>That's the entire problem. If a shopping mall was charging every store 30% of their revenue (not profit, revenue!), it would be very quickly going broke and empty.
If the same were true for Apple, they would reduce the 30% fee to reverse the trend. The fact that the app ecosystem continues to be rich is a signal that either:
1) most developers are ok with this price to access Apple's "marketplace" of users, and/or
2) developers are irrational - you could always instead focus on Google's platform, which has more users.
Revenue or profits is not a good indicator of market share at all, as then parent's BMW argument comes into play: just because you want BMW over Honda, because the owners of the former have more disposable income, does not make BMW a monopoly.
>When Microsoft was playing dirty and abusing its market dominance...
Microsoft's market dominance at the time is MULTIPLES higher than what Apple owns of the mobile OS market.
You're discussing mobile apps as if they exist in a robust free market, but it's actually a platform duopoly covering a nearly essential service. As long as Google doesn't decide to compete on price there is very little incentive for Apple to lower prices.
> The fact that the app ecosystem continues to be rich is a signal that either
How do you know it couldn't be vastly better? I know I would be extremely hesitant to develop an iPhone app given Apple's behavior, and would bet many others feel the same.
The whole point of antitrust law is that the normal mechanisms of the free market cannot correct the situation in whole or in part as a result of the anti-competitive activities.
If the same were true for Apple, they would reduce the 30% fee to reverse the trend. The fact that the app ecosystem continues to be rich is a signal that either:
1) most developers are ok with this price to access Apple's "marketplace" of users, and/or
2) developers are irrational - you could always instead focus on Google's platform, which has more users.
Revenue or profits is not a good indicator of market share at all, as then parent's BMW argument comes into play: just because you want BMW over Honda, because the owners of the former have more disposable income, does not make BMW a monopoly.
>When Microsoft was playing dirty and abusing its market dominance...
Microsoft's market dominance at the time is MULTIPLES higher than what Apple owns of the mobile OS market.