DMBdreamin

rogifan_new said:

OK but I can use Safari to buy a Kindle book and read it on my iOS device. Just like I can use Safari to sign up with Spotify and there Apple gets nothing. Your analogy to Barnes and Noble doesn’t make sense to me.  The App Store isn’t a book store. But again it goes back to my point that Apple deciding certain digital goods are deserving of a commission but other things are not is quite arbitrary. And so yeah, what happens when/if Project Titan becomes an Apple ride-sharing service with its own autonomous electric vehicles...do Uber and Lyft all of a sudden get charged a commission or do they get a free ride (no pun intended) because they didn’t exist when Apple created the rules around App Store commissions?

The difference is Safari goes to the open web - a non controlled entity and the App Store is something Apple built and maintains so they are 2 different platforms. Apple had a cost to invent and build the App Store, its backend infrastructure that supports how that store functions. It also has a cost to maintain it, employ people to monitor it and keep it the way it wants it to be (just like a barns & Nobel or any other brick and mortar store).  Safari is an application to view the web, while yes they may look similar the two are completely different, Apple just needs developers to build Safari and then it lives on your device. And guess what Apple only takes a 30% cut of the sale on their AppStore if the app itself is an up front sale, they give the developer the option of pricing it for free and getting ad revenue instead of an upfront cost. Not only that they allow 3rd parties to sell subscriptions outside their AppStore but if you sell them within they want a cut because those developers are using their infrastructure and their eco-system and oh yea their customer base. If the AppStore didn't exist would these companies have half as many eyes looking at their wares?