52 ms·

Netflix is the latest company to try bypassing Apple’s app store

• 75dvtwin 8y ago
  Could this be analogous to the 'Net neutrality' arguments? Only in this case Google and Apple are the 'bad guys' (the infrastructure providers, eg the ISP). While the so called 'Over-the-top' application/service providers (eg Netflix, Spotify, Epic games, etc) and their users are the victims ? I can see a small difference, where the ISPs did not have anything analogous to 'advertisement' benefit to their 'Over-the-top' application/service providers. But surely, the advertising help the stores provide -- is not worth continuous 30% (or even 15%) take ?
  • quadrangle 8y ago
    Totally. Device neutrality. Software freedom even. People should be able to run whatever legal software they want on their own devices for whatever legal purposes.
• orf 8y ago
  > Epic Games will be launching its hit game Fortnite for Android on its own website, and fans will only be able to download the game there, not on Google Play ... while the setting that blocks third-party installations can be disabled on Android phones. If they are talking about disabling it system wide vs disabling it for a single application, is this not pretty irresponsible? Lots of kids play Fortnite, saying "hey to play your favourite game just disable this security setting" to millions of them seems risky.
  • bluehazed 8y ago
    It's possible they're using the uncomfortable security risks as a play to get better terms out of Google.
  • scaasic 8y ago
    Not an Android nor Fortnite user, but I believe from other reports there is a prompt to re-enable the setting after installing the app.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • draw_down 8y ago
    Is it not irresponsible for the platform to force the choice to be that coarse-grained?
  • slivym 8y ago
    You're right that it's a bad situation for millions of kids to be told to turn off security settings, it seems like that's a bad situation for Android/Google/Samsung than it is for Epic Games. It's kind of Google's own fault for tying their 'security' into a huge tax. If Google offered certification for a fixed cost then this wouldn't be an issue - you could distribute certified apps yourself and not have the problem. The problem is they tied certification into a tax and appearing in the appstore.
    • kodablah 8y ago
      > The problem is they tied certification into a tax and appearing in the appstore. If you were more profit motivated, you might argue the problem is allowing externally installed software. Granted they foolishly obtained too large of a market share to have any say in that anymore. If you care about users though, yes, the cost barriers for devs are a problem no matter who puts them up. Ideally the cost is in the phone purchase, not the continued use.
  • MiddleEndian 8y ago
    Hopefully these kids will be exposed to the idea that they can choose what software they use rather than being limited to a curated store.
    • jryan49 8y ago
      They will most likely be scammed into downloading spyware.
      • danieldk 8y ago
        Which is a valuable lesson - a lesson in learning to be a rational, critical, grown-up human being. Or we could educate them and it might never happen. Also, let's not forget that many closed system are spyware already. Many of us became deeply involved in tech because some person (thanks Pat Volkerding!) or organization gave us a system were we could do whatever the hell we wanted.
        • orf 8y ago
          > Which is a valuable lesson - a lesson in learning to be a rational, critical, grown-up human being. Well... you can phrase it like some life lesson, sure. In reality 1% of 3 million kids clicking on 'Free vbux!!' and converting is 30,000 kids having malware ridden phones, doing god knows what to god knows who. Is increasing the profits of malware distributors by so much really worth some hand-wavy "teach kids to become a grown up" lesson? Also, it's not just the kids. By any margin.
          • danieldk 8y ago
            In reality 1% of 3 million kids clicking on 'Free vbux!!' and converting is 30,000 kids having malware ridden phones, doing god knows what to god knows who. Well, most of those kids will run outdated Android versions with many known vulnerabilities. And they cannot update their phones, because they have locked firmware and walled-garden OS, largely put in place to make them buy new phones. Again, the proper solution beyond a good security baseline is to educate people.
  • dragonwriter 8y ago
    > If they are talking about disabling it system wide vs disabling it for a single application, is this not pretty irresponsible? It's not a system wide setting, it's an app-specific setting (that is, it's for the app you wish to be able to install other apps.) Setting it to “allow” for the default browser and leaving it that way is something of an issue, though.
    • iokanuon 8y ago
      In my experience its only an app-specific setting on Samsung devices. Their phones give you a prompt for disabling the setting "just this one time".
      • opencl 8y ago
        It's app-specific for any phone running Oreo or newer.
