For a short while, in the beginning, AppStores provided some value allowing you to select top games in category, which were actually good. But then SEO guys took notice and all top ratings are now populated by pay 2 win garbage games which invest heavily in AppStore optimization. You just can't find anything these days on Google Play / AppStore other than by typing a full name of the app. This, of course, relegates these services to gatekeeper role only, void of any positive benefits for the developers.

This seems to be what Apple Arcade is doing. You pay a subscription to Apple and get access to curated games with no ads or microtransactions. Apple pays the developers, although I don't know how.

AFAIK it's going pretty well. I don't actually own Apple Arcade, but the games all look really nice, and no ads or microtransactions. Maybe someone who knows more can comment.

I do not have time to research to which games are implementing loot boxes or other gambling mechanics or showing them ads, so restricting my kids (while they are too young) mostly to Apple Arcade solves that problem for me.

Although, who knows, maybe if Apple Arcade is compensating game makers by how much time is spent playing their games, then those tactics will be present in Apple Arcade too.

Apple Arcade basically pays out to buy the game and put it in a store. Think of it more like Apple TV+ Original rather than Apple Music. ( Up Front Cost Vs Continuous Cost ).

Although there are some split in Apple Arcade for maintenance.

That only happens when app stores are competing for developers which is very much not the case. There are a million developers chasing a small amount of potential success, app stores could impose much more ridiculous conditions and still get more developers than they could ever want.

App stores also fund hardware. Ask a consumer if they want a device 50% more expensive or better terms for developers and guess what the outcome will be.

It only changes if there is a lot more competition or legislated terms for how these companies operate.

> Ask a consumer if they want a device 50% more expensive or better terms for developers and guess what the outcome will be.

I find the Epic Game Store really interesting in this regard. While they aren't quite paying developers, they are funding a lot of games and giving out upfront payments.

I love it, personally—but it hasn't gone over too well with users.

App stores aren't competing because.. there is no competition

Also, I didn't know app stores funded hardware. I thought the money came from the value created by devs or from the actual device price. I mean, should my next IAP say "fund the development of the next iphone". How many consumers will like that? How do Android manufacturers manage to make hardware without an appstore? It's not like Apple has billions to spare to actually make hardware, things must be tight

Now seriously, none of the above are the issue. The issue is that the iOS app store should be one of many, and that Safari shouldn't break html5 functions on purpose to prevent PWAs

This even spills over to Android because devs in general aren't going to adopt wasm until it truly can be run cross platform. Google actually benefits from Apple's protectionist policies. Microsoft also tried to pull this with IE and we know what happened. It will happen again (and consumers will benefit from it). What good is a great device that can only run few and bad apps?

>> App stores also fund hardware. Ask a consumer if they want a device 50% more expensive or better terms for developers and guess what the outcome will be.

What would be interesting is if instead of the Appstore taking the cut off the top, the Appstore charged developers based on utilization of different parts of the A13 or M1 processor. Sort of like an AWS compute pricing.

If iOS Netflix users are using N million hours of the video accelerator, then charge Netflix something like NCost per video compute. If an Augmented Reality app users are using N million hours of ARKit, charge them NCost per ARKit compute.

This could lead to more efficient iOS apps and better future HW roadmaps.

I'd say apriori the one difference between AWS compute fee and an iOS compute fee would be that Amazon owns AWS hardware, whereas Apple sort of doesn't own iOS hardware (i.e the iOS user does).

It needs to go further. Marketplaces should not be required for entry into platforms whose market is essentially "everything you'd do with a computer". Especially if the web is purposefully hobbled.

Apple's "protection" is actually just a racket and scheme to control the flow of money and extract as much as possible.

iPhones and Androids are computers and web downloads should be first class. We've been gaslighted into this "nanny state", yet we do much more dangerous things every day: get into cars, wire transfer money, go on blind dates, ...

Open and free computing is not wrong. The powers that be are trying to tell us that it is so that they can "protect" ( = control and tax) us.

Apple App Store and Google Play can still exist and cater to specific needs. Marketplaces like Itch and NewGrounds do a better job at what they do than either Apple or Google. If indie developers want to show up in multiple places, including their own website, it should be allowed.

> iPhones and Androids are computers

So are Xboxes and PlayStations

So is an xbox when I plug a keyboard into it.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/windows

Xboxes and PlayStations are closer to PCs than iPhones or Macs (x86 vs ARM)

Stop that hypocritical cherry picking bullshit.

Thank you.

Architecture doesn't matter. How people actually use the platforms matter.

Most computing happens on an iPhone. Most banking, dating, emails to bosses, video calls, web browsing, etc.

You don't owe Apple anything. They certainly don't care about you. Please realize and stop defending their theft of our industry.

I will continue to support Apple because for me they’re the best of the only 3 options. You’re not convincing anybody with your ragey rants. Stop wasting time here and go do your thing if you’re so happy with what you have.

>the money should flow from app stores to developers and not the other way around

That's exactly the case and I have receipts to prove it. I have financial records as proof of money flowing from Apple to my bank account.

What's the plan for rewarding the developers? If anything is broken with the mobile games it's the model where the money doesn't flow from the App Stores to the developers but developers need to interrupt the player and make them buy something so that the developers get rewarded.

Ads in games are dreadful.

I'm afraid that if the subscription services for games becomes the norm, and the payment is based on engagement it will make mediocracy the norm just like with Netflix. This will make game development a practice of matching the spec sheet of the subscription platform you want to be included. If it is like Spotify, what developers are supposed to do for substitute of the live performances if their rent is higher than $0.52?

I never had problem with iAP or pay to play games.

Let users side-load and use as many stores as they want. Or let them choose an "Apple only mode". Monetization models will follow that won't be affected by monopolistic practices. I also think IAPs are ok. But the lack of choice makes everything feel wrong

>>That's exactly the case and I have receipts to prove it. I have financial records as proof of money flowing from Apple to my bank account.

Are you sure that money came from Apple and not from your own users? Don't forget, they chose you. Apple doesn't own them

I’m not looking forward to pay multiple app stores to publish my apps. I’m also not looking forward to deal with multiple implementation details and multiple appstore guidelines and rules.

The %30 cut is nothing for the service provided. The only people I know to suffer from it are the resellers(i.e. Spotify like services where they redistribute most of the revenue).

The multiple store thing is going to be a hell for the small developers. Apple handling all the legal and regulatory procedures for selling globally is a great service stuff since it’s something out of the reach for most small companies otherwise.

Users who simply can’t find the app they need in the App Store due to the limitations can use Android.

When there’s a opportunity for innovation that is not possible on iOS because of this, it will happen on Android.

That's all very understandable. I also would hate to maintain multiple app stores

But with side-loading, all you would need is the website you likely already have. You could offer direct downloads. No need to integrate IAPs with different API calls. Just use Stripe or Paypal everywhere. Things could be a lot simpler. The sole idea of an app store adds unnecessary friction. When we're talking a 1 and mandatory app store, then this friction is clearly there for a purpose, and it feels so wrong. I soo dislike being told what I can and cannot say in MY app. All in the name of "protection" /s

>>When there’s a opportunity for innovation that is not possible on iOS because of this, it will happen on Android.

Devs don't bother doing things that can't be cross-platform these days. I definitely don't want my users to tell each other "you need to have an android phone for this app".

From developer's perspective the AppStore is better unless you are a giant corporation.

As a user, of course I would like to be able install whatever I want easily. I still can install whatever I want but it's not that easy.