Some developers want none of that, and even those that do will I’m sure argue the fairness/value. If it’s genuinely a good deal then there’s no reason to not allow competition.
Yeah, this is the issue I see over and over. There isn't a good alternative available, so the complaint usually comes down to "but if it were free and open and they didn't charge these "commissions" then I'd make more money!" It's all theoretical though, since the only other sizable platform has kind of the opposite problem. Lots of potential customers who don't spend as much money, far more competition and even if you clearly have a superior app, you have to spend more time/money getting potential buyers to recognize that.
It's been shown over and over again, if you're going to build a mobile app and want to make a profit, you build it for iOS first, then if it isn't a huge cost sink, also make it for Android. The people most likely to pay well are iOS users. Why is that? Anybody against Apple will just call the users stupid, but if you really analyze it, most users believe that Apple provides a better platform, better app selection on their app store, etc.
There's clearly still an issue between "Apple wants to protect its customers" and "Apple wants to _protect_ its customers".
iOS users pay more != iOS users/devs needs strict IAP enforcement. Google Play is on similar situation but sales are less. I don't see much praises for App Store's discoverability.
Why should other companies be allowed to sell licenses to Apple's intellectual property? It's not theirs to sell.
The app store fee is a "roll-up" of numerous fees including transaction costs, cost of running the store, and license fees for use of Apple intellectual property (all that Apple code that you import into your iOS app when you hit compile).
reply