If enough users agree with the parent comment that the app store is the best way get software then companies can weigh that user base against the 30% cut. Why should we force the users who don't like the App Store (or want apps that are incompatible with Apple's business model) to suffer on behalf of the users who don't?
Nobody forces anyone into interaction with Apple ecosystem. People want to get onto App Store because they know they can benefit from it, financially big. And they subscribe voluntarily by the most fair means of it, by trading their money in exchange for the service under the rules that are mentioned prior the transaction takes place.
By omitting details and framing each transaction as an isolated incident, you can make almost any monopoly or anti-consumer practice sound like just another business.
Nobody forces anyone into interaction with Carnegie Steel. People want to use their steel because they know they can benefit from it, financially big. And they purchase it voluntarily by the most fair means of it, by trading their money in exchange for the steel under the rules that are mentioned prior the transaction takes place.
so, where's the flaw? The fact that somebody sometime ago named another corporation a monopoly by the same ridiculous criterion as "too big" and discharged it, doesn't make it anyhow right. Was there gatekeeping from the government for new players to enter the same market? Any quotas or tariffs by chance?
