[eaglelamp]

It's not incredible it is just a different view point. In your second paragraph you take a utilitarian point of view in which case the size of an organization is irrelevant so long as it produces a net gain for society.

An alternative view values human freedom and autonomy. From this perspective the size of an organization is relevant - a large enough organization can impose its will on individuals who don't wish to associate with it.

Neither viewpoint is wrong, but acting as if the one you prefer is somehow more correct or objective is.

[SllX]

> An alternative view values human freedom and autonomy.

That is some choice rhetoric with a particular bias, but not a distinct point of view from people arguing for freedom and autonomy for Apple’s business practices.

The corporation is a legal fiction, but it’s still human owned, operated, and staffed, and reflects the millions (billions?) of choices that get made by individuals working together to accomplish whatever it is the corporation does. In Apple’s case, that gestalt includes running the App Store at a price to developers that they see fit who choose to do business with them.

[eaglelamp]

I didn't mean it as rhetoric, it's a simplified statement of a viewpoint.

I think rhetorically "..who choose to do business with them" is doing a lot more work than anything I wrote. Once an organization reaches a certain size individuals start losing meaningful choice in how they interact with it. You can say that the "gestalt" will of the organization is more important, but you can't make other people concede that their point of view is merely a rhetorical stance.

[SllX]

In attempting to split the difference between two points of view, you validated one side as the one that values freedom and human autonomy over the other. That is subtle, and because it is subtle it can be effective rhetoric, but it is also disingenuous, but if you tell me you didn’t mean it that way, I’ll believe you full stop.

> I think rhetorically "..who choose to do business with them" is doing a lot more work than anything I wrote.

Dude, we’re talking about iPhone apps at the end of the day. When you’re at the level where you write iPhone apps for a living, you and your employer made your choices. If you’re only writing iPhone software in a way that generates income for you because somebody has a gun to your head, then first, I’m sorry, that’s really messed up and hang in there, but at that point in your life, your first concern probably isn’t Apple’s cut.

> Once an organization reaches a certain size individuals start losing meaningful choice in how they interact with it.

If you were talking about a sovereign nation with a standing army or maybe even a corporation with a standing army, or just a City’s police department, you might have a point here. In this discussion, we’re talking about Apple, and not all of Apple mind you, but specifically about Apple’s developer program and App Store policies.

> but you can't make other people concede that their point of view is merely a rhetorical stance.

Pointing out rhetoric isn’t for the benefit of the practitioner, it’s for the benefit of anyone else who comes across it.

[itsoktocry]

>It's not incredible it is just a different view point...Neither viewpoint is wrong

Claiming that Apple is "stealing" their cut of commission is definitely wrong.