undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAnthonyMouse2y ago0 comments

> Of course digital store fronts do not have many of the costs associated with physical retail, but there is still value in them bringing the customer to you.

This is inherently in conflict with having a single store for everything, because the everything store would then have all of your competitors in it too.

It also doesn't explain why you still have to pay when you do your own marketing through some other means and the customer is already looking for you in particular.

0 comments

incrudible2y ago

You have to pay because Apple asks for a commission in exchange for you being allowed to sell your product in their store.

I think what you're really asking is: Where's the value if I want to (or have to) do my own marketing anyway? The answer is trust. I'm more likely to trust you with my money, with you executing code on my device, if Apple allows you on their store. Even the big brands like Epic get this value, because who is judge that whatever "I look for" isn't being hijacked by some impersonator? Perhaps that trust is misplaced, but the effect is real, thus the value is there.

Apple considers this worth a 30% commission, and 100% of developers on the App store agree, or they wouldn't be on there. The question whether you couldn't get more value by doing it all yourself doesn't even ask itself, because there is no alternative. Whether that is anti-competitive in the legally prosecutable way is a very interesting question that we're all eager to hear answered by the courts.

Personally, I do find that a 30% (or 27%) commission on out-of-band purchases is outrageous and that phone platforms should be cracked open, but I can also see the argument from the other side, comparing e.g. to video game consoles or set top boxes.

AnthonyMouseOP2y ago

> Apple considers this worth a 30% commission, and 100% of developers on the App store agree, or they wouldn't be on there.

This is where you get it wrong.

If there were other stores for iOS apps and the difference was only Apple's vetting and developers were still choosing to pay Apple 30% vs. much less for some alternative, then you could say that what they're paying for is trust.

But everybody including Apple knows that isn't true in general. As soon as there were other viable stores and developers could put the same app there for a lower price, the large majority of customers would take the lower price over whatever "trust" Apple is ostensibly providing. Unless Apple were to charge substantially lower fees for it.

Which is the only reason they preclude the other stores. If customers actually wanted trust and it could only be provided by Apple then customers wouldn't have to be precluded from using alternative stores because they just wouldn't choose to.

And when that isn't possible, you can't say that people are choosing Apple's store because of trust, when there is no choosing happening because there is no alternative installation method to choose.

incrudible2y ago

> customers would switch

Would they though? Side loading exists on Android, but good luck foregoing the Play Store for some third party store or even marketing yourself. It exists, sure, but it does not eliminate Googles similar (but weaker) value proposition.

Would the possibility of side loading put pressure on Apple to be more competitive in terms of fees? Possibly, but Apple users tend to be less adventurous.

For Apple, there are various other reasons not to open up, like the brand image. It is really hard to make a naive user (like a child) completely screw their iPhone. Also, remember when porn videos were all Flash, and the iPhone could not display them? Steve Jobs literally told people to buy an Android phone.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

incrudible2y ago

You have to pay because Apple asks for a commission in exchange for you being allowed to sell your product in their store.

AnthonyMouseOP2y ago

> Apple considers this worth a 30% commission, and 100% of developers on the App store agree, or they wouldn't be on there.

This is where you get it wrong.

And when that isn't possible, you can't say that people are choosing Apple's store because of trust, when there is no choosing happening because there is no alternative installation method to choose.

incrudible2y ago

> customers would switch

Would the possibility of side loading put pressure on Apple to be more competitive in terms of fees? Possibly, but Apple users tend to be less adventurous.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse