8 ms·

My problem with apple and google charging 30% is when they are the competitors. So in essence you are asking your competitors to finance you. If apple wants App

My problem with apple and google charging 30% is when they are the competitors. So in essence you are asking your competitors to finance you. If apple wants Apple music or a video subscription service they can't charge as Spotify or netflix 30% same for google etc. And I think this should apply to almost all market services/stores not just mobile app stores. If you want to be market infrastructure provider you should not be allowed to compete in it or allowed to charge 30% rather it should be a nominal fee.

stanrivers 6y ago
This is an interesting point that people miss sometimes - so thank you for bringing it up. I guess a comparison would be a utility that both owns the transmission lines and power plants? However, the transmission line rates are set by regulation. We have accepted as a society that the infrastructure needs to have regulated pricing. So why is it all that different here? The transmission of the products, just given the way the cellphone market works, is basically limited to either App Store or Android Store. I basically have no alternative. Isn't that approaching a monopoly / duopoly where regulation starts to make sense? I say this all as a fairly conservative person, but it just seems too similar to utilities to me... Why am I wrong? (Serious Question)
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Isn't that approaching a monopoly / duopoly where regulation starts to make sense? Or it might be a cartel (few players are coordinating for maximum revenue, are not competing, prices are fixed), but we usually won't let that stand either. It's good to remember that Google and Apple (and others) have been found to collude before when they made secret no-poaching deals. They settled for $415m. I don't know how that would work though, without breaking up the companies.
- mook 6y ago
  I believe a better comparison would be Comcast also having a Netflix competitor… let's call it Xfinity Stream. And then they make Netflix have extra costs (say, having plans that have low monthly bandwidth caps that limit how much you would be able to use Netflix) but exclude their own service from having those costs. Essentially, making an artificial floor on competitor prices where their own service can ignore that floor. … Let's just say there's a reason my example is oddly concrete. In your example, as far as I know consumers do not actually interact with the power plants, and have no choice on what utility company to use; to do so would require duplicate infrastructure. In the (either) app store case there is — I can still install the Microsoft mail client instead of the Apple or Google ones.
  - Closi 6y ago
    Or to create a more direct comparison, that Comcast fully blocks Netflix unless they give 30% of fees and launches their own service which is heavily subsidised. This wouldn’t work now, but if it was done when Netflix was growing it would have severely impacted their ability to compete.
    - zaroth 6y ago
      Or to create a more direct comparison, it would be like Netflix distributing content inside the Xfinity OnDemand app and using Comcast’s streaming platform to do it, and paying Comcast a percentage of the revenue. Which is exactly how Xfinity OnDemand works. Apple’s creation, development, and control of the App Store is akin to Comcast’s Xfinity OnDemand. They are both retail stores owned, operated and curated by their private enterprise creators in order to sell some first party but mostly third-party content.
    - WWLink 6y ago
      They did try to do something like that, where Netflix counted against your bandwidth cap but Comcast's own IPTV service did not. Maybe it was AT&T? I do recall it being a thing.
- parasubvert 6y ago
  It took MANY decades before transmission lines, power generation and brokerage were forcibly separated and regulated. They traditionally were integrated, even through the 1980s in some countries. Utility regulation only works when the product doesn’t change and is a fungible commodity - power is power. It also is about driving prices down for consumers for that commodity. The iOS and Google platforms have barely existed more than a decade, and the platforms are constantly evolving. New platforms and ecosystems are emerging too, with Facebook/Oculus, Valve/Steam, Amazon with Fire/Alexa, etc. Enshrining today’s dominant app platforms as the government sanctioned ones will surely stifle their evolution and innovation, because that’s what declaring something a utility is: a commodity with no differentiation. The crux of this matter is that end consumers generally do not care about the 30% cut, It’s a retail cut they’re used to from other platforms like Sony PlayStation, or Ticketmaster for concert tickets. it barely impacts them (and arguably the curated stores are a better overall experience). I also don’t think almost any consumer of iOS would agree their App ecosystem experience is fungible with Android or anyone else. This is entirely driven by Devs and publishers that want better margins.
  - starfallg 6y ago
    >It’s a retail cut they’re used to from other platforms like Sony PlayStation, or Ticketmaster for concert tickets. The counterpoint being that Ticketmaster doesn't take a 30% cut on consession sales at the event AFAIK. That's the real issue - these stores are distributing some apps for free and some for pay. Hence free apps can sidestep paying the Google/Apple cut and then offer in-app payments directly. But that's entirely due to their business model of allowing free apps and taking a cut on paid apps.