    • orf 8y ago
      So in this case Chrome or Firefox? Does not seem any better. In fact, way worse.
      • binomialxenon 8y ago
        I don't think this is how it works, at least not from my past experience with Lineage. A browser isn't an app installer, as when you download an APK from it, the APK is staged through the phone's integrated file manager (aka "Downloads" app), and is treated as having no real source. As far as I know, real "app installers" are purpose-built programs such as Amazon Appstore and F-Droid.
        • orf 8y ago
          Hmm, you might be right, but I installed an APK recently (also on Lineage) and it asked me to authorize Firefox, it had the Firefox logo and seemed to suggest that future installs would be authorized. I cancelled it and opened it through the file manager.
  • mscrivo 8y ago
    This is not much of an issue with newer versions of Android. see Tim Sweeney's tweet about the situation: https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1025535391724650498 https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/102553539172465049...
  • toast0 8y ago
    Installing a downloaded APK means you miss out on Google's identity verification process, and maybe on Google's malicious code scanning -- but Google Play Protect says it will scan all apps on your device, and may upload your apps to Google[1], so it might not be that big of a difference in practice, if you get linked into the appstore by a shady website, you can get a shady app. There's a bigger difference on iOS, if a similar setting was even available, because Apple curates much more strongly than Google. [1] https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/2812853?hl=en https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/2812853?hl=en
    • nijave 8y ago
      Unless there's a different app store doing the same thing. (Such as Amazon app store for Android or F-Droid)
  • phobosdeimos 8y ago
    Android doesn't have system wide sideloading anymore, if I allow sideloading for one app its still disabled for other apps.
  • tk75x 8y ago
    IIRC, the setting only needs to be disabled temporarily to allow the installation of a third party app. If you re-enable the blocking setting after you install the game, I don't see any reason things can't work and be secure.
    • pas 8y ago
      How will they handle updates?
• MiddleEndian 8y ago
  Excellent, hopefully this trend continues on all platforms.
• ihuman 8y ago
  Doesn't this violate the App Store guidelines? > Section 3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services: > Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired elsewhere, including consumable items in multi-platform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase. To me, it sounds like Netflix is, "directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase." I'm not saying they should or shouldn't break the rules, I'm just saying that they are.
  • scaasic 8y ago
    Given that Spotify, a direct competitor to an Apple service, is allowed to remain while also breaking this rule makes it seem like this won't be enforced in Netflix's case. But who knows, maybe when Apple launches their video service they'll come down on both companies, and we'll see what happens.
    • scosman 8y ago
      They will enforce on anyone that won't make international headlines by punting from app store, which is to say 99.99% of developers.
    • ckocagil 8y ago
      I'll tell you what will happen: an anti-trust case of massive proportions.
  • godzillabrennus 8y ago
    I think Apple would face backlash from too many of their customers if they boot netflix for this. Netflix is potentially more popular than iPhone as a brand. I could be wrong but it would be amazing to see it play out.
    • amyjess 8y ago
• bepotts 8y ago
  Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable. Want to bypass that cut? Build a web app and make it play well on mobile. If you want to run it on Android and iOS devices, then I don't really see how anyone can say "Apple and Google are taking too much of my cut". Disagree with it sure, but don't act as if they're some thugs stealing from companies.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • pm90 8y ago
    Nobody denies that they created an amazing ecosystem. But their ecosystem also has no competition: they’ve captured the market, just like Standard Oil did with the petroleum market in the beginning of the 20th century. And neither is good for consumers.
  • patmcc 8y ago
    30% of a single app purchase might be reasonable, we can argue about that. 30% of a recurring monthly subscription (like netflix) is bonkers.
    • Redoubts 8y ago
      It's half that after 1 year.
      • 99052882514569 8y ago
        15% of a recurring monthly subscription (like netflix) is bonkers.
        • eahman08 8y ago
          It's not.
• tusharsoni 8y ago
  Apple and Google should update their policies where they take a much smaller cut if the user got to the App Store page directly (via external link) or a direct search. They deserve the 30% cut if users find the app by browsing the store (which doesn't happen nearly as often).
  • phobosdeimos 8y ago
    Yeah I doubt anyone has ever learned about Netflix through Google/Apple app store. Netflix is a huge brand.
