|Do you think anyone would have an issue if Apple just wanted to be compensated for that piece of hosting it on their servers?

When did Apple, or Google for that matter, because non-profits? Your argument is illogical.

Their hosting and bandwidth is the inventory, distribution, and shipping aspect. They also provide: discovery on their app store browsed by millions, billing, marketing, advertising, and promotion. The 30% is because there is real tangible value in the service Apple is providing. If you don't like it--WebOS, Android, Blackberry, WP7 are all available to you.

Edit: Thanks everyone, I wear the downvotes with pride because some of hive-mind on HN can't think outside the ridiculous anti-Apple jealousy. Whatever, if you're downvoting me for presenting facts you don't like but not responding-- you're a coward and a sheep.

As I've said before: I'm using a DELL laptop right this moment, a Blackberry in my pocket, an HTC Aria on my desk, and I have a Macbook at home. I'm agnostic to corporations, but this hyperbolic anti-Apple jealousy/rage is nonsense and hypocritical at best. This Apple hate is blinding many on HN of the reality.

If anyone wants to reply to me, please don't. I'm done discussing this and I'm not even an Apple fanatic, my next phone will most likely be a WP7.

But here are some comments I thought were actually informative:

From Vacri:http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2232812

Unsustainable? How about 'normal retail practice'? It's funny watching people froth at the mouth about normal retail practice.

I don't like Apple or how they run their business, but a 30% cut for a retailer is even be a little low. Go into a bricks-and-mortar store and usually 30%+ of the price you see is markup on the wholesale price.

Apple provide a service: they deserve to get paid for it. Even if Apple allowed apps to be sideloaded, you wouldn't sell anywhere near as many apps if you marketed them yourself, not to mention having to deal with organising a payment system and easy, integrated way of getting them.

App developers are the wholesalers. Apple is the retailer. If you want to be both a wholesaler and retailer for your app, then Apple isn't for you. Go to Android... but you'll find it's still better to give Google a cut and be on their market as well...

Another from Cletus: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2231385

People love to throw around the antritrust word without--and this isn't necessarily directed at you personally--knowing what it actually means.

Does Apple have a monopoly on phones? Hardly. Look at HTC, Motorola, Samsung, RIM, Nokia, etc.

Does Apple have a monopoly on music? No. You can buy it from Amazon and elsewhere. Likewise you can use Grooveshark, Spotify, Rhapsody, Pandora, etc for different services depending on what country you're in. iTunes sure is dominant though.

Does Apple have a monopoly on ebooks? Hardly. Amazon is a far bigger player here. Amazon is not dependent on Apple as a means of distribution, although Apple devices are obviously important.

Does Apple have a monopoly on TV shows or movies? Hardly. You can buy DVDs from any number of places and downloads from the likes of Amazon. Content producers like Comedy Central, CBS, Fox and others also stream directly from their Websites (and they could do this in HTML5 if they wanted to, allowing them to be viewed on iDevices, but alas they still choose Flash almost exclusively).

So where exactly is the monopoly (virtual or actual) here? You can say that Apple is the only one who can sell apps on iDevices and you'd be right. So what? NBC is the only one who can broadcast shows on their stations. That doesn't make them a monopoly.

So unless someone can produce a cogent argument of how antitrust applies--and I've yet to see one--can we please stop bandying the word around like it has any relevance here?

This isn't to say that some Congressman or Senator won't speak out or possibly there might be a House or Senate hearing but that's really about creating the appearance of doing something rather than their being any justifiable basis for investigation.