What are some examples of the categories of apps and services that aren't publishable on the App Store due to Apple's services revenue?
> An app store with a 5-10% cut would be an app store with a much richer choice of apps.
Why? And how are you defining "rich". Rich in quality? Quantity? Something else?
> What are some examples of the categories of apps and services that aren't publishable on the App Store due to Apple's services revenue?
For example, Apple refuses to allow Peertube app onto the App Store. Peertube is a free version of Youtube with peer-to-peer file transfer acceleration.
That's because you can use it to (bring out smelling salts!) watch porn. If you connect it to a private Peertube instance.
Another example, Apple is not allowing an eBook reader app (FBReader) with full OPDS support. Because you can use OPDS to buy books in third-party stores. I'm using OPDS to get books from my own Calibre Web library, btw.
These are just the ones I can list off the top of my head. No doubt there are others.
I don’t think it’s that simple, they allow Reddit, which Is filled to the brim with porn, and other ver ”non Apple” things. They also allow plenty of comic book readers that open files from almost every possibly conceivable source. Not to mention a lot of video players that can play porn of course.
Is it inconsistent and frustrating, very much so, and certain apps get an unfair treatment for sure, but I don’t think it’s as simple as that ”if app can do x then it’s banned”.
> I don’t think it’s that simple, they allow Reddit
What part of "monopolistic collusion behaivor" you do not understand? Apple likely has backroom deals with large players, while locking out smaller competitors.
After all, Grok app is still in the App Store.
> Is it inconsistent and frustrating, very much so, and certain apps get an unfair treatment for sure, but I don’t think it’s as simple as that ”if app can do x then it’s banned”.
I gave the names of actual apps, feel free to talk with their developers. Peertube got in only after removing the ability to add custom endpoints.
I'm not familiar with either of those apps, but it sounds to me like both break their terms of service. We can agree or disagree about those terms, but that seems to me to be the case here, versus Apple banning those apps due to services revenue.
Well, yes. That's the point. Apple's ToS are anti-competitive crap.
I'm not sure if they are or aren't, but I don't think that is a good argument when the premise was that revenue was preventing categories of apps and services. For example, in both of these apps Apple would still be getting services revenue through in-app purchases and such. Maybe that's not enough and so they construct their terms of service accordingly, but that's still not proof one way or the other, which is why I asked the original question that I had asked.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not sure there is evidence to support your assertion either.
E.g. a PeerTube client with configurable endpoints is impossible under the current AppStore policy. Although Netflix is fine.