In this case, the "ice cream" is a zero-margin utility. It can be reproduced infinitely without incurring extra costs beyond what Kroger deems sufficient. The act of installing an app on iOS can't even be compared to Kroger charging money for you to drink out of their hose in the back of the store. Software is simply not a physical commodity, apps like Safari are proof that data still flows freely.
In a fair universe people would stop going to this store and visit other places with lower margins. But Apple conveniently took steps to prevent you from leaving their shop, so they can charge whatever they consider a fair price. You cannot rationally defend this, jurisdictions worldwide are suing Apple for this, because it's a blatant racket. It is indefensible.
> But Apple conveniently took steps to prevent you from leaving their shop, so they can charge whatever they consider a fair price.
This is the part that is monopolistic.
Kroger collecting money when Bryer sells ice cream in their store is fine. Kroger prohibiting Bryer from selling ice cream else where is not.
This should honestly blanketly apply; as-in Bryer should not be allowed to enter a contract with Kroger where they'll only sell ice cream at Kroger. Bryer can choose not to sell at other grocery stores but it should never be a contractual requirement.
> You cannot rationally defend this, jurisdictions worldwide are suing Apple for this, because it's a blatant racket. It is indefensible.
Even if Bryer's ice cream was zero-margin, if you go into Kroger's store to buy it then Kroger is entitled to some compensation. The practice of collecting a commission from products you are an intermediary for is highly defensible. The practice of prohibiting others from selling their own goods to people not under your control is not (i.e Schools can ban an ice cream vendor from visiting a school).
In a fair universe people would stop going to this store and visit other places with lower margins. But Apple conveniently took steps to prevent you from leaving their shop, so they can charge whatever they consider a fair price. You cannot rationally defend this, jurisdictions worldwide are suing Apple for this, because it's a blatant racket. It is indefensible.