Reply to post: Re: I don't see why Apple should get 30% of in-app purchases.

Re: I don't see why Apple should get 30% of in-app purchases.

while I consider apple to be a baddest apple in a cart of rotten fruit, I do see why apple should get that 30%, they should, because they can, i.e. because they have (no doubt carefully and cleverly) worked out that this is the max they can squeeze out without tipping the balance and losing more than they profit (and profiteer) from. Why don't they do it with every banking transaction? Firstly, and crucially, because they couldn't get away with it, as there are (still, but not for long) many other ways for people to spend their money. Secondly, the analogy with each banking transaction is not accurate, Apple do not charge app makers or users per each _usage_, which would be an analogy of "each transaction". Arguably, they charge app makers, as banks charge, in many countries, their customers, a card fee (usually yearly). Retail also adds the final markup on each item sold in shop, and that final (not the first) markup is easily 50%, and over 100% with certain food products. Yes, you can argue that e-cost is nothing in comparison with cost of running retail, but this means you suggest that the markup should be "fair" and proportional to cost of running an establishment, such as apple's garden. I think it should be fair and proportional, but my "fair", as a consumer, is "as low as possible", and their "fair", as a shop is "as much as possible but not so much that the producer or end customer goes elsewhere" (if they have anywhere else to go, that is :). E-market consolidation (possibly mirroring what happens with supermarket sector) generates exactly the same effect. Which doesn't mean that "something" shouldn't be done about it, but... I don't think that "something" has been done about it in retail, so I'm not optimistic a solution will be found in a digital world.