This is the same strategy that Apple pursued for dating apps in the Netherlands, after a court there forced them to allow third-party payments a year or two ago. Their argument is that the 15/30% is a general fee for use of their infrastructure (App Store, etc), and so they'll subtract the approximate cost of payment processing if you're handling it yourself but you'll still have to pay the rest of the fee to them.
Although I think this sounds extremely petty-bullshit of them, in part because that flat 3% is basically calculated to make this cost more for developers who do this overall, the court in the Netherland did go along with it. So we'll have to see how it'll work out under US courts now.
(I feel that them charging some sort of fee for the App Store isn't entirely unreasonable, though this seems too high -- we can debate the actual amount that'd be acceptable. It's the lack of an alternative via sideloading that makes this egregious.)
It's the same thing here in Korea. I'm implementing a 3rd party payment processor for a client right now - same 27% fee. However, the revenue is "self reported". Allegedly, most companies lie.
Leaving aside the potential for a critique of capitalism as a whole... it depends on what you compare it to, right? (Or, I don't get upset at the existence of business class, but I do get upset at excessive nickel-and-diming with fees in coach.)
I'd tend to think of the Mac as the most-direct comparison point, where there's the App Store but also where a developer who wants to handle everything themselves can.
That’s why I took it to another industry that is clearly charging a fee that is unrelated to its costs.
Capitalism says: the market will figure it out.
Given Apple does not have a monopoly. I don’t see how any of this is a problem. If they want you to sacrifice your first born child in order to publish an app on their App Store. That’s okay. Just don’t publish your app to their phone.
Are you serious? airline companies is not a good place to be when it comes to margins and making a profit. Business class subsidizes air travel "for the rest of us". Even then, they still often depend on government subsidies to make ends meet. You say business class is a fee not related to their costs? you really don't understand how unprofitable airlines would be and how cheap air travel currently is. In France it's cheaper to take a plane from Montpellier to Paris than it is to take the train!
Meanwhile Apple is one of the highest margin company in the entire world. To put things into perspective, Apple has a /cash reserve/ of 162 billions USD. They have far more money than they even know how to spend. The 30% on in app purchases is definitely not because they need to recoup their costs in any way, shape, or form.
You are proving my point. So what they charge in business is unrelated to their cost. They are paying for a lot more than they are getting. Exactly my point.
The first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia article [1] are enough to hint that capitalism is not necessarily about free markets. Many capitalists would like to have a monopoly on the market they are in or make the rules of the market. Only a few succeed. Apple mostly succeeded especially if we think that one of markets they are in is selling iOS apps developed by third parties.
Although I think this sounds extremely petty-bullshit of them, in part because that flat 3% is basically calculated to make this cost more for developers who do this overall, the court in the Netherland did go along with it. So we'll have to see how it'll work out under US courts now.
(I feel that them charging some sort of fee for the App Store isn't entirely unreasonable, though this seems too high -- we can debate the actual amount that'd be acceptable. It's the lack of an alternative via sideloading that makes this egregious.)