means being on the side of the free market.
What makes you think the "free market" always produces the best outcome for consumers?
Or, instead of that, the consumer will have the choice to do whatever they want with their own phone and you won't be able to stop them. The free market wins if you give the freedom to the user to control their own phones.
What if im on the consumer's side but I dont like britbongs
I did not have a choice to buy another equivalent phone because patents legally forbid other companies from producing equivalent phones.
If Apple wants to take that defence, they should be required to have abandoned every patent they own on iPhones prior to my purchase of the device.
I don't think you're entitled to an equivalent phone. If we're talking patents on essential things like a cryptographic algorithm required for banking or a technology required to implement 5G, sure, the patent holder should be required to license the patent to anyone at a reasonable price. But not licensing patents on non-essential features like Face ID or health monitors are OK. And all of that is independent of whether or not you can install your own software.
What matters is the competitive situation. Given that you're practically required to have either a Google or Apple device to participate normally in modern society, Apple and Google should be precluded from forcing customers and suppliers[0] to use their other services, like payment services, app stores, delivery networks, ad networks, etc.
But if Apple were the 4th biggest phone platform with at most 10% of the market, Apple would definitely be entitled to remain a walled garden. Even if their phones had features no-one else can implement due to patents.[1]
0: E.g. app developers
1: I'd claim this is the only position that is consistent with being in favor of patents. But I'm mildly anti-patent, so YMMV.
I don't think I'm entitled to an equivalent phone either. I merely think I'm entitled to either (at Apple's option) an equivalent phone OR apple not using it's monopoly on producing equivalent phones to extract further money from me after patent rights are exhausted at the time of the purchase of the phone from Apple.
I.e. I'm entitled to anti-trust protection. Or I'm entitled to patent-misuse protection. I don't really care which set of laws you put it under.
Even if Apple were 10% of the phone market they would still have 100% of the distributing software to devices with Apple's patented technology market, and that should be enough for anti trust protection to kick in.
(I'm also mildly anti patent, but I've been carefully selecting only arguments in this thread that I believe are entirely consistent with a pro patent belief system. E.g. if Apple treated their phones like their laptops - where they also have patents - all the positions and arguments I've taken would not have an issue with their behavior)
Equivalent in what way? A Samsung, a Xiaomi, a Google phone have all of the necessary capabilities to live a modern life.
Equivalent in the way of having the numerous features small and large that Apple has patents on. Whether that's being a rectangle with rounded corners (yes they have a patent on that, or at least did, and successfully defended it in court. Not sure what's happened in the meantime), or whatever random patents Apple has on making blood oxygen sensor technology just that little bit better.
If Apple believes their portfolio of patents protecting the iPhone is worthless, they should abandon them. That they haven't precludes the argument that they are.
You seem to be confusing Masimo's patent infringement case against Apple over Apple Watch with the notion that Apple has some kind of a patented blood oxygen sensor in the iPhone.
I don't think that supports your case that Apple's patent keeps other phones from being equivalent given that the sensor isn't in the iPhone and it's not even Apple's patent.
For what it's worth, I'm typing this on a Pixel which is also a rounded rectangle, so I'm skeptical that patent is really holding other phones back, either
You're typing that on a Pixel with a bump sticking out the back, which would mean it doesn't violate the design patent.
I wasn't specifically thinking of that case, though it's likely why my mind chose that sensor as an example. Apple has patents on blood oxygen sensors, of course, because Apple has patents on basically everything they do. Here's a recent example that I just picked off of Google https://patents.google.com/patent/AU2024216430B2/en?q=(Oxyge...
I'm not seeing how other phones are being held back by any of this. Google and Samsung have design patents, too, and my Pixel Watch also has a blood oxygen sensor.
All phones aren't equivalent, we agree on that right? Apple has legitimate hardware advantages in places. Faster more energy efficient chips. Better earbuds. Various camera components with various advantages. So on and so forth. All of the minor improvements Apple has made will have patents behind them. All of these patents hold all other phone manufactuers back.
Yes, all the other phone manufacturers also have patents. Yes, these also all hold Apple back. That's the deal we make with patents, you invent something, you get a monopoly on producing that thing.
All the other phone manufacturers are basically respecting that deal. Apple is not - they're taking that monopoly and extending it to a monopoly on distribution of software which just happens to run on the device with the thing. This is what anti-trust law, the doctrine of patent misuse, etc should prevent. Either they don't get a monopoly on the things they invented (and all the other phones get better) or they don't get to abuse that monopoly to extract money from people who already purchased the device - i.e. after the patent rights are exhausted.
It sounds like your problem is with the patent system then. The point of patents is to grant exclusive rights to a technology in exchange for sharing information.
I'm not taking any issue with patents existing here. I'm taking issue with anti-competitive behavior that Apple is executing on top of the patent system. If Apple merely wanted to use their monopoly on features of devices to sell devices with those features I would have no issue. My issue is only when they leverage that monopoly to get a monopoly on the distribution of software to those devices and then leverages their monopoly on the distribution of software to those devices to extract fees for doing so.
Edit: I don't, for instance, have issues with how they use patents with macbooks. There they don't abuse their monopoly on certain hardware features to get and extract money from a secondary monopoly on software.
> Equivalent in what way?
Equivalent as in a literal exact copy of an iPhone. Lots of factories can produce those, seeing as Apple contracts out production. If we get rid of those patents and give free choice to those factories and consumers, well they would be glad to produce a modified "Open" iPhone.
Lets make a free market by stopping this government intervention of the patent system that supports monopolies.
Google has successfully boiled the frog and implemented all of the App Store's same fees and its most draconian features and policies.
A duopoly is not a choice.
