Luckily, by custom there is another solution - respect each other boundaries and stop acting like whiny little children.
So where does the Apple Music subscription entering the market to compete with Spotify (which came first), without having to pay itself 30%, nor being prevented from advertising how to subscribe in the first place, fit in to that narrative?
For any interesting market that props up on the App Store, Apple is free to: start by extracting 30% from everything in said market; then, develop its own competing product at a technical advantage (with access to private APIs) and a comercial advantage (avoiding said 30% fees); and, finally, bundle and market the shit out of their own thing, all the while restricting other's marketing (with steering and MFN rules).
And according to some people, this is all perfectly fine behaviour, by Apple standards.
Apple could just charge for services rendered, ie downloads, rather than a flat fee.
-----
What is the value again? Playing music?
Spotify could just charge for services rendered, ie number of hours played, rather than a flat fee.
If the Appstore is so good Apple should not be worried about competition by allowing side loading or alternative Appstores.
> Should Microsoft be entitled to the same on windows and their browser?
I don't know, maybe? I'm sure people would riot if they tried it now, but if Microsoft had set that precedent from the start would we be here discussing this today?