Benjamin Levicek In the recent past, the Epic Games vs. Apple, when Epic's developers complained quite intensively about both the closed access in the iOS and macOS App Store, and the high commissions charged by Apple in it. Subsequently, Microsoft also contributed a little to the mill, which in the newly introduced Windows 11 came with a redesigned application store in which it will not charge even a dollar for in-app purchases. However, I wonder if we really want a more open approach from Apple?
It could be interest you
Adam Kos Developers will have more money, but what about review and referrals?
Zero commissions in the application store from such a big giant as Microsoft sounds more than tempting at first glance. Developers will probably get a much faster return on the funds spent on programming individual software. But let's focus on the situation from a slightly different point of view.
Windows 11:
Gallery
Apple operates in the field of technology giants as a closed company that tries not to let any malicious software into its store. End users who buy Apple products know this very well, and that is precisely why most of them enter the ecosystem of the apple giant. Apple also emphasizes privacy, both in its native programs and in third-party ones. Individual applications go through a relatively long approval process, and if they are functionally fine-tuned, people from the App Store try to promote them. The last great thing is the intuitive development tools, which is why many professional programmers prefer macOS over Windows. And why shouldn't Apple charge developers for this comfort, when it was also able to reduce the commission from 30% to 15% for smaller developers?
This is by no means to say that Microsoft doesn't control its app store - personally, I'm certainly not worried about installing a malicious program from the Microsoft Store. However, you will probably agree that the Californian giant is a bit better in terms of security, as well as in the clarity of the App Store and the recommendation of individual applications. It is proven that the security of the store from Apple is at a higher level than that of the competition. So why can't Apple charge for the services and be a little more closed?
It could be interest you
Epic Games, Spotify and others boast a high status, but the competition is strong
According to the company Epic Games, which spoke before the antitrust authority, Apple is favored by its monopoly position and should make its terms less strict. To be honest, I don't really understand why the Californian giant should open up more to other companies? Personally, I am of the opinion that the closedness, the emphasis on privacy and security, as well as the strict rules for developers can in many ways be considered benefits, thanks to which I, as well as other consumers, buy Apple products.
It could be interest you
Pavel Jelic I would have understood the complaints at the time if Apple had significantly dominated the technology market and open competition wasn't available, but here we are in the form of Android and Windows. Both users and programmers themselves have a choice as to whether it is worthwhile for them to use Apple or other products, or to develop for them. What do you think about the issue of application stores? Write us your opinion in the comments.
After all, you can install anything in macOS, it is not limited to the AppStore. This article would only make sense if the AppStore was the only choice for app distribution.
I wouldn't defend the 30% Apple for nothing. All platforms provide tools for developers for free, yes they also charge commissions, but not this high where they are clearly taking advantage of their position. In addition, the new subscription for xCode will also be paid.
What kind of intuitive developer app are you talking about? In this, Microsoft is well ahead with visual studio.