This (1) ignores the extremely strong network effects purposely engendered by Apple's chronic refusal to implement interoperable standards in any of their products and (2) this is as much about app developers as it is about app consumers, and developers clearly have no choice but to meet their users where they are, which is on Apple devices. The other choice is going out of business.
Since Google is also moving to this direction can I ask you which phone can I buy that is not part of this cartel and works with banks and public services?
There are two phones on the market. Android and iPhone.
The Government needs to break up this duopoly.
Mobile should have hundreds of choices, three or four OS options, and free web-based installs without a gatekeeper or taxation.
Mobile providers shouldn't be able tyrannically set defaults for search, payments, or anything else either.
And Apple now have the choice to change their business practices.
As a developer, you have to offer your app on both phones otherwise your business won't get anywhere. There's no choice there.
We also have the choice to make different laws.
not really. I have two options: android or ios. And android is following ios lockstep with practices like the recent changes to play integrity.
Mobile apps mobile app fraud empties life savings accounts. I agree there should be personal accountability, but that clearly hasn't been working. Installing an app shouldn't eliminate 30 years of life savings.
How is this related to app store fees? No, paying a 30% fee on all transactions does not make you 10x safer than paying a 3% fee
As another commenter wrote, apple is providing a service beyond the typical transaction (like visa or mastercard) does. Similar to the gaming industry's 30% digital sales (playstation, steam, etc).
For small developers, like myself, this is great, because I don't have to put a large upfront capital to pay Apple to audit my app.
If 30% isn't the right number, what is the right number to pay for app store infra, payments, QA services, global tax audits and collection, global licensing limits, etc?
If a bank cannot secure their mobile payments app without requiring the banning of all other apps from the platform, maybe it's the bank that should be shipping their own secure device.
Account holders can't afford that. If they could, they can also afford to get a separate mobile device that only they use for banking.
More than decade I was and, surprisingly, still am able to install anything on my MacOS (not for long - I know).
Maybe clever engineers at MacOS could help iOS engineers with this?
This is the "think of the children" equivalent that is being regurgitated ad nauseam. Anyone who pretends that Apple cares about anything other than profit is lying to others and themselves.
>I agree there should be personal accountability, but that clearly hasn't been working.
It has been working on Android just fine. And if Apple is supposedly so concerned with security, then why did it take them so damn long to implement a simple mechanism to stop thieves from simply changing your password using your pin? Only after relentless pressure did they implement additional security, which took them far too long. The "security" ruse is nothing but propaganda to protect Apple's monopoly on app distribution.
[0] https://tidbits.com/2023/02/26/how-a-thief-with-your-iphone-...
Super confused. What do you mean its been working on Android just fine? Google just announced they are closing their ecosystem exactly for the reasons I stated.
Most of the fraud at my job comes from the android platform, because the security model on android is much worse than Apples.
Why is Google citing fraud as a reason to lock down android if "its been working on android just fine"?
Apple is not a fast moving company, but they do have a great product and have addressed many of the big issues the community has raised.
Google is closing down because it saw what exactly Apple got away with in previous lawsuits.
[flagged]
You cant take what google tells you at face value.
>Super confused.
You aren't confused, you just have a preferred narrative. Hardcore Apple fans and Apple shareholders share a similar bias with different variations of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'
>What do you mean its been working on Android just fine? Google just announced they are closing their ecosystem exactly for the reasons I stated.
It has been working just fine and Google's claim about their consolidation and its motivations are about as credible as a Rail Robber Baron claiming that his monopolization practices are actually about "security" and not profit, the response to such propaganda was the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and today it is the DMA.
More elaborate articles regarding these bogus claims about "security" and its refutation:
https://makeuseof.com/androids-sideloading-limits-are-anti-c...
https://infrequently.org/2025/09/apples-antitrust-playbook
>Most of the fraud at my job comes from the android platform, because the security model on android is much worse than Apples.
Your personal anecdotes are not credible evidence, especially when they are coincidentally contrived to serve as anti-competitive business practice apologia.
Apple's "security model" is supposedly so much better, yet iPhone theft was absolutely rampant on iPhones due to an Apple "feature" that literally helped thieves steal a user's entire digital life. Androids were unaffected.
"A Basic iPhone Feature Helps Criminals Steal Your Entire Digital Life" - The Wall Street Journal, https://archive.is/oW0lD#selection-1872.0-1872.1
>Why is Google citing fraud as a reason to lock down android if "its been working on android just fine"?
For the same reason that Apple is using bogus claims about "security", because they can hardly be honest and say "We can't allow any competition, because it would threaten our taxation funnel"
As Cory Doctorow writes:
"In the meantime, Google’s story that this move is motivated by security it obviously bullshit. First of all, the argument that preventing users from installing software of their choosing is the only way to safeguard their privacy and security is bullshit when Apple uses it, and it’s bullshit when Google trots it out:
https://www.eff.org/document/letter-bruce-schneier-senate-ju...
But even if you stipulate that Google is doing this to keep you safe, the story falls apart. After all, Google isn’t certifying apps, they’re certifying developers. This implies that the company can somehow predict whether a developer will do something malicious in the future. This is obviously wrong." - https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-09-01...
>Apple is not a fast moving company, but they do have a great product and have addressed many of the big issues the community has raised.
There is no "community" - there is Apple, its profit motive and the consumers. Apple was relentlessly pressured to deal with their reckless "feature" that made a mockery of modern security practices, gravely endangered its users and it still took Apple way too long to introduce a basic fix. Apple is a trillion dollar company, so euphemisms like "Apple is not a fast moving company" won't cut it, especially when it comes to security - you know, the thing they pretend to value above everything else.
Your premise has the false dilemma: "If we can't perfectly block fraudsters from by-passing security checks, then we might as well have no security checks."
