Apple doesn't even do a great job enforcing its blanket ban either. Lots of shady developers will skirt the rules around subscription apps still being functional without subscription by having it function while under review and then flip something on the server side to lock it down once approved.
If my interpretation of the bill is correct, then Apple could just say "You need to list Apple IAP in the same screen as the other payment methods, and you can't make it harder to find than the custom methods you implement." And knowing Apple, that's what they would do.
Small developers will likely still use Apple because it is easy. The cut is likely less than the hassle of using a different system.
After an update took away the required login setting for a purchase, Twice I have called Apple and received a refund when my kid spent hundreds of dollars in a couple hours. What is going to happen when that is a malicious game developer? They are not giving that money back. The cable monopolies show how monopolies will make it exceedingly hard to cancel a subscription.
As a mere consumer, that is no longer developing for a living, I do not want this option. I do not really care if companies have to pay Apple a cut. I want easy. I want to trust who has my credit card.
Did you read the comment you replied to?
Even if this passes, Apple will still be able to require that all apps offer Apple pay as an option for in-app payments.
They just won't be able to prevent developers from offering additional payment options, or from informing users about Apple's 30% cut, or from charging a different price to users who opt to pay using another method.
Not possible if the developer only offers their app via their own competing app store, which won't be subject to forced Apple Pay nor Apple's in-app payment system integration.