    - firstbabylonian 6y ago
      > Ticketmaster doesn't take a 30% cut on consession sales at the event Ticketmaster doesn't provide as complex of a service as Apple does with the App Store.
      - Beldin 6y ago
- Someone 6y ago
  “I guess a comparison would be a utility that both owns the transmission lines and power plants?” Something like that happens a lot with mobile networks, where some operators both have a license for bandwidth and sell it to customers, and other operators buy bandwidth from them to sell it to customers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operato...), with an important difference being that customers (sometimes after a few years of contract) are free to switch between providers. But yes, the important discussion here is whether app stores should become utilities. AFAIK, there is no existing law there, so it will have to be created. Because there is no law, I don’t see Epic winning this in the sense that they will get paid for damages. They may win in the sense that things will change, though.
- jnwatson 6y ago
  If you sell breakfast cereal, you’re competing against the grocery store’s store brand.
  - username90 6y ago
    If one store charges outrageous fees for third party brands then customers will just shop at several stores. That doesn't work for appstores.
    - firstbabylonian 6y ago
      Apps are not food.
      - mattl 6y ago
        Apps used to mean appetizers, not applications.
bilbo0s 6y ago
In order to do it that way though, we would have to rewrite the laws of retail commerce as they stand today. Unless you are saying that, say, Apple and Google can't, but Walmart, Amazon, and Target can. Because right now, that's exactly what's happening. In fact, even in the grocery retailing industry, there are integrations that would run afoul of the rule you are proposing. Kroger, for instance, sells brands it owns, while selling competing brands for what is, effectively, a commission. I'm not just picking on Kroger, all major chains engage in this practice. I was only using Kroger by way of illustration. So what you're proposing has far reaching implications. I don't even think it's necessarily "bad", per se. But it does change the entire "order of battle", as it were, in the American retail space. Lots of people would go out of business, and lots more would be in serious financial trouble.
- tappio 6y ago
  Not really. There is a huge difference as you can buy goods that serve the same purpose from thousands of other shops and online stores. Google and apple effectively have a 30% tax on all mobile software business. They are killing all apetite on developing new mobile software, as less and less developers want to be involved with their shady practices of stealing features and locking apps out. It would be the same if there were only 2 stores where you can buy clothes in the US and they tax every manufacturer 30% to sell any goods there, while also selling their own goods without commission. On top of that, occasionally stealing good concepts, copying those, and selling as their own products. And of course, locking out annoying partners at their will without having to explain why one manufacturer can no longer engage in business with their customers.
  - FriendlyNormie 6y ago
    Shut up you pearl clutching faggot. No developers have ever had a problem with the 30%. I am a more popular and important app developer than all of you combined and despite how much money I’d give up, I sincerely wish Apple would increase their cut to 50% just to piss off you morons. You fucking suck.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
simonh 6y ago
I think that smacks too much of penalising companies not for their behaviour, but simply for being successful. If It’s ok for them to charge standard market rates for providing a service to a company, if they compete with that company suddenly they have to charge less? That just seems anti-competitive. I just don’t see why it’s ok to charge Spotify 30% before Apple Music exists, but not ok to charge the same rate for the same services after. I realise a lot of people argue Apple shouldn’t be able to charge anything, or should provide features for side loading and APIs and services to third party stores for free, but that’s not what your suggesting. I’m just critiquing your suggestion.
- PunchTornado 6y ago
  it's like airbus and boeing being allowed to be an airline company. they're not allowed for good reasons. competition would suffer. imagine being an airline and compete with the guys where you have to buy your planes from.
- xbmcuser 6y ago
  This is the same that american train robber barons were doing before they were regulated they were stifling the competition in favor of their own products. They say history repeats itself and that is what we are seeing today previously we had train robber barons today we have internet tech robber barons.
bg24 6y ago
Some relevant arguments- (1) Telecom provider as a case in point. They provide a fat internet pipe to consumer. But they do not get to bill the application providers (OTT- over-the-top) on a recurring basis. (2) App marketplace is an interesting and crazy thing. If I subscribed to Netflix through app marketplace, the marketplace does NOT provide me (consumer) any value at all. But if Netflix has to pay 30% to Apple/Google of all the $$ that I pay to Netflix, something is broken in the system from my (consumer) viewpoint.
