So the fact that you don’t have to use Apple’s in app subscriptions for users to be able to subscribe is irrelevant to the argument that apps have to use in app purchases for subscriptions?
You're missing the point. The lack of alternative app stores or the ability to accept payments and control subscriptions via other gateways is the problem. You either use Apple app store/payments and accept the fee or you don't have any transaction ability in the app.
I want to make an iOS app. I've already paid Apple the $100 bucks per year or whatever it is, so I've "done my part".
Then, I want to have in-app subscriptions and payments, and I found a great service, XYZ, that does this.
So, on my own time, with my own device I bought (which by the way, in another money-grubbing move, HAS to be another Apple device, even though there are 0 solid technical reasons to force this), I write the app, I put in the integration for XYZ.
Can I publish this to large amounts of iOS devices?
They're both Turing machines, if that's what you're getting at.
In practice, no, a console is not a general purpose computing machine.
On iOS, by design, you can install almost any kind of application even without jailbreaking it. Which people do, you can have Excel and Maps and IDEs and whatever.
Consoles, by design, do not allow that. It's almost strictly meant for games and media.
And again. I don't care. Both types of walled gardens should be abolished.
I don’t think Apple is seriously considering a major play in ads and if they are I think this signals pretty hard that they won’t be doing it off the back of consumer data.
It just doesn’t make sense to their business strategy. Apple is premium, ads are the antithesis of premium. Just doesn’t make business sense.
And 30% take rate of everything from your app including later subscriptions and services is extremely rent-seeking.