Which market? 3rd party software on a computing device? Sorry, that was dozens of years prior. Packaged apps on a mobile device? Sorry, I had those on my Treo in 2001. They haven’t really created any market, they just created a software monopoly on their hardware using existing ideas.
No one cares that a small handful of people owned a Treo in 2001. It wasn't relevant then and it isn't now. In any case, if it isn't a market, then there is no case here, so not sure what your comment means for you.
> They haven’t really created any market, they just created a software monopoly on their hardware using existing ideas.
The monopoly where the competitor has far, far higher marketshare. I'm sorry, I've never read about that in the history books.
There are no competitors on the iPhone. The iPhone isn’t the anti-competitive issue, the App Store is! No one has a market share but Apple on that front.
If it were a monopoly then anti-competitive practices, that would result in price increases, would be illegal .
> Apple created this entire market
It doesn't matter if they created the whole market. That is completely irrelevant to the legality of anti-competitive practices. Now, they are a monopoly, and they are no longer to allowed to engage in anti-competitive behavior.
> they could've been far more anti-competitive than they are
The idea that they could do worse, is not an argument against something as for why it is not bad.
Apple could do many things that are worse than what they are doing now. Maybe, in the future they will hire assassins to kill anyone who does not own an iphone. But that hypothetical world, does not make the current world any better. It is not an excuse.
> Why should the free advertising, access to a market that has users that spend more on average, be free to anyone?
Because the purpose of laws are to help consumers, not to protect apple. The reason why the law should force apple to allow competitors, is because by doing this, this helps consumers.
> They had market dominance - Apple does not.
Apple absolutely has market dominance over apps that are sold on the iphone. They prevent competitors from running app stores on that platform.
This is a huge market.
> Apple absolutely has market dominance over apps that are sold on the iphone.
This is just wrong. This would hold true if no alternative exists. There currently is not an app the iPhone offers that isn't matched in functionality anywhere else.
This doesn't pass basic legal sniff tests.
There is no alternative for buying apps on the iPhone.
> It's not a monopoly. There is an alternative which dominates the market share.
Yes it is. There is not a single alternative, for buying apps on the iPhone. They control that market, and have 100% market share over the iPhone app store market.
So what? All markets work like this. Food prices go up whenever there fuel prices increase, so the grocery store increases the cost to cover the higher cut taken by the supply chain. Apple created this entire market - they could've been far more anti-competitive than they are. Why should the free advertising, access to a market that has users that spend more on average, be free to anyone?
> I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee.
You're the one making the claim - you have to prove why it's wrong to charge a percentage of revenue first.
The Internet Explorer argument just doesn't apply. They had market dominance - Apple does not.