I don't understand why companies won't simply ignore his suggestion that they can't do what he says they can't, and use revenues obtained from sales to cover th

I don't understand why companies won't simply ignore his suggestion that they can't do what he says they can't, and use revenues obtained from sales to cover their fixed costs. The fact that their marginal cost is zero has precisely no relevance; they've spent money making whatever it is they've made, and they need it made back. And the burden of paying for all of this will fall on the customer, just as it does today. As an example, consider some top-selling video game on the iOS app store. The $100/year fee for the development licence isn't nothing, but compared to the cost of the staff and their equipment, it really might as well be. And yet it's perfectly possible for these things to make money, and in the cases they don't, the zero marginal cost thing has absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact the zero marginal cost is a major draw, for exactly the reasons I give in my first paragraph. This seems like some an obvious rebuttal that I can only imagine I've missed something... (Another article from this chap reached the front page a couple of weeks ago - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7406894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7406894 - basically the same thing.)