They can, and then they’ll have to face their customers directly with it being exactly clear (even to “normies” who don’t follow obscure tech news like this) exactly whose greedy fingers are taking things away from them.
Up till now, situations like Kindle were just weird quirks to most people and most people wouldn’t have been able to tell you why you can’t do this very normal-seeming thing on iOS. If/when Apple takes it away, it’ll be obvious to everyone what’s going on.
And if Apple yoinks them out, then why should the developer respect the "no disparagement" or "no telling your customers about payment/alternatives"? Which to me was always the ultimate expression of Apple absolutely knowing they are being greedy. Not just "You can't tell your customers you can pay less elsewhere", but "You can't even tell your customers about our involvement in your pricing decisions".
If this significantly cannibalizes Apple’s App Store revenue I would actually expect that they come up with a different way to monetize (maybe based on installs or number of users).
They could also implement that independent of the injunction, which applies to steering rules.
> They could also implement that independent of the injunction, which applies to steering rules.
They actually can't, not with the latest ruling that unlocked this Kindle change. Apple annoyed the judge enough with their shenanigans that she shut this down, too. The ruling reads (emphasis mine): "Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers’ ability to communicate with users *nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases*."
It cannot be overstated just how furious the judge is with Apple. I cannot imagine the judge will tolerate anything that undermines the spirit of the ruling.
Yeah, this is already in territory where he's pushing criminal prosecution referrals for Apple executives. It's well into "protect your own hide, personally, by making sure you comply with the ruling" for people making the decisions at Apple.
I'm surprised they haven't simply forced tiered pricing for their developer program.
You still need that to get on the platform. They could charge based on the relative size of the business. Why not charge Netflix 50K? They won't give up the platform and the consumer - even for Netflix - likely wouldn't enjoy going to the web browser exclusively.
Perhaps that pushes more PWA's but really, I doubt the big corps would balk at this.
Their scale would need to be exceedingly reasonable to keep the smaller shops from rioting though.
If Apple penalized apps for having many users that would be cataclysmic to their platform, though I image they'd work out sweetheart deals with Facebook etc.
It could be like a platform subscription fee, but the app developer pays instead of the user.
The justification would be something like, "a more equitable and transparent system that aligns costs with platform usage and developer access to the user base, while also potentially fostering a more diverse and competitive app ecosystem" (generated)
I left Apple years ago, right on the battery-gate scandal. Since I'm in Android since, I imagine that if Google Play Store would introduce a fee to "a more equitable..." I would do all my 'shopping' to Aurora, APKPure, and others.
Here's a thought: Apple should NOT be able to "monetize" third-party apps. At all. They have no right to the work of other people.
Apple wants to mandate a review? That's fine. Charge developers for the reviewers' time with a reasonable profit margin, and Apple _already_ charges $100 a year for access to the AppStore.
