> The problem is bigger then that. Apple takes a 30% cut You have described a different objection, which is not "bigger". It's a different problem people have.

> The problem is bigger then that. Apple takes a 30% cut You have described a different objection, which is not "bigger". It's a different problem people have. > they are forcing you not to inform the customer about alternatives That is part of what's going on but you're missing the main issues. They are forcing an app owner to add a purchase that gives Apple revenue if Apple can find ANY other way that the owner is offering to be paid for app features. There was no advertisement or inform within the app at all. Also, you cannot inform the use about WHY the alternative exists (apple gets part of it). That's how it's worse than even you think. If Apple thinks people are paying for something, they force you to add something that is preferred that pays them. It's extortion (via a protection racket, "i heard you got an inheritance, be a real same if something happened to your app") or racketeering, depending on how broadly you want to define things.