I checked Wikipedia and it had a pretty terse definition: the sale of goods and services to consumers. I have to agree with GP that another definition seems to have been selected for the sake of excluding the App Store.
Whether or not one thinks they deserve a 30% cut, Apple definitely works to make sure the App Store can at least deliver the application to the hardware and their interfaces ultimately bring Spotify's interface to the user. That fairly reasonably fits in with "the sale of goods and services to consumers". In-app purchases are more arguable (keep in mind it necessarily uses Apple Pay) but this thinking that the App Store is not comparable to retail seems to be a little narrow-minded.
It's because they're desperate to work in the industry and will accept any work conditions to do so. They have to learn to say no and prioritize work-life balance over getting their dream job.
The essential problem is their messed up priorities, not the lack of unions. Once unions create barriers to working in the industry to the benefit of existing workers, then you just get a new privileged elite, who have an in with the union, and all of the cronynism and exploitation that goes along with that. The essential problem—of vastly more qualified people wanting to work in the industry than there are positions available—has not been addressed.
And on top of that, with unionization you get the harm from a less dynamic workforce with less flexible contract negotiations, which has historically harmed numerous industries. It's a net negative for workers at large, and of course the world.
> They have to learn to say no and prioritize work-life balance
Oh man its a shame noone saud this to Victorian kids that were dying of blacklung while working in the coalmines, or to the kids that mine cobalt today.
This condecenting attitute towarda others is offwnsive and suggests you think they are cretins
That was due to extremely low per capita GDP creating a general dearth of decently paying jobs. This is due to people wanting to work in an industry at any cost. So your comparison is utterly disingenuous and exactly the type people getting a union advantage would make.
> They have to learn to say no and prioritize work-life balance over getting their dream job.
Or… they could unionize and try to shape the job of their dreams into something sensible. If the union somehow ends up ruining the job, why would they care, given that the alternative is not doing that job at all, or dealing with unbearable working conditions?
If the principles behind unionization are rejected by society at large, it would make a significant impact on society. Convincing society at large that those principles are wrong requires speaking out against them whenever the debate over unions arises, like in this case.
