Windows App Store charges a fee as well.
And I didn’t make a case for 30%. The case is ‘why 100% free’ . Which is what it would be on an App Store .
Other app stores are allowed - they complied to that. So it’s not comparable to ‘a state owned’. The charge is for the extra core technology fee of 0.50 cents over certain downloads. Where otherwise it wouldn’t be 0 by any other means. Any for web site hosting, you do know that it comes down to basically what? Amazon web services and some other big players. So the hosting doesn’t have ‘options’. And thanks for stating, you do pay something.
So I ask the question again, why 100% free through the App Store (any App Store) method.? And going back to you saying, for web method , they have options for different ‘price levels’. So that means, App Store shouldn’t be free (third party or not), basically, Apple should get paid if it’s on an App Store.
It's fine to charge a fee on the app store. That's Apple's store, and it costs money to review, host and take payment for apps. It's also fine to make a profit on services you provide. I never said otherwise. The issue until this spring was that Apple's store was the only place apps could sourced from, and is 100% controlled by Apple, the lawmaker for iOS. This is perfectly analogous to a retail store controlled by the state under communism. You wanted to bring up retail stores, I'm just pointing out the shoe that fits. Yes they "allow" other stores now. I'll get to that.
Onto Windows. Yes, you can make the argument that "someone" is always paid to host software. The question I asked you was whether it would be ok if that "someone" was always Microsoft? Amazon Web Services is not Microsoft. Valve is not Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't get a cut of all software sales on Windows, nor would it be acceptable to for Microsoft to get a cut of all software sales in a market that large (and iOS is just as big). Microsoft gets a cut on sales from their app store, but not from other companies app stores.
In Apples model, Apple always gets a cut (no matter who is hosting the app to be installed) and they are working really hard to keep it that way. While they now "allow" third party stores in the EU because regulations require them to, those stores still have to pay Apple a commission on all their sales....
Third party stores can either use apple payment processors where Apple will take 30% for themselves, or the third party stores can use their own payment processor, but then pay Apple a 17% commission on all their sales. If they fail to give Apple its cut, they can no longer distribute apps on iOS. This is still in line with how communist states act when they allow "independent" operators to open a store, either for a function they don't want to manage or to quell discontent.
In other words, Apple wants 17% for apps they aren't reviewing, hosting, or taking payment for. They continue to operate like a gatekeeper despite the EU law regulating them to act otherwise.
*Note on percentages. Apple has a ton of carveouts they've made over the years, either to cater to large businesses they need on the app store in order to sell phones, to meet local regulations, or in the hopes of avoiding anti-trust regulation. For example, the 17% that Apple takes for doing nothing is "only" 10% if the store qualifies as a "small business". When speaking of the App Store generally, I will use 30% as that's the universally understood fee and the fee Apple would charge on everything if they could (including physical goods -- there's transcripts to this effect).
