I like how users always forget that macOS gets it malware more easily then iOS but no one mentions that part. Users can download third party apps…
These security arguments were litigated in court. Apple lost those arguments. As they should lose them, because they're dumb arguments. You can buy goods and services using a Web browser on iOS and iPadOS — using Safari, even. You've been able to buy goods and services online using a Web browser for about 3 decades. You can already do that, today. You can even use Apple Pay in Safari if the merchant elects to support it. Just fire up Safari and go buy whatever you want from Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, Walmart, or myriad other online merchants. Whatever risks there are in buying goods and services via a Web browser on iOS or iPadOS already exist.
The contested issue was whether an app developer can make it more convenient to use Safari (or the default Web browser) to make exactly the same "external" transactions in exactly the same way. Apple tried to argue that somehow buying a subscription in Safari was not buying a subscription in Safari. Apple lost that argument, and it lost all appeals.
In fact, it's *safer* for an app to offer a URL to tap versus the current "you can't subscribe in our app; you figure out how to find us" arrangement. A user might mistype a URL, landing on a phishing Web site (if it isn't already blocked via Google's anti-phishing/anti-malware list that Apple relies on).
While I agree in general, I think what Apple is worried about is every paid app becoming “free” and requiring an out-of-app subscription, which is significantly worse for Apple and (I’d argue) worse for Apple’s customers.
If Apple is concerned about that outcome, no problem! Simply charge a lower commission that nearly all app developers can tolerate. How about 5%?
Supermarkets operate on low single digit margins, and they actually have to stock and move myriad perishable physical goods.
You know what else would be better for consumers? A much lower Apple sales commission! Apple's profit margin is incredibly high.
Imagine if you had to give your credit card info to every single paid app, you’re not able to easily cancel subscriptions, no remedy in cases of misrepresentations of functions, etc.
Apple already offers a solution for unified payments: Apple Pay. You know what Apple could do to encourage Apple Pay adoption in Web and app transactions? Be more cost competitive.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) already adopted subscription cancellation rules. Moreover, credit card vendors already offer dispute resolution mechanisms. But OK, if Apple genuinely adds some value in those respects, fine. Apple could try charging a 5% commission, not 30%.
...and that’s before the scam apps, fraud etc that Apple will have no way of preventing, which will tarnish their brand image (especially if they’re not allowed to mention buying off the app store is riskier, which it absolutely is).
Again, Apple already raised these arguments and lost. There's nothing preventing Apple from blocking scam apps from the Apple App Store. Apple can even continue to charge a 30% commission if it wants. Or 38%, or whatever rate it wants. But it cannot block app developers in the U.S. from providing a tappable in-app URL to switch to Safari (or another Web browser) to go buy a subscription or other in-app purchase — something the iOS/iPadOS user
can already do by switching to Safari and heading over to the app developer's online Web store (via a search engine or direct entry of a URL).
