So, from what your saying, the way the app store works is that app developers with deep financial pockets and resources pay for the free loaders (free apps) to stay in the store. If that is how it works then companies such as Epic and Spotify have every right to demand that Apple allow them to do their own thing with their app. Why should companies such as Epic and Spotify pay for the free app developers to stay in the store??
Apple have no right to force companies such as Epic and Spotify to use Apples pay system to help pay the hosting and distribution costs of app developers who provide free apps.
Yeah, false equivalency in your argument here. First off, Apple has a vested OS security interest in distributing apps; that helps stabilize the entire platform for the benefit of themselves and users alike. Would they do it for free? I doubt it, but that doesn't automatically imply a malicious motive or some unjust enrichment. I think Apple views the App Store as a win for consumers in terms of security, a win for them in terms of profitability and platform success, and a win for developers in terms of distribution and time/cost savings. Any developer knows that the App Store and the many SDKs they release at every WWDC saves a Fk* ton of effort when it comes to reinventing the wheel, dealing with subscription management, customer service, etc. Apple is
directly providing developers with economic benefits in exchange for taking a
gamble on their success.
One important thing to Apple is the self-sustenance of each independent component/department. If something cannot be profitable on its own, it will only serve to vampire off of the company at large, and that's a well-guided assumption. (This is very likely why they have not sold consumer displays for a long time.)
No individual app is subsidizing per se free apps. There's not even really a basis to believe that just based on the economics of the business alone. It's only incident to the overall economics that the distribution of revenue is tilted strongly in favor of successful apps which are in the vast minority. It's like a record studio. You kind of gamble on a million duds to get a hit. Nothing is owed between the parties who are entering into a contract with the record studio. In Apple's case, it's also the record studio letting in every aspiring teenager under the sun—lots of expense in their doing that—just to have a generally available platform for anyone to succeed. They just want everyone to play by the same rules and have already reduced the barriers to entry for small developers recently.
When you say they "have no right", you're not using that concept properly. These developers are willfully engaging in a private contract with Apple. Except under limited circumstances, only the law applies to govern it, not rights. Your argument isn't that the App Store is monopolistic, so I'm not sure about what angle you're coming from there. Anyone's moral impression of the App Store is going to be subjective. They can kinda do whatever they want just like they were free to initially create you the iPhone in the first place. Lol.
* a newly discovered element yet to be added to the periodic table