Another simple test is we can compare the amount of malware running on closed ecosystems with open systems. Which system hosts more malware: linux/windows or iOS?
I want to clarify that I'm not saying there are no financial benefits for Google/Apple. I am saying there ARE financial benefits to users and businesses on these platforms.
There is no false dilemma. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.
"In the meantime, Google’s story that this move is motivated by security it obviously bullshit. First of all, the argument that preventing users from installing software of their choosing is the only way to safeguard their privacy and security is bullshit when Apple uses it, and it’s bullshit when Google trots it out:
https://www.eff.org/document/letter-bruce-schneier-senate-ju...
But even if you stipulate that Google is doing this to keep you safe, the story falls apart. After all, Google isn’t certifying apps, they’re certifying developers. This implies that the company can somehow predict whether a developer will do something malicious in the future." - https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-09-01...
You realize in the very WSJ article you cited it said this?
> A similar vulnerability exists in Google’s Android mobile operating system. However, the higher resale value of iPhones makes them a far more common target, according to law-enforcement officials. “Our sign-in and account-recovery policies try to strike a balance between allowing legitimate users to retain access to their accounts in real-world scenarios and keeping the bad actors out,” a Google spokesman said.
I should have elaborated even further, because I already suspected that someone would nitpick that phrasing. So let me explain the difference:
"according to law-enforcement officials" - they are clearly not experts in tech and are unaware of the crucial difference between Apple and Android in this scenario.
The most significant difference is that Google explicitly stated their system includes "reasonable time-limited protections against hijackers changing passwords or recovery factors" - but only if users have properly configured recovery options beforehand.
According to Google's official statement: "Google Account Recovery flows also have reasonable time-limited protections against hijackers changing passwords or recovery factors set up by the legitimate users - provided users have set up a recovery phone and/or recovery email."
In contrast, the WSJ article describes how on iPhone:
- Thieves could immediately change the Apple ID password using just the device passcode
- there was no waiting period or time-limited protection mentioned
- Once changed, victims were instantly locked out with no grace period
- Apple's Recovery Key feature could be enabled by thieves to permanently lock victims out
Android users on the other hand could proactively:
- Set up recovery email and phone numbers that would be retained for 7 days after changes
- Enable Google's Advanced Protection Program, which specifically blocks PIN-based password resets entirely
- Configure multiple recovery options that created additional barriers
Apple users had limited options, the article mentions security keys could be added, but testing showed "security keys didn't prevent account changes using only the passcode, and the passcode could even be used to remove security keys from the account". This made Android's vulnerability more preventable and recoverable for users who had properly configured their security settings in advance, whereas Apple users were stuck and vulnerable to the pin-hijack until fixed, because iOS did not offer any similar protections such as time-based safeguards.
Well you realize it’s not a good look to post a citation and then immediately say the article is wrong only about the part you disagree with? See “Gell-Mann amnesia effect”.
But Apple implemented features to block that over a year ago.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/120340
> Well you realize it’s not a good look to post a citation and then immediately say the article is wrong
I did not say that the article is wrong, don't misquote me. You are also still failing to understand what the crucial difference is:
An iPhone was vulnerable to the pin-hijack, because of its limited security options - a security aware user was as vulnerable as an amateur.
An Android phone was only vulnerable if it was NOT properly secured.
So 100% of iPhone users were vulnerable, while Androids were only vulnerable if misconfigured.
So I was and I am still 100% correct, but you simply decided to nitpick that one sentence of mine that was prone to being nitpicked without bothering to understand what the significant difference between the systems were.
>But Apple implemented features to block that over a year ago.
Yes they did, after a lot of time and pressure. And if you read my comment again, you can see that I have already stated that they have implemented it. So what's the point of you telling me something that I have already mentioned several times?
If you’d just said all of this upfront, it would’ve come across as more honest / less confrontational.
>If you’d just said all of this upfront, it would’ve come across as more honest / less confrontational.
"I should have elaborated even further, because I already suspected that someone would nitpick that phrasing . So let me explain the difference:" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45690226
After me clarifying what I've meant, the response wasn't "Oh I see now what you intended to say, thanks for elaborating", but misquoting me and making hostile and snide comments. That is someone who wants to be confrontational and lacks honesty in trying to understand what was meant in the first place.
So you agree that government should take over the finances of the people as they can't be trusted to lose it all in gambling, get rich quick schemes.
This question is valid only if Apple lets apps host their own apps, bring their own payment system.
Apple bans all such activities, has held the entire app ecosystem and seeks rent. If they think their offering is superior, then they should be OK competing. The fact that they have not opened it up says that they are happy to overcharge.
Remember, competition is always good. Let Stripe and Apple duke it out on payment processing, and let the best one win.
Let games me hosted both on Epic Store and App Store, and let users decide where to download it from.
That will be fair.
> Apple lets apps host their own apps, bring their own payment system.
And also not require those apps to be also approved by Apple, which they are trying to do with AltStore and the DMA.
Users should be able to go to a dev's website, pay them directly, and download the ipa and install it with a click from the website. Having to go through any kind of "app store" at all should be optional.
Hardly always good. The mobile app ecosystem on both iOS and Android is a morass of freemium games and ad slop, because the market has determined that hooking one whale is more important than creating a quality product.
The competition will find the most profitable process, not the one that serves customers best necessarily.
The biggest change the iPhone users are going to see an increase in spyware. They'll also notice in a few years a bunch of websites go Chrome only.
On Macs, users can download and install apps freely from the internet, and that platform isnt "a morass of freemium games and ad slop".
Why is that for one platform, everything needs to go through AppStore while the other it is OK - and both are equally secure?
Are you sure you're not falling for Apple's reality distortion field?
