Some fallacies going on here. iOS, iPhone and the App Store currently are indivisible In practical terms. Yes some “kid” can hack the hardware to install whatever, but that is not a counter example in practice. For one it voids the warranty of the device. I understand why some want to wing this fallacy ... but lets have a honest discussion ok? This is no example of choice and freedom.
Digital/Software businesses create products/services for customers. To compete, digital business need to serve customers wherever they care, that today includes in great part, to be on smartphones. In the US one in two Americans have chosen a specific kind of smartphone, from a specific brand, iOS/iPhone. Therefore Digital businesses need to be there unless they want to leave 50% of their customer behind in the context of smartphones. Notice that I haven’t up until now, in this totally logical reasoning, even touch the surface of the App Store.
Now, the App Store. The App Store service banks on the above, as it is mandatory to install any app on those device. Simple. There is not compedition to this Store. Yes, there is competition on smartphones, but not to this store for 50% of US customers on smartphones.
Apple should be payed for the use of their infrastructure. Yet using its infrastructure is not an option of course if you are a digital business approaching consumers. Due to this Apple enjoys the power to fix the price of its infrastructure/service as far as the ability to install and distrubte apps usage goes regardless of compeition. Regardless of the market price of its components individually (App hosting, Payment, App Advertising).
Did you guys have understood the above? It’s very simple. What are the side effects ... well at least three:
1) In a market where the components of this infrastructure are not forced in, we can find services that way cheaper. From this, two things can happen. Either the prices of apps and services are up to cope for the 30%, or digital business have less available “income” to provide better services.
2) The App Store owner its self as it happens, can choose to compete with any of the products its ”sells”. So digital businesses not only face the hurdle of higher prices for app distribution but need to compete with the products that the store owner builds With the money fuels. This again, hurts competition.
3) Maybe the more interesting as it is starting come to light. Digital business that decide not to put their services on the App Store because of lack of choice to do so. Epic, xCloud, Stadia ... heck Netflix, Spotify ... are there because they need to otherwise go out of business. This for sure directly hurts the Consumer choice of digital services to use on their smartphones way beyond they expected.
Now. To counter the above Apple touts a few billions in App Store revenue. True compare that with the billions aren’t in tthe App Store, yet using a more competitive landscape of cloud services and infrastructure, who is really winning in terms of contributing to the economy ... The conclusion, is that those billions n the App Store are little more than the result of a mandatory concentration, not actually contribution.
An interesting story. A couple of days ago decided to start using the Adobe products for photography (I’m an amateur street photographer ... for fun). Went to the App Store and download Lightroom to my iPad Pro 12.9” from 2020. Albeit the use of the app was free I was presented with in app payment service, a Premium subscription that would simply allow me to synch the photos in LR across multiple device .. $8 per month or so ... just for the Lightroom on iOS. Now, I remembered there were other options to subscribe to LR but none were presented ... So as far as the App Store goes, there was not other options available. Gladly we have the Web not built and managed by a monopoly, so I went to the Adobe site. Behold, a plan of $10 bucks that not only a provided synch, I could now install LR AND Photoshop on iOS, Mac, Windows and Android ... just for $2 more per month.
So how can Adobe offer so much more just for $2? Well, this way of subscribing meant that no revenue needed to be shared with Apple, case in case 30% hence the actual service provider is able to provide a better service at a lower cost.
Two pernicious things can potentially be revealed in this process. One, is that the App Store did not informed me that there were more cost effective option, neither did the App because of the store policy forbidding such measures. I can imagine this happening all over the place in the App Store, collectively rising prices and devaluing digital services in favor of the App Store. The second, is that given Adobe shared nothing with Apple through this approach, who actually payed for hosting the App on the App Store? Two possibilities: Customers that are uninformed of better deals given the App Store policy and other digital services/publishers ... say for instance Affinity Photo. So in effect, Adobe competition in my case payed to Adobe to be able to provide they service free of charge as far as the App Store infrastructure goes, an example of fair practice both to devs and the customer right?
I like to have one place that I can go to install and update the apps that I have bought, and maybe I even search for them. But I wonder if what is happening in the backstage is actually to my benefit as a customer. Now, as you can see I’m a very informed customer, way way way above average.
We can discuss statistics, but statics are just result. What is in question is how those results are achieved, the process to achieve those results are fair to App Store customers or not? (wether customer come from buying devices or being digital services that need to use the infrastructure to reach their customers).
So back to the beginning for you guys not to get lost in the implications. It all started with one in two Americans using an iOS device. Some might argue that these user can always choose another device. True. But the fact is that these users are not informed over what happens in the backstage that reflects on their wallets negatively every month ... and as another op posted, they should not need to care at all ... competition should level that thing out ... but there is none really. Just ways to get around some policies which also has negative side effects as my little practical story described. The difference between practice and pumping the statistical marketing.
Cheers.