  • segmondy 8y ago
    Maybe intel deserves 30% of the cut since you used their CPU to find an app when you use a web browser. How about Firefox, do they deserve a cut? Maybe Comcast since you used their network. Apple & Google don't deserve 30%, their app store is a monopoly. The same way it's unfair for Microsoft to force you to only use Internet explorer is the same way it's unfair for us to be forced to use the app store. There should be other alternatives, and none of them should have a restriction such as, "You can't publish your apps with us if you do with another store".
    • craftyguy 8y ago
      There are alternatives, like F-droid or Amazon's app store. I agree that Google being allowed to bundle their app store (and no other alternatives) amounts to them being as anti-competitive as MS bundling IE.
    • ckocagil 8y ago
      What alternatives are there on iOS?
• z3t4 8y ago
  The platform fee should be treated as a platform tax, just add it to the price, then user can choose to install via platform store and pay the extra or side load it and pay normal. Or is there something in the publisher agreement that prevents this ?
• peatmoss 8y ago
  I miss the idea that a platform, applications, and marketplace were not a vertical stack owned by one entity. As a consumer, I’d love to buy a phone, not a content distribution straight jacket.
  • tommymachine 8y ago
    Has there not always been unequal distribution of apps / content across platforms?
  • bepotts 8y ago
    As a consumer, I love it. I love that I buy an iPhone and Apple doesn't allow any non-trusted binaries to run on my phone, enforces strict style guidelines (the average app just looks better on my iPhone than Android IMO), has one place where all possible apps are, maintains a distribution channels that allows all my apps to be updated easily, and builds hardware and software that is designed to work together. I love my iPhone because Apple is such sticklers about apps, design, and creating a consistently nice user experience. The average user doesn't care about how "open" Android is. They just want something that works. Even if you didn't want to go the walled garden approach, who could look at how Europe treats Android and come to the conclusion that Google made the right decision by being open?
    • ballenf 8y ago
      Is it that you love that they don't give you the choice of restricting or not restricting installs? Or simply appreciate that app vetting and security are services you're willing to pay for. It seems more like the latter, but you're expressing more like the former. I can see the value in the vetting service to a lot of people, but I just don't understand the idea of embracing a forced restriction on other people that you happen to like yourself.
      • eanzenberg 8y ago
        I'm fine with the restriction, given that the App store needs to vet all the apps coming through. I have never felt there wasn't an app for what I was looking for.
• akshayB 8y ago
  Apps stores are work great if you are a small company and can get access to big audience for 30% cut. Apps stores essentially acts like middleman who does payment processing, can advertise and also provides fraud protection. But when you are already a big company like Netflix or Microsoft those benefits essentially just don't add up.
• sxp62000 8y ago
  I'd like to see some sort of a breakdown of how Apple uses the 30% to improve the app store. Even if they were spending 15% of that cut on improving iTunes Connect etc. it would've shown.
  • donarb 8y ago
    This is a list of some of the benefits of the App Store. The idea is not that every developer may want/need every feature, but think how much it would cost a developer to implement each one by themselves. - 24/7 worldwide availability, instant payment/download - Easy re-install after deletion, you still own the app even if deleted - Region restriction - Separate app pricing by region - Revenues paid to developer from multiple region currencies without conversion fees - Tax calculation and collection - Customer refunds - User rankings and reviews - App store advertising in category listings - Video previews of the app in operation - Packaging of media content allowing developers the ability to load game levels as the user needs them rather than all at once - App sales stats
    • mcphage 8y ago
      > Easy re-install after deletion, you still own the app even if deleted It’s not universal. I’ve lost access to several apps that I had paid for—and that’s not even getting into iOS 11 incompatibility.
• sambroner 8y ago
  There's two arguments: Apple/Google developed the device, support the platform, built the api, maintain the infrastructure, and market the experience. The other is that app developers have a symbiotic, probably synergistic relationship with the phone makers. Apps are a huge part of the draw of a good platform. My take is that until we decide that a given platform is a monopoly, we let the platforms fight for a larger market share by attracting high quality apps using this "tax" as leverage (better dev experience, larger market share, superior hardware are other tactics). Microsoft tried (and failed) to improve their platform by offering developers a larger share of the take away and hoping they'd improve the ecosystem. My hope is the market gets more competitive so that app makers get a larger share of the profit.
