One difference: physical goods suppliers can theoretically choose to sell and deliver direct any of their goods to any consumer willing to pay for them. With the app store, at least in the US, the captive audience can’t side-load, and now Apple is introducing even more absurdity with its bad faith “revision” to the policy.

That's true to an extent, and your "theoretically" is doing some heavy lifting. The big box retailers have pretty much limited your options there. So while it's not a single choice of stores, you might get 3 or 4. If you want to sell physical items, you want to be sold in Walmart. That's where the shoppers are. When you come out of the meeting where they tell you what your wholesale price will be, you won't even look like the same person. Depending on your product, you might have some other options, but those sales will be well under anything a big box can offer. You just won't be making much money per item.

Indeed. You can see this clearly in how even at places like 'Makro' ('Metro' in some other countries) prices ex vat can still be higher than in the big chain supermarkets.

Walmart is the thousand pound Gorilla, yes. But countless clothing brands exist outside of Walmart & probably wouldn't want to be in Walmart anyways.

It's some weak sauce weasle wording to say, "you might have some other options". This position seems slanted as heck: working overtime to convince everyone that Walmart puts people through the ringer (true) & is the overwhelming desirable option (false), as if that justifies Apple being an awful squeezer too. As though Patagonia, North Face, Colombia, Gap, Saks 5th Avenue & every other brand only dream getting in the big store, as if they live horrible worthless lives now.

No, there's a ton of ways to sell clothing. Volume is one way to do it, but there's a free market here with lots of possibilities and no one is railroading brands and makers into awful decisions. There are also online only folks who just have their own e-storefronts and/or others. There's so many channels. Apple's App store has a unique in the world today, of dominating a massive sales channel it's customers cannot escape, on one of the most general purpose soft devices on the planet. For basically happening to do their job of building a consumer OS and not a lot more.

(Steam I think is a more interesting case, where they compete freely & without anti-competitive hacks, but still basically are the de-facto middleman.)

> It's some weak sauce weasle wording

If you think a chain that can afford to open its own stores is the same thing as a company making a single thing or even a couple of things, then you're well beyond weasel words and are in a delusional state. Most people make something and need to have it sold at other stores. You've made hell of a leap here to try and call me a weasel

We're talking app makers. The equivalent would be pre-internet days of selling software at computer stores or again big box retailers. Again, your options are limited. If you're an app farm that just shits out clones of other software, you can burn in a fire and I don't care what happens to you.

It is no different, which is why suppliers to such stores routinely collaborate if they feel that they are being squeezed too much.

It is also why house brands are a thing.

and yet this has been happening long before Apple and App Stores were a thing, and nobody has been sued to stop it.

Also, as some other comment has pointed out, the % Apple takes is from their role as one manager. Ask an actor or sports ball player what happens if they don't pay their manager the % owed.

I just haven't figured out why software devs think they are so special that they don't have to pay to play. I have seen no honest answers to this other than Apple === BAD. Devs are pretty much "all monies are belong to us"

Whether it is fair or not is for the App store developers to work out, I'm not one of them and as long as these are walled gardens I never will be.