The free-to-play model that Epic is relying on (and, with some variability, the other players are relying on, where the apps themselves are "free" with a paid service) somewhat breaks the conventions we're used to discussing, and there aren't really analogies.
The closest comparison I can make to these services are how PC MMORPGs (think World of Warcraft) used to be sold -- at retail, a user would make a single purchase that included a version of the game's client and a code that granted them some time in the game, so they'd be getting a "complete" product with the purchase. If Fortnite cost $5, but included whatever that'd convert to in VBucks, this discussion would be very, very different; same with if Spotify charged $10 for their app but included the first month free. In this case, Apple & Google, as retailers, would get their percentage (as non-recurring revenue), but Epic and Spotify would be free to continue booking 100% of revenue on an ongoing basis, but would need to invest a lot more in marketing, since free on-boarding is a massive driver for user adoption.
If I'm using a free app, and a bug causes it to break, would I report the bug to Apple or to the developer? If I saw something objectionable, or ugly, would I say that iOS is ugly, or would I blame the developer? I think that regardless of the price, when I'm using an app and I find myself in the state of attributing the experience to the developer instead of Apple, that means I'm playing in the developer's space, not Apple's. Getting past all of the analogies, what Apple is doing is saying that you're not allowed to mention competing storefronts even when you're inside your own space.
In contrast, if I went to a app store page and the app store crashed, or the app didn't download, I'd contact Apple, because I'm not in the developer's space there, I'm in Apple's.
There is some fuzziness there, and there's also some fuzziness around whether or not it's OK for Apple to decide what you can and can't do inside your own 'app space.' Different people can have different opinions on that, and ultimately the courts/Congress will probably end up deciding whether that is Ok.
But that's the non-analogy, purely app-centric explanation I would use -- Apple is dictating what you can say to customers when you're in your own space, and they're doing that to a degree that goes beyond protecting users from malware or fraud. I personally think it's very difficult to argue that keeping people from mentioning prices elsewhere is a restriction that's purely designed to protect users. It's not really the same as restricting phishing attacks or fraud inside of an app would be. So to me, that makes me feel less charitable about arguments that Apple should be able to have that kind of control about what happens in the developer's space, because I don't see a compelling reason for them to have that power.
https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/payment-policies/offers-b...
>Buyers and sellers can't:
>In any communications with another eBay member, refer to or promote external websites that facilitate sales outside of eBay
I would count sending a "letter" along with your product to be a form of communication.
>Use contact information obtained through an eBay transaction to offer to buy or sell an item outside of eBay
This would prevent you from adding the insert to the package.
>Offer catalogs or other items that are used to order items directly outside of eBay
An insert is effectively a mini catalog. So they pretty much explicitly banned inserts. If you aren't even allowed to sell them for a price then sellers clearly wouldn't be allowed to give them away for free.
Sending an insert along with a product breaks 3 policy points at once. Can you describe which part of the policy actually allows inserts? All I see is that Ebay wants to have complete control over communications between seller and buyer.
>>In any communications with another eBay member, refer to or promote external websites that facilitate sales outside of eBay
>I would count sending a "letter" along with your product to be a form of communication.
This means one can't use eBay's messaging for promotion, but one can use one's own product. The way you're interpreting this would mean that no one selling in eBay could send letters (or even advertise) anywhere outside eBay because it might reach an eBay member.
>>Use contact information obtained through an eBay transaction to offer to buy or sell an item outside of eBay
>This would prevent you from adding the insert to the package.
This means one can't use the paypal address for direct mail for these purposes. However, you don't even have to know who the customer is to add an insert or to package your product such that it refers to your website.
>>Offer catalogs or other items that are used to order items directly outside of eBay
>An insert is effectively a mini catalog.
It's basically Google's rule on not promoting other App Stores in their Play Store.
Fact: Plenty of people do this in practice and eBay is not cracking down. Maybe it's not interpreted the way you think it is?
Apple isn't just banning apps from mentioning competing stores in app descriptions, it's banning them from mentioning competing stores inside the app.