- ralfd 6y ago
  > the marketplace does NOT provide me (consumer) any value at all. But it provides Netflix value in that they have more customers. If you (physically) shop in a store you don't even think about the retail margin.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    But physical stores are a competitve market. There are typically tens of stores selling the same product in a city, and hundreds online. Which is why stores generally have much smaller margins than 30%. The app stores are a duopoly, and that's giving them too much power.
mattmanser 6y ago
While this "sounds" good, where were you when the supermarkets did this, literally decades ago? Here in the UK, a common tactic of theirs is selling a branded product, then if it sells in sufficient quantities they make their own brand, cheaper, sometimes lower quality, version. And then they put it right next to the original product on the shelf. It can't be one rule for the tech companies, and another for all the other companies. It's a store, expect the store to take a cut and if you're too successful, compete with you.
- mcintyre1994 6y ago
  I guess there are some things that distinguish this though - it's much easier to go to a different supermarket than to switch app stores, given there's no hardware compatible with both. It's also potentially easier to have your product in multiple supermarkets (assuming you don't agree exclusivity), you just have to scale up your manufacturing - on an app store you need to produce a different version. That's complicated by things like React Native and the fact that digital has no replication cost at all once written though. There are also more supermarkets vs 2 app stores, though they probably all do the same thing so I'm not sure how much that matters.
  - dhimes 6y ago
    I even remember when Apple tried to forbid cross-compiling apps- you had to use their compiler. Their platform exists because of the devs, and yet they appear to have little respect for the devs.
- rcgs 6y ago
  The difference really is that the Apple store is a monopoly. It’s like there’s only one supermarket where you can sell your products, but they can still compete with you as you described.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- schwartzworld 6y ago
powerapple 6y ago
Agree. When Apple Music compete with others, they are not paying 30% fee as other competitors, it gives them a huge advantage and it is not fair for other players. Especially other players entered the market before Apple Music. It is very similar to when Windows bundled with IE actually.
- pftburger 6y ago
  Or do it Amazon style, with different decisions ala AWS, but force open book keeping so that courts can tell if it is a real advantage or just an implied one
srfilipek 6y ago
> charge as Spotify or netflix 30% That only occurs if Apple facilitates/manages the subscription. AFAIK, they are both generally outside of the "Apple Tax" at this time by redirecting subscription signups to a browser.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
This is something Spotify have written about explicitly. ctrl-f for undercut in https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/ https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/
ericmay 6y ago
Why do we have this assumption that Apple and Google can only make the same margins as Spotify? What if that 30% means that since they have a larger company they wind up with the same margins as Spotify or even worse? What if Apple Music making money subsidized other free software that Apple releases like Numbers and Pages? 30% is the reward they get for making great business decisions, and as far as competition goes I don’t really think Apple is that serious. Apple Music is an evolution of iTunes, which has been an Apple product for 20 years. If Spotify wasn’t profitable it wouldn’t exist. Apple’s platform makes that business possible on mobile. If Spotify’s investors weren’t content with making the money they are making now, Spotify can fold up. There is no reason that they have to make a “fair” profit or the same amount of money as Apple Music. None. When you look at the App Store ecosystem it is incredibly healthy and competitive. There are numerous music apps, all making a ton of money. I have no sympathy here.
- sharpneli 6y ago
  Let’s say the music business demands $8 per month per user for licensing fee. Apple can sell their music service for $9.99 and get some nice profits. Spotify cannot sell at $9.99 with an in app purchase as the remaining money doesn’t cover the license costs. This is the very reason Spotify charges more (if they even allow it anymore) when purchased as an iap. Apple likely has not stomped down on it because that one would be rather clear cut case for courts.
  - ericmay 6y ago
    And that’s fine. Companies don’t need to charge the same prices or have the same profit margins. Should AWS have to sell at cost because Amazon uses it for a cheaper price than other retail websites?
MR4D 6y ago
Honest question: do you also want Kroger to be required to charge 20% more for Kroger cornflakes (Or to be prohibited from selling them at all)? Because that’s the same thing, but without cellphones.
- itsdrewmiller 6y ago
  If my pantry was only compatible with Kroger this would be a good analogy - in the real world I have a wide number of retail stores to choose from, as should be the case with app stores as well.

