You think they are just a payment processor? How about all the services that you have access to when you put your app on the store? Distribution, in-app purchases, notifications, game center, iCloud sync and storage.
If the argument is that they need the 30% to recoup costs, then fine, I can agree with that. But that means the 30% isn't just about protecting the user experience, which is my point.
For Apple, UX includes standardizing things such as payment processing, distribution, and icloud as well as the standard UI bits. It's about the whole package. I agree with everyone else here. This is about Apple keeping control of the ecosystem to provide a well polished and consistent user experience so that their products stand out in comparison.
Apple has always considered itself an appliance company. They push physical products. That is where they want to generate revenue. Everything else is a means to that end. Debating over how much they make off the app store or iTunes is kinda missing the point.
It seems like Apple doesn't trust its ecosystem to let it stand freely.
Otherwise "auto updates, in-app purchases, and iCloud" (etc.) should be a compelling package to keep developers in line. Not to mention visibility in the store (if they'd bother to provide a useful UI and search, that is).
Apple's antics are well-known, otherwise the situation could be interpreted as some lack of confidence in their own services.
I doubt it. Apple's stance is that _all_ developers must stay in line, not most. What they think would happen is that _some_ developers will supply their own store, cloud implementation and slightly different UI, separate update method, because they think they can improve upon Apple's offering (maybe rightly so), it is cheaper for them, easier to integrate, more inline with their ideals, or whatever. End result would be that users will go from "I know how to update my stuff/control who see my data/manage hi-score/etc" to "you have to be a nerd to do that" mode.
I think they are right; some developers wouuse noose to be different. For example, Adobe would try and use something AIR-based and there would probalby be more than one Linux package-manager-like thing that allows you to get a 'special-for-you compiled executable with exactly the features you want')
Just like how your microwave maker doesn't support running different software on it. Apple is an appliance company hell bent on putting the user experience above all else. If this means 100% complete and total control over every instruction ran on the device, so be it.
That said, the motivation isn't malevolence, it's obsession.
A more apt microwave analogy would be if microwave manufacturer didn't want you to heat water in your microwave oven, because you could use that water to boil eggs outside the oven.
How many times do we have to make the argument that Apple doesn't run the app store to make a profit?
Please look at any Apple quarterly statement. There you'll see that the margins of the app store are in the low single digit percent range, whereas hardware has over 30% or even 40% margins.
That's what Apple is doing both with iTunes and the app store. Which doesn't mean this will always be the model - the rumored Apple TV could be different, there Apple could make most of its money selling services, while selling the hardware at cost. Maybe. Who knows. But the app store, and iTunes are merely feeder operations supporting hardware sales.
>If the argument is that they need the 30% to recoup costs, then fine, I can agree with that. But that means the 30% isn't just about protecting the user experience, which is my point.
All of those costs are related to the user experience. It's not like their store is some webpage with a Paypal link.
