> If I have a link on my site that takes a customer directly to the store page, and they buy it, then Apple did nothing at all to earn an "affiliate" level payout. They didn't drive any traffic.
The store provides you visibility through promotion on the store page, being listed in search and taking payment for the purchase.
This would be no different than if a boxed piece of software was in a brick and mortar retailer and you told your customers you could by it at those stores.
In a brick and mortar retailer they display your product in your store and people come in, take the box and go to the checkout.
Conceptually the process is exactly the same. The only difference is that it is happening over the internet.
> Or if the customer puts in the exact app name and buys it.
The user is still using the store to buy the app. It would be no different than a boxed piece of software being on display in brick and mortar retailer. The customer may only go in there to pick up the game and nothing else. They are still buying through apple.
> It's very relevant to whether 30% is reasonable. Apple acts as a legitimate affiliate some of the time, but they forcibly take that fee all of the time.
No it isn't. You are conflating the issues of them having absolute control over the app store and whether 30% is reasonable. 30% is reasonable because that is the standard rate in most of these relationships.
If it wasn't reasonable people wouldn't publish with Steam, Gog, Nintendo (nintendo lowered the rate if you look at the IGN link to 30% to match other stores).
Also if it wasn't financially viable with the 30% fee (which has been there since 2011) then people wouldn't publish apps there.