Supposing I have a B2B (not B2C) web-application + SaaS for a hypothetical professional studio photographers’s portfolio app. The app is entirely free (gratis) with self-service signup in the app for a free SaaS service tier - the app itself is only used for uploading photos to the SaaS service (I.e. it’s a utility/companion app).
Now, supposing that users on the free tier can pay a one-off fee (in the iOS app or on the web) to enable the ability to set a custom colour scheme for their portfolio page (which doesn’t affect the appearance of the iOS app at all) - that doesn’t count as a purchase which enhances the app experience - it doesn’t enable/disable or change anything in the app - should that be an IAP with the 30% tax - or an Apple Pay purchase with only ~3% processing fees?
Now, what if instead of selling that digital-only, app-irrelevant good in the app instead users could buy a physical “welcome pack” in the app which consists of a cheap Zazzle tote-bag with the company logo on - and as a bonus to the user enables the same custom-colour-scheme feature as a “thank you” to the user (like how Reddit and GitHub add flair to your account if you’re a paying user). Does (or should) Apple get 30% or 3% of that? If the cost of selling the tote bag is less than Apple’s 30% fee then I’ve found a loophole in IAP vs. AP.
That is not a thing at Reddit (I'm a paying user and there is no special flair nor any setting to add one).
On GitHub, you get the purple "PRO" badge next to your username on your profile page and in the profile-tooltips elsewhere on GitHub.
Not legally, in most jurisdictions.
The only way to compete with Apple in the browsers space on iOS is to build your own app marketplace/store, since Apple controls distribution through the App Store.
The only way to compete with Apple in the app store space is to build your own OS, since iOS only allows the Apple App Store, not competing ones.
The only way to compete with Apple in the OS space is to build your own hardware (or buy from someone else and distribute), since Apple hardware locks out other operating systems from running.
So the only way to compete with Apple in a space where they've decided you aren't allowed to is to replace their entire platform stack, and compete with them at the platform level.
So to compete with Apple in the browser space you have to compete at the level of Google, where you make hardware, the OS, and the marketplace, and hope people move over wholesale to your hardware and OS just so they can use your browser.
That's why Apple's behavior is anti-competitive. They've put walls to competition in place at every possible level to make it so the amount of money and expertise required to compete at any level is the same to competing at almost all levels.
You say "many smartphone manufacturers" but in practice there aren't actually that many smartphone manufacturers. Moreover, there is only really one -- Google -- which has actually done it. All the others license their software stack from Google. Even Microsoft made a serious attempt to do this and failed.
Your claim is that an individual app developer who wants to compete with an Apple app on iOS could feasibly do this?
Yes, if you're already poised at the lowest part of the platform stack, you can sell hardware that competes with Apple's hardware, but it can't fully compete, because you can't offer a better solution to host iOS on, you can only offer to be part of platform that competes. You cannot compete with Apple hardware directly on just the hardware level.
> Apple has a very small global market share on smartphones and only around 50% in the US.
I'm not making a case that Apple is a monopoly. I'm making a case that their action are anti-competitive (I'm using this term divorced from any specific legal meaning), and thus bad for their users in that respect.
Would allowing other hardware to run iOS be better or worse for users of iOS and the rest of the Apple ecosystem? In some ways better, in some ways worse, but we can't rely on the market to tell us the result of that specific question, because the market is constrained. We can look at each level of the platform stack similarly.
This is usually brought up as a matter of user choice, but I think it's important to distil that to what it means, competition. Choice means there are at least two competing things to choose from, an given that our economic model requires choice (among other things, such as information about choices) to function correctly.
Do I think Apple has a monopoly, as previously defined by law? No. But I think it's important to note that nobody had a monopoly as defined by law before the late 1800's, because that legal definition didn't exist, and was created to deal with harms we saw because of anti-competitive actions. So, I think Apple isn't a monopoly as we currently define it, but I do think their actions are anti-competitive in large and obvious ways, and that we may need to address that in some manner legislatively. That may mean altering the legal definition of monopoly so it matches, or it may just mean putting some select laws in place to hamper specific anti-competitive behavior (for example, a consumer right to be able to run whatever software you want on your hardware would address some small aspect of this).
That said, I've been a bit loose here in verifying some of my terminology about legal points, and IIRC you have experience in that domain, so I'm sure you can correct me on that if you feel it warranted (and I would welcome it, as well of course as any specific problems you think my argument has).
Apple explicitly allow for loading your own apps, your opening gambit is a flat out lie.
The context of this discussion distributing software on Apple's platform, not installing your own software. Your own software is not market competition. The comments up-thread specifically cover this, so I don't know why you would think I was stating otherwise in a general sense, rather than working within the context of the discussion.
So, can sideloading be used as a way to distribute software you want to sell? Not legally, based on the restrictions Apple has put in place for sideloading. The closest you could get to my knowledge would be the enterprise program, which is only intended to be used to distribute software to employees.
There's also the point that the hoops required to successfully sideload an app are themselves a fairly large wall to being able to use it even at the level of a single person wanting to install something, even if it wasn't disallowed by different agreements you must make to do so.
Edit: This made more sense when I realized the headline was about purchasing ad placement within the app, not viewing ads.
No buying a kindle book, you'll be forced to open a web browser and do it that way. No purchasing movies, or music.
Physical goods that are delivered to your home, all good. Not an issue.