27% is usurious. How much money is enough for Apple? Just because they are slightly less evil than others is no excuse.
Valve takes 30% too via steam. This is industry standard pricing
The problem with Apple is that it holds a monopoly on its platforms. On Windows, if you don’t like Steam or its pricing, you can go to Epic, GOG, or other storefronts. You can buy physical. On non-macOS Apple devices, you’re stuck with the App Store because Apple doesn’t allow competing storefronts.
Apple is third in the world by revenue in gaming (behind Tencent and Sony, and ahead of Microsoft), without being a developer or publisher. This is all thanks to the combination of its 30% cut and lack of competition.
Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo take 30% cuts for their platforms too.
Whataboutism doesn’t justify anything. There are quite a few nuances. For example that Android and iOS have way higher adoption numbers than game consoles, and that these OSes play a crucial role in people’s everyday lives. In addition, do these platforms have a duopoly, so perfect competition doesn’t exist on that level, and like elboomy states, does Apple have a monopoly on its own platform. Apple forcing a piece of the cake is thus merely a power play which is enabled by the imperfect market of smartphone OSes and their app stores.
Prior to the App Store, boxed retail software generally had a 50% cut.
Also, you can call it a duopoly, but Apple didn’t leverage market share into this 30% cut; it started when they were closer to 1% of the phone market, and the policy has only ever gotten cheaper (second year of subscriptions and small business program) and more permissive. They offered a closed platform and competed their way to the top based on the product. Developers are given the chance to sell to a huge market of high-end hardware with aggressive consumer uptake of software updates, making it a very attractive platform. Apple wants a commission. It’s not exactly outrageous of them.
Just friendly reminder, whataboutism typically involves deflecting criticism by pointing out a similar issue in an unrelated context, often with the intention of avoiding the original critique.
Their response directly addresses the issue of fee percentages in the same industry, making it more of a comparative argument than a diversion.
May I offer a subtly snarky approach for you to use in the future?
“Our main goal today is to delve into the reasons and consequences of Apple’s fee structure. Let’s try to keep our discussion centered on that topic.”
Ooooo snap! 🫰
Tbf all of those are holdouts from old video game licenses. (That I also don’t agree with)
Apple set the standard for the app store cut and gets that cut on a lot more than video games as well as having a much more needed use case (phones are closer to a need than a console) that you can’t get around.
I consider iPhones and iPads to be personal computers and of all personal computers they are the only ones that don’t allow you to get applications from 3rd parties.
Ah, so it’s the “Everyone is doing it, so that makes it ok,” position.
I never said it was okay 😊