Not OP, and not that I buy that the App Store serves its purpose given what's currently on it, but I just don't think the two platforms are comparable.
iPhones outnumber Macs something like 10:1. The user base tech literacy is lower on average. The usage habits are different.
The payoff for creating freemium and ad slop stuff on iOS is way higher.
So in this scenario would Epic then need to develop and maintain their own toolchain and SDK for their app store? The development tools and education are also worth something, Epic shouldn’t get that for free.
Epic has a toolchain and SDK for their own app store. So does Valve, and many other competitors, and Apple won't let them install their toolchain on iOS.
https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/
Dystopian story plot:
Apple completely opens up the iOS platform. Do whatever you like.
Also, an XCode license is now $20,000/year. Don’t like it? Build your own.
> Also, an XCode license is now $20,000/year. Don’t like it? Build your own.
And people will. That's how competition works. If someone thinks they can make a profit by offering a) better product b) same product at a cheaper price, you'll see investment.
VCs will be pouring money to capture that market.
> And people will.
And it will likely be much better too.
Say no one builds their own, and iPhones now only have first party apps. How many people are going to buy them now? How well did the Windows phone sell with no app support? How's the app support on the Apple Vision Pro?
The idea that devs owe Apple for use of their SDKs and API development is absurd. Apple already profits from it as people by their phones due to the amount of third party app support. See how Apple's profits go when WhatsApp, Instagram, Spotify, Netflix Uber, banking apps, are all no longer available on their devices.
Vision Pro is an excellent example
What Apple really needs to do is mimic their old policy of no fees except for games. Let everyone develop for it, and then rug pull by making the fees apply to everything
But they can’t do it twice. So the Vision Pro ends up with no ecosystem
If I'm remembering correctly, the community jailbroke the iPhone OS and produced a toolchain and app installer before the App Store's original release.
Have you heard of gcc? The entire open source ecosystem exists because people were able to build their own.
It's entirely possible to build apps to run on OSX without touching Apple tools .. except for notarization, which they force you to use.
That would be the best outcome!
We would be back to the real days of computing.
> Also, an XCode license is now $20,000/year. Don’t like it? Build your own.
That's what people literally did, multiple times, for multiple systems, and did a much better job than encumbents
Why stop at xcode?
Add a licensing fee for UIKit, Core Data, Core Text, Core Audio, Core Graphics, Metal, Network, SwiftUI, Quartz and all the other libraries apps use constantly.
Heck, why not for the OS itself? If you don't want to pay, they could conceivably dump you into an isolated VM and force you to write your own OS and userspace device drivers.
> Heck, why not for the OS itself?
We used to pay for OSes and OS upgrades. Heck, you still have to pay for Windows.
How much of a fee do you think you should pay to install applications on your computer? The same amount as that.
Or provide alternative ways to install software.
This is a problem of their own creation.
As soon as you open the door to side-loading, you'll have scammers and data-siphoners force all their users to side-load so that they can completely bypass Apple's privacy controls and security features. The entire iOS ecosystem is built on the App Store review process as a gatekeeper for entitlements and the capabilities they grant (through API access).
How do you solve that problem for side-loaded apps?
Sideloading, AKA "installing software on your device", is something PCs have been handling just fine for decades. It's fine to warn the user when they're going off the beaten trail, but do not lock them in a cage to prevent them from doing so.
If they ignore the warnings and get scammed because they are unable to identify reputable software from disreputable software, they learn a life lesson. Life goes on. There should be no societal expectation that everyone is prevented from ever taking an action that could bring themselves harm, by preventing them from taking actions at all.
There are entire classes of people who have simply given up on PCs and only use a phone, so I would call that substantial evidence that PCs have NOT "been handling [it] just fine." For these folks, PCs are a total failure; a dead end. A danger zone to be avoided at all costs.
If you have a citation that droves of people are abandoning PCs for phones specifically because PCs allow them to install software of their choice, rather than other reasons like the convenience of a computer that fits in their hand, I'd be interested in seeing it. Because that sounds like an absolutely outrageous claim to be asserting as a fact to me.
You can Google it yourself. There are tons of studies showing a decline in technology literacy among younger generations (Z and alpha). Millennials were the peak.
This shows that younger kids aren’t using traditional PCs, at least not to the same degree. They just use phones and tablets. At best they may play games on their PC by installing via Steam. Very few of them are becoming proper technologists (able to install and use any software, script the computer, or write their own software).
No shit. That's completely different from what you claimed, though, which was specifically that people were giving up PCs to become smartphone users because they appreciated the lack of choice that smartphones gave them.
The phenomenon you're talking about now is so completely in another universe that it's insane you would conflate the two. I actually can't finish typing this response properly because it's hurting my head every second I continue to think about your argument. To sum it up really shortly: smartphones universal, required to even participate in society, people now given smartphones from early age, multi-functional as phones, cameras, etc, they fit in your pocket, more than sufficient for normie use cases and in fact more suitable for many use cases that don't entail sitting at a desk at home, computers are specialised tools for specialised functionality that many people have no need for. There are 100000000 reasons why smartphone usage displaces PC usage that aren't because they explicitly abandoned PCs for the crime of allowing them to choose what software to install, which was your claim. Not even having mentioned that globally, 75% of smartphone usage is Android which doesn't lock its users in the cage (for the time being).
Do you think smartphones would be ubiquitous today if they had the malware situation that plagued Windows XP?
