No, the value the store provides is the SDK. Just as Unity requires you to license IP, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the is going away, only now developers get to bypass sandbox restrictions and access user data.
From the users point of view side loading allows only a reduction in security. All those tracking restrictions? App Store submission policy. All those raw data access protections? App Store rejecting sandbox features that are unsafe.
There is a reason malware is a huge problem on android but not on iOS.
> No, the value the store provides is the SDK. Just as Unity requires you to license IP
Except Unity doesn't make the only device that Unity games can run on.
Apple should be making their money from the phones, not seeing the phones as a utility to get even more licensing fees ($99/yr, 30% cut of all payments) from developers.
But also doesn't the $99/yr charged to put apps on the store count as a license, making your Unity example sound even more monopolistic for Apple.
Apple makes some on the sale of hardware, but does not charge end users for software updates after then. Unlike google it actually supports that hardware. The support costs money.
You're right that unity wasn't a great example though. A better example would be the xbox, playstation, switch, etc.
The alternative model is you sell out your users, like google does.
> You're right that unity wasn't a great example though. A better example would be the xbox, playstation, switch, etc.
Not really. Gaming consoles are usually sold at loss.
"The reason game consoles end up being profitable is through a combination of software, service, and accessory sales, but it's still surprising to find Microsoft has never achieved hardware profitability"
The average cost of manufacture is a PS5 is $450, the cheap version of a PS5 is $399, so a $60 loss. The platform takes a 30% commission on games the are priced >=$69.99, so at three games per machine they're making a profit.
The average cost of a game on iOS is 48c. Apple takes 14.4c, all that money then does things like supporting devices long after they were sold. Unlike google apple doesn't monetize its users: google continues to make money after devices are sold because the platform itself exists to help their ad business, that means android would still make money for google if they didn't even have their own store.
Add to that apple providing actual major software updates for devices more than 5 years after they were sold - not just security fixes - and I would argue that apple has a greater justification for their commission than Sony or MS do.
The business model shouldn’t decide what’s legal. If it’s legal for Sony, it should be legal for Apple.
Or if you disagree, fine. What’s the threshold? How does the Government acquire the information to determine if enforcement is necessary? What happens if the PS5 console, later in its life, is ever sold for a profit?
I think the argument being made is that hardware companies should be required to sell hardware at break even and provide free services and software to developers.
> There is a reason malware is a huge problem on android but not on iOS.
So it is said, but is this actually true? Anecdotally, my non-technical parents have been android users for 10 years and malware is a non-issue. I'd be interested in data that could demonstrate otherwise.
From the users point of view side loading allows only a reduction in security. All those tracking restrictions? App Store submission policy. All those raw data access protections? App Store rejecting sandbox features that are unsafe.
There is a reason malware is a huge problem on android but not on iOS.