What exactly is bad faith about this compliance? The original ruling specifically called out that Apple would still be entitled to a commission even if people u

What exactly is bad faith about this compliance? The original ruling specifically called out that Apple would still be entitled to a commission even if people used alternative payment processors. The main thing that feels icky to me is the hurdles to getting approved to link to alternative payment methods, but even if those are walked back that doesn't solve the main issue, which is that alternative payment providers were never a sensible solution to Apple's tax. Apple has always argued that the commission is for the App Store, not for payment processing, and it is only collected through their payment processor as a matter of convenience. The policy announced here is essentially the same that they announced two years ago in the Netherlands in response to a similar ruling [0]. I'm surprised that anyone here is surprised that they're doing the same thing in the US. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604