[Cthulhu_]

They wouldn't, because they earn millions off of apps like Uber and co. It's why Youtube is more tolerant of bad behaviour of high-profile (read: high-viewer, high-income) channels, and Twitter hasn't banned Trump and his bots yet - they make too much money off of it, both directly and indirectly ('engagement', network effects, etc).

[KarlKemp]

Apple forced Uber to stop their location-tracking shenanigans when they were found out.

I agree that such large apps are treated somewhat differently than smaller ones—anyone smaller than Uber would have been banned outright. That’s due to demand from Apple’s customers, though, and not Uber directly paying Apple.

But Uber still had to rush and submit a new version of its app. They didn’t seem to believe Apple was making hollow threats, nor do Facebook and Google and all the other big players adhering to Apple’s policies.

Even if Apple wanted to allow larger apps breaking the rules, they couldn’t. It would be very obvious if some apps were allowed to send ads and others weren’t, and it would lead to all kinds of problems in the court of public opinion and possibly a real one.

[saagarjha]

As far as I am ware, Uber has to date been the only third-party application ever granted a com.apple.private entitlement.

[lotsofpulp]

How does Apple make money off of Uber and co?

[GlitchMr]

Directly from Uber? They don't make much money - Uber pretty much pays just for the Apple computers as well as Apple Developer Program.

However, this doesn't mean there is no gain for Apple in it as Apple is investing in Uber. That, and not having Uber could make users move to Android devices.