stanrivers 6y ago

This is an interesting point that people miss sometimes - so thank you for bringing it up. I guess a comparison would be a utility that both owns the transmission lines and power plants? However, the transmission line rates are set by regulation. We have accepted as a society that the infrastructure needs to have regulated pricing. So why is it all that different here? The transmission of the products, just given the way the cellphone market works, is basically limited to either App Store or Android Store. I basically have no alternative. Isn't that approaching a monopoly / duopoly where regulation starts to make sense? I say this all as a fairly conservative person, but it just seems too similar to utilities to me... Why am I wrong? (Serious Question)

luckylion 6y ago
> Isn't that approaching a monopoly / duopoly where regulation starts to make sense? Or it might be a cartel (few players are coordinating for maximum revenue, are not competing, prices are fixed), but we usually won't let that stand either. It's good to remember that Google and Apple (and others) have been found to collude before when they made secret no-poaching deals. They settled for $415m. I don't know how that would work though, without breaking up the companies.
mook 6y ago
I believe a better comparison would be Comcast also having a Netflix competitor… let's call it Xfinity Stream. And then they make Netflix have extra costs (say, having plans that have low monthly bandwidth caps that limit how much you would be able to use Netflix) but exclude their own service from having those costs. Essentially, making an artificial floor on competitor prices where their own service can ignore that floor. … Let's just say there's a reason my example is oddly concrete. In your example, as far as I know consumers do not actually interact with the power plants, and have no choice on what utility company to use; to do so would require duplicate infrastructure. In the (either) app store case there is — I can still install the Microsoft mail client instead of the Apple or Google ones.
- Closi 6y ago
  Or to create a more direct comparison, that Comcast fully blocks Netflix unless they give 30% of fees and launches their own service which is heavily subsidised. This wouldn’t work now, but if it was done when Netflix was growing it would have severely impacted their ability to compete.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    Or to create a more direct comparison, it would be like Netflix distributing content inside the Xfinity OnDemand app and using Comcast’s streaming platform to do it, and paying Comcast a percentage of the revenue. Which is exactly how Xfinity OnDemand works. Apple’s creation, development, and control of the App Store is akin to Comcast’s Xfinity OnDemand. They are both retail stores owned, operated and curated by their private enterprise creators in order to sell some first party but mostly third-party content.
  - WWLink 6y ago
    They did try to do something like that, where Netflix counted against your bandwidth cap but Comcast's own IPTV service did not. Maybe it was AT&T? I do recall it being a thing.
parasubvert 6y ago
It took MANY decades before transmission lines, power generation and brokerage were forcibly separated and regulated. They traditionally were integrated, even through the 1980s in some countries. Utility regulation only works when the product doesn’t change and is a fungible commodity - power is power. It also is about driving prices down for consumers for that commodity. The iOS and Google platforms have barely existed more than a decade, and the platforms are constantly evolving. New platforms and ecosystems are emerging too, with Facebook/Oculus, Valve/Steam, Amazon with Fire/Alexa, etc. Enshrining today’s dominant app platforms as the government sanctioned ones will surely stifle their evolution and innovation, because that’s what declaring something a utility is: a commodity with no differentiation. The crux of this matter is that end consumers generally do not care about the 30% cut, It’s a retail cut they’re used to from other platforms like Sony PlayStation, or Ticketmaster for concert tickets. it barely impacts them (and arguably the curated stores are a better overall experience). I also don’t think almost any consumer of iOS would agree their App ecosystem experience is fungible with Android or anyone else. This is entirely driven by Devs and publishers that want better margins.
- starfallg 6y ago
  >It’s a retail cut they’re used to from other platforms like Sony PlayStation, or Ticketmaster for concert tickets. The counterpoint being that Ticketmaster doesn't take a 30% cut on consession sales at the event AFAIK. That's the real issue - these stores are distributing some apps for free and some for pay. Hence free apps can sidestep paying the Google/Apple cut and then offer in-app payments directly. But that's entirely due to their business model of allowing free apps and taking a cut on paid apps.
  - firstbabylonian 6y ago
    > Ticketmaster doesn't take a 30% cut on consession sales at the event Ticketmaster doesn't provide as complex of a service as Apple does with the App Store.
    - Beldin 6y ago
Someone 6y ago
“I guess a comparison would be a utility that both owns the transmission lines and power plants?” Something like that happens a lot with mobile networks, where some operators both have a license for bandwidth and sell it to customers, and other operators buy bandwidth from them to sell it to customers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operato...), with an important difference being that customers (sometimes after a few years of contract) are free to switch between providers. But yes, the important discussion here is whether app stores should become utilities. AFAIK, there is no existing law there, so it will have to be created. Because there is no law, I don’t see Epic winning this in the sense that they will get paid for damages. They may win in the sense that things will change, though.
jnwatson 6y ago
If you sell breakfast cereal, you’re competing against the grocery store’s store brand.
- username90 6y ago
  If one store charges outrageous fees for third party brands then customers will just shop at several stores. That doesn't work for appstores.
  - firstbabylonian 6y ago
    Apps are not food.
    - mattl 6y ago
      Apps used to mean appetizers, not applications.

