I come from Italy. We call this mafia.

By now it should be clear that Apple intends to milk its ecosystem for what is is worth. It is also clear that there are plenty of people who seem to be fine with it - viz. remarks like "I'd pay $2000 for an iPhone to feel safe" as someone wrote here yesterday and even some of the comments in this short thread like "As a consumer I’m on apple’s side which is not all about top slicing cash". While I do not like Apple and its practices I think they should be free to sell to the faithful at the price the faithful are willing to pay. Those who do not like these practices should withdraw their products from the walled garden and concentrate the (much larger) market outside of Apple. Once enough products and with that users start disappearing from the walled garden Apple might change its stance.

Another possible way for businesses to deal with this is to allow purchasing on the store but with the apple tax added onto the actual price and notify users that it's cheaper online or show the apple tax as a line item.

This suggestion has come up several times recently but it seems to be explicitly disallowed by Apple to charge higher rates while alluding to an Apple tax.

Not a lot of people buy iPhones for security reasons

Quote from the other thread: "If I tap on “Plans”, the app opens Safari and shows the plans."

This isn't allowed according to Apple policy.

I think it's ridiculous, but it's consistent.

Wow so just linking from the app to the internet where something is for sale is not allowed without a cut? If I use the app know as Chrome on iOS and I click on a link to a page on amazon.com where I purchase a chair, by that logic does Apple also want a 30% cut on the price of the chair?

Apperently, Apple wants a cut from everything in their store.

Well in the present case, it's more they want a cut from everything everywhere.

Tim "The Taxman" Cook.

This seems too extreme to be real.

This is getting out of hand.

This is all about perspective and how you write your headlines.

As a consumer I’m on apple’s side which is not all about top slicing cash. I want one place to manage my subscriptions rather than having to sign into 50 different accounts with different cancellation and billing policies. Some of them even make it difficult to understand on purpose.

The main objectors to all of this are businesses who want to set their own policies and rates. I suspect that the rate is less of an issue considering Apple’s infrastructure taking a lot of cost away but it is being used to leverage policies which might not be good for the consumer.

This is called extortion and those fanboys who blindly and uncrtically support everything this company is doing are just making things worse.

I am much more miffed about the Independent Repair Provider Program than this, perhaps because I don't yet know how I feel on this. (and because the IRPP feels like a plain fuck-you to everyone involved, this at least has nuance)

It's my hardware, so I fundamentally believe I should be able to run whatever software I please, but I also don't want my only option to pay for FooWidget to be through whatever (potentially shady) e-commerce platform FooWidget chooses to use.

I also don't want my mom sideloading random dataminer malware by tapping something on a webpage.

Or my nephew to do the same looking for "free v-bucks".

(Actually thinking back now, I convinced my mom to install "free emoji pack" malware as a kid, c. 2005.)

I can't argue that Apple trying to get 30% of WordPress subscription revenue is necessary for that, but I'm not sure what my ideal compromise is. Involving a computer is my first instinct, but it's unsatisfying as a start especially considering the PC is increasingly optional for some.

If I might be so bold, "Let them side-load" kind of feels like "Let them eat cake". Maybe that parallel is beyond hubris, or maybe it's empathetic? Maybe this conondrum sums up Apple as a whole lol.

Edit: "Cake for everyone. Just vanilla, no, no strawberries, and you have to give us 30% of your icing."

I’m not a fanboy. But I know the other side of the coin and it’s even more of a shit show. If there isn’t standardisation it turns to a race to the bottom where predatory tactics such as perpetual micro transactions and auto renewing difficult to cancel subscriptions reign.

I'm all for security, but security can go along with choice. What we are seeing here is abuse in order to make (abundant) profits.

What's preventing Apple from having a locked-down default and you having to tick a checkbox with a clear warning to side-step the App Store? That doesn't really compromise security, especially considering malware was being hosted by Apple on the AppStore itself in the past.

The first thing everyone does is check the box and the next thing you’ve got is android which is a complete privacy and security shit show to the point I know and work for organisations that have banned it.

> The first thing everyone does is check the box

If that is the first thing everyone does, it is clearly a desirable feature. Yet I don't know anyone who is not "in tech" with an Android device that has the box checked.

Android is a privacy and security nightmare because neither Google, nor the OEMs really care. They do not provide timely updates for the majority of devices, do only a lax automated check on the Play Store, the hardware components are not vertically integrated etc.

This has nothing to do with the ability to sideload apps with an obscure checkbox. The problems are architectural and cultural. In fact, I'd wager that F-Droid, (a 3rd party store), is safer than the Play Store.

I see a clear link between the easy money Apple is getting and the precipitous drop in quality of their OS releases. Without a perfection obsessed CEO at the helm, if cash is free, why try harder?