I think you overstate how bad said situation was, and to the extent it was a problem I doubt it had any meaningful impact on PC usage rates, and I have not the slightest doubt that such a situation would have had minimal bearing on smartphone adoption. People are drawn to things that offer utility to them, regardless of any downsides. That's why people will happily hand over the entire details of their private life to any internet service that asks it of them, and why the market does not punish any company that has security breaches and loses hundreds of millions of people's personal information. Security and privacy are at the very bottom of a normie's list of concerns in practice, even if they might say they care in surveys. If something is useful to them, they will use it regardless of security and privacy flaws.
Edit: It's also telling that you need to go back to XP to make your case. It's 2025. Security practices have improved a ton to give people more protection from themselves without outright taking away their freedom to make choices.
Also, let's again re-iterate that Android usage outnumbers iOS by three-to-one, so it is clear in practice that people are in fact willing to adopt a phone that allows them to make mistakes (if they try very hard to).
You think smartphones give people fewer choices?
Yes.
Now you have a multibillion-dollar supranational corporation playing judge jury and executioner for any of your choices.
E.g. App Store prohibits adult content (which is not illegal). Prohibits emulators (which are not illegal) [1]. Prohibits or hinders the use of better alternatives to pre-installed apps (Photos, Camera, Maps, Siri) [1]. Removes any and all apps if there's a hint of displeasure from wannabe dictators.
Basically, you don't have your range of choices. You have Apple's range of choices.
[1] Some of these choices are now better on iOS precisely due to Apple losing the fight against governments. They finally allowed emulators after they lost a battle against alternative app stores. They finally gave options to change some default apps (but not all, and not in all countries, see e.g. https://mjtsai.com/blog/2025/03/14/dma-compliance-default-ma...)
Appstore has been the only app store on IOS for nearly 2 decades. And you are saying IOS has been a perfect safe zone, and you cannot lose any hard-earn money on IOS for 2 decades? What a joke.
> There are entire classes of people who have simply given up on PCs and only use a phone
Which actually makes the case for "Apple cannot control what people install on their devices or demand that apps pay them and can't even use other payment providers"
The same can be said about alcohol, yet all you need to do is reach alcohol age in the country you live in, no "license to drink alcohol". Why PCs should be treated differently?
Thank you for your concern, but I need a phone, not a device to manage dementia. I don't see why nobody should be allowed to have the former just because a few people need the latter.
Botnets, rootkits, virus, malware.
That’s how fine PC’s have been doing software.
Search for your preferred PC brand and list of CVEs.
I’ve had Windows / malware roll back a BIOS update to a previous version that had a know (published CVE) remote code execution vulnerability complete with published proof of concept.
There was some point around 15 years ago when it was nearly impossible to download and install Windows software without getting some extra adware and etc. This was true even for 'legit' vendors like Sun and Adobe. (Plus Google would offer up wrapped installers for Firefox, OpenOffice, etc.) Honestly if you thought "things were fine", you were ignoring the Linux/Mac people laughing about it.
"Nearly impossible" is quite a stretch. While it was certainly shameful that it ever became as mainstream as it did, it was a matter of unticking checkboxes in the adware installers, and there was plenty of software out there that did not engage in that behaviour to begin with. At any rate, I didn't say anything about operating systems. You can also install software of your choice on Linux or Mac. I'm not really sure what point you were driving at there.
Point being the only real difference between Windows and Mac was marketshare. (Linux doesn't have an ABI, software predominantly comes from the 'store'.)
Having an app store does literally nothing to prevent adware. Almost all apps currently on the Apple app store or Google play store are adware.
The PC app ecosystem is a tiny fraction of the App Store's, outside of, notably, Steam's locked down closed ecosystem.
Having a single way to pay, subscribe, cancel, browse apps, beta test versions, and update apps, proved to be a huge game changer for making software accessible while also minting millionaires around the world in terms of small development teams.
In 2024, computer software generated around $373b in revenue while mobile apps generated around $522b. Given that smartphone usage is significantly higher worldwide than computer usage (around 2 to 1 ratio), the stats do not really support your thesis that locking down software access to the whims of a monopoly hegemon results in a massive financial boon to application developers. Even if it did, it still would not justify the harm to the end user entailed, but it also just doesn't do what you say it does to begin with.
Incidentally, while looking this up, I discovered that 2/3rds of that $522b in app revenue comes from in-app advertisements. And here somebody was trying to mock Windows for being adware friendly circa 2005. Good lord.
My precise location data and credit card transactions are freely available on the market.
Just by companies listed on the stock market who got that data "legally" in our current walled and "safe" garden.
I appreciate a lockdown for kids and elders, but let's not pretend our data is locked safely away in this walled garden.
Credit card and location data is one thing. If we opened up these devices to the Wild West we’d have spyware that tracks every single thing you do on the phone in real time (and logs all your conversations and everything else). We’d also have malware that gets root access to the phone and breaks into your bank accounts.
It would be a total disaster!
1. The app store is already mostly spyware.
2. Apps are actively encouraged by Apple and Google to be spyware.
3. An app store cannot prevent spyware.
4. Sandboxing is unrelated to an app store.
5. Most source code is not available on the app store, and Apple and Google are actively hostile to open source apps.
6. There is zero source auditing done on the app store.
How is it that I can load MacOS apps from anywhere, and yet they don't "completely bypass Apple's privacy controls and security features"?
The context here is mobile. Everyone understands that you're free to break/install things as you wish, in macOS, if you disable the "dumb user" safeguards.
Does Apple have an explicit guarantee that apps can not scam or data siphon from an iPhone or iPad app?
Yes, assuming that iOS's entitlement security has not been broken.
As if the App Store had any sort of those guarantees. I know of people have been scammed via WebView wrappers that purported to be some benign app to pass app store review, which were then pointed at fake exchange websites afterwards. GitLab which was hosting their C&C mechanism took action faster than Apple or Google did to take down multiple scam apps across multiple different developer identities, but the scammers spun up new apps the next day.
