3 ms·

It's not an even playing field though. Apple has a competing music service and they can undercut their competition by avoiding the 30% transaction fee, squeezin

• repsilat 8y ago
  I think this is the cleanest seam to cut on. If Apple had to compete fairly in the ecosystem the 30% cut would much more likely be something Spotify could stomach -- not an existential threat to their business, just the cost of doing business on iPhone. As things stand, Apple has mixed priorities. They want to enable developers where those developers add uniquely to the platform, but they want to outcompete developers where they cannibalise sales from Apple's own products. This dual remit doesn't help consumers. If Apple's music offering had to pay the 30% tax "for real", they might have to charge $13 too, and that might make the iPhone an expensive platform for music-listeners, and they might be incentivised to cut their margins to compete with other platforms. We could all agree, "Sure it's expensive, but it's their turf and they can run it badly (to their own detriment) if they want." Not sure where you draw the line between first-party app and OS functionality though. I imagine in some cases it'd be less clear than here.