This is a beautiful quote because it is an example of one industry's bad behavior leading to another industry's bad behavior, upon which the first industry then users the second's similarity to justify themselves. Cars only started doing this because phones made it normal. It's wrong in both cases.
It's similar to when Apple defended it's 30% store cut by claiming it's an "industry standard"... specifically, an industry standard that Apple established.
A sibling comment notes that Steam charged 30% at the time (though some had better deals) but it's worth noting that Steam was not an open platform that anyone could publish on. Much like for consoles, to put a game on Steam you had to have a preexisting relationship with Valve, or try to develop one with no certainty of success. This was also considered a very generous cut because getting on Steam was almost a guarantee of financial success.
No, it wasn't. I'm not going to dig up links, but one could pop a web site storefront and Fastspring for payment processing (as one example of a company I used) for less than 10% (Fastspring would take something like 6-7%, IIRC). Discovery has always sucked on Apple's store, so no value-add there. In fact, I'd argue that the only value-add one gets out of Apple's store is access to their closed garden.
And "50-90%"? Is that in reference to putting software in physical boxes and on CompUSA shelves? Because no mobile publisher charged 90% before Apple's store came along.
For the Apple case: access to the walled garden is the majority of the benefit. But still, setting up payments, customer service, chargebacks, fees, etc., is nice to have taken care of. 30% nice? Who knows. But more than just the raw payment processor overhead, surely.
AFAIK physical boxes are way above 50%.
But there's 2 reasons the comparisons aren't valid:
1) The revolution Apple brought to mobile phones was making them personal computers. So the relevant comparison really should be with personal computers and I doubt any of them had stores that took as much of a cut.
2) More relevant, the vast majority of such app stores which charged 40-50% were optional marketplaces. A customer didn't need to go through them to install an app on their phone (I believe Palm was like this. I'm pretty sure the likes of WinMo allowed many different ways to install apps). So if a marketplace was charging 40-70% it was entirely for the fact that they were bringing a customer to you. If you were able to acquire a customer by yourself, you didn't need to pay anyone any cut.
The big problem with Apple's 30% cut has always been that they charge you that amount just for having a user, even if you did all the work to get that user to use and pay for your app. Outside of the maybe 3% credit card fees, Apple provides 0 value.
One may argue (as many Apple folks do) that they charge for the frameworks, etc., but that argument is absolutely backwards. Apple creates the frameworks and APIs because they need the apps, not because the apps need them. If Apple was to get rid of its 3rd party APIs and frameworks, so there were no 3rd party apps, it's not the app developers who would suffer because all those users would migrate to Android. It's the iDevices and Apple that would basically disappear.
In fact, App developers would be thrilled because now they only need to support 1 Operating system.
If this is a personal computer, solely because it runs a browser, then the goalposts have shifted dramatically.
Most of the limitations you mention like compiling are completely arbitrary and added by Apple. The devices are powerful enough and it's easy enough to do everything on a $300 Android phone.
That said, a general purpose personal computer is defined by its advertising not its hardware. My iPhone was never advertised to be able to run any arbitrary binary. The fact it can JIT some version of Python, or run a watered down variant of a program I want does not change what I purchased.
In fact my iPhone was advertised as a multi-purpose, specific device, “arbitrarily limited” to my satisfaction, with a walled garden for my personal protection. This is the device I very intentionally purchased and recommended to family and friends!
Forcing it to be ruined for billions of customers because a few hundred thousand developers are less happy is not only ok with me, I paid for that privilege, thank you.
If “developers” (which I am one of) wanted more open access computing devices, they should have self regulated and ensured viruses, scams, malware, bloat ware, etc were not so common as to drive away every user!
Now it’s time to switch jobs, or be successful with a 30% (which hopefully in the future is 3% - I’m happy for you and anyone to push for a reduction in this value). Now is not the time to complain that Apple is anti-competitive and should be forced to ruin a billion customers experiences, given its users are actively inviting Apple to their defense.
That in my opinion is Apple advertising the iPhone as a do anything software device, a personal computer. Considering the only thing holding back the iPhone from doing everything like running GCC, Blender, etc. is a locked bootloader keeping people from easily hacking Linux or Android on there doesn't IMO make it not a personal computer. Whether you are happy with the walled garden approach or not doesn't make it not a personal computer either. But it's frankly ridiculous IMO to state that an iPhone is not a personal computer because Apple's ad copy doesn't say so and not on what it does.
Secondly can you please define general purpose computing device such that it doesn’t include my toaster, pressure/slow cooker, or oven?
> "-There's an app for that."
My definition for general purpose computing device is, when there needs to be an app for that, and if the app doesn’t exist, I (or anyone) can’t do it without Apple’s permission. Which is what Apple marketed me.
> a locked bootloader keeping people from easily hacking Linux or Android on there
I am actually for an unlocked boot loader on iDevices (with a voided warranty and no expectations for driver support).
I’m also for pushing Apple to reduce its fees from 30% or 15% or whatever to even lower. As long as it continues to be profitable for them to hold a high security/privacy bar and ideally raise it even higher.
I’m just very much not a fan of opening up iOS to sideloading. And I’m not a fan of reducing Apple’s control over developers on iOS.
> Secondly can you please define general purpose computing device such that it doesn’t include my toaster, pressure/slow cooker, or oven?
Sure. I'll use my toaster oven as an example, a Panasonic NB-G110P. I'm assuming no hardware hacking obviously.
My toaster oven doesn't have any built in way to store or add storage for a users program. No support for a cassette drive or even a paper tape reader. It doesn't have any sort of way for the user to run "programs" or instructions in memory outside the predefined functions from the manufacturer like "Waffle mode" that are probably burned into ROM and immutable to the user. While it DOES unusually have TWO 8 segment LCD displays for output there is no way for the user to output results or perhaps inspect memory addresses for anything beyond seeing the time remaining in "Waffle mode" or the like.
An iPhone by contrast has storage for user programs, ways to load and run instructions not included or designed by the manufacturer but a third party, ways to output the results of those programs and allow users to interact with them in some ways.
You also don't need Apple's permission to create a program of your liking for iOS but you do need Apple's permission to distribute it in a fashion that's reasonable for the non-technically inclined.
Apple's lock on software is in my opinion just as gross as Apple's or John Deere's lock on hardware. It's the manufacturer imposing constraints on what I can do with my device for mainly their benefit. There's a small security benefit to this approach but in my view what Apple is getting out of the arrangement is far too much weighted in their favour.
You're right bootloaders should be unlocked. But if they're not going to provide drivers then they have to provide documentation that would allow drivers to be written by those that can and care to. Keep iOS locked if they want but give a reasonable way out.