That's what Apple already doing: applying arbitrary categories and charging arbitrary amounts of money because "transaction costs and platform or something".

1. Where the hell is the notion of "using the platform for free" even coming from (it's coming from Apple of course). I didn't know that iPhones are free, or that dev fees are waived for everyone.

2. Why the hell can't I use a different payment processor tham Apple and tell people about it? Then I'm neither using Apple's platform "for free" nor paying Apple's transaction fees.

▲

simondotau 7 hours ago | parent [-]

For interactive entertainment, I see no moral obligation for Apple to adopt any particular policy unless all major digital game store operators (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Valve etc) are subject to the same requirements.

For all other apps, I agree that alternative payment processing should be permitted for one-off transactions. And I can agree for subscriptions as well, provided the developer can meet a high standard for simple, frictionless cancellations.

▲

troupo 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> no moral obligation for Apple to adopt any particular policy unless all major digital game store operators (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Valve etc) are subject to the same requirements.

Why? iPhones are not gaming consoles.

▲

simondotau 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Liquor stores are not candy stores, yet they are allowed to sell candy to minors while being prohibited from selling liquor. The principle is straightforward: regulation should follow the product, not the venue.

	▲	troupo 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		All pained analogies are both pained and invalid. iOS is not a liquor store, and allowing people to use other payment processors or even other stores on the platform is not selling liquor to minors. Note how your analogies immediately fall apart for other platforms like, for example, Apple's own MacOS.