Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, all parties involved voluntarily want to give Apple 30%. Why should that be illegal?
It seems it only becomes a problem when there is external pressure that where accepting the giving of giving 30% to Apple is seen as the best of a bad situation. But that's what anti-monopolistic efforts are supposed to avoid.
This argument is a poor foundation for legal reasoning. Suppose a guy wants to be a slave? Shouldn’t he have the right to be enslaved? Suppose a guy wants to sell his organs? Shouldn’t he have the right to sell his organs?
Well, no, society is much better off with these things blocked off. There are immensely perverse incentives created.
The main one here is just straight up collusion because there’s not many distributors by nature. It’s dumb as hell that steam takes as much as it does. It’s not helped by clauses about not charging less elsewhere even if the fees are lower which should also be illegal
Some of the things you list are probably illegal because it is challenging to obtain informed consent. Especially where the repercussions are irreversible so it is more about avoiding exploitation rather than imposing a standard of what is acceptable behavior.
It is challenging to obtain informed consent when a company acting as the middleman between you and your customers changes their terms even if it is theoretically possible try and convince your customers to change middlemen.
> Suppose a guy wants to be a slave? Shouldn’t he have the right to be enslaved?
Sure. Why not? Typically society would only be concerned with the servitude becoming involuntary. Thus the right to be enslaved would be expected to also come the right to end enslavement at will. That said, in most jurisdictions marriage dissolution is happy to uphold involuntary servitude so we're not entirely consistent here.
> Suppose a guy wants to sell his organs?
Likewise, society might take issue with it because of its once and done nature. Decide that selling your organs was a bad idea and don't want to do it anymore? Too bad. You are already dead. However, relatedly, things like the sale of blood often is legally accepted as you can stop providing blood at any time if you find the association is no longer working for you.
Aside from the monopolistic considerations, the 30% offer to Apple would normally be acceptable to society because, like blood, one can stop offering it in the future should they no longer find it to be desirable. If it were a contract that states that you will pay 30% and on all future transactions for the rest of your life, even if you stop liking the idea, then society would undoubtedly take issue with it. But that in no way has any relationship to what is being talked about here.
Now, the monopolistic considerations are not typically accepted by society, but, indeed, we have gotten pretty lazy in doing anything about it.
Like, the labour law? Volunteering to be a slave isn't labour. In fact, income is not even a concern of society. Look at income data sometime. A not insignificant portion of the population realize negative income. All perfectly legal.
It's not illegal. You can donate money to Apple whenever you want. The issue is not that you're giving money to Apple, it's that Apple can force itself as a middleman.
> it's that Apple can force itself as a middleman.
Sure, which it can do because of the monopolistic position it has entrenched itself with. If that were cleaned up, it would no longer be in a position to do that. But the other commenter doesn't agree with you. He says that is an entirely different problem.
It's not a monopoly, though. Strictly speaking, there are markets where Apple is far from a monopoly, and yet this is still true there. The issue is that Apple is weaponizing laws and limiting consumer freedom. Apple is being anti-competitive and abusive, even when it doesn't have a monopoly.
Well, then, don’t pay it. Pay yourself for the service instead. Nothing stopping you from being the service provider if there is no monopoly.
Is suspect you will soon find a monopoly, though, and that you’re merely confusing some external interpretations with what is defined within the context of this particular.
I technically could. Nothing stops me from self-signing apps or using websites only. It's just massively inconvenient, due to anti-competitive behaviours. In the strictest sense of the term, even by a narrow construction it's not a monopoly. The problem is really anti-competitive and anti user practices that makes competitors unfairly disadvantaged
> Nothing stops me from self-signing apps or using websites only.
That is clearly not the same thing. Why don't you do the exact same thing? I mean, other than the monopolistic efforts holding you back.
(I recognize that you are trying to bring your own monopolistic definition to the table, and while I'm sure it has merit as a better definition, I fail to understand what value you think there is in trying to change the subject? Why not just stick to the topic in progress like everyone else, even if you don't love everything about it? The rest of us probably don't love it either, but that's not a good reason to toss the ball to the side in an effort to disrupt play because it isn't the brand of ball you have a preference for.)
I'm not trying to use my own monopolistic definition. I'm using the generally accepted one, which cares about markets and where you can't narrowly define them, but you instead have to look at what services/goods are provided for what purpose. It's like saying that Sony has a monopoly on PS5 games distribution, it wouldn't really fly, though it might if there was a market where PS5 games were 80% of games.
The point I'm making isn't that Apple is doing good here - I absolutely hate it, actually. The point I'm making is that the issue isn't that there's a monopoly, strictly speaking, but that Apple engages in anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices which are harmful even without a monopoly.
> The point I'm making is that the issue isn't that there's a monopoly
I made the same mistake at one point, so I feel for you[1], but what was actually said was "monopolistic". That is not the same as a monopoly. One can act in a monopolistic manner without actually having a monopoly.
[1] But I don't feel for, and frankly find it incredibly strange, that you are now doubling down on your mistake after it was brought to your attention that you were speaking outside of the context of discussion.
The top-level comment was talking about a monopoly, and you talked about Apple having a monopolistic position. In markets where Apple is in not in monopolistic positions, nor is it a monopoly, the problem is the anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices that enable it to put itself between market participants, not the position. Even if Apple doesn't seek a monopoly, the app distribution practices are the problem and would lead to the same undue value extraction.
I'm taking monopolistic position to mean a grossly dominant market position short of a monopoly. If you meant it as engaging in "monopolistic competition", that's another concept entirely that's irrelevant here. I also took monopolistic behaviour to mean behaviour seeking to monopolize.
It seems it only becomes a problem when there is external pressure that where accepting the giving of giving 30% to Apple is seen as the best of a bad situation. But that's what anti-monopolistic efforts are supposed to avoid.