3 ms·
Considering the main press release quotes Jobs[1], this is unlikely. [1] “Our philosophy is simple—when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a
by mikeklaas 16y ago
Considering the main press release quotes Jobs[1], this is unlikely.
[1] “Our philosophy is simple—when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing.”
- zach 16y agoExcept that Steve's quote is a good argument for the conservative interpretation, which says that if you don't use an iOS app as advertisement for non-App Store payment, nothing changes. Because to me it seems like there's no necessary IAP option implied and if the publisher isn't using Apple's means (including the iOS platform itself), it keeps its 100%. That battle of interpretations rages on, unless I've heard different. It looks like Marco is taking the liberal interpretation (apps must accept IAP as a form of payment for any services they offer). It seems to me this is the underlying debate.