This is a much more reasonable comment than your original coment. > Explain please how distribution is tied in to the unknown price point at which the other co

This is a much more reasonable comment than your original coment. > Explain please how distribution is tied in to the unknown price point at which the other company proceeds to do business? This is not what you said, you said it was a one time expense. Those two statements are not the same. > Or are you arguing that the 30% cut is used to subsidize the remainder of the free apps? You're putting words in my mouth here. I'm not arguing the 30% cut is used to subsidise the remainder of the apps, I'm arguing that free apps still have distribution costs. > You really should bone up on anti-competitive behavior before accusing people of flaming. I stand by my accusation of flaming - just becasue you have a point doesn't mean it couldn't be made in a better way. > People are forced into this model, the alternatives have been degraded to the point that they no longer function for all intents and purposes you have to distribute your app through Apple. That I don't disagree with one bit, and if your initial comment had said that rather than " It's a mob move, taxation because you are powerful enough to harm another business, not because you have contributed to the business." I wouldn't have commented on it.