| The author does not seem to understand the difference between Apple Pay (incorrectly spelled as "ApplePay") and in-app purchases, or at least incorrectly assumes both to be called "Apple Pay". This makes the article basically impossible to understand to anyone not noticing that subtlety. In fact, the actual Apple Pay is considered by Apple to be just another form of third-party payments for apps that sell "in-app-purchase like things" (i.e. prohibited by default, begrudgingly allowed where local law prohibits that limitation). Apple Pay is Apple's payment card wallet, with Apple completely out of the loop for the actual payment, and there's no extra cost on top of the card payment to the merchant. "In-app purchases" are a "merchant of record" solution where Apple acts as an intermediary between app vendor and buyer. They handle taxation, refunds, promotion etc., and take a generous cut for that service. Merchant-of-record solutions have their use case (not everybody wants to deal with local taxation, for example!); what many people are mad about is that Apple generally has a rule that says "you must use ours if you're selling "digital goods" unless you're on a short list of exemptions". This article, as far as I can tell, is trying to make the argument that Apple ought to allow competition between their merchant-of-record solution, other merchant-of-record solutions, and apps directly acting as the merchant, and I largely agree; I just wish it made that point more legibly. |
For physical goods etc, like the Apple Store app which the author incorrectly calls out, IAP are not mandated (neither is Apple Pay), and in fact you couldn’t use IAP for physical goods even if you wanted.