[samat]

This argument will easily hold if there were any way to have a competing store on iOS devices. Apple banning any competition in that field makes ‘buy they provide value for the money’ look like forcing consumers hand.

Not sure if I want to have a second AppStore (APNS, etc, etc.)

[threeseed]

No. The argument holds irrespective of whether there is 1 store or a million stores.

Spotify wants to use Apple's distribution channel without paying for it.

That's unfair and doesn't reflect what happens in the real world. If I sell my software through a retail store they still take a cut.

[sulam]

Let’s use the Kindle app as an example then. The app cannot link to their site when I search for a book I don’t have. If it did, the app would be banned. So Apple is trying to extract a 30% premium from Amazon and the only way for them to avoid that is to give me a shitty experience that quantifiable harms me (I waste time to search for and then hop through the download behavior, adding friction to what should be a seamless flow). In return for their 30% they are adding very little value. Amazon does it’s own payment processing, curation is surely not worth almost a third of every book I buy, storage is paid for by Amazon, and the transmission costs are paid for by me.

[dwaite]

I disagree with it being called an Apple premium.

Apple has a store. Amazon has a store. Who is to say that Amazon's portion of operational costs and profit isn't the premium?

Amazon could choose to have a Kindle experience which doesn't go through the App store, such as a HTML 5 app. They distribute in the store because of the discoverability (and likely because they prefer to have a native app that can enforce their store's content DRM.)

Amazon could choose to expose more functionality through their app, such as title search, being able to look at reviews, download sample chapters, and even be able to fetch new books through the kindle unlimited and other prime features. They prefer to drive everyone to their own store instead.

[sulam]

Have you used the Kindle app?

You can do title search, look at details of books, see reviews, download sample chapters, and download Kindle Unlimited books directly to your library with one click.

I presume what you _can_ and _can't_ do is directly dictated by Apple's policies, not what the Kindle team has been able to implement. As others have pointed out, native apps are a far superior user experience to HTML "apps".

[GranPC]

Wait, so are you arguing that an HTML5 app is a perfect replacement for a native app?

[metildaa]

They are arguing that the janky, hamstrung progressive web app infrastructure for iOS is a replacement for a native app.

Sadly, due to Apple forcing everything to use Safari's browser engine, PWAs are redheaded stepchildren on iOS: https://mobile.twitter.com/jbogard/status/104788904642763161...

[binomialxenon]

HTML apps are never even close to working as well as a native app, they're generally a shitty compromise. If $COMPANY makes an app that would be crippled by Apple's policies, they should be free to distribute it through another channel to iOS users.

[drawnwren]

I suspect Spotify would prefer to have their app on iOS without using Apple's distribution channel if they could.

[dwaite]

Only because they could then do direct sign-up and billing without having to pay anyone a cut.

[Tsubasachan]

One of the most powerful things the internet has done for us: cut out the middlemen. Even Amazon is not safe, I foresee a future where people will order directly from the factory.

[Oletros]

Spotify is not using Apple distribution channel