Like the classic example is someone setting up a barrier on the river and charging boats that want to pass through. There's no value being added by the person blocking the river.
Just the same, when Apple says "Let's charge for this", what value are they adding for doing so? They make money off the current system. They just want to make more money while providing zero additional value to consumers or to app makers.
All I can ask is "How do you sleep at night?" but I'm sure I'll get the Rainier Wolfcastle's answer.[0]
That doesn't seem entirely fair of a comparison. If you built the canal, filled it with water, made sure it's wide enough for the boats that need to travel, etc, etc, then you are doing a useful service right. Apple has built something useful and yet we can all see it's wrong to take advantage of it to this extent, but we're having a hard time explaining why.
I think fundamentally corporations should only exist for the purpose of the public good. That is what's wrong with America and capitalism in many ways. It's not the shareholders but the public that they should answer to. If it does not serve the public good to take a 30% cut, then they should not be allowed to do so. As easy as that.
Like the classic example is someone setting up a barrier on the river and charging boats that want to pass through. There's no value being added by the person blocking the river.
Just the same, when Apple says "Let's charge for this", what value are they adding for doing so? They make money off the current system. They just want to make more money while providing zero additional value to consumers or to app makers.
All I can ask is "How do you sleep at night?" but I'm sure I'll get the Rainier Wolfcastle's answer.[0]
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO0JaecRWy0