I think you missed a key ingredient for Apple's ability to charge 30%: their policies banning developers from referring users to any other payment options in the app or on their website or in communications meant and in many places still means, consumers make an uninformed choice to pay that fee. The extent Apple has gone to to prevent this bubble being pierced suggests it's not actually sustainable without forced consumer ignorance.
nowflux•2mo ago
That's a fair point. I would argue that Airbnb/Amazon etc. also stop hosts/sellers from referring users to any other platform or their own websites. So that alone doesn't explain why Apple can charge more than those platforms.
benoau•2mo ago
> I would argue that Airbnb/Amazon etc. also stop hosts/sellers from referring users to any other platform or their own websites.
The difference is Apple's rule applied to your website and your support documentation and your monthly newsletters or any other communications, outside of their platform, outside of apps, all of which they forced developers to censor to ensure iOS users never saw any reference to any alternative payment options. I don't believe this is common at all, if it were we would have seen more cases brought against them once precedent was set by Apple that this was illegal in the US and EU.
benoau•2mo ago
nowflux•2mo ago
benoau•2mo ago
The difference is Apple's rule applied to your website and your support documentation and your monthly newsletters or any other communications, outside of their platform, outside of apps, all of which they forced developers to censor to ensure iOS users never saw any reference to any alternative payment options. I don't believe this is common at all, if it were we would have seen more cases brought against them once precedent was set by Apple that this was illegal in the US and EU.