> Luckily, by custom there is another solution - respect each other boundaries and stop acting like whiny little children.
So where does the Apple Music subscription entering the market to compete with Spotify (which came first), without having to pay itself 30%, nor being prevented from advertising how to subscribe in the first place, fit in to that narrative?
For any interesting market that props up on the App Store, Apple is free to: start by extracting 30% from everything in said market; then, develop its own competing product at a technical advantage (with access to private APIs) and a comercial advantage (avoiding said 30% fees); and, finally, bundle and market the shit out of their own thing, all the while restricting other's marketing (with steering and MFN rules).
And according to some people, this is all perfectly fine behaviour, by Apple standards.
So where does the Apple Music subscription entering the market to compete with Spotify (which came first), without having to pay itself 30%, nor being prevented from advertising how to subscribe in the first place, fit in to that narrative?
For any interesting market that props up on the App Store, Apple is free to: start by extracting 30% from everything in said market; then, develop its own competing product at a technical advantage (with access to private APIs) and a comercial advantage (avoiding said 30% fees); and, finally, bundle and market the shit out of their own thing, all the while restricting other's marketing (with steering and MFN rules).
And according to some people, this is all perfectly fine behaviour, by Apple standards.