By the same argument, I could say that you're free to start your own gasoline station, but in exchange you will not be compatible with the Ford Gasoline Nozzle which may only be used with a 30% cut going to Ford.
The market for applications is entirely separate from the market for hardware. By tying the two together, Apple is dipping into a revenue stream that they have no right to, just as Ford has no right to profits from sale of gasoline.
Of course it's a matter of opinion. Practically all important questions are matters of opinion. Any preference you can possibly state about how the world should be is a matter of opinion. Whether the world is better for having eaten chocolate or vanilla ice cream is a matter of opunion. Whether a death is an accident to be ignored, a murder to be punished, or a heroic act to be praised is a matter of opinion. Any statement involving "should" or "ought" is a matter of opinion.
So when you say that the lines between markets is a matter of opinion, of course it is. When you say that Apple has a different opinion on the matter, of course they do. Those were not in dispute, and so your comment on it being "a matter of opinion" is both true, and so widely applicable as to convey effectively no meaning.
Instead, you could have responded with pointing out inconsistencies in the analogy given. You could have pointed out ongoing work done by Apple to justify the ongoing payments. These would have worked to shift the opinion on Apple's business practices, not merely to point out the general category of "matters of opinion".
Well one inconsistency in the analogy is straightforward: the gasoline and the automobile are obviously two distinct markets as an accident of history, whereas the smartphone hardware and smartphone software markets are not obviously distinct, also as an accident of history.
If you just assume the issue at hand resolves in your favor then it’s trivial to come up with analogs that appear in your favor! It just isn’t very convincing.
Consider if 50%+ of people moving from horse and buggy to automobiles picked Ford and in order to support this new market creation Ford had to invest billions to create gas stations all over the country. It does not seem crazy at all that they would prevent other manufacturers from utilizing those gas stations, and that they’d take a cut from every gas station operator who chooses to service the giant market that Ford created.
Thank you for engaging, and I hope that my previous comment wasn't too harsh. I get rather frustrated at the "matter of opinion" statement being used as if it were a conclusion, rather than being used to guide discussions.
Regarding the gasoline/automobile being "obviously two distinct markets" and computing software/hardware being "not obviously distinct", I'd say that's a description of how the markets current are, and not a argument for how they ought to be. I intentionally selected an analogy where two complementary good (gasoline/automobiles) are treated as separate markets, to state that goods being complementary, just as computing hardware/software are complementary, does not mean that they are the same market.
> Consider if 50%+ of people moving from horse and buggy to automobiles picked Ford
Looking it up, Ford did have 56% of US automobile market share in 1920 [0]. Not really relevant to either of our arguments, but was interesting to find.
> and in order to support this new market creation Ford had to invest billions to create gas stations all over the country.
I tried to find history of gas stations, to see what historic parallels could be drawn, but it looks like gasoline was either sold at general stores or hardware stores, with dedicated gas stations being either owned independently or by oil companies, and were started in response to the rise in automobile ownership [1]. That is, the existing infrastructure was used for the automobile.
I'd say this is a pretty good parallel for Apple's App Store. The existing infrastructure for software deployment, the internet, was and is the primary method by which software is distributed to iOS. This infrastructure predates Apple, and is a far larger part of the software deployment. Apple's primary role is not one of enabling software deployment (i.e. enabling deployment where it would otherwise be impossible), but one of restricting software deployment (i.e. preventing software deployment where it would otherwise be possible). That strikes me as entirely undeserving of an extra cut of payments.
Another potential analogy would be in vehicle repairs. Your manufacturer warranty is valid, even if the car is serviced by a mechanic not employed by the manufacturer. This required legal battles to resolve, and established that even closely tied markets such as car sales and car repairs should be considered as separate markets.
The market for applications is entirely separate from the market for hardware. By tying the two together, Apple is dipping into a revenue stream that they have no right to, just as Ford has no right to profits from sale of gasoline.