  • akira2501 8y ago
    > and market the experience. While locking their devices and users to that experience, or forcing those users to make large-scale security compromises just to avoid it. > My take is that until we decide that a given platform is a monopoly They seem like they are. Is there another app store that iPhone users can use? Android users? Does the operating system on these phones let you easily change your "app store" preference? > we let the platforms fight for a larger market share by attracting high quality apps using this "tax" as leverage How does that benefit consumers? Is it impossible to achieve these same benefits in any other way than the somewhat draconian system we have now? > Microsoft tried (and failed) to improve their platform by offering developers a larger share of the take away and hoping they'd improve the ecosystem. Microsoft had more problems with their platform than just the price. There's already a workable distribution channel for third-party software on their systems. Their "app store" really didn't add any benefit to people already familiar with their software. Plus, they never really sold a volume of phones that puts them close to Apple or Google so their Monopoly position in this regard was severely hampered. > My hope is the market gets more competitive so that app makers get a larger share of the profit. How is that going to happen when you only have one app distribution mechanism to choose from per platform?
    • fx32s 8y ago
      > They seem like they are. Is there another app store that iPhone users can use? Android users? Does the operating system on these phones let you easily change your "app store" preference? Companies are not forced to change their hardware to run a competitors binaries really. There's choice in platforms which means iOS or Android phones in this case. If this were true every game console was a monopoly.
• jobu 8y ago
  Didn't Apple change the rules about external accounts and subscriptions a couple years back? I thought you could create an app that required an external account (and external purchases) as long as there was no links to the external site from the app and no mention of subscription or external purchases within the app. Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, and a few others have been doing it this way for a while, so I'm surprised this is news.
  • harryf 8y ago
    Audible.com is a clear example of this. All purchases have to be made on their website. The app is just a player with the ability to browse and put content on your wish list but nothing more. It's a horrible user experience but a 30% price hike on content might make me think twice about impulse purchases
    • cpeterso 8y ago
      Oh! So these Apple fees are why Audible doesn't allow you to purchase audio books in the app.
      • mrep 8y ago
        Yep, and the same reason you cannot buy kindle books in the kindle app.
• c487bd62 8y ago
  Does this means that any app distributed outside the store doesn't get access to closed features like Google Cloud Messaging? If so that's another reason to support sideloading since right now using MicroG seems like a pain in the ass (if you, like me, need a lot of problematic apps)
  • inawarminister 8y ago
    Uh, I used to install apps directly from APKs and they don't seem to disable GCM or any other features? Different outcome when you haven't flashed gapps though. Haha.
  • s73v3r_ 8y ago
    It entirely depends on whether the phone itself has Google Play on it or not. When you distribute through the Play Store, you know that's true. When you distribute through other means, you can't be sure of that.
• chacham15 8y ago
  To everyone saying that Apple/Google maintain the hardware/infra for Apps and so deserve a cut, I think the question here is about being forced into it. Imagine if Microsoft did the same with Windows; people would be outraged.
• tolmasky 8y ago
  Ultimately it’s of course their choice, but I truly believe that a “fee-less” App Store would be better for the party that so seldom gets mentioned: me, the consumer. I’m the one that’s ultimately paying the 30%, not the apps. I already paid 1000$ for this phone, if I spend money on Netflix I want that money going to making great tv shows, all of it, not 70% of it.
  • donarb 8y ago
    Who cares what the developer has to pay Apple? Do you care how much the developer pays in rent for his office, or his high speed internet? Maybe the app would be cheaper if the developer pays himself $50/hour rather than $100. All of those costs are part of the app price as well.
    • tolmasky 8y ago
      I would absolutely care if a new price materialized out of thin air that then got passed off to me. 30% is a lot. I posit that if a new 30% penalty was instilled tomorrow in just about every piece of software you interacted with, you would both notice and care. I also care when the 30% applies solely by proxy through me. That is to say, since Apple doesn't allow you to differentiate pricing on the Store (IOW, charge 30% more on the App Store), the developer is forced to have me be a lower-value customer than if I used the product through another means. That means that in the developer's eyes, I am necessarily a less important customer, the same way someone that pays for the basic account is lower priority than someone that pays for the Pro account. This is not true of all the other costs you mentioned, rent and salary aren't dynamically changing customer to customer. By placing a 30% fee on the App Store, Apple is obscuring my importance to the developer.
