> If you want to say that artificially inflated prices due to e.g. a monopoly Perhaps you misread, but I am saying opposite of both. I am saying that both App

> If you want to say that artificially inflated prices due to e.g. a monopoly Perhaps you misread, but I am saying opposite of both. I am saying that both Apple's prices are not high, proven by number of people agreeing to pay them in a market where other options to distribute an app exist, and that Apple does not have a monopoly. > What if Apple also decided that every transaction made through their browser had to give them a cut... but I think it's pretty clear that this would be anti-competitive. It is not pretty clear? There are plenty other options on the market in terms of a browser. > They might not have a monopoly on smartphones/devices, but they have such a large share that boycotting them isn't really an option. At least we can agree that Apple does not have a monopoly. Everything else is market forces at play. My argument was that the price set by Apple for distribution is such that it is acceptable to majority of developers. If Apple set an unreasonable price instead, say 70% cut, I am sure that a lot of developers would simply not develop for iOS, nor would iOS achieve same reach it has. Thus we can only conclude that Apple carefully picked a price which is both acceptable by vast number of people and maximizes Apple's revenue at the same time. This is free market at its finest.