Anyone who's incensed at a 30% cut for Apple/Google, when they offer a turn-key merchant solution and a huge potential sales base, has probably never heard of the publishing arrangements on other console platforms, like Sony Playstation (or Xbox or...). Small devs get absolutely raked over the coals by the high costs associated with getting a game pressed onto discs and onto a store shelf. 30% is a laugh.
Steam doesn't have the overhead of creating, advancing, and supporting an entire hardware infrastructure. Which means less costs relative to Apple. So no kidding they take a smaller cut.
Any corporation is a very large organisation, the people who design the phones aren't working two jobs .. there are different departments which create and depend upon different revenue streams. In any case, the hardware is SOLD to the consumer, not given away. I don't understand your point.
I was simply stating stream would make a better comparison than a console manufacturer selling games on physical media.
Part 1: "It would be fairer to make a comparison with a purely online gaming distribution model like Steam."
It would not be fair to make that comparison since the two models have fundamentally different underlying fixed and marginal costs.
Part 2: "Apple and Google don't have as many realworld costs once their infrastructure is working and is in place."
Apple indeed has other significant "realworld costs", especially the development, maintenance, and future research to extend their hardware platform. Steam does not have those kinds of costs, and therefore does not need to build in those costs into their margins.
Sony and Nintendo burn and load their software onto cartridges or discs .. they create stock, they package stock, they store stock, they move stock - they sell stock. These are real world (physical) costs associated with production and distribution.
Comparing Apple or Google to one of these suppliers is ridiculous because Apple don't use physical media for their software.
You made this comparison - I told you that steam would be a better (not perfect) comparison - because, like Apple and Google .. they sell via a download mechanism.
Developers are charged for disc production. Not to mention the huge fees to get titles passed Sony/Nintendo/MS/etc QA. (TCR/TRC checklists, anyone?) Don't kid yourself... developers get squeezed dry on consoles.
Apple/Google don't use physical media, like Steam, sure... but that single similarity is not sufficient to prove Steam is a "better comparison". So, again, Apple/Google are much more like console manufacturers than Steam, and their deal is comparatively better than PS/Xbox/Wii developers get.
I don't think we're going to be able to agree - but I think you're comparing Apples with Oranges.
Steam sell IP through digital channels .. Apple/Google sell IP digitally. Console manufacturers (historically) sell IP on physical media. Both involve markedly different business models - a comparison is ridiculous.
Steam sells software for PCs. Apple/Google sell software for console-like devices. Console manufacturers sell software for console-like devices. Both involve markedly different business models - a comparison is ridiculous.
