> I generally agree that giant corporate conglomerates like Google are a bad thing for basically everyone, but I don't think that diluting the meaning of "monopoly" helps anyone, and neither do silly entitled arguments against paying a commission for distribution.
Google and Apple very much represent a duopoly, that's just calling a spade a spade.
Nor did I see anybody here argue they should just distribute other people's apps for free.
The issue is over the size of the fee they demand and how they also demand to exclusively use their payment services, so they can extort their 30% fee on every single transaction even past the original distribution.
To apply that example to a brick and mortar store would be the equivalent of the store getting a cut off attachments/replacements the customer directly orders from the manufacturer because the customer bought the original device in the brick and mortar store.
Google and Apple very much represent a duopoly, that's just calling a spade a spade.
Nor did I see anybody here argue they should just distribute other people's apps for free.
The issue is over the size of the fee they demand and how they also demand to exclusively use their payment services, so they can extort their 30% fee on every single transaction even past the original distribution.
To apply that example to a brick and mortar store would be the equivalent of the store getting a cut off attachments/replacements the customer directly orders from the manufacturer because the customer bought the original device in the brick and mortar store.