I think they should just go with the Twitch (Amazon) strategy. Allow for IAP for subscriptions, but just factor in the cost of Apples % cut. Still offer the option of paying you directly on your website or whatever for the $99/year, but for people that really want to subscribe through the app they can pay $150/year and have the subscription cancel when they delete the app or whatever

Apple doesn't allow that. Your in-app prices have to match your out-of-app prices. Which would be fine if the cut was like 1-2%. But 30% is a lot.

I dont that is the case any more. At least we have multiple reports that Apple allows that. ( Likely due to legal requirement )

If they allow it now, it's either fairly recent (past couple of years), or they are inconsistent about it.

They’ve allowed it since 2011: https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_...

But then the rule could be "one of the payment options needs to be Apple Pay, we take 3% cut".

or let the developer say "Sign up with Apple Pay for 30% more, or go sign up at our website for standard pricing."

43% more if Apple wants a 30% cut.

I call this the paradox of Apple: they're the least open platform and perhaps as a result are the best for privacy, security, and user trust.

Android is much more open and is a spyware free for all.

The Internet is like a failed state. Apple is like a walled and privately patrolled compound where the wealthy have taken shelter. Outside the compound everything is spying on you and if you get something from a random site there's a decent chance it contains malware.

Tech-savvy users think nothing is wrong and wonder why everyone shelters in the compound, but they're like the street kids who grew up with hard-earned street smarts. They know how to avoid trouble and know how to fight. People like that can live on the street but it's no place to raise a family.

Taking this analogy way too far, I guess you could compare a web browser with its armored sandbox JavaScript VM to an armored vehicle with bullet proof glass that you can use to drive around. Just make sure you've got plenty of gas and never open the door.

Tech savvy? Mate you can pry my iPhone from my dead nerd hands

> I don’t want to give developers my billing info. […] I don’t want to download apps that literally do nothing except kick me out to a website for a billing transaction

I agree. But I'm not ready to pay $142/year instead of $99 for that convenience.

And it should be chosen by the user, not enforced by the gatekeeper

Exactly. Which is why I think it's fine to force apps to propose an IAP, but they should be able to inform the user that there's another option (for another price eventually).

I agree with you. There is much place for improvement but the verion you donwload now on AppStore is new user hostile, especially when you figure out that they have a waiting list...

But what you're describing, is not actually Apple's stance. Apple is fine with apps providing their own payment solutions, as long as what those apps are selling is not digital goods. There are plenty of apps for buying clothes, groceries, (physical) books etc. that do not use Apple pay, and do not give Apple a 30% cut of each purchase.

In this particular case In-App subscription option was not added, though.

No problem, nobody forces you to do it. They could inform you whether the app offers paying through Apple on the store page.

Apple would still be able to optimize around your experience even if they allowed other marketplaces to be installed. Apple and developers would be under more pressure to provide you a good experience if you could install open source utilities from F-Droid as easily as $500/year subscription utilities.