      • donarb 8y ago
        What new price? Apple's 30% has been in place since the App Store opened. Outside of the HN bubble, users have no idea what Apple charges developers, nor do they care. If a customer wants an app, they check the price and determine if they want to pay it or not, just as business is conducted every day all around the world. If a developer is losing money building apps (most cut their own throat with $.99 apps), they need to increase the price to cover their costs, that's Business 101.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• 99052882514569 8y ago
  IMO The European Commission Versus Android[1] from Stratechery is required reading if you want to understand the app store battles of 2018. [1] https://stratechery.com/2018/the-european-commission-versus-android/ https://stratechery.com/2018/the-european-commission-versus-...
• menacingly 8y ago
  I do think the Apple/Google cut has been natural. The phone and successful app stores aren't accidents, they're endpoints in a long chain of work to focus consumer attention in a way that sells software. That said, these benefits have an expiration date. I don't think the app store cut has been a ripoff for its entire history, but if the temperature of the room has shifted toward hostility, it might be that they've spent the goodwill they earned with their innovation and now it's time for a more sustainable long term arrangement. We can find middle ground between "Apple did nothing for me" and "Apple deserves 30% of software sales for eternity"
  • tommymachine 8y ago
    But to negotiate that, you have to be able to threaten them with leaving. And there's no other way to get iPhone users, who are by far the biggest spenders. And if you're going to go this route of web-only transactions, you're going to have some user drop-off and missed sales, it's just a question of how much. Like, where does it make sense to switch. If its 30% drop off it doesn't matter either way. If its 15% or 5%, you'd better do it. If it's 70%, no way in hell should you do it. And I can guarantee you that every app business will have a different number for this, and it's nearly impossible to know what the drop off is before making the jump. So many are not willing to leave, and here we are. Netflix has a strong multi-platform use case already, so it's a natural move for them. Other apps may not fair so well. I think losing these larger companies is somewhat inevitable as long as the rates stay this high. We'll see Apple fight to retain them, but it would be a real surprise to see them booted from the platform over the switch, since they are still adding value. And can you imagine the backlash over the even less fair solution: Apple decides to negotiate special rates for these behemoths (just to keep them honest) while charging upstart developers the full rate! That would cause even more outrage than the 30%!
    • ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      It would be interesting if Netflix decided to straight up call Apple's bluff on their revenue restriction. Would Apple risk losing Netflix on the iPhone to enforce their rule about web signup links? Netflix is a ubiquitous expectation, and if it got delisted, Google and Samsung would have a field day talking about how you had to get an Android to get Netflix.
• rconti 8y ago
  Can someone help explain how this works today? I'm a bit unclear. The Netflix app is, as far as I know, free. I use it, and I have a subscription paid for via their website. (well, okay, I've never really watched content on a phone or tablet, but I know it works). Is the problem that new users who sign up via the iOS app have to make an in-app payment for their subscription, thus triggering the 30% cut? I assume this also means Apple will reject any app that submits payment through the Netflix iOS app directly to Netflix, bypassing the normal iOS payments process. Why doesn't Netflix just not allow you to sign up via the app, forcing everyone to use a web browser (either on mobile or on desktop)? It seems like other app developers could do the same thing, allowing the app to sign in to your web account to view content. For example, the Remember The Milk todo list service. I believe I pay on the website, but they have a companion iOS app that allows me to sign in.
  • tommymachine 8y ago
    Correct. They also must have had a way to sign up through the app itself, which would require going through StoreKit and the App Store (as any app that allows purchasing of products delivered to the device without giving apple a cut will be rejected during the review process). So they are now doing exactly as you suggest and just disallowing the in app purchase.
  • hrktb 8y ago
    I think there are restrictions to forbid apps from arbitrarily forcing users to have an account. Apple can request in some cases that there is a way to use your application without any account, or that you provide a signup form inside the app. There are exceptions, but I assume you have to justify them to Apple aside from "I don't want to pay your fees". Basically, the rules are a bit more complex I think and they cover a number of potential loopholes.
