This is a poor analogy.
I am still waiting for a real argument on HN as to what Apple is doing that is anti-competitive or illegal. Still have not found one.
Also as a voter, I would hope that the legislature make these costs come down. In Canada, the government recently intervened to reduce credit card processing fees. I would hope next they direct their attention to app store fees.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4379884/canada-credit-card-fee-cu...
They provide a great service to devs - a store to get consumers to see and buy their products.
Why is 30% unfair?
A company charging a certain percentage for something is neither unfair or anti-competitive. You need to develop your argument further.
This is the same as with store owners who have to hand over part of their earnings as danegeld to some gangs controlling their neighborhood. They also pay happily for a great "protection" service. Would be a pity if something happens to your nice store (or app, in Apples case)!
I don't get how anyone who stands up for freedom of information, a free internet and a fair economy can still own an iPhone without developing schizophrenia..
They have Android, which dominates the market.
I get it, Apple Bad! Bad Keyboards! No Upgrades! Bad Bad Bad! And yet people time and time again want iPhones over Android - because they like the way the App Store is, they like iOS, they don't want malware on their phones that is rampant on Androids. Opening it up will be WORSE FOR DEVS.
> This is the same as with store owners who have to hand over part of their earnings as danegeld to some gangs controlling their neighborhood.
No, it's the same as store owners who have to pay higher rent to be on a busy street. Which isn't illegal.
> I don't get how anyone who stands up for freedom of information, a free internet and a fair economy can still own an iPhone without developing schizophrenia..
There are plenty of avenues for information - the iPhone controls apps - but the rules of engagement are clear and 2 million apps managed to get on the app store. If you can't, that's your problem.
Still waiting for a real argument on here.
They have obviously won their market position fair-and-square and their rules aren't illegal. But extracting taxes ('rent' in economist-speak) from other companies just because they were successful at some point in the past is uncompetitive behavior now.
Same goes for Amazon/Google: extracting rent from a market-dominant position should be illegal (it isn't) regardless of how that position was won.
> and are enforcing rules that do not have political (as in citizens') legitimacy.
This is basically saying to me "yea you're right, it isn't illegal, but I don't like it!!" They're charging for a service, there is nothing unfair about it. Frankly, it could be even higher.
> Same goes for Amazon/Google: extracting rent from a market-dominant position should be illegal (it isn't) regardless of how that position was won.
Google is a clear monopoly - they dominate the market. Amazon does not - Wal-Mart, Target, are all viable competitors. BestBuy, NewEgg, Ebay, etc.
Apple and Google are engaging in obvious tacit collusion. QED.
Apple offers a closed experience, which is what my parents want. They don't want to be tricked into downloading malware through some crappy facebook post.
This is depriving the market of a valid product, it's unfair to people who want this product, so that devs can make more money, and Epic can rip off more kids for a skin on a gun.