[detourdog]

Probably a familiarity with how brick and mortar business work and what it was like when software came in a box.

30% or 15% for one stop global distribution and multi-jurisdictional tax collecting is a deal all day long.

Could Spotify have bootstrapped itself without the App Store?

[dataflow]

Did brick and mortar stores have a monopoly on software distribution?

[kj99]

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on software distribution.

If alternative stores equated to better software, then Android would have easily outpaced Apple by now.

The only people who would benefit from forcing Apple to allow alternative stores are the unscrupulous middlemen who would run them.

[smoldesu]

> Apple doesn't have a monopoly on software distribution.

This is just literally wrong, by-definition.

You can claim that Apple's monopoly isn't illegal or harmful, but the monopoly itself is self-evident. You cannot distribute software without Apple; their system is designed with monopolistic capability.

> The only people who would benefit from forcing Apple to allow alternative stores are the unscrupulous middlemen who would run them.

Source? You're inventing hypothetical claims to support your rhetoric.

[nodamage]

> This is just literally wrong, by-definition.

No it's not. There are plenty of ways to distribute software without Apple being involved at all.

Perhaps you meant to argue that Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution, but that's not actually what was originally written. It's also highly questionable given that the courts have rejected "iOS software distribution" as a valid antitrust market for the purpose of monopolization claims.

[smoldesu]

I didn't say they had a monopoly on all software distribution. I said that claiming Apple had no monopoly is wrong.

> It's also highly questionable given that the courts have rejected "iOS software distribution" as a valid antitrust market for the purpose of monopolization claims.

Pray tell, in which jurisdictions?

[nodamage]

Under US law the requirements for recognizing single brand aftermarkets are very particular, that’s why Epic failed to prove Apple held a monopoly over iOS software distribution.

[dataflow]

> Apple doesn't have a monopoly on software distribution

It has a monopoly on iPhone software distribution... which is why they can set the fee at 27% without competition...

[Aaargh20318]

Not sure what point you are trying to make here. You think that developers got a better deal when software was sold in brick and mortar stores? I remember when the App Store was first announced, there was much excitement among developers over Apple only taking a 30% cut.

[lapcat]

> You think that developers got a better deal when software was sold in brick and mortar stores? I remember when the App Store was first announced, there was much excitement among developers over Apple only taking a 30% cut.

Not among Mac developers who distributed their software over the web directly to customers, bypassing the middlemen.

Also, little did we know at the time that the App Store would inaugurate a race to the bottom, devaluing software. What does the cut even matter if you have to sell software at the same price as a music single?

[detourdog]

Your points have validity but don’t come close to capture the richness of the world around us.

It is your choice on how to contemplate how full a glass is.

[dataflow]

> You think that developers got a better deal when software was sold in brick and mortar stores?

What? No, my point is developers would get a better deal when there isn't a monopoly on the distribution. Is it not obvious that the 27% fee is only possible due to lack of competition? That if there were other stores selling iPhone apps then competition would drive down the 27% fee?

[detourdog]

They had as much control of what was available one their shelves.

[dataflow]

Are you familiar with what a monopoly is? It's not about controlling what's on your shelf, it's about not letting other stores have the monopolized products on theirs.

[detourdog]

i thought it was about consumer choice.