I think 30% is reasonable in a vacuum. But as a TLDR for a long winded rant: I don't care what a distributor takes as long as I have other options (even if it's economically inefficient. That just proves their rate is the best option) . And IOS gave none until this crumb of an olive branch popped up.
But what's happening is that this 30% is more or less a lock-in cost for the only official way to do business on IOS. And before this ruling, you weren't even allowed to mention in the app that consumers can also pay on your website. And now we come to this article saying "okay, you can show your website were still going to charge you 90% of our rate despite handling none of those transactions". And that's where things get really dicey.
With this new perspective, the question shifts to "is apple's 27% for distribution (minus payment processing) reasonable?" and I'm less sure. Especially when Apple can throw out my app for any reason whatsoever.
To use android for comparison, I can throw an APK up to download with relatively minimal effort, with zero regards for Google's rules and I owe Google 0% of my revenue. They still take 30% for using Google play as distribution. But it's nice knowing I could theoretically host it elsewhere if I don't agree with Google's pricing (minus some bribing issues Google is currently being taken to court for). There's none of that for Apple. Firefox is just a Safari skin because Apple says so. Emulator apps are in flux based on Apple's whims. Your app may be taken down for nudity as Apple profits millions from a few dozen games that barely try to hide it.
> I don't care what a distributor takes as long as I have other options
> this 30% is more or less a lock-in cost for the only official way to do business on IOS
As an app developer you're pretty much "screwed" TBH. You don't have a choice as to what platform your users choose (as long as you want to be in the market). Let's say Apple allows sideloading, but it is somewhat tedious and most users choose to stick to the official App Store -- then you're back to where you were, because you still want to sell your app/services to the users who stick to the official app store, and presumably your app is not so essential that users will actively switch if you dropped support for the official App Store.
If as an app developer you could influence the platform your users choose, then you would have asked them to move to Android and directly download your APK already, instead of bickering with the App Store (or even Google play store). The fact that you aren't proves that you're still at mercy to your users decisions, and whether they decide installing your app via sideloading is worth the trouble.
I'm not trying to denigrate you, but I suspect you might have unrealistically rosy expectations of the world where Apple is forced to allow sideloading.
Let's say Apple allows sideloading, but it is somewhat tedious and most users choose to stick to the official App Store [...]
There is no reason that sideloading is tedious. If it is, then that is a deliberierte choice, going from no sideloading to no sideloading that anybody will care to use. Just as Microsoft was forced to suggest alternative browsers to users instead of simply bundling Windows with Internet Explorer and Edge, one could even imagine to force Apple to let the user pick an alternative app store during setup.
But what's happening is that this 30% is more or less a lock-in cost for the only official way to do business on IOS. And before this ruling, you weren't even allowed to mention in the app that consumers can also pay on your website. And now we come to this article saying "okay, you can show your website were still going to charge you 90% of our rate despite handling none of those transactions". And that's where things get really dicey.
With this new perspective, the question shifts to "is apple's 27% for distribution (minus payment processing) reasonable?" and I'm less sure. Especially when Apple can throw out my app for any reason whatsoever.
To use android for comparison, I can throw an APK up to download with relatively minimal effort, with zero regards for Google's rules and I owe Google 0% of my revenue. They still take 30% for using Google play as distribution. But it's nice knowing I could theoretically host it elsewhere if I don't agree with Google's pricing (minus some bribing issues Google is currently being taken to court for). There's none of that for Apple. Firefox is just a Safari skin because Apple says so. Emulator apps are in flux based on Apple's whims. Your app may be taken down for nudity as Apple profits millions from a few dozen games that barely try to hide it.