And the fact the developer is to hide the fee and not list it on the receipt (subscription: $10, Apple tax: $3)
And the fact you cannot charge less for the same service if you sold it outside the platform (as you'd like to do as you didn't need to collect the Apple tax).
Netflix has an app, Netflix “is not” an app. Google Chrome, Airbnb, Epic, anyone who has spent marketing bucks promoting their service and providing a supporting app, was rather acting as a marketing agent for Apple than the opposite.
Apple’s new stance has no merit. We all understand it’s fair to participate in the funding of the Appstore, but it is a very bad defense.
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/25097/
They’re a so called “reader” app which can send you to an external site to subscribe.
https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/
Other streaming services fall into the same category.
If I recall, and from what I’m now able to find, Netflix didn’t lower their prices when they did that move. And remember they have added ads, are cracking down on password sharing, and prices keep increasing.
So while Apple’s cut is high, let’s not fall into the trap of believing that other big companies are somehow fairer and would totally pass the savings onto us. The overwhelming majority, if suddenly exempt from paying Apple’s cut, would keep charging the same thing and pocket the extra revenue.
I thought that was expressly permitted - just that Apple Tax still must be collected:
> The link can mention the specific price of content on a website, or that content is discounted on the website from the App Store price. Comparisons are allowed.
In that manner, this ensures you cannot compete with Apple IAP on price, and is hence still wholly anticompetitive.