bilbo0s 6y ago

In order to do it that way though, we would have to rewrite the laws of retail commerce as they stand today. Unless you are saying that, say, Apple and Google can't, but Walmart, Amazon, and Target can. Because right now, that's exactly what's happening. In fact, even in the grocery retailing industry, there are integrations that would run afoul of the rule you are proposing. Kroger, for instance, sells brands it owns, while selling competing brands for what is, effectively, a commission. I'm not just picking on Kroger, all major chains engage in this practice. I was only using Kroger by way of illustration. So what you're proposing has far reaching implications. I don't even think it's necessarily "bad", per se. But it does change the entire "order of battle", as it were, in the American retail space. Lots of people would go out of business, and lots more would be in serious financial trouble.

tappio 6y ago
Not really. There is a huge difference as you can buy goods that serve the same purpose from thousands of other shops and online stores. Google and apple effectively have a 30% tax on all mobile software business. They are killing all apetite on developing new mobile software, as less and less developers want to be involved with their shady practices of stealing features and locking apps out. It would be the same if there were only 2 stores where you can buy clothes in the US and they tax every manufacturer 30% to sell any goods there, while also selling their own goods without commission. On top of that, occasionally stealing good concepts, copying those, and selling as their own products. And of course, locking out annoying partners at their will without having to explain why one manufacturer can no longer engage in business with their customers.
- FriendlyNormie 6y ago
  Shut up you pearl clutching faggot. No developers have ever had a problem with the 30%. I am a more popular and important app developer than all of you combined and despite how much money I’d give up, I sincerely wish Apple would increase their cut to 50% just to piss off you morons. You fucking suck.
- bilbo0s 6y ago

simonh 6y ago

I think that smacks too much of penalising companies not for their behaviour, but simply for being successful. If It’s ok for them to charge standard market rates for providing a service to a company, if they compete with that company suddenly they have to charge less? That just seems anti-competitive. I just don’t see why it’s ok to charge Spotify 30% before Apple Music exists, but not ok to charge the same rate for the same services after. I realise a lot of people argue Apple shouldn’t be able to charge anything, or should provide features for side loading and APIs and services to third party stores for free, but that’s not what your suggesting. I’m just critiquing your suggestion.

PunchTornado 6y ago
it's like airbus and boeing being allowed to be an airline company. they're not allowed for good reasons. competition would suffer. imagine being an airline and compete with the guys where you have to buy your planes from.
xbmcuser 6y ago
This is the same that american train robber barons were doing before they were regulated they were stifling the competition in favor of their own products. They say history repeats itself and that is what we are seeing today previously we had train robber barons today we have internet tech robber barons.

bg24 6y ago

Some relevant arguments- (1) Telecom provider as a case in point. They provide a fat internet pipe to consumer. But they do not get to bill the application providers (OTT- over-the-top) on a recurring basis. (2) App marketplace is an interesting and crazy thing. If I subscribed to Netflix through app marketplace, the marketplace does NOT provide me (consumer) any value at all. But if Netflix has to pay 30% to Apple/Google of all the $$ that I pay to Netflix, something is broken in the system from my (consumer) viewpoint.

