Hacker News Reader

Giving preferential treatment to one customer at the expense of other customers is not anticompetitive behavior as defined by any law I'm aware of.

The law doesn't say you have to give everybody the same deal just because it's "unfair" to others.

The monopoly/antitrust/etc. laws are about misusing a position of power for your own benefit at the expense of competitors. Apple doesn't have to be "fair" to Netflix vs Max vs Disney Plus.

View on HN

Plus, Netflix isn’t even Apple’s customer. It’s actually kinda the other way around: Apple’s customers are what Netflix wants access to, as a source of potential Netflix customers.

When you’re a marketplace, especially a big one, both the people buying in your store and the people selling in your store start to look like customers, both paying you for access to the other. For the sellers is obviously more implicit, but still often explicit like grocery stores getting paid to put specific products on aisle end caps and such.

The whole 30% fee is premised on providing services to app makers for money.

But Apple stated all got the same deal and had to pay the same.

But they lied.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com