I was wondering if there might be a way around that rule by claiming that what you sold in-app was a different product from what you sold out-of-app (e.g. on your website), but I'm not sure it would really work.
E.g.
you sell the in-app "iPhone exclusive" version for $x
and the out-of-app "everything except iPhone" version for ($x * 0.7) and then provide a "works on iPhone for no extra cost" special offer.
If Spotify was called Spatify on the app store, operated by a company that's owned by Spotify, their product wouldn't have to match the pricing of Spotify products on non-apple platforms... and perhaps 'Spatify' could announce a deal that allows Spotify customers to use their product for free.
Then it just comes down to whether Apple follow the rules by the letter, or apply common sense and tell Spotify not to take the piss.
Possibly they could call the sub-company "Spotify Magic" (random example - but something that will show up in search results for "spotify"), or possibly they could just ensure that Spatify gets well enough known for people to search for its new name.
I suspect if any company did this they would put a lot more research and thought into it than I have for my two quick HN comments - I'm really just wondering what, if somebody took this approach, Apple's response would be.
They could but Apple doesn't have to accept them into the App store. They can easily say "these two companies are the same", and enforce the same rules on them.
It reminds me of the "lowest advertised price" policy, where a workaround is that you don't see the discount until you add something to the shopping cart.
But the market is. No company is going to charge 30% extra on other platforms - competition would eat them there. So at worst there will be a split into Apple-only and No-Apple companies, at least for commodity repackaged content.
Yup, when you start introducing countless rules like these topped with the tightly controlled procedure of approving/rejecting apps the whole iOS ecosystem just doesn't feel enticing (or easy) anymore. I can't believe that people actually have to put up with some dude sitting somewhere approving what apps are worth it and getting content via them will cost +30%. It's unreal, if content providers go on with this they'll pass the 30% down to user. How is that not a "tax"?
