The cut is high, but Apple does do more with iOS than they do in your hypothetical.
Apple has created a ecosystem in which it is very easy for consumers to purchase subscriptions. They're further enhancing the usefulness of this system by blocking applications that do not allow consumers to easily purchase subscriptions in a uniform way (e.g. in-app). And they're requiring app developers to pay 30% for the benefits they receive by exposing your app to the users of this ecosystem.
The rate may be high, or it may not be. We will see by how many developers pull their apps from the AppStore.
I might agree if Apple didn't force developers to make the price in Apple's ecosystem the same as the lowest price available elsewhere. If you want to take 30% of my money for the service of "exposing" my app (which I think that means "not banning" in the context of a walled garden), I need to charge 50% more just to maintain my profit margin.
Comments
The cut is high, but Apple does do more with iOS than they do in your hypothetical.
Apple has created a ecosystem in which it is very easy for consumers to purchase subscriptions. They're further enhancing the usefulness of this system by blocking applications that do not allow consumers to easily purchase subscriptions in a uniform way (e.g. in-app). And they're requiring app developers to pay 30% for the benefits they receive by exposing your app to the users of this ecosystem.
The rate may be high, or it may not be. We will see by how many developers pull their apps from the AppStore.
I might agree if Apple didn't force developers to make the price in Apple's ecosystem the same as the lowest price available elsewhere. If you want to take 30% of my money for the service of "exposing" my app (which I think that means "not banning" in the context of a walled garden), I need to charge 50% more just to maintain my profit margin.