What would be fair?

No restrictions on what software people can run on their devices.

In that case, Apple's 30% would be fair then?

It seems like most proposals from companies actually making money on the platform (as opposed to folks like you and I in the cheap seats) are to keep the experience the same for the users, with the same amount of value, only charge less.

Okay. I wrote the driver for network equipment you very likely used to get this post to ycombinator. The same driver you used to order that Apple app store fitness/note taking/goal/... app.

Where's my 30%? Because the value I provided was critical to that transaction, to that experience, to the value provided. Others could have provided that value, but didn't.

I can make the same argument you make. But I'm not a trillion dollar company. That's the real difference.

No, that’s just a start. I don’t care about “fair” — there isn’t really such a concept at play here. The fact that Apple’s reaching through Telegram into the third parties using the communications platform is really lame. It’s not just a direct relationship between Apple and an app. It is recursively affecting how two people who aren’t Apple or Telegram are able to conduct themselves.

An open market with more than one or two players.

It's an open market, isn't it? You are free to start a competitor. Back in the day I tried Windows Phone. It failed because it sucked. That can probably be extrapolated to the rest of competitors.

Did WP actually suck, or did it suck because there were no apps on it?

Utility pricing is regulated because the barrier to entry and cost of switching for consumers is far too high to realistically expect competitors to enter.

Don't like your 1000/month gas bill? Well then you can sell your house and move to the neighborhood next door.

Same principle with the mobile market at this point.

Some states allow choosing the electricity provider separate from the utility providers themselves (creating a competitive market).

In the same way, we should be able to choose between competing implementations within the walls of the mobile platforms.

Absolute control of a platform that impacts a huge percentage of society will not be something that's accepted in the longer term

Fair enough, but the topic was whether Apple was charging too much. Are you suggesting that if Apple opened up their platform to additional app stores or allowed sideloading, the 15% or 30% would be fair?

Yes. Take Google for example with exactly this approach. You can elect to put your apps on the play store with commission, or you can put them somewhere else under other terms.

Stores can then actually compete on merit.

Yes.

See that's the thing about actual competition is a price can be determined by the market, especially in the case that you have many players rather than a duopoly. In my case Apple could charge whatever they wanted, 30%, fine. But me the app maker could go to the A+ store and pay 10% instead.

Is it not an open market? You don't have to buy an iPhone...

Private companies having a direct say in what products are allowed to exist is a big issue by itself. At the very least they should only charge what it costs them and run the app store as non-profit.

Obviously this is wishful thinking, but given how smartphones are a mandatory part of our social life, stores being a public service would make much more sense.

8%

If we are going to make a stink about "rent seeking" should we start with mobile apps or landlords?

Personally as someone that pays 50%+ of my monthly income for my government subsidized apartment, I don't think mobile apps should be the priority.