4 ms·

Something I struggle to understand: any revenue generated by your business and connected to your app, grant them the right to have 30% of this income. Even if t

Something I struggle to understand: any revenue generated by your business and connected to your app, grant them the right to have 30% of this income. Even if the customer existed beforehand (Ex: Web app SaaS, now building a mobile version.) For every customer now using the app you have to give them 30% of the subscription, even if no transaction happen on the app, even if the app is a tiny subset of the functionalities of your business. There is no business logic. They do it just because they can. And they can because the App Store is the only store on the iPhone. Microsoft was sued (and lost) for pushing Internet Explorer with every Windows install, but Apple can push its own store on iOS (and not only push, but limit the installation of other stores on their system) I struggle to see how this is any different. It seems the same and even worse.

amazingman 3y ago
>Something I struggle to understand: any revenue generated by your business and connected to your app, grant them the right to have 30% of this income. Even if the customer existed beforehand (Ex: Web app SaaS, now building a mobile version.) For every customer now using the app you have to give them 30% of the subscription This is not true.
- yashasolutions 3y ago
  After double checking, it seems that Subscription Guidelines under "3.1.3(f) Free Stand-alone Apps" don't need to give money to apple. So you are correct, my statement wasn't entirely exact. However the core of the issue remain: the whole conversation around the fees is because there is no competition allowed. Let other app store exists and the problem is fixed.