Actually, you conflate them when it suits your argument. One of your contentions is that "Apple is handsomely compensated for their innovation (through sales of devices and services)." And you use this as a reason to say that they shouldn't be allowed to make an industry-standard profit off of their app stores.
You keep using the word “rent” as if it’s a fact. It’s just your opinion that Apple is charging rent. As mentioned earlier, the amount Apple charges is comparable to what Google Play and other digital markets, like those for game consoles, charge. This cross-segment standard charge is what investors expect, and so would not be considered rent under capitalism. Furthermore, the "solution" the EU implemented (forcing Apple to allow other app stores) has been available on Google for years and has not resulted any significant change in the industry standard fees. This is further evidence that what Apple charges would not be considered rents under any reasonable free-market definition.
Apple's customers and their good will are a valuable assets. Apple has spent billions in marketing and product development to acquire those customers. They should be allowed to profit from their monumental investment to build and maintain the asset.
Apple built the value. They should be allowed to profit from it. If Epic, Spotify, and Netflix don't want the value of Apple's App Store and APIs, let them do their business through the industry standard browser. Better yet, let them offer free apps, where they can use all of Apple's app distribution and update services without ever paying a commission.
Don't confuse the lie that gets told by ideologues about the benefits of capitalism with the reality of what you were taught in marketing.
Apple charges rates that are comparable to other digital markets.
The Spotify app is free. Spotify can collect monthly fees without using Apple APIs. Did you forget you won, or are you just a sore loser?
Last edited:
