I think the line is “does this harm a human who does not consent.” Regulating autonomous vehicles? Apple being able to reject apps that steal user data? Both within reason.
But rejecting simply because it lets someone pay in an alternate manner crosses a line.
While I'm inclined to agree with the spirit of your argument, I believe Apple makes the argument that their payment gateway enforcement is in fact in line with that “does this harm a human who does not consent” test.
The argument goes, if I'm not mistaken, that by enforcing their payment gateway, they're assuring that users aren't handing over credit card info and other PPI in an insecure manner.
Whether you buy that or not is up to you, but this is definitely a defence I've heard.
> The argument goes, if I'm not mistaken, that by enforcing their payment gateway, they're assuring that users aren't handing over credit card info and other PPI in an insecure manner.
Doesn't Apple specifically have a deal with Amazon to ignore the 30% cut for them?
I believe they only consider ‘digital goods’ to be in-app purchases. For instance you can’t buy kindle books or streaming video content through the amazon app(s).
But rejecting simply because it lets someone pay in an alternate manner crosses a line.