• makecheck 8y ago
  It made me so mad to see Tim Cook on stage with a gazillion dollar check, as if any significant amount of that money actually benefited developers or content owners compared to what a sensible market would have allowed. Heck, for a year or so it almost would have been lying to claim to be paying developers (plural) when a single developer like Supercell was raking in so much. Let’s be honest: there’s a giant check from people blowing money on games that they shouldn’t (gems, etc. to fuel addictions), and a large check for a very short list of apps constantly in the top 10 due to app store positive feedback loops. The remaining $4.52 of all payments to anyone is split 145,622 ways to the 98.9% of developers trying to survive. And let’s not forget, Apple’s store platform feels like it was once one person’s side project and is now 5% of a different person’s time. It doesn’t feel like they’ve cut any checks to make this a good marketplace.
  • JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > as if any significant amount of that money actually benefited developers I don’t see a shortage of well-paid app developers nor multibillion dollar single-app startups.
• twodayslate 8y ago
  Just 30% when purchased through the app store. Sounds like a simple solution.
• michaelmrose 8y ago
  Can we just establish a list of app stores by registration and a fee to pay for vetting by independent experts and force apple to include at first run a choice of stores to enable kind of like forcing MS to include other browsers in the EU. With the understanding of course that they don't exclude users who pick alternative stores from the official apps/store. Then if we don't want to deal with their bullshit we can just have an iphone shipped from the EU and enjoy a device we actually own.
• dperfect 8y ago
  > They are being redirected to the mobile web version of the app and asked to enter payment details with Netflix directly. Sorry, but if Apple's policies are applied consistently (I know they often aren't), this won't fly. I have an app with a basic email/password sign-in screen (the app represents a small part of a larger web-based SaaS product). Apple has rejected my app for including anything in the app that even remotely hints to the service existing outside of the App Store. This includes a "Sign Up" button linked to the web signup, a "Learn More" button that links to the website, or even a "Support" button that has navigation that can lead to a signup or pricing page. After a long chat with someone from the App Store review team, I learned that you can't link to any page of a site that contains other links that can indirectly lead to a signup or pricing information. It's a pretty harsh policy. So my app was finally approved, but without any links to support documentation on my site. Congratulations, Apple - you win :)
  • andyfleming 8y ago
    IF applied consistently. This is Netflix though. I'll be interested to see how this plays out.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    • djsumdog 8y ago
      The big players can dictate a lot of the rules of the game.
      • ypeterholmes 8y ago
        They also often get their own rules. I've designed apps that onboard exactly like the big boys, and been rejected.
      • moduspwnens14 8y ago
        Sometimes. Apple certainly pushed back against Uber when they were skirting the rules a few years ago.
• jefe_ 8y ago
  Accidentally subscribed to Youtube Red / Premium through the App Store. Got an e-mail a few months ago when Youtube shifted to Premium congratulating me that I was grandfathered into the old rate and features forever. I noticed their new rate of $11.99 seemed similar to what I was already paying. This is when I discovered Google had included a $3 surcharge to cover App store fees in the App store price (don't blame them). I looked into transferring and there is no way to transfer an App store subscription to Google without cancelling and starting fresh (thus losing grandfathering). Decided to stick with the App store to maintain grandfathering, but it's a bit ridiculous that Google wasn't allowed to nudge me to a browser to save $36 a year.
  • fireattack 8y ago
    Most grandfathered plan will be deliberately hard to be transferred or modified ever so slightly. The goal is, obviously, making you giving up your grandfathering. It doesn't surprise me.
  • ec109685 8y ago
    You aren’t allowed to charge extra for a subscription in an app in the App Store.
    • dhruvarora013 8y ago
      I don't think that's true $11.99 if you sign up on web - https://www.youtube.com/premium https://www.youtube.com/premium $15.99 if you sign up through in-app - https://itunes.apple.com/app/youtube/id544007664 https://itunes.apple.com/app/youtube/id544007664 (Click on In-App Purchases under Information to see the price)
      • ec109685 8y ago
        You’re right. That is what Spotify is doing too. I really thought they prohibited that, but can’t find evidence of that. Perhaps that was around their bookstore.
        • 8y ago
• chrischen 8y ago
  The reason why Apple charges 30%—and is justifiable in doing so—is because the App store itself is a marketing platform. If a user discovers the Netflix app, signs up, they are essentially discovering Netflix through the App store. If a user discovers Netflix elsewhere, they can be pointed to download the app for extended utility. In the latter case, it doesn't violate Apple's 30% revenue cut policy. But if they want to target people who discover Netflix from the App store platform, then they would have to pay.
