[pvg]

The game app stores have also driven prices way down from their 'traditional' retail prices. The argument for government remedy has to be based on some kind of actual harm to consumers rather than a feeling that 30% is too damn high.

[Faark]

Digital game stores are a great comparison. Lets stick to windows gaming, since I'm most familiar with those. Steam & co did cut out physical media production and distribution, obviously driving the price down. But there is also competition. If EA doesn't want to give Valve a cut, they can try to reach me directly. Steam is my preferred store for games and the only client I let auto start, so that won't be easy. But doable for a good game / price.

Compare that to apple users. As a start, you'd probably have to convince those to buy a non-apple device. That's a huge barrier to entry. It might be justified, i you believe that's good for other reasons like security. But then we're far of from driving down app prices.

I want fine grained competition. It is what makes our economy more efficient. Market leaders in contrast don't want to compete on profitable parts of their business and as such, will employ any tactic possible to stop that. Like e.g. placing barriers to entry (see above). Or make it difficult do make informed decisions (stores reads quite a bit like printers and overpriced ink). Thus I have a hard time buying into those "this is for the good of the consumer" talking point.

[forrestthewoods]

And those prices would be reduced even further with a lower rake or storefront alternatives.

[pvg]

The prices would be even lower if Apple decided to have a profit margin of 4% instead of 40%. The question wasn't 'how could the prices be lower', it was 'what's the evidence Apple has engaged in illegal, consumer-harming practices'.