You're right on two accounts: - Google gets paid no matter who pays, so they don't care - Tinder still gets the revenue (and at better margins bc they're not actually have to pay for that user anymore - Apple is paying)

And even your last point is not wrong: at some point Apple may stop doing this. But that could be year's away, and in the meantime, they're throwing their big stack around to make it too costly for developers - who Apple supposedly partners with - to build businesses that are less dependent on Apple’s whims. Plus, Apple uses the fact that most subscribers to app store products subscribe on the app store itself to bolster their case with regulators that no reform is needed bc consumers are overwhelmingly happy to use Apple’s IAP systems. But if Apple is putting it's finger on the scales in order to actively drive users away from web subscriptions, then they heavily misleading these regulators about the true “choices” consumers are making.

> how long

I think we can assume Apple is getting enough out of it to run this scheme permanently.

Unlike Tinder, they can get extra revenue from the user staying in the ecosystem (active credit card registered for IAP), getting used to Apple’s service, and keep buying Apple devices. Their LTV of the user is not just the 30% cut.

You do it while a service is growing, to capture most of the subscribers. Once growth dies down you stop buying and while the subscriber base will slowly bleed from app to web, you can ride the revenue stream from the growth fase’s subscribers for a long time.