> If they're really providing a service for end users, they shouldn't be taking such a large cut from developers.

Bingo. If they're making an argument that they have to retain so much control because it's good for the users, then why are their margins so big?

I'm not saying companies shouldn't be able to run successful, highly-profitable businesses.

I'm saying they shouldn't be able to (a) have significant market share, (b) have significant size / market cap, (c) have high margins, AND (d) claim "but we're so efficient for our users!" as a defense against anti-trust.

One of those things is bullshit, and 3 out of 4 are facts...

If I'm Apple, I just open the gates. I would be very surprised if they lose much "business" as a result, at least not for a very long time.

I'd suspect most users aren't going to venture outside the garden.

No but their margin will reduce, their market cap too and a lot of money will start to flow to people really innovating.

But doesn't the higher fees on dev help to keep the riff raff out? Sure, it's a nice profitable margin-padding fee but how else do they keep out the bottom feeders? Do Apple users what to pay a premium to get more useless noise?

Note: I'm not defending Apple. But the higher dev fees do serve a purpose other than revenue.

> But doesn't the higher fees on dev help to keep the riff raff out?

It doesn't keep malware from getting in. If it's hurting people by limiting their choices and it isn't keeping people safe then what good is it?

If high fees (with high margins) are there to ensure the integrity of the store, then Apple could invest more of that margin into ensuring the integrity of the store.

Back in the day you used to have to pay a bunch of money upfront to buy the software that allows you to develop software for a particular platform, then you were free to distribute your software as you wish.

If Apple is really concerned about keeping out the riff raff they could raise the annual flat developer fees.

But we all know that's not what they're actually concerned about - the app store is estimated to have 80% margins right now. They're just charging what the market will bear, and the market will bear quite a lot right now as they're part of a duopoly on smartphones.

> they're part of a duopoly on smartphones.

Well, that's another conversation then isn't it? If that's the case, then Apple and Google (Play) should be named then, yes?

Only if the justice department believes Google has been using its dominant market position to harm consumers.

Which it hasn’t been because there are alternative app stores, payment processors and sideloading.