> I don't know why Apple should feel entitled to own the relationship with a businesses customers because they also use an iPhone when it's an ancillary part of the product.
Apple provides a custom operating system (frameworks, drivers, security updates, backwards compatibility, etc) to make that business's app function, and continue to function, at all.
You can write and maintain a website instead of an app to avoid that.
Your electricity company and your internet provider are also making your use of that app possible. In fact, they've invested trillions to accomplish that. Shouldn't they be entitled to extract a percentage from each transaction?
Because if these companies would think there's even a remote chance of this being legal, I'm sure they'd not shy away from investing even more trillions in making some sort of digital enforcement system.
Would be fun. Your power outlet only providing power to certified devices! All in the name of protecting consumers of course.
Landlords provide infrastructure (wall, roofs, electrical systems, plumbing, fire systems) needed for shops to function, or continue to function at all.
Shops could just build their own market stands to avoid their landlords owning the relationship with their customers.
Huh, that argument doesn’t seem as reasonable when applied to landlords and buildings.
And yes, many app developers don’t pay much or anything to Apple, and shops always pay rent. But here’s the thing, as an Apple customer I pay Apple when I buy my phone. Why should Apple be allowed to double dip? It never seems reasonable when ISP want to charge their customers and content providers for bandwidth, so why is it reasonable for Apple to do something similar with Apps?
I tried that route. You need an Apple developer account to get your web features only partially crippled, and the "sell your soul" part of the exchange doesn't happen till _after_ money has left your account (which is on a screen promising that you're done, and the payment is the final hurdle, not that it would make it much better if you _knew_ you were paying for the opportunity to perhaps complete the transaction if Apple deems you worthy and accepts your additional offerings).
Maybe that's fine in your world, but the status quo isn't as simple as "just write a website instead."
You don’t have to pay Apple a penny to run a website. I’m talking plain HTML5 / JavaScript and a URL.
Perhaps you’re assuming I mean a PWA, Apple sign-in, or Apple Pay? I believe those are non-standard integrations with the OS provided by Apple, for the convenience of developers.
It would be great if everything was standardized from the start, but standardization can also hinder technological progress and creativity. It’s a trade-off.
Perhaps I’m in the minority here, but I don’t bemoan paying for development tools. I pay about $60/year for a JetBrains IDE because it makes my life easier and that’s how I make money. Devs pay for APIs and SaaS to make their lives easier too.
Apple locks decade-old web features (say, e.g., web notifications) behind a contract wall and handles that contract wall exceptionally poorly, taking your money in exchange for goods and services only to later add additional terms and requirements and not refund your money without two court orders.
It leaves an especially sour taste in your mouth when you note that users paid a premium for devices which, at a minimum, ought to be able to do decade-old web things. Developers are paying for the privilege of maintaining that facade.
Separately, yu're not paying for development tools; you're signing a highly imbalanced contract (with a well-funded entity with a history of enforcing those imbalanced terms) and paying to give iPhone owners the sort of software they were implicitly promised when buying a top-of-the-line phone. "Apple Pay" is even worse since that same contract forbids you from using other options; it's not for your convenience, it's just obfuscated pricing with some legalese in the mix.
For the record, paying for development tools is fine. JetBrains offers actual benefits instead of abusing the courts for rent-seeking. Plus, their contracts are (comparatively) very reasonable (and also rarely enforced, so terms you don't like are less important). You could probably put together a financial argument against Apple's behavior here, but that's not their worst offense by a long shot.
> I believe those are non-standard integrations with the OS provided by Apple, for the convenience of developers.
Other developers would love to provide these integrations (as they could on any of the more open platforms), but that option has been cut of by Apple as well.
And what does 'non-standard' mean here? We're talking about web standards that are about a decade old at this point.
Apple provides a custom operating system (frameworks, drivers, security updates, backwards compatibility, etc) to make that business's app function, and continue to function, at all.
You can write and maintain a website instead of an app to avoid that.