WebView wrappers don't have any more ability to siphon data out of the phone than any other app. Scammers can always scam users if they can trick them into entering data into a website. There's nothing anyone can do about that (besides blocking web access).
The point is Apple isn't really helping with the problem because the weakest link is people. If you can get someone to install malicious software how much more difficult is it to have them willingly give it via phishing?
I don’t see how going back to the Wild West of the PC era is supposed to help these nontechnical users be safer. The App Store isn’t perfect but it’s far, far safer than that.
I have vivid memories of loads of relatives in the Windows XP era with browsers laden with toolbars that spy on everything they do and slow the computer to a crawl. Those users see something like the iPhone as a massive breath of fresh air. Nothing you install on the App Store can inject adware into the rest of the operating system like that.
> Nothing you install on the App Store can inject adware into the rest of the operating system like that.
That has literally fuck all to do with the app store. That's called sandboxing - the app store has nothing to do with sandboxing. They are different things.
Why are we being dishonest.
So... what's the point of all the onerous restrictions in the first place?
Point me to an Apple document that says they'll reimburse me if I'm scammed by an App Store app. If Apple cannot offer a guarantee, that means they don't trust their App Store to protect me and if they don't trust their App Store to protect me then they can hardly claim in court that they deny user choice to protect users.
Apple has literally zero "security features" that rely on the app store.
They do not review source code. There is malware on the Apple app store, because they do not review apps for malware. Because they do not review source code.
Any other opinion is just not true.
Apple gets most of it's appstore money from very shady casino-like game apps which I'm unconfortable giving to my family.
If there's any benevolent gatekeeping, I'm not seeing it.
For me it's not about the percentage, it's that it is a monopoly. If I make an iPad app, my only route to market is Apple.
That is before I get into my personal objection to having to ask permission to put software on a computer I bought. I own an iPad but I can't just install anything I want on it, Apple needs to approve the software first. For me that's just anti-creative and anti-everying-I-love-about-computers.
All I really want as a software developer is to be able to write software and have people use it if they choose to. I don't want Apple or any other company inserted as a middle-man.
“Quality Control”?
Outside of the absolute bare minimum to check this box for a plurality of observers, I can’t imagine anyone actually saying the App Store has a quality control process with a straight face, especially not one that would be championed as acceptable as a market practice.
The App Store "quality control" does its job (or tries to) to make sure developers aren't breaking their arbitrary rules. They would never actually do quality control because they benefit from all the junk being pushed to the App Store through their cut, search ads, etc.
Someone asks this every time, and the answer is always the same. Fair pricing can only be discovered in a competitive market. The problem is that Apple moves heaven and earth to prevent competitive markets from doing their thing.
That being said, this is the UK, where even in a reasonably competitive job market people can still sue their employer for "unfair pay" [1], so maybe the thinking here is a bit different than my silly classical liberal brain
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0817jd9dqo
The real issue isn’t Apple’s commission, it’s the lack of choice. Allowing app installations outside the App Store, as on macOS, would immediately subject Apple’s pricing to market pressure. The fee would drop on its own, without regulation.
Macs have allowed apps from "untrusted" sources for decades - and they’re doing just fine. So no, this isn’t about security. It’s about control and monopoly.
Exactly this. There is no way not to choose the App Store, regardless of the price. Apple goes further by making users believe alternatives are "less secure" and what not (which is not true) so it's not just about distribution, it's also a battle of perception. Even if Apple's App Store tax is 0.00, it would still be unfair and have negative impact on consumers due to the limited choice of apps and experiences they can get.
> making users believe alternatives are "less secure"
Meanwhile searching on Apple's App Store gives you unrelated crypto scam app as first hit. Apple looks so off-brand these days.
Even framing it as a percentage is a category error. If they're providing services, we should be able to pay for the cost of those services.
Beyond that, the app store is worth something in aggregate to app developers, but it's worth _more_ to Apple. Without the app store the iOS ecosystem doesn't exist. Without Apple, developers work on the next best platform. Under that framing, shouldn't Apple be paying developers to not leave the platform?
The fact that neither of those things is happening (total rent is disproportionately larger than the services provided, and the net flow of cash is toward the beneficiary of value rather than away from it) points to a monopoly worth breaking down. Those aren't hard rules, but they're suggestive facts.
Actually answering your question: Payment processors charge up to 5% and do more due diligence and have more overhead than Apple, so if I had to name a percentage on every transaction (a viewpoint I already disagree with), 5% would be a hard upper bound. IME, the value Apple provides from their "services" in that space is usually negative aside from the fact that you have to do business with them, so I think the actual price should be much less.
There is no way to define a "fair" percentage. Fairness is entirely subjective. Require Apple to allow alternative third-party app stores and let the free market sort it out.
If Apple thinks what they're offering is worth the price they're charging, why are they so scared of having to compete in the market? Their service is worth what people choose to pay for it, and currently that's 0 since no-one is choosing it.
> ”Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage?”
The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) believes it is 17.5%.
One issue, IMO, with this determination is the existence of Steam, which reportedly also takes 30% yet operates in a competitive market on open platforms. So there is a case to force Apple to open the platform to other app stores, but the argument to regulate Apple’s pricing is much weaker.
Thing is that's a question for the market to decide. Which is why we have anti-trust / anti-monopoly laws in the first place. We don't want the state setting "fair" prices for anything, it always backfires. We want them ensuring the market is free to set prices. Monopolies granted by the state (trademarks, copyright, patents) are specific and limited, and ideally we want monopolies that arise naturally to be similarly limited, or broken up if they are being weaponised against the public.
How much should we be paying Microsoft when we buy Steam games on Windows? 30%?
