4 ms·

I don't think you get it because you wouldn't have asked the question in the first place if you did. If there is actual competition in a market, the surplus ge

I don't think you get it because you wouldn't have asked the question in the first place if you did. If there is actual competition in a market, the surplus generated by economic transactions is more fairly distributed by the participants in the transaction. When there is competition, businesses also need to compete and improve their products to drive efficiencies (for better margins) and to make the product more attractive to buyers. Because Apple is in a monopoly position, the only way to sell to Apple device users is via their app store. If you want to sell on their App store you need to give apple 30% of revenue. To be clear, Apple does not provide 30% of the value here. This 30% is pure rent seeking, once the app is installed Apple provides 0 value. If you really wanted to equate Apple and Amazon, it would be like Amazon taking 30% of the initial transaction then forcing all revenue generated from products sold on Amazon to give 30% of revenue in perpetuity to them.

AlexandrB 2y ago
At no point was I equating Apple and Amazon. I was asking why Apple doesn't collect 30% from Amazon (which Amazon would naturally pass on to consumers) when people buy goods from Amazon's iOS app. My entire point is that this distinction seems increasingly arbitrary on Apple's part and is perhaps driven by the expected outrage if they tried to pull the same stunt with retailers like Amazon or Temu.
- chii 2y ago
  > driven by the expected outrage if they tried to pull the same stunt with retailers which is pretty good evidence that society should pass a law to disallow apple from doing it (rather than let them pick and choose to charge a subset small enough to bypass public outrage, but still rake in an undeserved tax on apple device users)!