No, it's pretty reasonable - Apple wants their cut (for developing iOS & the hardware), so advertising "hey we don't sell via the App Store, go to our website to purchase" is effectively driving sales via iOS without paying Apple for making that possible.
No, we're specifically talking about subscriptions here, and Spotify as the example to boot. People weren't browsing around the App Store and randomly coming across Spotify and after trying it out deciding to subscribe, people were instead getting inundated with information about Spotify in everyday life and being told by their friends and family and media they should use it and then looking for it in the App Store. Lack of Spotify in the App Store would have made iOS users less happy with their devices, that's how popular it is and was, and that Apple felt it could cash in on Spotify's success is exactly the problem.
I would say the majority of subscription services fall into the same category, to a lesser degree. People don't discover Hulu, or HBO, or Netflix, or Disney Plus through the App Store. They go there looking for them because subscription services live and die by marketing and word of mouth, as people want to know whether it's worth signing up first.
Emphasis on it being done via iOS, not on the "figuring out who drove this person to become a paying subscriber". Apple made the device and the operating system: their cut, both upon sale of the device AND via in-app purchases/subscriptions thereafter, is part of the profit model of that devices over the lifetime of the device (including devices introduced 6 years ago, which will arguably take more time optimizing for when developing the new OS version) and goes towards that development.
Funny how that 30% cut applying to subscriptions only rolled out years after the store was already present, and apps with subscriptions had already been for sale for years.
If you want to make a case that the cut is needed to run the Apple Pay network (which IIRC when introduced is when they started charging for all purchases through it) and make sure that runs correctly, then fine. But the whole point here is that companies want to opt out of that network, or to clearly communicate that Apple's extra features cost them and they are passing that cost on to the consumer if they choose to pay it (either pay through linked Apple payment account with a higher cost subscription, or pay direct to the company in a different manner).
What this is, very clearly, is Apple limiting information allowed to be displayed to customers at time of purchase if it's on an Apple device. Sine free markets only work as well as the information available to consumers, this is anti-free market, and anti-consumer.
The only reason to not provide information to consumers about their choices is when you are trying to make them make a choice they wouldn't make if they had all the information. Any argument about doing it for their own good falls flat in the face of the fact you could just give them more information about why it's better for them. If they still choose not to use it, the only respectful way to treat that is that those people weighed their choices and decided what was best for them. Anything else is extremely anti-consumer, and when it's multiple companies colluding together to do so, we have very well known laws against it.
They are not optimizing for old devices. In fact the old devices get slower with each OS version, until Apple simply gives you the finger and there are no more updates. And you can't install another browser, so small websites with few developers (like Twitter) end up shutting you completely off.
A lot of the initial iOS "slowness" after updates is generally attributed to background indexing, and beyond that the phone likely becomes a victim of an aging battery which is fixable with a new one every 1-3 years - Androids are often stuck on old versions susceptible to malware.
>advertising "hey we don't sell via the App Store, go to our website to purchase" is effectively driving sales via iOS without paying Apple for making that possible.
Sounds good to me. I can get programs for PC operating systems (Windows, MacOS, Linux) without paying unnecessary middle men. Adobe doesn't have to give Microsoft a cut when I pay for Photoshop, and they don't have to give Best Buy a sympathy cut either because they run their own website.
Why should I be stuck with unnecessary middle men (app stores) for my phone?
But what if they didn't? If apple was losing $10 per iPhone, would you change your stance? what if they lost $200 per iPhone? the profit model for both iPhones and gaming consoles includes post-sale revenue since they know most people won't purchase it if the cost was all up-front (eg. the $500 PS5 would likely cost $900+ if Sony didn't get their cut of game sales and/or PSN sales).
> If apple was losing [...] per iPhone, would you change your stance?
No. They should change the phone price to match the cost instead of hiding additional charges in app fees.
> the profit model for both iPhones and gaming consoles includes post-sale revenue since they know most people won't purchase it if the cost was all up-front
Just because a profit model is convenient for a corporation is conveninet does not mean it should be accepted. If they want recurring revenue for a smaller up front price they can offer loans instead of being dishonest. But that would allow people to make an informed choice based on the true price they will be paying, and Apple / Sony don't want that.
