The unfortunate part is that because of iOS's restrictions, it's also a bit like, "if you coincidentally buy your frozen pizzas from Wal-Mart, we're not allowed

The unfortunate part is that because of iOS's restrictions, it's also a bit like, "if you coincidentally buy your frozen pizzas from Wal-Mart, we're not allowed to sell you our product anywhere but Wal-Mart". Spotify doesn't want to pay for use of the store because they have no need for the store. That analogy is a bit tortured, but you get what I mean. Spotify, Netflix, Amazon, and other extremely popular services don't need that "we'll get you in front of customers" service that Apple touts as a reason why the 30% cut makes sense. And if you're a relatively unknown developer, you do get value from the App Store that you pay for with that 30% cut. However, I'd rather have Netflix than an iPhone. I'd have Netflix with or without an iPhone. Apple provides negligible value to Netflix or Spotify, in that while there are millions of customers of those companies using Apple devices, if Apple went away tomorrow, those customers would just buy a different phone and continue to subscribe to Netflix or Spotify. I don't think there's anything necessarily anti-competitive to the level of thinking its legally actionable, but I certainly do find it a bit distasteful. The Kindle app is just better on my Android devices than it is on my iPad. It's a better user experience because there's no one putting arbitrary inconveniences in my way. And I dislike giving money to useless middle-men. I'm happy to pay Apple for the iPad -- they made a thing that I enjoy. I'm happy to pay Amazon for the incredible store and ebook infrastructure they've set up. I might like more of the money to go to the author, but at least Amazon is providing me some value in the transaction. Apple provides me nothing of value in that ebook transaction. They're just a leech.