PWA means "progressive web app". You know, the vision Steve Jobs and Apple had for iPhone apps before they released the App Store.[0] What about virtual experi

PWA means "progressive web app". You know, the vision Steve Jobs and Apple had for iPhone apps before they released the App Store.[0] What about virtual experiences that are sold through an app that a customer uses, but are held on a different virtual platform? We’re not talking just about virtual events held through the app or FaceTime, we’re also talking about virtual events held through Zoom calls, it’s just that the app maker (for example, Airbnb) used their existing customer relationship to market virtual experiences, and Apple somehow decided that was different from the exception to selling (physical) goods and experiences that are also used outside the app. If they aren’t using the app itself or FaceTime, how is it any different from an in-person event? What if that in-person event includes teleconferencing equipment that links two locations together, do you suddenly need to give Apple 30%? Apple's rules have an exception for 1:1 virtual events. So, if you suddenly bring your significant other to a virtual event that was classified as 1:1, will the app maker need to implement facial recognition DRM to ensure that there is only one participant on each side of the virtual event, or else they are in violation of Apple's rules and deserve to be banned because two people showed up instead of one? The rules are deeply tedious, and often have no obvious rhyme or reason. Regardless, Apple changed the rules, and I don’t have an option to opt out without giving up everything I’ve already bought. I could not have known they would change the rules in the ways they have, so to your earlier point, I could not have made a more informed decision. Would you like to offer the refunds on Apple’s behalf? Doubtful. This is clearly different from other retail relationships in ways that would benefit from being regulated. That’s the core discussion here. Apple is not just another retailer, and the App Store is not just another store. > Clarifying the rules is not the same as changing them, ask any hermeneutic. They did not clarify the rules. They absolutely changed the rules, and this is not the first time either. Your whole argument is invalid if they changed the rules, so of course you're holding on dearly to that incorrect point. Apple argues that some apps were accidentally paying them revenue for that already, therefore it would be "unfair" for them not to take that revenue from everyone... but it wasn't in the rules before, period. Apple added the rule so that they could add more revenue. You may think my opinion is irrelevant, and that’s fine, but my opinion is as logically self-consistent as I can make it. Apple’s rules are the ones that hold very little self-consistency right now, and are just overreaching in any way they think they can get away with, which is getting tiresome. [0]: https://9to5mac.com/2021/06/03/remembering-apples-sweet-solution-for-iphone-apps-before-the-app-store/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/06/03/remembering-apples-sweet-solu...