ralfd 6y ago
> the marketplace does NOT provide me (consumer) any value at all. But it provides Netflix value in that they have more customers. If you (physically) shop in a store you don't even think about the retail margin.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  But physical stores are a competitve market. There are typically tens of stores selling the same product in a city, and hundreds online. Which is why stores generally have much smaller margins than 30%. The app stores are a duopoly, and that's giving them too much power.

mattmanser 6y ago

While this "sounds" good, where were you when the supermarkets did this, literally decades ago? Here in the UK, a common tactic of theirs is selling a branded product, then if it sells in sufficient quantities they make their own brand, cheaper, sometimes lower quality, version. And then they put it right next to the original product on the shelf. It can't be one rule for the tech companies, and another for all the other companies. It's a store, expect the store to take a cut and if you're too successful, compete with you.

mcintyre1994 6y ago
I guess there are some things that distinguish this though - it's much easier to go to a different supermarket than to switch app stores, given there's no hardware compatible with both. It's also potentially easier to have your product in multiple supermarkets (assuming you don't agree exclusivity), you just have to scale up your manufacturing - on an app store you need to produce a different version. That's complicated by things like React Native and the fact that digital has no replication cost at all once written though. There are also more supermarkets vs 2 app stores, though they probably all do the same thing so I'm not sure how much that matters.
- dhimes 6y ago
  I even remember when Apple tried to forbid cross-compiling apps- you had to use their compiler. Their platform exists because of the devs, and yet they appear to have little respect for the devs.
rcgs 6y ago
The difference really is that the Apple store is a monopoly. It’s like there’s only one supermarket where you can sell your products, but they can still compete with you as you described.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
schwartzworld 6y ago

powerapple 6y ago

Agree. When Apple Music compete with others, they are not paying 30% fee as other competitors, it gives them a huge advantage and it is not fair for other players. Especially other players entered the market before Apple Music. It is very similar to when Windows bundled with IE actually.

pftburger 6y ago
Or do it Amazon style, with different decisions ala AWS, but force open book keeping so that courts can tell if it is a real advantage or just an implied one

srfilipek 6y ago

> charge as Spotify or netflix 30% That only occurs if Apple facilitates/manages the subscription. AFAIK, they are both generally outside of the "Apple Tax" at this time by redirecting subscription signups to a browser.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

This is something Spotify have written about explicitly. ctrl-f for undercut in https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/ https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/

ericmay 6y ago

Why do we have this assumption that Apple and Google can only make the same margins as Spotify? What if that 30% means that since they have a larger company they wind up with the same margins as Spotify or even worse? What if Apple Music making money subsidized other free software that Apple releases like Numbers and Pages? 30% is the reward they get for making great business decisions, and as far as competition goes I don’t really think Apple is that serious. Apple Music is an evolution of iTunes, which has been an Apple product for 20 years. If Spotify wasn’t profitable it wouldn’t exist. Apple’s platform makes that business possible on mobile. If Spotify’s investors weren’t content with making the money they are making now, Spotify can fold up. There is no reason that they have to make a “fair” profit or the same amount of money as Apple Music. None. When you look at the App Store ecosystem it is incredibly healthy and competitive. There are numerous music apps, all making a ton of money. I have no sympathy here.

sharpneli 6y ago
Let’s say the music business demands $8 per month per user for licensing fee. Apple can sell their music service for $9.99 and get some nice profits. Spotify cannot sell at $9.99 with an in app purchase as the remaining money doesn’t cover the license costs. This is the very reason Spotify charges more (if they even allow it anymore) when purchased as an iap. Apple likely has not stomped down on it because that one would be rather clear cut case for courts.
- ericmay 6y ago
  And that’s fine. Companies don’t need to charge the same prices or have the same profit margins. Should AWS have to sell at cost because Amazon uses it for a cheaper price than other retail websites?

MR4D 6y ago

Honest question: do you also want Kroger to be required to charge 20% more for Kroger cornflakes (Or to be prohibited from selling them at all)? Because that’s the same thing, but without cellphones.

itsdrewmiller 6y ago
If my pantry was only compatible with Kroger this would be a good analogy - in the real world I have a wide number of retail stores to choose from, as should be the case with app stores as well.