[direwolf20]

Because they don't control those. Apple could choose to only allow users to access websites that pay them a bit 30% fee, but users would notice the web was turned off on their device. They don't notice when the app store does it.

[dlubarov]

Until a court order stopped them, Apple was collecting a 27% tax on certain external payments even though they didn't control the payment rails. They required developers to report their external payment revenue and sent them invoices. Developers had to commit to that or their apps would be rejected for having external payments.

[chii]

It's at least "reasonable" that if the app was where users derived usage, and would've purchased thru the app but for the external purchasing option, then apple has a case for it.

However, there's no such case for web (as in, web _only_).

[dlubarov]

If usage of an app gives Apple some justification for taxing payments, by similar logic would usage of the iPhone itself, and Safari, give them a similar some justification?

"The user would have used our payment rails had there not been other options" seems to apply universally; Apple could say the same thing about website owners steering users away from some expensive "Apple web pay" option.

I think the difference is just leverage. Apple isn't curating what websites iOS users are allowed to visit (yet...), so they can't tell website owners "pay up or we'll block you".

[sidewndr46]

I don't think people would notice if Apple just made the website behind a paywall. Most people are not going to be aware that they can access the same content without paying a fee to Apple. They may only even have an Apple device to access the internet, so they'd just see it as normal

[fauigerzigerk]

I doubt it. People are pretty savvy when it's about getting something more cheaply or for free.