which is somewhat ironic, because the goal of a web app is to break free of the walled garden and become OS-independant.
Also, Apple may want a cut of the subscription revenue but most companies who have significant subscription revenue, don’t go through Apple’s subscriptions payments.
How many apps require a subscription and cannot be a web app because of limitations of Safari?
How many paid apps would be websites if it weren’t for limitations of Safari?
There is a huge number of cordova apps out there. These are webapps inside a native wrapper, to access exactly those features that are crippled in safari. Reliable storage, push notifications, and not much more.
Hulu for instance allows in app purchases for the regular Hulu service but not Hulu Live
Clearly it's A LOT of money for apple. If they didn't care about the money then they would just allow it so everyone could avoid receiving payments using apple and giving them 30 %.
What makes you think users would willy nilly put their credit card on every random website.
Everyone can avoid using Apple for subscriptions. There are existence proofs of apps on the store that require payments outside of the store - like all digital content from Amazon.
Most of the money that people spend on the App Store are from games and in app consumables. Especially since the major services like Netflix and Spotify don’t allow in app subscriptions.