[kepler1]

What's the principle you're advocating? That the number of 30% is too high, but 20% would be ok? How are we to decide what number is right? Isn't the principle that parties entering into an agreement voluntarily and with competition get to set their own prices?

Do you follow the same rule you're advocating for? When your app some day makes more than 30% margin on customers revenue, you're going to lower your prices, right?

[ghusto]

> Isn't the principle that parties entering into an agreement voluntarily and with competition get to set their own prices?

Yes. Though since this is voluntary in the same way that having internet access is "voluntary", I'm going to say that isn't relevant here. Similarly, there is competition in the same sense that you have a choice of more than 2 parties to vote for.

> How are we to decide what number is right?

Don't know, but I do know that 30% is wrong.

If there really was competition, and this was voluntary, there would be no way they could charge 30%.

[kepler1]

I guess developing an app on iOS for sale at a healthy profit margin just became a fundamental human right.

[ghusto]

No. Though I _would_ like to live in a world where there is true free market — i.e. not the way capitalism is practised in the U.S.A. When you don't regulate the market, you end up monopolies like Apple. Nobody is able to compete fairly, and we lose out.

I don't know how you came to "I guess developing an app on iOS for sale at a healthy profit margin just became a fundamental human right.".

[kepler1]

Apple is not a monopoly, and the court agreed with that.

Maybe you should more carefully examine what exact market you're talking about.

[realusername]

> Isn't the principle that parties entering into an agreement voluntarily and with competition get to set their own prices?

The only change of pricing ever made within a decade was made because of a threat of an anti-trust lawsuit and copied word for word by Google almost instantly after that.

Safe to say that the competition is dead.

[kepler1]

I think your understanding of competition is a little warped or flawed. The mark of competition isn't that a company's price changed. It's that other people/companies were free to enter the market.

You are absolutely free to go and develop your own phone ecosystem and app store, or go provide your app development services elsewhere. That is competition. And that is what the court has found.

Competition is not that I need to give you more shelf space or a better price for selling something on my marketplace.

[myaccountonhn]

How about allowing competition and different app stores? Or hell, allowing someone to download an app from their website and run it like we do on desktop.

[kepler1]

Apple chooses not to do that, to be able to give a controlled experience, to be able to review apps and screen them, and to, yes, benefit from the pricing power that allows them.

They don't have to allow more competition in their own store. There are other stores you can sell apps through.