In my opinion, if Apple sticked with fees to things the App Store actually sells and provides distribution facilities for - software programs - we would probably not be having this discussion. But no, they put the long term revenue aside, risk it all, go for the short term revenue and go after the value digital services bring to their platform charging for their sales in app. There is no Miracle here.
I agree, the reality, these App Store conflicts are primarily battles of greed. Claims of security are just padding.
One of the original problems of the App Store is publishers not realizing/adapting to a different revenue model. Traditionally, software publishers could/would charge for every application release. As competition grew, companies rewarded loyalty by offering discounts (i.e., upgrade pricing). The App Store publishing model essentially treats every update as incremental — a mistake by Apple. So, companies were forced to support ongoing development without ongoing revenue — a reasonable complaint. Over the years, some publishers have adjusted:
1) Publish a major app release under a new app ID
2) Tie new features to unlock fees
3) Subscription
As always, there comes along a group that ruins it for everyone. Now we have more and more developers implementing unethical revenue tactics:
• In-game currency is now currency - Forget ‘play’ money, we require currency exchange.
— The creators of the Monopoly game sure missed out.
• Other micro transactions/DLC - Even if the scenario has no need for fake money err a custom currency, you’re still going to pay (real) currency to add that virtual cap, use the photo filter, etc.
• Baseless subscriptions - Do you want to share this content with your friends, track your daily workout, add alert/alarms? Great! Sign up now for our premium service. You know, those features that require no additional effort and time by the developer(s).
• Excessive ads - Take your turn -> ad -> take another turn -> ad -> complete a level -> ad, choose another tab -> ad, etc
Here we are, Apple did not change the arrangement/agreement but suddenly has an increased flow of revenue. Okay! Great! — if you claim you would react/behave otherwise, that’s a lie.
An off the cuff analogy, think pawn shop. The shop has customers that sell their iPhone each year as they upgrade to the latest model. Rather than annually, a half-dozen of the “regulars” offer up an iPhone, iPad, and Mac every few weeks, making a variety of claims as to why the frequency increased. Sure, that may seem suspicious, however, the sales will provide substantially more income. The owner did not request more products or promise greater compensation for larger quantities, but it is a benefit. So, the shop owner goes along with the seemingly win-win scenario. Eventually, a few customers threaten, “No more offers, you’re going to pay me exactly what you sell this stuff for. I am the one doing the work.” The owner refuses, reminding there's no interest in changing the shop’s policies/behavior and these customers can take their business elsewhere. They stomp away and return with picketers. Ultimately, both sides stubbornly stand their ground.
How do lawmakers get involved? Typically, they are the hired goons turning to the person promising the highest payment.
Go ahead, support this circus, it’s certainly a conversation starter/piece and distraction. Sadly and slightly frustratedly, even if I simply walk by, the likely disastrous outcome will affect me in some way. Also sadly/frustratingly, I have significant doubt anyone will create an actual solution.
