Although I would support 3rd party app stores theoretically as a consumer I really don't like them. If I am looking for a great movie, such as "A real Pain" I have to go a website (thestreamable.com) to figure out which service streams the film (Hulu). I then have to go though the hassle of subscribing and creating an account on Hulu. The former would not happen with 3rd party app stores I assume, but the latter likely would. Then app store 1 has one app I like, then app store doesn't have app 1 but has app 2. Same thing happens when you drop cable service - it is a nightmare trying to figure out where a particular movie or tv show is streaming, and then it changes without warning.
I would rather spend my time on other things than managing, hassling and worrying about security with multiple app stores. But maybe I don't understand how they work.
Let me offer 2 scenarios to help...
Scenanio 1: instead of renting some movie, you want to own it. What do you do now to own a movie? You might go to a single store like Amazon and pay whatever price Amazon wants for that movie. Done. Easy. One stop. Convenient. As secure as you perceive an Amazon transaction can be. Etc.
OR, you might hit- say google shopping- to quickly search MANY "stores" for the movie, discover that it costs $10 less at Target/Best Buy/Walmart/<other> and consider buying it there and saving $10. You would be forgoing Amazon store "security" for Target/Best Buy/Walmart/<other> store "security." But otherwise the transaction would feel mostly the same and
the end result would be that you own the very same movie: you just paid less for it.
That's a major benefit of robust competition.
Competitors compete and one of the main cards they tend to play is offering the same thing for a lower price. We see this every week with Apple "sales" from Best Buy/Walmart/etc in the "deals" posts. Compare those sale prices to the very same product offered for sale in Apple's own store at the very same point in time to see that you can actually buy the very same Apple product for less money from <not Apple>.
As a buyer, you can then choose to buy it from Apple anyway and pay the extra for it... or you can choose to buy from Best Buy/Walmart/etc and pay less for it during this sale. That's up to you... but at least you have such competitive choices.
Scenario 2: The movie you definitely want to buy is available. Your one-and-only general goto for movie purchases- let's say that's Best Buy- doesn't stock it for some reason. Turns out Best Buy has some bug to pick with the studio and is protesting by not carrying Studios movies until their business conflict is resolved. You still want the movie now... not at some potential, unknown date in the future when Best Buy and Movie studio finally settle their differences. Do without until then? Or go get it right now at Target/Walmart/Amazon/<other store>?
Again, you have a
choice here. You can side with Best Buy and just deny yourself a desired movie. Or you can leave the bickering to 2 businesses and get the movie you want right now. Neither Best Buy nor the studio care if you join the protest or not as one transaction is no influence whatsoever in a much bigger picture situation.
Now bring this
closer: Let's buy a Mac app...
Scenario 1: Mac App is available on the Mac App Store for- say- $20. Google shopping shows you can get the very same app from Amazon for $18. Look, a "Bundle hunt" email just hit and it's available in the various 10 or so apps you can choose and own it for $5. The app is exactly the same app. Do you want to pay $20, $18 or $5 for it? Note in that last competitive offer, not only do you get it for lowest price, but up to 9 other apps too for added value. That's
ANOTHER card competition plays:
added value... sometimes used when they can't offer a price any lower but they can add additional value to the
same price.
Common analogy: you can buy this Apple Computer today for <same price it is at Apple.com> but if you buy it from us we'll also throw in <other stuff you won't get by buying from Apple>. If you value any of those bonuses, they might entice you to buy from them with the added value you won't get from Apple. Again, that's a commonly played card when there
is competition.
When there is no competition, no need for one seller to throw in any bonuses that just costs them extra money to include.
Scenario 2: You want an app NOT available in the Mac App Store but definitely runs on Mac. Is that a "too bad" or can you just go get it from wherever it is available? The app developer likely sells it on their own website. Maybe it's offered in a broader selection of software from Target or Best Buy than what one finds in the Mac App Store? Maybe Apple is in conflict with some software developer and refuses to offer the app through Apple retail? If you want that app anyway, you have the options- the
choice- to go get it right now. Buy & download it from the developer or Best Buy, etc and enjoy the app
today. Let Apple and the studio work out their business differences without it denying you software you want on a computer
you own. It's not still Apple's computer anymore, it's yours. And their squabble is not your squabble. They may never resolve their differences. Do you want to deny yourself until never?
The step from this very flexibility we all enjoy with our Macs now to getting the
same with iDevices is a SMALL step. Both are just computers. Apps are just software. The EU has now proven that there is not evil boogeymen that are going to wreak havoc. Where are those criminal syndicates that were going to exploit this? Where is the news of iDevice trojans & viruses running rampant in the EU because of this? The law took effect nearly 1 year ago. I don't believe all that certain destruction & evil wrongdoing resulting from its implementation could be so very patient to do nothing for nearly a year.
Else, buy what is mostly nonsense and either do without or pay only 1 price- whatever the 1 seller demands for apps- and 1 price- whatever the seller demands for IAPs too. But, but, but... the developers actually set the price. Yes, they do... and they set that price to factor in the great big cut Apple takes FIRST, even before the developer gets to take a bite themselves. If there is competition competing on price, they may not demand as much of a cut and developer could then sell through them and either make more themselves as (arguably more deserving?) creators of the app or offer a lower price to make it more attractive to other buyers.
And should the ONE retailer arbitrarily decide to double all prices today, if you want apps for the device you own and they are the ONLY source of apps, you have no choice but to pay double. If Best Buy decided to charge double Apple's price for the weekly MBair offerings, odds are very high they would get ZERO sales of MBairs. Why? Because buyers can turn to other competition to get a MBair for a lower price. What works well in competitive environments is being "best price", not highest.
In any company store model, best price, highest price AND lowest price are all the same price... because there's only one source of the thing you want to buy.
Introduce competition though and that will be very likely to
quickly change... as it does every single time when the one local retailer of anything in some remote town has new competition come into town. One of the easiest ways for new competitor to take some share from the long-established company store is by undercutting them on prices.
Again, look at weekly deals: Best Buy/Amazon/etc. do not have to go to the great trouble of building MBairs to sell some of them. They just undercut the makers own retail pricing of MBairs. As such, they get some share of buyers of MBairs. And their buyers get the product they want for LESS MONEY. The consumer side of capitalism is supposed to be about that: get as much as we can on EVERYTHING we buy for the money we spend. The system is broken when some of the buyers themselves are prioritizing maximizing for the seller over their own self-interest and that of their fellow consumers. Yet, watch the replies to this post and you'll see exactly that... as if some of us work
for the seller and are not thinking as consumers.
Robust competition is always good for consumers. No competition is always bad for consumers.
