Sorry to flatly contradict you, but the size of Apple’s cut is not at all controversial. It has never been a crime to be expensive.
The legal controversy is that Apple prohibit apps from advertising, linking to, or even mentioning that external account management/payment/service sign-up options are available.
This forces vendors to become complicit in misleading the consumer about their options, an anti-competitive position that distorts a market.
Some journalists may choose to focus on the 30% out of sheer crassness. Don’t be misled by sub-par reporting.
> Sorry to flatly contradict you, but the size of Apple’s cut is not at all controversial. It has never been a crime to be expensive.
Of course it's controversial. Why should 30% be acceptable? Why not 50% or 70%? Or only 5%?
If you look at the app store revenue done by Apple and if you would be able look at the true cost of running it, one can agree that the huge markup is a racket.
Do you think that I can put "Cheaper on www.mysite.com" in my amazon description? Why would it be controversial to prohibit someone from advertising a competing service on your platform?
It's only prohibited to invite you to visit the website whilst you're still on the Apple platform. If you bought a physical item via an in-app purchase that item could include advertising for the external site -the exact same as Amazon.
I'm not on the Apple platform. The product is sold through the Apple platform.
Do you think Apple own the apps that are installed on your phone? Do you think they own your phone? Your ongoing relationship with a software developer? Do you think you are the product here?
The answer for me: no, no, no, and no, respectively.
They prohibit the app, that is available from their store to advertise ways of bypassing that store.
I'm pretty sure Walmart doesn't sell items in its stores that have text on the packaging about how to buy the item cheaper at Target, and it isn't particularly controversial that they do things that way.
As far as I'm aware app's web pages or other communication medium aren't prohibited from advertising whatever they want. Basically Apple is saying, "don't use our platform against us" which is what every for profit platform, ever, has done.
In some platonically ideal way it would be nice that it were otherwise, but it is in no way unusual or illegal to do what it is doing. Remembering the time of Verizon flip phones with locked down video services and tiny java apps, the freedom of an iPhone (once the app store was out) was actually unprecedented from day one from a mass consumer point of view- niche Nokia/Windows CE/Pocket phones to the side.
Sorry, but what? Once I've bought the app, that analogy is broken. I've taken it home and opened the box, but somehow Walmart think they now get to control any subsequent transactions between me and the manufacturer?
Let's say it's a water filter. Now it's a Walmart-specific water filter. When the filter module needs replacing, the vendor is now prohibited from selling me a replacement through any channel but Walmart, or even providing any contact details in the box to obtain a spare from them directly. You'd file that under "WTAF?" and complain to the nearest competition regulator.
So yes, this is unusual, and in my country at least, misusing your market power to force another party to mislead the consumer and distort a market is illegal.
Don't conflate the product with the platform. Otherwise you implicitly allow that you basically don't own the product even after you've bought it, which is unconscionable.
> Sorry, but what? Once I've bought the app, that analogy is broken. I've taken it home and opened the box, but somehow Walmart think they now get to control any subsequent transactions between me and the manufacturer?
You can indeed find terms for physical products that they can't do this.
If someone did this with Wal-Mart, I imagine the best the manufacturer could hope for is that Wal-Mart returns all 'defective' products on the manufacturer's dime.
Its par for the course. You can't buy a Kobo book on a Kindle.
The question of course is an iPhone a specialized device or a general one. I would say Apple has worked as hard as it has to keep things locked down so it can say, with a straight face, that its platform is no different than a Kindle or a Leapfrog.
Its just a very successful specialized device that 3rd parties have decided to come and join the party (hosted by Apple.) So much like Xerox successfully fought off becoming a generic term, Apple is fighting off becoming a legally generic platform.
Compatibility isn't an issue either. The analogy fails: I've got Kindle books that have a back page directing me to the publisher's website to buy more.
Apple's rules would prohibit it.
Apple's restrictions on any content that suggests the consumer may access services by any means other than making an in-app purchase are not "par for the course", they are an unusual abuse of market power that directly misleads the consumer.
I've also just re-read the App Store rules and noticed that for multi-platform services, it even contains a covenant outside of the walled garden: "your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase."
The legal controversy is that Apple prohibit apps from advertising, linking to, or even mentioning that external account management/payment/service sign-up options are available.
This forces vendors to become complicit in misleading the consumer about their options, an anti-competitive position that distorts a market.
Some journalists may choose to focus on the 30% out of sheer crassness. Don’t be misled by sub-par reporting.