Developers are ingrates. Apple has created BILLIONS in wealth for developers, who used to be "wage slaves" working in cubicles. Now they get a 73% piece of this large pie. NONE OF THIS PIE WOULD EXIST WITHOUT APPLE. Go back and look where the development money was flowing before iPhone. Desktops. Where the vast majority of software development money flowed to Microsoft. iOS changed all of that. Your comparison should not be iOS to Android. It should be iOS to Windows. And iPhones to Nokia's 9000.

But Apple users have choice too and they prefer the iOS model. Would you want them dictating to your preferences on Android? Careful what you wish for.

Do you really think a protectionist/traditionalist war with Europe's largest market (USA) is a good idea? The USA can start "regulating" (i.e., shaking down) European businesses. Europe needs the US markets more than the US needs theirs.

In the US, a monopoly must be over 50%, typically 60%+. I'm curious if you think Target or Schwarz Group should be forced to carry certain products for government-set commission rates. The point if antitrust is to assure competition, not to pick winners and losers. Your solution doesn't sound like free market capitalism to me. It sounds like a centrally-planned economy.

You are making a strawman argument. Not in the argument itself, but a strawman advocate: Apple users LOVE iOS, as evidenced by iPhones' profit dominance and Apple being the world's most admired brand 15 years in a row. It is YOU (probably not a user of Apple products) making an argument YOU want, NOT what Apple end users want.

As an Apple shareholder, I assure you I am a person and not a legal fiction. Why should developers get a bigger cut that shareholders? Did you know every single K-12 teacher in America has their pension funds in AAPL? Are they not people? Do they not bleed?

Apple commands 98% of mobile revenues. Consumers have voted with their wallets and love Apple's iOS model. And developers could boycott Apple if they don't like their terms, but they are greedy and want a piece of the pie! A pie THAT WOULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT APPLE!

Should Target be forced to carry your products? And should you be able to dictate what commission they charge? Apple is no more a monopoly than Target is. Unless you want to re-invent anti-trust to mean having a "monopoly" in your own store, in which case you are a monopolist of your own garage sale and thus I should I be able to force you to sell my junk?!

A company cannot be a monopoly if it has a larger competitor. basic anti-trust law.

Apple is one of the most widely-held stocks. Millions of people own Apple. Why shouldn't the shareholders of Apple get more money from the platform that some developers?

Apple isn't even the largest cellphone maker, so it isn't a monopoly any more than Target is. Should you be able to force Target to carry your products? How about your garage sale? Should I be able to force you to sell my junk?

Of course Apple would have just hired developers in house to write apps. It would work fine just like Macs did all these years.

Apple INVENTED THE PIE. Without Apple (and its multi-billion dollar investment and risk) there is no big pie, or even a smaller Android pie (Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board and ran to Google to start Android when Jobs announced the iPhone). Every self-employed mobile developer would still be working for wages for Microsoft or Oracle (or Apple or Google) without iPhone. Say thank you and go away!

Apple has made developers BILLIONS that would never had been available before the Apple mobile revolution (which of course without Android wouldn't have even EXISTED). The work for a big company in some cubicle for wages model would still be going. "73% of something big is better than 100% of nothing."

Not really-- this solution is even weirder. We've already been moving toward a "thin client" solution with everything running in web browsers, which actually runs a web application on the server. That's already a push toward the "thin client" model.

This then takes that and runs the browser on the sever, and streams the output locally. So it's like saying, "What if we emulate the thing client on the server too, and try to make a thinner client that just connects to the emulated thin client, which then connects to the server to run things."

If web browsers are such resource hogs that you can't even run the browser on your local computer, it's time to reevaluate what you're doing.