[KarlKemp]

The problem is that, effectively, it is customers making the decision to buy Apple products, but developers who have pay to get access to them. This split means the incentives don’t get to the people in power, and the mechanism breaks down.

It’s exactly the same dynamic as in net neutrality.

[judge2020]

Developers have to pay Nintendo a lot to get access to customers with a SNES, Wii, Switch, etc as well, which is the OP's point - if someone makes a good product that gains a lot of market share (iOS, Nintendo Switch, Tesla, etc) that doesn't mean a bunch of 3p companies are entitled to access to those customers.

[righttoolforjob]

I think the same thing should apply, but it's just not as harmful to society currently, because it's just one platform among many, many others, and it's just for games. Whatever the proper regulation is to counter this, it might very well apply to pure gaming platforms as well, making it so that anyone is allowed to make, market and sell games on them, no matter how small.

[stale2002]

> Developers have to pay Nintendo a lot to get access to customers with a SNES, Wii, Switch, etc as well, which is the OP's point

The different here is that Nintendo is not a 3 trillion dollar company, that owns 50% of a massively important market in the US.

Yes, anti-competitive practices are allowed if you aren't a huge company.

Literally it is the law, that if you become a big enough company, and have enough market power, then certain actions become illegal, that were not illegal if you weren't as powerful of a company.

> that doesn't mean a bunch of 3p companies are entitled to access to those customers.

It actually literally does mean that they are entitled to that.

For the same reason that 3rd party web browsers, were entitled access to windows users (and before you say it, yes I am aware that windows had a larger control of the market than apple, and it is not literally the same in every single exact way, but the same principle still applies, just in a smaller amount)