> I think you're right about this particular example. But that's because rebelos identified the wrong problem. I would identify a different gag as the problem -- Apple prohibits you from directing your customers to other payment methods.

You're absolutely right that this is another angle that could be looked at. A third argument, particular to Apple, is simply that there is substantial harm to the consumer when a company maintains a stranglehold on software distribution for what might reasonably be considered a general purpose computer.

However, I vehemently disagree with the insinuation that disclosing the fee wouldn't provoke market forces to lower it to some more reasonable percent above cost. Sure it's a duopoly at present, but I suspect that might be enough to get competitive forces working properly.

> I vehemently disagree with the insinuation that disclosing the fee wouldn't provoke market forces to lower it to some more reasonable percent above cost.

100% is a fairly normal markup "above cost" for each step in a supply chain; it also makes Apple's 43% markup look modest.

And then you get into unresolvable arguments about what is and what isn't a cost.

Normally that supply chain involves many physical steps, manipulation, storage, inventory, loss prevention, etc.. here the supply chain is trivial and cheap. Comparing those as equivalent is not exactly honest.

So Apple's doing much less work and taking a much smaller markup.

You're absolutely correct that Apple is adding no value, which is a bigger reduction in value added than the reduction in their markup. But the problem isn't that they're applying an objectively high markup. They aren't. The problem is that there's no reason for them to be involved at all.