I do personally think the core technology fee is abhorrent. However, playing devil's advocate, is it actually wrong? Aren't there plenty of examples of platform holders monetising things released on the platform by other publishers? I'm thinking of games consoles as one obvious example. I'm pretty sure you would have to pay per copy produced, even back before the monolithic digital stores we have today.
Game consoles do have game exclusives, meaning that there's some real competition and deals to attract game developers. When was the last app exclusive?
> I'm thinking of games consoles as one obvious example.
Yes but games consoles are not on the arbitrarily list of products that can be considered monopolists... sorry, I meant to say "gatekeepers", so it's totally ok for them to be monopolists, I mean "gatekeepers".
And, you see, it completely logical and ethical for that list to not include consoles because consoles are not general purpose computers (even though they use the same CPUs, memory, storage and input peripherals as general purpose computers) because the manufacturers of said devices defined them as not general purpose computers. Which is totally different from what Apple did in defining the iPhone as not a general purpose computer because... well, you know why, don't you?
In other news, isn't it just grand that Europe doesn't have corruption?
Lol. "How people use them" is entirely a question of "how the manufacturer lets people use them".
Somehow it is ok that Sony and Nintendo have defined their consoles as "not a general purpose computer", while it is not ok for Apple to define their device as "not a general purpose computer".
What you are actually asking for is that companies should impose more restrictions on what people can do, lest they be targeted as gatekeepers.
> market penetration is.
Yet "hometown" companies like Spotify are mysteriously absent from the list of gatekeepers. And iPad OS, despite not meeting the thresholds defined for gatekeepers has been added "because we felt like it".
