[thephyber]

> Apple doesn't let you make a free app that references a paid service outside the App Store

Counter examples: Audible. Amazon. Netflix.

The contract nuance is more subtle than what you described. Iirc the app can’t directly link to the payment system on the website, but Audible (for example) has an intermediate currency (“points”) which can be transacted in-app. Real world currency transactions must be made on the website, outside of the app. Without the website account and transactions, the app is pretty useless.

The Netflix app is perhaps marginally more useful without logging in and Amazon is marginally more useful than that.

[dkonofalski]

Your examples aren't really counter-examples at all since the App Store rules specifically exempt content providers as long as Apple can individually review the content. That's the reason why services that do game streaming still aren't allowed. The companies running those refused to give Apple a way to review the content within those platforms which is a requirement of the review for content delivery services.

[kinkrtyavimoodh]

Yes, it is easy for Apple to add 'exemptions' since they are the sole self-appointed judge, jury and executioner.

In practice, what it boils down to is a calculus about whether the an app is powerful enough for its absence on the platform to be a dent to Apple. When RandomApp1245 is not on an iPhone, no one cares and it's the app that loses business, so they suck it and pay Apple the danegeld. If Netflix is not any iPhones, I suspect there will be plenty of people for whom it will be a deal-breaker.

If it is, there will magically be exemptions added. Which is how some of the App store rules read like a complicated boolean algebra of if this, but not that, unless this, but only in case of that.

Let's not pretend all this is happening out of some fundamental noble meta-principle.