  • bubblethink 8y ago
    Salesmen have one-time commissions or finders fees. You won't pay your sales agent a cut of your mortgage every month, would you ?
  • gnicholas 8y ago
    As another commenter pointed out, the "discovery surcharge" makes sense for a one-time purchase. It makes less sense for an ongoing subscription. Also, does anyone actually discover Netflix through the App Store? Or do they know about Netflix, go to sign up, and the first device they sign up on happens to be running iOS?
  • dhimes 8y ago
    30% is the expected amount for an entire marketing budget. Back when the app store wasn't so overrun, it may have made some sense. (Remember, Jobs justified it when facing initial criticism by saying that most people were going to use mobile web sites anyway so the app stuff isn't really a big deal.) Now, you have to give the cut and do marketing. It's usurious, and we need to stick to other channels.
• madrox 8y ago
  I worked on an app that is in the same category as Netflix. A week before launch, Apple chose to reject us in spite of months of meetings and reviews with their app teams and assurances we were in-bounds since we were working with them for launch featuring. It came down to the fact we required an email address and password for IAP so you could bring your subscription to the web or other platforms. While everyone else in the category did this, they decided that policy was going to change and we were just going to be the first people to deal with it. Since having an email-based account was core to the architecture and the UX, I went through a week of refactor hell to make emails/passwords optional to meet our launch date. Since other apps still get to do this, it's clear the policy change message was BS. I've suspected a lot has had to do with Apple's ambitions in the streaming space and their desire to be in a position to offer bundling and other over the top services. They're already trying to control the UX with the TV app and are offering companies better rev share rates to do the integration work. It seems like Netflix is daring Apple to pull them from the store. If that's what's happening then I applaud them. I understand that Apple may think they're protecting the consumer by creating a walled garden, but as a developer whose livelihood is tied to their decisions, I'm tired of being jerked around.
  • IBM 8y ago
    They won't pull the Netflix app, they just won't let it update until they've made changes. Spotify tried directing users to the web and that's what happened with them.
    • vbezhenar 8y ago
      What if Spotify would make their app using JavaScript (something like React Native or Cordova) with ability to update bypassing AppStore?
      • BeefySwain 8y ago
        They would reject the update that attempted to roll out that system.
• bogomipz 8y ago
  Can someone say is the 30% just for the initial payment? For example has my credit card details does Apple still get 30% of the monthly payment on a recurring basis?
• anfilt 8y ago
  Makes me think of what band-camp has done with their app.
• cletus 8y ago
  In the frontier days of app stores, a lot of the policies made way more sense. 30% cut but you don't need to engage a payment processor and it makes it way easier for the consumer to pay? Sure! App approval required so people don't download malware? That's good for consumers, which is also good for the ecosystem. Apple is much better at this than Google is too as we've seen more misbehaving Android apps than iOS (eg crypto mining in the background). But Apple (and Google, IMHO to a lesser extent) are starting to use their gatekeeper positions for their own advantage. And these markets are getting so huge and the potential damage to other companies so large that they're just inviting government action, probably by the EU first but I can also see the US getting to the point of taking antitrust action. It's clear Apple has streaming and original content ambitions. They also have iTunes of course. If they're not careful they're going to trigger intervention when they arbitrarily start applying rules to Hulu and Amazon Prime Video that don't apply to others. There are already some pretty silly contortions for these policies. Take Amazon. You can purchase items through the iOS app... except for anything digital like, say, Kindle books. But you can buy Kindle books elsewhere and then load them on the iOS Kindle app using your email and password. As others have noted, other companies haven't gotten these exceptions. This is also why I think it's a huge mistake for Apple to get into the original content game. Their other businesses are so huge that original content will never be able to compete on a revenue basis. Yet they risk their own platform by favouring their own content. Government action could be ruinous for them. When Apple competes on their own platform against third parties it undermines faith in that platform and (IMHO) its long term health (even viability). I don't know what the alternative is though. It's not letting anyone install anything as much as tech-savvy purists may think so. That's actually not what consumers want or need. Is it allowing competition in App stores? Maybe. There isn't just one domain registrar and just one root-level CA.
  • erikpukinskis 8y ago
    To me, the 30% is fine. What disgusts me is that if I decline to use their platform, I can’t even tell users that there is a subscription available through another channel. If Apple didn’t restrict our speech it would be an easier pill to swallow.
