Does Apple sell the app? Or are they only facilitating the transaction, but you're buying from the app author? Because grocery stores are selling you something, they are not middlemen who only connect you with the manufacturer. They've bought the products from the manufacturer and are now selling them to you.
It's more complicated than that. Nominally there's an ownership transfer, but the big players also charge the suppliers stocking fees [0], which seems to translate quite well to what Apple is doing. And if you're charging a fee to stock the product, it's clearly not being treated as a straightforward ownership transfer to the retailer like you say it is.
Plus, since when is a middleman connecting you to a party with the product or service you want not a party you have a business relationship with (as GP claims)? Brokers have been a thing since forever.
I think stocking fees are comparable to the ads you can buy in the app store. But Apple does not buy the apps and then resells them, which Walmart does.
Brokers are a thing, but would you consider Apple's "app store" a broker? A broker's value-add is making the connection, but Apple's app store's is "being the only app store available on Apple devices".
If you forced them to let users choose like Microsoft had to with browsers, that would be different, and I predict their perceived "value as a broker" would drop of a cliff because others could provide the same at a fraction of the cost.
> But Apple does not buy the apps and then resells them
In a sense they do. You can think of it as Apple buying a license and then selling the license to the end user.
I don't disagree that morally Apple is problematic in holding a monopoly on apps on their devices, but charging fees for their shop is not inherently problematic as a standalone issue.
Ok, you got me, the brick & mortar example doesn't translate perfectly.
My main point still stands... there is a real cost to hosting an App Store, and the entity doing that hosting should be compensated for doing so.
The "problem" is Apple (and now Google?) want to be the only App Store for their platforms. So, you can't pick between Safeway and Giant. But, that's not what the parent suggested - they only suggested the host of the App Store shouldn't be paid.
I don't think that necessarily follows from what they said. Apple might charge, much like grocery stores, for exposure (i.e. ads, which they also do), or they might charge the consumer a fee.
They shouldn't be a permanent middle man between consumer and manufacturer is what I took away from that comment. The app stores are only money printers because they are (largely) exclusive on their platforms. Would users and developers choose Apple's app store and its hefty fees if there was fair competition? Possibly, but likely not at the same conditions Apple can dictate today.
Does Apple sell the app? Or are they only facilitating the transaction, but you're buying from the app author? Because grocery stores are selling you something, they are not middlemen who only connect you with the manufacturer. They've bought the products from the manufacturer and are now selling them to you.