Those pricing tactics are standard retail practices when dealing with large chains (“we will not be undersold”). This is why most items have an MSRP: to provide transparency across all retailers.
With software it’s of course easy to say that it’s a different product in different platforms. Which is why Apple used legal licensing to make Apps feel more like traditional products.
Arguably this makes easier for consumers to compare platforms and make a buying decision based on the underlying platform and not transitory deals on top of it. We can assume that all smartphone platforms are equal for their 3rd party software prices. Competition therefore isn’t on partner discounts or formations of cartels, it’s on the strengths of the underlying platform itself.
This does stop a form of competition, but I’m not sure price opacity is a form that has traditionally been viewed as a net positive.
Perhaps this leads to a legislative regime similar to US auto sales where dealers/shops and manufacturers must have separate ownership. To me Apple’s policies aren’t directly trying to emulate some aspects of this to avoid having to give up running the store.
Lets stick to the ‘no lower pirce than apple store’. This is very and clearly anti competitive tactic. Only side (apple) with significant leverage can use it. In every other situation it is not possible.
And to make it clear: this point is anti competitive, while you re completly skipping this topic concentrating on apple vs developer, because it harms (increases of price) consumers.
Multiple datapoints on this available, the best one is the very own of apple: mac os store. It is a ghost town.
Ios store would be instantly the same ghost if there existed even one ios app store alternative.
P.S. reminder: im addressing your mistake of ‘this is not anticompetitive’.
“No lower price” is not anti-competitive, it’s a common retail policy, and traditionally has been viewed as pro-competitive as it stops predatory pricing tactics.
It also implies the existence of a marketplace of dealers for iOS apps: there is none. The marketplace is among two different platforms vying for users.
ISVs are free to exclusively support one platform or the other. Google could lower their cut to 15% as incentive. The fact that they don’t do this is testament to Apple’s platform ability to attract customers that actually spend money.
Fundamentally this is about retailer policies and a reseller has every right to reject your product if it doesn’t want to represent it. 30% markup isn’t unreasonable when looking at actual retailers with a mix of products that have markups that vary from 5-100%.
What you want is Google and Apple’s platforms to be declared utilities where their platforms are state-regulated businesses that are forced to create a marketplace of retailers and are forced to have a 3rd party agency determine app admission guidelines across stores. This is far beyond the reach of antitrust law and will require legislative solutions.
Two tiers of completion would now exist: among retailers and among platforms. The cut % in some cases will go down. It is however debatable this will lead to overall lower consumer prices or a better consumer experience. The platforms are now entrenched for a generation and can’t make major changes except by 3rd party permission. All these new agencies need to be funded, and this raises the supply chain cost. The new admission guidelines might be worse or better. The retail experiences will be confusing as none will be default. The MSRP of software will be confusing (unless it’s mandated that ISVs publish one).
All of this to solve the problem of ISVs that want to build and sell the same product on two platforms and want to be able to take more of the retail margin for themselves?
Hard pass. I’d much rather see time, energy, and capital be allocated to entrepreneurs that may topple this regime by making a better alternative.
With software it’s of course easy to say that it’s a different product in different platforms. Which is why Apple used legal licensing to make Apps feel more like traditional products.
Arguably this makes easier for consumers to compare platforms and make a buying decision based on the underlying platform and not transitory deals on top of it. We can assume that all smartphone platforms are equal for their 3rd party software prices. Competition therefore isn’t on partner discounts or formations of cartels, it’s on the strengths of the underlying platform itself.
This does stop a form of competition, but I’m not sure price opacity is a form that has traditionally been viewed as a net positive.
Perhaps this leads to a legislative regime similar to US auto sales where dealers/shops and manufacturers must have separate ownership. To me Apple’s policies aren’t directly trying to emulate some aspects of this to avoid having to give up running the store.