3 ms·

How does Apple get a 30% cut out of me using Netflix? If I want Netflix, I go to netflix.com, sign up and give them payment information, and then use my browser

How does Apple get a 30% cut out of me using Netflix? If I want Netflix, I go to netflix.com, sign up and give them payment information, and then use my browser, or Netflix apps on phones, TVs, etc. The Netflix iOS app is listed as free to download. Where is Apple's 30% cut of my Netflix subscription coming from? Same for Amazon's Kindle and video apps. Same for Spotify's app. The trend there seems to be they make the app free, and let you sign up and pay for their service on their own website (which you can do in Safari on iOS, if you want to). So I don't understand how Apple's "skimming" anything out of those apps -- 30% of $0 is $0.

scarface74 8y ago
You can buy a Netflix subscription through the App Store but you don’t have to. Netflix must have decided it was worth it.
luigi23 8y ago
Here are the rules: you can offer subscription on your site, but you can't link to it in the app. If you want to buy a subscription for Netflix/Spotify in the app, then Apple will take 30% cut. Some sites give this option with increased price by 30% to move payments to their sites, some don't.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  I know you can offer subscriptions and purchases in the app. I just don't understand how anyone thinks Netflix, Amazon, etc are forced to, because they aren't.
  - zapzupnz 8y ago
    They're not forced to, no, but they are forced to keep the price in the app the same as elsewhere if they choose to offer in-app purchase subscriptions in their apps; to be on the App Store, you're not allowed to offer a discount to the same subscription cheaper outside the App Store. If there is a generally-available discount (say, for a promotion), that discounted price must also be reflected in the in-app purchase cost. The net effect is that sellers lose 30% of the potential earnings from the in-app purchases compared to getting subscriptions from elsewhere, and they're not allowed to increase in-app purchase prices by 30% to compensate. Because Apple disallows sellers from having messages or buttons in their apps that take users to the sellers' websites in order to make the subscription, users who don't know better than to use the in-app purchase system wind up making the sellers less money — in theory. I say "in theory" since, after all, the sellers don't have to deal with payment systems, credit card processing, the sorts of hosting costs associated with popular app downloads, and so on. On the one hand, it's clearly unfair and heavy handed for Apple to disallow those messages enticing users to the websites so sellers can take the full price. On the other hand, with apps moving to free-to-download but requiring subscriptions to function, especially big ones like Netflix and so on, it mightn't be that surprising: a 30% cut of the subscriptions might turn out to be rather reasonable given that Apple's hosting the App Store, addressing and directing complaints, handling payments, and more. On yet a third hand, companies don't need to provide in-app purchases for subscriptions at all, mandating that users go to their websites. It's up to the sellers to decide what provides users with the least friction, though.
    - tedunangst 8y ago
      > they're not allowed to increase in-app purchase prices by 30% to compensate. This sounds like it would seriously undercut plaintiffs argument that the 30% they're paying is on top of the correct price.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      handling payments FWIW this is the main thing I like about the App Store rules. There are some sites and services I'll trust with payment information, but there are many, many more I won't. Being able to buy/subscribe to things anyway, with Apple as the trusted intermediary handling the payment, is pretty convenient.
      - zapzupnz 8y ago
        I don't think people give enough credit to how expensive it can be to pay the payment processors, given enough transactions. Maybe not so cost-effective for smaller businesses, but excellent for the bigger ones or when there are heavy spikes in payments. Not only that, but letting your users not need to deal with credit card details or remembering their PayPal logins, whatever, is very frictionless and thus an attractive proposition for regular, non-technical users.
  - ksec 8y ago
    Ok, how about they are forced to if it was signup within the App Does that sit well with you now?

scarface74 8y ago

You can buy a Netflix subscription through the App Store but you don’t have to. Netflix must have decided it was worth it.

luigi23 8y ago

Here are the rules: you can offer subscription on your site, but you can't link to it in the app. If you want to buy a subscription for Netflix/Spotify in the app, then Apple will take 30% cut. Some sites give this option with increased price by 30% to move payments to their sites, some don't.

ubernostrum 8y ago
I know you can offer subscriptions and purchases in the app. I just don't understand how anyone thinks Netflix, Amazon, etc are forced to, because they aren't.
- zapzupnz 8y ago
  They're not forced to, no, but they are forced to keep the price in the app the same as elsewhere if they choose to offer in-app purchase subscriptions in their apps; to be on the App Store, you're not allowed to offer a discount to the same subscription cheaper outside the App Store. If there is a generally-available discount (say, for a promotion), that discounted price must also be reflected in the in-app purchase cost. The net effect is that sellers lose 30% of the potential earnings from the in-app purchases compared to getting subscriptions from elsewhere, and they're not allowed to increase in-app purchase prices by 30% to compensate. Because Apple disallows sellers from having messages or buttons in their apps that take users to the sellers' websites in order to make the subscription, users who don't know better than to use the in-app purchase system wind up making the sellers less money — in theory. I say "in theory" since, after all, the sellers don't have to deal with payment systems, credit card processing, the sorts of hosting costs associated with popular app downloads, and so on. On the one hand, it's clearly unfair and heavy handed for Apple to disallow those messages enticing users to the websites so sellers can take the full price. On the other hand, with apps moving to free-to-download but requiring subscriptions to function, especially big ones like Netflix and so on, it mightn't be that surprising: a 30% cut of the subscriptions might turn out to be rather reasonable given that Apple's hosting the App Store, addressing and directing complaints, handling payments, and more. On yet a third hand, companies don't need to provide in-app purchases for subscriptions at all, mandating that users go to their websites. It's up to the sellers to decide what provides users with the least friction, though.
  - tedunangst 8y ago
    > they're not allowed to increase in-app purchase prices by 30% to compensate. This sounds like it would seriously undercut plaintiffs argument that the 30% they're paying is on top of the correct price.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    handling payments FWIW this is the main thing I like about the App Store rules. There are some sites and services I'll trust with payment information, but there are many, many more I won't. Being able to buy/subscribe to things anyway, with Apple as the trusted intermediary handling the payment, is pretty convenient.
    - zapzupnz 8y ago
      I don't think people give enough credit to how expensive it can be to pay the payment processors, given enough transactions. Maybe not so cost-effective for smaller businesses, but excellent for the bigger ones or when there are heavy spikes in payments. Not only that, but letting your users not need to deal with credit card details or remembering their PayPal logins, whatever, is very frictionless and thus an attractive proposition for regular, non-technical users.
- ksec 8y ago
  Ok, how about they are forced to if it was signup within the App Does that sit well with you now?