I didn’t (mis)use the term “rent seeking” the parent poster did.
Just like Apple gets a cut of every app sold on iOS, the console makers do to. Even when you buy a physical disc
The original poster was calling it “rent seeking” when Apple got 30% of sales. This is what every distributor does - they mark up the price. The “wholesale” price is the price the original manufacturer sells it to distributors for.
Again you are comparing the real world with digital. Are companies manufacturing software from sourced resources, excluding people and labour? Is Apple physically distributing software in trucks to stores across the country. No, none of this applies to digital content hosted on digital stores.
You would think digital content would be cheaper, as it is not bound by real world restraints. It can be duplicated easily, moved quickly and made available at anytime to any person with a connect device.
Apple sets its own mark up of 30%, they can do this through anti-competitive practice of limiting sales to their store only. If companies where able to host their own digital stores and sell their own digital products, Apple could not afford to mark up to 30% on sales because no one would buy anything at the inflated prices on their store.
> Again you are comparing the real world with digital. Are companies manufacturing software from sourced resources, excluding people and labour? Is Apple physically distributing software in trucks to stores across the country. No, none of this applies to digital content hosted on digital stores.
So do you think running the app stores don’t have a cost? Is any company not charging a mark up for being a distributor of digital content?
> You would think digital content would be cheaper,
The physical retail markup is much higher.
> Apple sets its own mark up of 30
As does all of its competitors.
> If companies where able to host their own digital stores and sell their own digital products, Apple could not afford to mark up to 30% on sales because no one would buy anything at the inflated prices on their store.
If that’s the case, why do companies that can sell physical goods on their own choose to sell on Amazon? Why don’t music companies sell their own digital downloads since they can be played on iPhones? Why don’t major publishers of books sell their books from their website? You can download a book from the web directly into the Books app and you can sideload on a Kindle?
The answer is simple, Amazon and Apple are where the customers are and there is no friction buying from either one because your payment details are already on file.
Marco Arment (cofounder of Tumbler and now a well known indie developer) said that one overlooked benefit of subscriptions through the App Store is that everyone keeps their payment information up to date with Apple.
From a consumer standpoint, canceling a subscription through the App Store is much easier than for instance going to the NYTimes abs trying to cancel it.
Again, I bought GoW Ragnorok for $30 cheaper than the digital store ($99 in store, $129 on PSN). Same for most new releases, the PSN store is always overpriced. Same with xbox.
Now we are talking sale of physical items on Amazon. Amazon is popular, doesn’t mean it has no competition. I can easily buy things on eBay, or Walmart or any number of big chain stores. Amazon isn’t the most popular online store where I live, eBay is. Kindle has lock in aswell, side loading is not convenient. most people wouldn’t know what it is. There are however many alternative ebook stores and many people do sell directly from a personal website cheaper.
Many companies do sell their products on their own sites, Music can can be bought from alternative websites. Unlike the App Store, there is no rule that says these items must be sold from a single source.
I do not understand where you're going with all this? Are these continually changing arguments meant to justify Apple locking out competition that allows them to freely set their own pricing? That no one would use alternatives anyway? That it's no different from retail?
> companies where able to host their own digital stores and sell their own digital products, Apple could not afford to mark up to 30% on sales because no one would buy anything at the inflated prices on their store
Yet companies that do have a choice between selling products using their own distribution channels, overwhelmingly decide to sell through aggregators. Why is this?
You keep bringing up buying a game locally as opposed to buying it threw the PS store. My point is the platform provider is still getting a cut.
> alternative websites. Unlike the App Store, there is no rule that says these items must be sold from a single source.
Your argument was why would merchants sell on the App Store if they weren’t forced to. My Counterexample is that even when that choice is available, merchants still chose to sell through aggregators because that’s where the customers are.
Just like Apple gets a cut of every app sold on iOS, the console makers do to. Even when you buy a physical disc
The original poster was calling it “rent seeking” when Apple got 30% of sales. This is what every distributor does - they mark up the price. The “wholesale” price is the price the original manufacturer sells it to distributors for.