> Yet every time a company actually does a “charge more” type move
"Charge your customer more for your work" is VERY meaningfully different from "Charge someone else's customer more for someone else's work, because you own the storefront for someone else's business".
Sure, building the storefront is hard and high leverage. But figuring out the moral answer to "who reaps the rewards" is an entirely different journey.
I'm not sure it's that different. Not everything is an easily tangible product: We can debate the specifics of effort vs. reward, but I think it's pretty indisputable that the App store does provide at least a little bit of value add in the form of exposure for the vendor and convenience for the customer. So "charge more" applies to that value-add.
> but I think it's pretty indisputable that the App store does provide at least a little bit of value add in the form of exposure for the vendor and convenience for the customer.
I think it's disputable. It would seem to be adding about the same amount of value that the Windows store does for Windows users. How much is that?
The windows store is barely used and devoid of probably 99.99% of applications. You can't search, for example, for "note taking" and find many of the most popular options. Heck, their search is so bad that even apps they don't have done show up. Microsoft's own app OneNote doesn't show in the results.
It is simple not at all comparable in quality to the app store on iOS.
Let's not depict Uber and Lyft as victims. They would do the same - and they do, when freezing rain is falling on me and I need a ride to protect my health.
At least for surge pricing there is argument that you need to manage scarcity somehow. If everybody wants a ride because it’s raining, you can either rise prices or not, and make it a lottery. The latter is more fair, but the former has higher chance of bringing more drivers into circulation.
Could be, but that is a separate problem. For example places I've been in Europe have multiple competing services, even when Uber is present. But that's because the typical Uber business model where drivers are not professional drivers is banned most everywhere.
I fail to see how it’s different. Uber is the one paying this cost not the end customer. Sure they may pass the cost on, but they also would pass the cost on if any other layer of their stack started charging more.
Much different point than the other comment was making. As far as their choice in using Apple’s platform I don’t disagree that it’s not really a choice and it’s potentially a problem.
Apple intentionally limits the capabilities of its web browser to keep it from being competitive with its native platform, and I’m sure there’s an email out there that says as much explicitly.
s/Uber/Costco/ to see a better example: an iOS app is at best a minor convenience to an average costco member. Almost all costco customer acquisitions are through word of mouth / brand recognition and the vast majority of sales happen at brick and mortar stores. Why should costco fork over some 30% of revenue to apple?
Imagine Google pulling the same stunt for inclusion into their app store and it quickly becomes apparent how the pricing structure is laughable at face value.
> Imagine Google pulling the same stunt for inclusion into their app store and it quickly becomes apparent how the pricing structure is laughable at face value.
As of September of 2021 in the US[1], both Apple and Google's mobile app payment policies have converged[2] as Google mandates that all app developers use their payment platform and only their payment platform, along with mandating a 15% to 30% cut of all app payments. I believe Google's policy matches Apple's when it comes to this example.
The first sentence in your first link links to an announcement saying this:
> Android has always allowed people to get apps from multiple app stores. In fact, most Android devices ship with at least two app stores preinstalled, and consumers are able to install additional app stores. Each store is able to decide its own business model and consumer features. This openness means that even if a developer and Google do not agree on business terms the developer can still distribute on the Android platform. This is why Fortnite, for example, is available directly from Epic's store or from other app stores including Samsung's Galaxy App store.
The implication is that apps can choose to only publish in stores with more favorable IAP terms, not that each store is somehow eligible to a fixed percentage of the $120/yr fee for a costco membership that may or may not have originated within the app store's ecosystem. Otherwise, at a cut of 30% per store, an app would owe platforms 120% of subscription revenue to be on merely 4 stores, regardless of how the customer converted.
So is passing on any other cost. I’m pushing back on the idea that the problem is passing on the cost. The problem is that they don’t get to choose whether or not to pay this cost.
It’s different mostly in the sense that iOS is essentially a monopoly. You can not create anything like Uber without being present on iOS, even if Android has the other half of the market.
When you raise your prices on your own work, there’s usually an implied alternative like not hiring you. We know there’s no such thing when it comes to iOS.
Different things are different, sure. I just wonder who is the authoritative source of morals and who deserves what for doing what.
Creating and providing access to a lucrative market is valuable. What's the moral imperative for allowing others to provide access to the market you created or reduce your fees, both of which would reduce your profits for the benefit of everyone else who is trying to increase their profits?
"Charge your customer more for your work" is VERY meaningfully different from "Charge someone else's customer more for someone else's work, because you own the storefront for someone else's business".
Sure, building the storefront is hard and high leverage. But figuring out the moral answer to "who reaps the rewards" is an entirely different journey.