• perseusprime11 8y ago
  How is this different from Walmart taking a commission for putting your products on their shelf? Why does Apple get so much slack? 30% seems reasonable for giving access to its shelf.
  • erikpukinskis 8y ago
    Because I bought the shelf from Apple. It’s my shelf now. It’s my phone. Why is Apple involved at all if I want to stream videos from Netflix? It’s like Wal-mart taking a cut of my cable bill because they sold me the TV. The overreach of Apple is preposterous.
• camhart 8y ago
  Netflix has been doing this for a while. For the longest time you simply couldn't sign up unless you went to the website.
• teekert 8y ago
  Dear Netflix, I want to use your services but you are the only app that I can't find in the play store of my not-rooted, fully Play store capable Lineage OS device. It's a pain. And why do I need the app? Because Chromecast is the only convenient way to start watching Netflix on a TV (for an Android user). Why won't you make a Kodi plugin? If you want to be independent, be serious about it, make it easy to find the latest apk on netflix.com/apk, instead of apkmirror. Make it easy for users who pay to enjoy your service the way they want to. Seems to me like Netflix themselves are the ones pushing Play and App store official routes on official, completely locked-in devices. I was on a app diet when I still had my first gen Moto G (with 8 GB of memory) and I found that almost everything I used apps for before had websites that were as functional as the app (or even more functional in the case of Facebook), minus all the obligatory tracking (if you choose so).
• tempodox 8y ago
  The app store is such a horrible experience, I'm glad for every single app that circumvents it.
• happywage 8y ago
  I have a startup which builds a web-based enterprise product. A year ago we launched a companion app that provides a fraction of the functionality of the desktop application, just enough to help our customers extract the key information they need when they're on the road. All of a sudden a few days Apple decides we have to implement in-app payments. I explained them that this is an enterprise product for an arcane industry and that our customers require quotations/invoices raised to their procurement department and would not pay several hundred to several thousand dollars through the app. They insist we have to implement in-app payments despite not helping our customers nor our business. We don't have automated billing at all, not even on our desktop product. The requested change means months of development for no value (at this point). No way to appeal. We can currently not update our app and if we don't implement in-app payments in an unspecified time our current version will be pulled too. Thanks, Apple.
  • ezekg 8y ago
    Do you have any mentions of registering/purchasing in-app? I'd remove those, including any links leading to your website, and only show a login screen. I bet they'd let that pass. I think their main goal is making sure the possibility of registrations/purchases outside of IAP is near-zero.
  • aardshark 8y ago
    Can you elaborate on this, because this is what I understand (from the point of view of someone who knows nothing about Apple's review process): You can't provide your app at no cost on the App Store. You can't provide your app for a cost on the App Store, if you don't include in-app payments. Or is it the case that you want to allow your customers to make nominal purchases through the app, and Apple say these must be processed through in-app payments?
    • happywage 8y ago
      >>>>>is it the case that you want to allow your customers to make nominal purchases through the app, and Apple say these must be processed through in-app payments? Yes!! Customers will not be bypassing the app store, they're bypassing the in-app payment infrastructure. But Apple want to allow only in-app payments.
• nkkollaw 8y ago
  What's wrong with telling people to go to their website? They apps seems like a thin wrapper around a web app, couldn't they just have people use the web app? If you add a link to the home screen, it's almost identical. Not idea, but better than losing 30% of your revenue...
• iamgopal 8y ago
  The future is, where mobile is new TV, and you sbuscribe to your favorite content provider via Apple TV app. i.e. creator -> apple -> consumer.
• jscalo 8y ago
  “Do as we say, not as we let others do.” — Apple
• thiswillis 8y ago
  The App store is vehicle for censorship.
• madshiva 8y ago
  Just saying, you all again say that iphone, ipad are easier, etc. but this is wrong. All my friends use Android. They don't install almost any apps, and if they want they ask me. My GrandMa can't use any new phone they stick to the old one because the new one are too complex, they want button and not touchscreen. Apple is the worst.
• ezoe 8y ago
  I say everyone involving in this are wrong. What Netflix trying to achieve can be perfectly done by ordinary web browser. I don't know about their "app" but I bet it's just a wrapper of web browser. The whole app ecosystem is crap. It must be abolished ASAP.