>Remember when Apple reversed its decision on 3rd-party developer tools and languages?
This is essentially comparing apples and oranges, though. That decision was (presumably) based on maximizing application performance for users - but plenty of non-obj-C applications can perform quickly enough, so they went back and allowed them. And more applications means more sales means more money for Apple.
It's equivalent to sharecroppers first preventing use of externally-developed tools, then discovering that they could make more money if they allowed them. I don't see a comparable situation in Apple pulling 30% from subscriptions.
I do think that 30% is a bit high, as they're recurring sources of revenue and people tend to decide "$1/month? sure. It's cheaper than that $10 app." and then keep it for two years rather than switch to the $10 and waste a buck. People are pretty predictable in this manner - just look at WoW.
This is essentially comparing apples and oranges, though. That decision was (presumably) based on maximizing application performance for users - but plenty of non-obj-C applications can perform quickly enough, so they went back and allowed them. And more applications means more sales means more money for Apple.
It's equivalent to sharecroppers first preventing use of externally-developed tools, then discovering that they could make more money if they allowed them. I don't see a comparable situation in Apple pulling 30% from subscriptions.
I do think that 30% is a bit high, as they're recurring sources of revenue and people tend to decide "$1/month? sure. It's cheaper than that $10 app." and then keep it for two years rather than switch to the $10 and waste a buck. People are pretty predictable in this manner - just look at WoW.