On: Epic’s decision to bypass Apple’s App Store polici...

[Thorentis]

Yes but the 30% cut (which is supposedly taking advantage of their monopoly) existed from the very beginning. They didn't eventually become a monopoly and then up prices to extort money from developers. From the very start they charged 30%, and despite of that fee, they still gained a huge market share. I would argue that because they were able to gain a monopoly without changing their fees, that the fees are not taking advantage of monopoly whatsoever.

[username90 → Thorentis]

The people who choose iPhones don't know that they pay almost 50% extra per purchase since Apple doesn't allow apps to show it.

[leadingthenet → username90]

How did you get the 50% figure?

And an extra compared to what exactly? The fee is identical on the Play Store.

[RandomBacon → leadingthenet]

username90 probably just used math:

Example: $2 in other app store, $3 in Apple app store.

Subtract 30% from $3 ≈ $2.

$3 is 50% more than $2.

[ngcc_hk → Thorentis]

It is not a monopoly. You are spinned. The answer is key. Can’t be monopoly like this legally. Otherwise you may be charged of monopoly of selling coffee in your backyard as only you can do it.

Not just that, to be honest Apple App do not spill over even. You do not need to run in Apple store unlike in 1990 you basically have to run windows.