And? No one is forcing you to develop for any of those platforms.
But aside from that you’re wrong. There are ways to develop for all three platforms without ever buying an Apple product. Are they as good or convenient? Nope. But it can be done.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Y Combinator Files Brief Supporting Epic Games, Says App Store Fees Stifle Startups
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But aside from that you’re wrong. There are ways to develop for all three platforms without ever buying an Apple product. Are they as good or convenient? Nope. But it can be done.
Creators have the freedom to choose what platforms they want to develop for. Plenty of them never develop for any Apple platform.
And consumers have the same amount of choice. The majority of the world in fact does so. Both iOS and macOS are minority platforms.
It’s quite simple, if you as a developer or consumer don’t like what’s being offered by a company simply don’t do business with them.
or, crazy idea, phones could be opened up to general apps like the general computing platforms they’ve become. Can you imagine trying to defend this level of restriction in 2025 on a Mac?
Retail store owners typically have a 30%+ markup. When you walk into a store with shelves filled with products, that store had to buy ALL of that product first, and then add their markup on top. That markup needs to cover rent, lights, insurance, staff, processing fees, etc. There are a lot of operational costs that need to be covered before that store has any "profits".
The problem with Apple's position in the market is that people often think that digital goods don't cost anything, so it's "pure greed" to charge for them, but anyone that knows anything about Apple understand the massive INVESTMENT that they make into the app ecosystem year after year.
If running an app store was so easy to do, why aren't there more? Because of Apple's anti-steering, or because it's really hard to do properly?
That is a fair point... but look at the flip side... platforms like Windows were an absolute nightmare for decades when it came to malware — because users can't be trusted. Apple built the iOS ecosystem to specifically avoid that mess, and it worked.
If iOS was completely open, imagine the costs to Apple to support users that installed malware and then contacted them for support. We'd be living in an entirely different world.
Apple could offer the app store for free, charge zero fees, and still make a healthy profit. Drop the communism bit, it's not useful and not helpful to start bringing in ideas that have zero relevancy to the company, or economy, we are discussing. It's a strawman meant to dismiss and shutdown someone and their ideas.
There is profit, and then there is business ethics. Both can exist at the same time. I don't think 30% is ethical.
Agree with your post.
Folks holding the line on 30% have such a strange view of all this that I think they could logically (in their minds) defend any cut Apple chose. I could see the exact same argumentation to defend 50% or 70% for Apple!
So what % is ethical and why? Historically, there has been a business average of 40% to the manufacturer, 30% to the wholesaler, and 30% to the retailer. In iOS apps, the only cost to the manufacturer is the 30% retail markup; which works as a consignment based on the price that the developer wants to charge. It is silly to believe that the developer should be entitled to 100% of the retail price. That does not exist in any industry.
I think we call that "moving over to Android". Crazy, I know.
You don't close a system that was already open. You're comparing apples and oranges here.
No, this is a bad argument in 2025, having half the market be deeply restricted is bad for the general software ecosystem as a whole, no matter what platform any given individual uses.
They’re literally the same OS with different UI/UX layers. They’re even using the same chips. They’re not only comparable at this point, they’re equivalent - especially as more and more folks shift their primary computing platform to their phone.
This isnt the beginning of the age of smartphones anymore, and as they’ve become the primary computing device for so many people these kinds of restrictions on phones/tablets become as problematic as these kinds of restrictions would be on a desktop
Disagreed.
Cool.
One OS was open from the beginning where Fortune 500 companies have invested multi billion dollars of R&D+software dev into the platform under the assumption it would remain open. Closing it up would be unfair.
While the other OS was closed from the beginning where Fortune 500 companies have invested multi billion dollars of R&D+software dev into the platform with no expectation that the OS will open. If any developer had any other expectation, that's on them.
Disagreed.
As a user, I switch platforms when the platform I'm using becomes problematic.
As a developer, I switch platforms when the platform I'm developing for becomes problematic.
So far, for the majority, it doesn't seem to be problematic.
Drivers have the freedom to choose what roads they want to drive on. Plenty of them never drive on any major highways.
Can it be done? Sure.
If I, on my Mac, go to a developers website and buy a program from them, they are get 100% - CC transaction fees. I don't need Apple to stand in the middle.
You'd spend 1000x more on google maps monthly bill if you have a high volume app vs just using Apple Maps which Apple provides for free as part of the developer program.
Imagine if you can only buy Coca Cola at McDonald's. Oh wait, you don't need to because it's real. It's allowed and people aren't leaving McDonald's because they don't serve Pepsi.
Anybody and everybody who uses the "just switch platforms" argument.
When someone says "just switch platforms", they don't mean it's costless to do, no.
"just" does not imply "costless".
It is disingenuous not to reveal that Y Combinator is a LARGE-SCALE INVESTOR in Epic Games.
Startup accelerator and venture capital firm Y Combinator (YC) today filed an amicus brief supporting Epic Games in Epic's continued legal fight with Apple. Y Combinator says that Apple's "anti-steering restraints" have long inhibited the growth and development of technology companies that monetize goods and services through apps.
The company calls on the court to deny Apple's appeal and uphold the order that required Apple to change its App Store linking rules in the United States.
Back in April, Apple was found to be violating a 2021 injunction that required it to let developers direct customers to third-party purchase options on the web using in-app links. Apple had implemented a system for developers to link to external websites in their apps, but it charged an up to 27 percent fee to do so.
Apple was found to be in "willful violation" of the anti-steering injunction, and it was ordered to allow developers to freely link to purchase options outside of the App Store with no fees or restrictions on link format. Apple implemented those changes, but also filed an appeal, so there is potential for the decision to be walked back. Epic Games and now Y Combinator are aiming to prevent Apple from being able to revert to its old App Store rules around linking.
Y Combinator says that it has "long been hesitant" to support app-based businesses subject to "the Apple Tax" because they were poor investments.
The enforcement order that's currently in place has already created renewed investor interest in app-based business models that were previously not feasible, according to Y Combinator. The company believes that Apple adds minimal value for the fees that it collects.
Y Combinator suggests that the court end Apple's anti-steering restraints permanently to promote innovation and to allow tech startups to freely compete.
Article Link: Y Combinator Files Brief Supporting Epic Games, Says App Store Fees Stifle Startups
How nice of billionaire Tim Sweeney and his wealthy and connected investor pals, not to mention Apple’s competitive rivals to look out for the consumer.
Option D: it's you who made the wrong assumption. Sorry.
I'm not discussing this with you further. Have a good day.
I'm one of the people who tells people they're dissatisfied with Apple's offerings to switch, and I've never once argued it's costless. In fact, I've used the below line multiple times:
Switching makes a lot more sense than buying the product even though it doesn't do what you want and then complaining it is working as advertised.
"Buy an Android instead of an iPhone and you're done", heavily implying that the phone itself is the only significant cost involved in switching platforms.
I gotta say, I honestly can't think of a better illustration for my last comment. Bravo.
For most people, the phone itself is the only significant cost. Around 95% of app installs are free apps, and the bulk of paid apps/services are cross-platform subscriptions. The average user isn’t sitting on dozens of “pay $9.99 once and download-for-life” exclusives; that’s more of a tech-enthusiast thing. I understand MacRumors is a tech-enthusiast forum, but we’re not the average user.
And this isn’t unique to Apple; the exact same dynamic exists for any platform switch. Epic is on Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo’s platforms too, but Epic isn’t demanding they open up.