[MrStonedOne]

Think of a flee market. Lets say this flee market runs their own PoS system that tables can use, they require all sales happen via this PoS system "to protect customers from hacking", and they charge a percentage for providing this service, higher then normal under the guise that the transaction is being conducted on their property, they are "hosting" the "sale" under their roof, so they set the terms for it. Seems fair and good, ish

Now lets say that they also own the city bank, and they are the only one allowed to take their bank's debit card as payment. Most people don't use the other, newer bank because everybody they know is using the flee markets bank as it was first. So if you want to take credit card payments you have to sale at the flee market.

Is it still fair and good for them to continue to set all terms relating to how sales are conducted in a selfish way when they have a monopoly gained in part from first mover advantage? eh, maybe, maybe not.

Now they say that if you sale any spare parts or consumables for a product that was originally sold at the flee market, you must only do so at the flee market.

Is it still fair and good for them to use the fact that the transaction is happening on their property to set higher fees on these follow up transactions when they require these follow up transactions to happen on their property? While exploiting a first mover advantage that causes more of the initial transactions to happen on their property?

Never forget that you can't just look at each piece, the whole matters too.

Each individual piece of the macro is ethically an "eh" at most, but the whole is a bit more then "eh"

[pdonis]

> the whole

Is nothing like the situation with respect to Apple, so I don't see how your extended analogy here is relevant.