> If that's the case, it doesn't seem anticompetitive, since everyone is charged the same fees no matter what. Google and Amazon just don't want to pay it.

Apple doesn't pay them. Anyone who wants to sell media on iOS has to compete with iTunes while subject to a 30% price handicap. If that's not anticompetitive I don't know what is.

I look at in in the context of physical goods. Grocery stores processs their private label meats. The grocery store also sells name brand meats but those brands have to pay for shelf space. The meat is exactly the same, just processed by two different entities - one who owns the store and one that doesn’t.

The situation you describe is a little different because people aren't locked in to a supermarket. If you don't want to pay the premium, you can go to a deli, another supermarket or have it delivered by Amazon. If you don't want to pay Apple a premium, you don't have a choice. You either do it or ditch iOS and lose all your purchases on the platform.

Maybe the situation is more analogous to joining Costco or Sam's Club where you pay a membership fee, i.e. buying the phone. Your point about losing all your purchases is a good one. I guess you could say you still own your purchases after you ditch iOS, you just can't use them with other platforms - but since all the food you buy gets consumed, it's a unique scenario.

The problem is that Sam's Club and CostCo still have alternatives, even with their membership fees.

Imagine that you paid $1000 for a 1 year CostCo (iOS) membership which gives you access to CostCo but only on the condition that you live in CostCo Village, where you can only buy Certified Approved™ products from CostCo (which have a 30% markup) and if you choose to leave, you'll lose everything you bought while you were there. Home, furniture, electronics, everything. CostCo Village is a nice place to live and the products sure are nice but imagine 50% of the population living like this. From a consumer perspective it's shitty because you have no choice and from a vendor perspective it's shitty because you either play ball or lose out on half the population.

Sure there are Sam's Club (Android) Villages where you can still buy from other chains or independent grocers but it's just stupid that you have to make this choice.

Here’s one, you buy a Mac and use it for 5 years with all your Mac software you bought and then you decide to switch to a pc. None of the software can be used on the pc, and you have to buy it all again for the new machine. Consumer hates it, developer loves it. The intangibility of software makes for a bad comparison to using/buying physical goods. Switching does suck for consumers, but I think you’re very wrong about it being shitty for developers. They have a new opportunity to sell their product! Also, there’s a reason why vendors pay a huge premium for Costco shelf space - it’s worth it. To have instant access to Costco members for vendors is a big deal, otherwise they wouldn’t be there.

Another thought...we live in a capitalist society (assuming you live in the US). With the customer base that Costco has, you can’t realistically expect them to give away the most valuable thing they have to vendors, can you? Sure if you run a single convenience store you can’t charge for shelf space, but if you run 1000 of them you probably can. So if you’re Microsoft for example, you need to beg developers to build apps for your mobile OS because the value proposition i.e. paying users just aren’t there. Flip that story on its head and you have Apple.

Also, I don’t quite understand what you mean in your last point....