[JoeAltmaier]

So arrogant - "We get you subscribers"!

How did they do that? They didn't create the ad, they didn't put it in the app, they did diddly-squat in fact. You (the app developer) did the work, take the risk, and now cannot even get paid properly - you have to essentially make iPhone your sole outlet, or charge 30% premium everywhere else.

[josefresco]

They created the very ecosystem in which your app exists. I'd say that's a pretty important aspect of the whole app development model.

[CWuestefeld]

First, this argument isn't over the share that's due for the purchase of the App itself.

Second, they may have created the ecosystem, but they also created and maintain the walls surrounding it. It sounds like Apple is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Third, Apple is providing a repository, marketing, searchability, etc., for the app itself. They're not doing anything to "earn" the income from the content. I'll be the first to say that prices aren't based on the underlying cost of a product, but ethically this still seems like a racket.

[nomurrcy]

So microsoft would be within their rights to take a 30% cut of all cash flows from subscriptions made using internet explorer?

What about 30% of all sales of Windows Software?

Where does the ownership of the OS author end and the ownership of the 3rd party developer begin?

What if Apple insisted upon 50%?

[sethg]

IIRC, each video-game console manufacturer charges royalties to all games that are compatible with its hardware.

[hvs]

Does Microsoft deserve a cut of every application written for Windows?

[JoeAltmaier]

No, they can't even put IE in a walled garden without the US Senate getting involved.

Apple walls their garden, locks everybody inside and shakes them down - and folks leap to their defense?!?