I'd be okay giving Microsoft whatever they wanted on the Windows app store as long as they loosened their grip on being able to run what you want, from where you want, without their explicit blessing.
Same applies to Apple. If their App Store is really that good, it can compete on a fair playing field with other options (and no, 3rd party app stores that still require Apple's blessing and taxes don't count).
What software can’t run on Windows without Microsoft’s blessing?
Anything that isn't signed with certs from Microsoft-blessed CAs, anything that is signed with certs that were revoked either by Microsoft or their blessed CAs, and anything newly signed with old certs that weren't renewed for a $100+/yr fee. That, or you upload your app to Azure for cloud signing where Microsoft decides to bless it or not, and you might pay less than going with a full code signing cert from a CA.
Ran into this fun issue a while back[1].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40815488
Sorry you hit that bug but you can definitely run unsigned code on windows.
Never claimed you couldn't, try distributing that unsigned code and see if your users can figure out how to run it, or if their OS will gaslight them into thinking they just downloaded a virus, or if they get past that, if they can get past the additional warning window that purposely doesn't show[1] the "Run anyway" button that lets you run what you want.
Running signed apps doesn't require you to know a cursed arcane ritual to run the apps you want to run, you just double click them. Having to travel through several circles of hell, each time being urged to turn around immediately, just to run unsigned code means the vast majority of users are shit out of luck when it comes to running something they want if it's not in good standing with Microsoft.
[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/4270245/...
Well you did claim that, but thank you for correcting. So that warning is bad for a developer because of confused and annoyed users, but in terms of actual user restriction it's not super bad. If defender is set to be too aggressive, that's a one time change, so about on par with Android. And for the normal (I think? Did the default change?) setting you just use run anyway. That's far away from how iOS makes it impossible.
Edit: Everything I can find says that taking away the "run anyway" button is not default. If a user or their sysadmin changes that setting I don't really blame Microsoft.
No, this is what I claimed:
> I'd be okay giving Microsoft whatever they wanted on the Windows app store as long as they loosened their grip on being able to run what you want, from where you want, without their explicit blessing.
I am talking about their grip on what you're allowed to run with or without their blessing, not that you "can't run unsigned binaries at all". They have a tightened grip, in that without their blessing, running what you want is an exercise in futility for 99% of users.
> Edit: Everything I can find says that taking away the "run anyway" button is not default. If a user or their sysadmin changes that setting I don't really blame Microsoft.
It's exactly what I experienced when running an unsigned binary in a fresh Windows 11 VM with the default Defender settings, which are all on by default. This is how SmartScreen works by default with binaries it doesn't like.
Okay, that new default is a significant worsening.
> what I claimed
Your first comment was fine. Your response to nandomrumber was the problem. They asked about "can't run" and you gave a big list of situations that are interference but not "can't run".
What's Apples profit margins on their hardware? Just from that they're already getting what all that is worth.
The 30% app store cut is just rent seeking.
Well, the market will decide I guess. If this is the case, then competitors won't be an issue. If not, then Apple's goose is cooked.
I think the best thing would be if Apple just allowed other payment providers so like Stripe and I'm not sure I haven't followed it totally if they now kind of have been forced to do that but I think then you have a free market where developers can choose whether they want to use apples in app payments which are easier and probably results in better conversion rates or they want to use an external like Stripe or something like that. I don't think it's reasonable to pay for the app hosting or development other than the $100 fee per year that should certainly cover the cost of storing a few megabytes of an app.
Payment processors like Stripe, Wise etc are typically taking around 1-2% so that's a good anchor.
They can do whatever they want imo, if I'm allowed to install a third party apps and app stores.
> platform development
It's almost 100% platform development. The iPhone is a walled-garden game platform and Apple treats it like one.
To answer your question, it probably isn't sensible to expect Apple to charge a drastically different platform fee in its game store compared to what is charged for other walled-garden game platforms and stores like the Nintendo eShop.
It may be worth noting that Amazon's Luna game service can work on the iPhone in a web browser, so game streaming isn't exactly an Apple-enforced monopoly.
In the EU Apple is now charging ~12% just to be in the App Store or 20% for additional discoverability. Payment processing is on top of that. These fees seem somewhat fair to me.
If apple made it easy to install other stores. E.g. when you open the iPhone for the first time it would not prioritize the app store (like I think it does with browsers, at least android does).
This would create a more fair market. This would allow for competition. Which would allow prices to even out and be more fair.
Long winded way of saying, I don't know what the fair percentage would be. But I know as it stands now, we cannot even begin to know it.
Your list is missing, "concentrating rich payers into one channel," which is why developers pay 30%, even if they don't like it.
They can charge whatever they want. But they can't force exclusivity. Without that, terms and benefits would be equitable.
Allow developers to distribute their apps outside of the app store, the cost apart for firmware maintenance and development will be 0.
Apple is not bringing its users value by prohibiting sideloading of arbitrary apps. Rather, this is an extreme example of rent-seeking which has affected almost all countries around the world. It needs to be regulated away.
The honest answer is that Apple shouldn't own iOS and its main app store at the same time. But there is not legal / regulation framework to prevent that.
Case in point: Steam is taking 30% too. But you've heard much less fuss over it, right? Why? Is it because of players' cult-like behavior around Steam? (probably partially) But more importantly it's because Valve doesn't own Windows and Steam Deck is a far smaller fry.
Steam's cut decreases to 20% after a certain amount of money. Also Steam does a lot more to earn their cut than any other platform, by far -- for example, they do a lot of promotion for you, both algorithmic and through things like Daily Deals, for free, whereas on iOS it is very difficult for ad spend to not be a significant part of your budget. The rule of thumb I've heard is, for every organic sale you make, Steam's algorithm will get you one more sale. So their cut feels quite worth it.
