[Spivak]

Apple's 30% charge isn't for payment methods. I hate that this meme has persisted through the Epic case and the Netherlands regulations.

Apple charges the seller 30% (well 27% but w/e) as a sales commission for being able to sell digital goods through any means on their platform. Harping for allowing alternative payment methods is the wrong angle if you don't want to pay 30%.

It's not about the payment methods! If you can force Apple to drop their commission then IAP would be a 3% charge and nobody would really care.

[huhtenberg]

That's Apple's spin on this and it's as greedy and unreasonable now as it was when they just started.

The fair setup - as far as the owners of expensive devices are concerned - is to:

1. Be able to install arbitrary software capable of running on the device.

2. Be able to pay for it in whatever way that is supported by the software vendor.

This are reasonable expectations.

If Apple provides a way to install pre-approved software through their Store - excellent. As an option.

If Apple provides a way to pay using their super pro-consumer payment system - ditto, as an option. Possibly as a required option (option!) for programs distributed through the Store.

You want convenience for either aspect - you go through Apple, pay them extra, be happy. You don't want to pay them - install yourself and pay directly.

Voila. It's not very complicated.

All the arguments against this is not a "meme", it's Apple guarding its profits in ways that are explicitly and aggressively anti-consumer.