Huh?
The IAP structure was built with the App Store being the sole distribution. That's a business choice they made. They could have been more "open" like Google. That's pretty much irrelevant if they don't allow third party stores on their platform, which they haven't.
Apple is in line with other stores, including Steam which charges 30% but doesn't actually do anything for developers like tooling.
Makes zero sense.
While I'm partially playing devil's advocate here, the counter argument to bringing up Steam is that because Steam doesn't control distribution, anyone can download a competing app store, an alternative app store can compete with Steam on price (e.g. Epic store). In contrast, once the user decides to purchase an Apple device with a store, then, except for a Mac, they have no choice but purchase through an Apple channel. Thus there is no competition on price possible once a different purchase decision, which device to buy, is made. That's why to me, the better argument is to use game consoles where the console maker gets a cut even buying games through physical retail and there is no digital distribution allowed except through the console maker's store front, same as Apple. This is the walled garden metaphor.
The usual counter argument to that is that console makers typically sell their hardware at a loss and therefore taking a higher percentage of software sales is okay, but 1) no they don't always do so (e.g. consoles at the end of their life cycle and also Nintendo just all the time) and 2) if the argument is that wall-gardens are ultimately bad for developers and creates an unhealthy market then a loss-leader shouldn't suddenly absolve you. Europe side stepped this by claiming console users aren't business users and in order to qualify as gatekeepers you have to have x number of business users (amongst the other qualifications). I ... do not like this argument for so many reasons that would turn this already long post into an essay.
Of course, as Cliff already said while I was typing my long screed, Apple lost those fights in US court, so the above is kind of moot regardless of how I feel about it.
Speaking of how I feel about things: this does not mean that I don't think additional regulations aren't necessary for digital storefronts that reflect their differences with physical ones and if lawmakers want to get rid of walled gardens that conversation could happen, but I'd be pretty against carve outs unless incredibly compelling cases were made that I haven't heard. However, I'm mostly with
@Jimmyjames on this that a better starting point would be to focus on a digital consumer bill of rights - it's not that B2B regulations aren't important, they are, but some of the issues particularly around IAPs and subscriptions would be better solved from a consumer standpoint. But that's another long topic.
You have to take it from the point where, like it or not, Apple was found guilty (and lost that appeal). So the remedy that was crafted has to be remedial. And if the remedy is that Apple has to allow 3rd party IAP, but can charge 27%, the 9th Circuit has found that is no remedy to the underlying problem, as it effectively prevents 3rd party IAP. Don’t have to like it - that’s just the legal framework we’re working with here.
That too.
9to5mac.com