A closer example is game consoles, whose associated stores also take 30%, and nobody seems to complain about.
> for every organic sale you make, Steam's algorithm will get you one more sale
I'm not sure what you mean. Every game dev now refers what Steam algorithm gives you "organic sale."
Maybe my wording wasn't good -- I meant a sale driven primarily through a channel other than Steam (streamer, Reddit, ads, friend recommendation).
It's difficult for me to really trust this stat though because purchasing decisions are complicated.
Steam feels like a partnership with developers where Apple is a gatekeeper. I publish free games on Steam and all it costs is a $100 one time fee per game. I get human review and feedback on my marketing material and store page assets.
Apple is incredibly strict with the content they allow to the point that it feels like a they exclusively cater to children. It’s easier to vibe code the apps that I want under my own developer account because at least I can side load those.
Not sure why this was flagged. Apple is strict and does not allow graphic adult content, famously so [1]. One of the only exceptions you'll find is Twitter/X.
Steam does allow this. But, has recently started restricting some adult content [2].
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2010/04/19/steve-jobs-android-porn/
[2] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/whats-going-on-with-steam-and-...
Steam sells games, which is mostly a "want" good. App Store has apps that have large scale economic and political implications - banking apps, messaging apps, etc. So it is understandable that people/governments care a lot more about reigning in the App Store than the Steam store.
Valve has plenty of competition and let people buy from other stores even on the Steam Deck. Heck, you can even add games bought on other store to the Steam Launcher and still use Valve functionality like controller mapping in them.
> Steam is taking 30% too. But you've heard much less fuss over it, right? Why? Is it because of players' cult-like behavior around Steam?
It's because Valve doesn't routinely screw over developers and gamers. Steam never removed a game from Steam because it could cause "customer confusion" because it was too similar to one of Valve's own games. When Valve released the Steam Deck, they didn't layer on a bunch of trash for "safety", they sold gamers a portable Arch Linux box that, other than running Windows games on Linux, also runs local LLMs, games from GOG, and development environments. You can write games for Steam on a Steam Deck, compile them, and run them. It's the exact opposite of what Apple is doing - Valve offers total control, and you can use it to do awesome stuff without having to pay a tithe to some overlord corporation that thinks they still own hardware that you purchased from them.
You can also mod your Steam Deck to your heart's content. There's a plugin called Junk Store that will let you use other stores.
People are understandably much more amenable to Valve because the company as a whole behaves in a much more cooperative and pro-consumer way... e.g. Steam deck repair options, furthering Linux gaming, and Gaben's general philosophy.
Cult-like or not, I find it reasonable to support companies that do things which you agree with. Valve's non-adversarial approach to business (as opposed to many rent-seeking corps these days) probably helps that perception.
A Fair percentage is whatever the market decides, not Apple. That is why they are monopoly
So you believe quality control is part of the App Store review process?
That's what the market will determine once Apple is forced to compete.
5% tops.
As a professional iOS app publisher, I feel 15% is fair.
Genuine question, is the App Store fee a tax deductible business expense in your country?
Of course. Apple removes their cut first before paying out. I’m in the US.
Whatever Apple needs in order to compete with third-party distributors. They can set it to a 105% tax for all I care, just let me use third-party alternatives.
The platform development is seriously one of the worst in the market, most apps would be fine with Stripe and what QC?
Free apps pay nothing, so Apple has already shown that everything other than payments can be done for free.
Whatever they want, but let me use MY phone to install whatever app I want outside of the app store.
You bought the phone knowing you can only install from the App Store. Buy a different phone.
That's not how the justice system works, kiddo.
> The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something.
1. I didn't know iPhones are free. Or iPads. Or Macs. Or Apple developer program
2. Apple could just... not host apps or provide payment services, and allow people to install apps from alternatives and let devs use other payment systems
> and allow people to install apps from alternatives and let devs use other payment systems
Pre iPhone this is how all software was sold.
Not defending Apple, but independent developers ended up with far smaller piece of the pie.
That’s one of the reasons devs flocked to the AppStore. At the time 70% was exceedingly generous compared to other distributors.
> That’s one of the reasons devs flocked to the AppStore. At the time 70% was exceedingly generous compared to other distributors.
It's quite ironic how the company that disrupted the frankly predatory pricing model standard at the time is now itself predatory.
Somewhat tangential:
It's also complicated by the markets changing: PCs used to be the ubiquitous platform (where you could distribute whatever you wanted however you wanted [1]), and the mobile phone was a luxury-ish product (tightly controlled by distributors). Now mobile phones are the ubiquitous platform everyone depends on... and they are extremely tightly locked down and controlled.
[1] Has anyone paid for their WinRaR license yet? :)
Payment processor fees plus a couple of percentage points. At most.
Apple _already_ gets its money from users of their overpriced devices. They even get at least $300-$400 a year from developers in hardware depreciation because you have to use pretty expensive Apple devices to write software for iOS.
That's way y to find out - stop blocking the competition
IMO: Any number, as long as it is not expressed as a percentage.
If only there was a mechanism which would allow companies to offer similar services then maybe as they try to get customers they would fix prices so as to make money but gain market shares and the price would emerge. That would be truly efficient. Surely we would then fine companies which do their best to avoid that and not try to find excuses for their practices.
50-75%
10%. A finder's fee, like everything else irl. It should be regulated as such for all platforms.
Wholeheartedly agree. 30% fee feels like medicare in USA, an excessive amount because it's as high as developers will pay without giving up and leaving.
The Apple App Store sold more than one trillion USD in 2024, how much of their 30% cut (300+ billion) covers operational costs? ¿10%?
I was unaware finders fee were universally 10%, or even regulated to be so.