In this case there is a 100% chance apple removes them from the app store - its in their TOS that they will remove apps that skirt their piece of subscriptions/payments.
If a city puts a tax on soda, so a gas station chain stops selling soda in their location within that city, but still allows customers to buy soda in their locations outside of that city, after which they are free to bring their soda into the city, is that tax evasion?
Because this is the same thing. Apple has a claim on a portion of in-app sales. If you don't allow in-app sales, you're not skirting around anything.
If it were, should Apple also have a claim to all existing sales done through a website on the customer's computer, then utilized on their iPhone? If I sign up for YouTube Premium on my computer, then happen to use my account on my iPhone, is that YouTube skirting around Apple's piece of the subscriptions? If not, then why is it any different if YouTube were to just not allow you to buy the subscription within the app?
I agree with you, but that's not how apple sees it. Theres plenty of cases where they have removed apps that dont allow you to make the purchase on their app, because they interpret it as skirting their rules.
Prior to this, apple was taking 30% from all platforms if their app was on the store (for in app purchases done on iOS, it also didnt apply to subscriptions)
In this case there is a 100% chance apple removes them from the app store - its in their TOS that they will remove apps that skirt their piece of subscriptions/payments.
Removing Twitter will at least cause more of a shitstorm that removing Fortnite for example.
Of course they'll hide it under the typical "disinformation" or some similar reasoning that allows them to do whatever they want.
That's not what they're doing, though.
If a city puts a tax on soda, so a gas station chain stops selling soda in their location within that city, but still allows customers to buy soda in their locations outside of that city, after which they are free to bring their soda into the city, is that tax evasion?
Because this is the same thing. Apple has a claim on a portion of in-app sales. If you don't allow in-app sales, you're not skirting around anything.
If it were, should Apple also have a claim to all existing sales done through a website on the customer's computer, then utilized on their iPhone? If I sign up for YouTube Premium on my computer, then happen to use my account on my iPhone, is that YouTube skirting around Apple's piece of the subscriptions? If not, then why is it any different if YouTube were to just not allow you to buy the subscription within the app?
I agree with you, but that's not how apple sees it. Theres plenty of cases where they have removed apps that dont allow you to make the purchase on their app, because they interpret it as skirting their rules.
Let's hope they do that to Elon, who has the resources to fight back.
"Alternatively, fuck you" -Apple after banning Twitter anyway
Okay so explain Netflix?
This isn't a new concept. Lots of apps do this. The app literally just says you need an account and we can't tell you how to get one in this app.
Netflix, owned and operated by pedophiles pushing propaganda? Of course apple makes exceptions. It's their discretion
Okay.......? That's not really relevant to my point.
Literally every streaming app does the same thing.
It's not a new thing.
It's VERY common with subscriptions.
Spotify does the same thing too.
I could go on.
Ok so I decided to do some research, and you are right - Epics lawsuit forced them to allow apps to do this.
This was back when fortnite was removed
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/epic-games-v-apple-judge-reaches-decision-.html
Prior to this, apple was taking 30% from all platforms if their app was on the store (for in app purchases done on iOS, it also didnt apply to subscriptions)