See also them exempting themselves from the cross-app tracking thing.
Personally, I predict that they'll need to either give up on service revenue growth, or roll back on these changes.
This will occur as the next big f2p games will find it much, much harder to monetise profitably without being able to measure/optimise at a user level.
>Personally, I predict that they'll need to either give up on service revenue growth, or roll back on these changes.
There is no need to give up on service revenue. Before 2016, my expectation of future Apple Services was growth from AppleCare and iCloud. Today, Apple put $10 per devices to services revenue for OS, Map and other Software. Apple could hike the price and move those to services. For example iPhone price hike but with 2 years AppleCare by default.
Nearly 80% of App Store revenue are from Gaming. There is no reason why Apple cant separate Game into a different Store and continue to charge 30% off it. That would have protected 80% of App Store revenue alone. EPIC wouldn't be happy, but I am sure most people couldn't care less. Gaming are not the fabric of our modern society ( I am sure there will be people who disagree ).
Then it is the Apps and Services. Which is not only just a revenue problem but a power play problem. Why does Apple get to dictate which business it is allowed on their platform when it holds 60%+ of usage in US / UK market. I have an app for my restaurant, but Apple refuse to host it. While QSR next door get to use Apps and customer are flying in. Under which law does Apple gets to discriminate small business? May be that is fine by US standards, I can assure you this wont fly in EUR. And where are business and developers going to complain? And how is Apple responding? If you watch every speech, interview or answer Tim Cook gave, it is obvious he ( representing Apple ) doesn't think they have a problem at all. And the biggest problem in the world is not understanding there is a problem.
It is sad those who were on Steve Jobs side are all gone. Phil Schiller, Katie Cotton, Jony Ive, Scott Forstall, Bob Mansfield, Ron Johnson. And only Tim Cook and Eddy Cue left. There may be not of people with high intellect at Apple, but very little with intuition.
“Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion,” - Steve Jobs
> Nearly 80% of App Store revenue are from Gaming. There is no reason why Apple cant separate Game into a different Store and continue to charge 30% off it. That would have protected 80% of App Store revenue alone. EPIC wouldn't be happy, but I am sure most people couldn't care less. Gaming are not the fabric of our modern society ( I am sure there will be people who disagree ).
Yes, exactly. And how do those games monetise?
They target a small number of people who spend absurd amounts of money on in-game purchases. FB (and Google, but that's not relevant on iOS) have tools that allow a marketer to optimise towards this event. If you can't measure which people actually purchased, it gets much more expensive to spend loads of money acquiring users on iOS (relative to Android).
Therefore, while Apple are fine now, I suspect that they'll see far less growth from in-app purchases from games in the future, which will hold back their services revenue.
Hence my comment, they'll either roll this back or give up on service revenue growth.
It doesn't really matter to me (no longer in the industry) but it'll be interesting to see what they choose.
Yes, I know Mobile Gaming is the reason why Internet ad revenue are up, it is pretty much a whole cycle where IAP gets money and these company use percentage of them for advertising, the cycle repeat until a point it dies and they will make another game using other IP.
But do less effective ads necessary means less spending on Games? I am going to assume there will be other form of discovery. The whales will just go somewhere else and spend it. Or am I missing a link here somewhere?
I do see you point of how service revenue and the game and ads are tied together. Probably need sometime to sit down and think deeply about it.
I am not. He replaced Bertrand Serlet in 2011. But if you look at Steve's close circle, He simply wasn't there. Arguably speaking he is Tim Cook's man. Not Steve Jobs.
But every shareholder of any corporation wants exactly that. Moreover, Tesla proves this can be achieved largely on promises (look at the capitalization/revenue).
