Above that, it's Apple's store, with Apple's rules, on Apple's OS. You either comply with the rules or you don't get to put your app on the App Store.
If Apple provided any other way to put content on the device that you purchased, then maybe Apple can run their own store any way they please. In reality though, you’re not choosing the App Store over other stores; you have to use the App Store. This allows Apple to put itself in the middle of a transaction that arguably it has no business being involved in. If a person wants to do X with the device that he or she purchased (in this case, installing a new version of Spotify), there should be a supported way to do that even if Apple does not want to bless that version in their own store.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/ios-users-outspend-andro...
I think the more relatable case, and the one that should be compared to, is the case against credit card rules that retailers should charge the same price whether or not a credit card is used. There are laws in some countries (and I believe some states in the US but I'm not sure) that prohibit credit card companies to enforce that rule.
Spotify is just calling it unfair now because Apple has just now started to reject their updates on the basis of this rule, even though Spotify didn't change anything related to this in the update in question.
There is no technical reason to not allow an app developer to use an alternative like Stripe as their payment processor. Apple tries to sugarcoat it by using phrases like "seamless integration" for end users, never having to enter their credit card number. The reality is, it has nothing to do with user experience. It is 100% about getting that 30%. Nothing else.
I accept a certain level of a walled garden by buying into the Apple ecosystem. I absolutely do not condone charging developers 30% for payment processing. I buy apps from the store, and developers get shafted just for that. I have never, and will never, perform an in-app purchase without first checking whether I can pay the company directly. I don't care if it's $9.99 in-app, and $9.99 on an external web site. I will ensure that I pay outside the app whenever possible. The problem is that the majority of users do not do this. And they shouldn't have to.
And of course Apple has iBooks and doesn't have to worry about losing money on each sale because of a 30% transaction fee.
You are arguing that Walmart shouldn't sell their own brand of soda because it charges Pepsi some percentage to sell theirs.
Ridiculous.
I was just responding to the original comment that made an incredibly childish argument agains the owner of a store not being able to compete with products from other companies.
If "your" store is directly tied to other companies' livelihoods, and design "your" rules deliberately to hamper competition, there can be a strong argument for an anticompetition suit.
Apple makes their own devices, they are not forcing any OEM to include the App Store on their phones, or Safari or even Apple Music. And they are not forcing consumers to use the App Store either as there are other more popular choices.
Walmart is tied directly to many companies' livelihoods. They still have the option to charge for the privilege of selling thru their stores and those companies have the option to refuse.
And don't get me wrong, I think Apple should allow Spotify or any one else to tell the customer, inside the App, that there are other ways to pay. I think it will create a healthier environment for all, including Apple, but I was just responding to op's comment.
So it is anti-competitive then. It is not transparent to the consumer, all they see is that Spotify price increased 30%, for them its cheaper to subscribe to Apple iStream or whatever that called.
How is ditching In App subscription working around iTunes payments?
> Above that, it's Apple's store, with Apple's rules, on Apple's OS.
They still have to abide to laws