What the parent said is 100% accurate. They pointed out that retailers would buy the software up front (at wholesale price), and assume the rest of the risk fo

What the parent said is 100% accurate. They pointed out that retailers would buy the software up front (at wholesale price), and assume the rest of the risk for "promoting, distributing, and selling" themselves. Thus, the retailer did not "charge developers" for those things[0]. I realize this is a bit pedantic but it's not fair to say the parent has said something "historically inaccurate". [0] There were special marketing or buyback arrangements in some cases, but what's described above is the default retail model.