Now you have a choice: which one will you support with your wallet.Every fee model based on a percentage is inherently non-transparent and a pure profit mechanism. This applies to Apple, Google, Microsoft, and also to AltStore and the Epic Store.
It's not enough to simply state, "We use the fee to cover Apple's costs, server expenses, and payment processing."
Apple's fee is fixed at €0.50. Payment processing fees depend on the network but average around 2%. Server costs, at constant volumes, are constant. Let's say they're successful and need to manage a hundred servers with related storage. We're talking about several hundred thousand dollars a year, the costs of which should be attributed more or less consistently as they depreciate.
Now, if I subscribe to Fortnite at $9.99/month for the first time and download the game, AltStore/Epic will have to pay €0.50 to Apple, pay the card network, and keep the rest to cover my contribution to the server costs. For the second month's payment, they won't owe Apple anything and will only incur payment processing and server costs. But they won't charge me €0.50 less...
Let's break it down: $9.99/month subscription:
For the second payment, they won't owe Apple anything (the fee is per download, not per payment event), and the credit card fee will be the same. Suddenly, the server cost for me doubles to €1. By year's end, I would have given them €14.399, of which €11.49 would be for server costs, some of which might already be depreciated and should only cost as much as the necessary personnel for their management and a bit more for maintenance and bandwidth.
- €0.50 goes to Apple
- About €0.20 goes to the credit card network
- About €0.50 goes to AltStore for my share of their store usage
Let's say we consider this fair. If there are many users, they'll profit significantly, but if there are few users, a good portion of the business risk will have been passed on to them. There aren't many courageous entrepreneurs around.
If I decide to subscribe at an advantageous price of €99.99/year paid annually, they would still only give €0.50 to Apple. Then they would give 2% to the payment network (about €2) and would proportionally retain an enormous amount (€9.50) for the store server, which I would have used only once a year. The difference between using the server 12 times a year or just once a year is €2. So each use produces an additional cost of €0.16. Obviously, there's no connection between what we buy and the actual use of the money. The server cost doesn't vary whether I buy a €100 game or a €1 game: it will be the same. The same the storage, the same the bandwidth needed for each download. At most, it can vary based on the game's size; hosting and transmitting a 4GB game is different from a 1MB game. If we like being fooled, fine. Should we be fanatists of transparency and pro-customer practices we should demand fees proportional to quantifiably justifiable values such as infrastructure costs.
Apple, at least, has been clever enough to tie the fees to continuous API development, store curation, and the notarization and verification process (which can be bound to an app irrespecutful of its qualities). They don't tie it to costs that can be covered with one day of sales activity.
As a customer, I find myself unable to fully side with either party: my interests lie in a different direction altogether. I'm willing to pay what is necessary, provided that it's proportional to the value I receive. However, I'm wary of costs that are unnecessarily disproportionate to the expenses the entrepreneur actually incurs. For instance, I'm concerned when the profit margins they aim to secure are far beyond what can be reasonably justified.
Remember, you can still just continue to use Apple apps if you want. The EU hasn’t forced Apple to stop trading.
Adding competition can only be a good thing.