4 ms·

Or, you can look at this post on Daring Fireball about how "premium streaming" apps are allowed to bypass this IAP restriction: https://daringfireball.net/2020/

by hbosch 6y ago

Or, you can look at this post on Daring Fireball about how "premium streaming" apps are allowed to bypass this IAP restriction: https://daringfireball.net/2020/04/amazon_apple_prime_video https://daringfireball.net/2020/04/amazon_apple_prime_video Quote: "Apple has an established program for premium subscription video entertainment providers to offer a variety of customer benefits — including integration with the Apple TV app, AirPlay 2 support, tvOS apps, universal search, Siri support and, where applicable, single or zero sign-on. On qualifying premium video entertainment apps such as Prime Video, Altice One and Canal+, customers have the option to buy or rent movies and TV shows using the payment method tied to their existing video subscription."

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jeroenhd 6y ago
That doesn't clarify anything. What's a "premium" streaming app? Why doesn't (or didn't) Spotify, who publicly opposes the 30% cut, qualify? No official source qualifies and the article you linked just guesses based on screenshots. It also tells you that Apple does take the 30% cut if you trick the user into not realizing there's an Apple tax. The video I linked (I know, it's long) discusses limitations as decreed by Apple itself. There's another video on that channel with even more in-depth information from Apple. There's no offer to make a deal and become a "premium service". I'm sure these guys would love to get their app available on more platforms, providing more value than they already can with just smartphone apps.
- thawaway1837 6y ago
  Premium = Too large to be bullied by Apple
  - stefan_ 6y ago
    Or you know, the other pillar of anti-competitive business practices, if Apple still needs their goodwill in some other vertical of theirs.
    - monocularvision 6y ago
      Like selling their physical products on Amazon. Amazon famously would not allow the Apple TV to be sold on their site until after this deal was made.
- hbosch 6y ago
  I can't speak for or stand up for Apple here. I'm just posting examples of how/when Apple doesn't take their standard cut.
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203630/apple-amazon-prime-video-ios-app-store-cut-exempt-program-deal https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203630/apple-amazon-prim... "The requirement: those platforms must be able to integrate core Apple services, apps, and features — including AirPlay 2, universal search and Siri support, and single or zero sign-on, among others."
- ummonk 6y ago
  "It is only for individual purchases, and not for subscriptions." Spotify is a subscription service. To be honest I don't understand the rationale here - the criteria seem somewhat arbitrary - but I don't think Apple is being inconsistent in applying the criteria.
- briandear 6y ago
  It’s not an “Apple Tax.” Developers get something of value for that percentage.
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    I get stuff of value for my state and federal taxes, too. They're mandatory and there's significant punishment for non-payment - hard to argue they're not taxes.
danShumway 6y ago
Sure, but in the context of Amazon's negotiations with Apple, "Premium Streaming Apps" is a narrowly targeted category that's designed to include Amazon and not a ton of other products. Why does this bypass exist for Premium Streaming Apps, but not exist for Game Streaming? What's the fundamental difference between streaming video and streaming a game, or purchasing an Ebook? Apple's 'we apply the rules to everyone' defense is a bit like a store-owner saying, "I'm not playing favorites, I'm giving a special discount to anyone with green eyes, a buzzcut, and a striped t-shirt. It just so happens that my friend Tim fits that description."
- zepto 6y ago
  Streaming video and streaming games are pretty obviously different things. You can say ‘they are fundamentally the same’ in the sense that bits are traveling in both ways across the network. But everyone does in fact make a distinction between games and movies. That’s why we have two different words for them. It’s true that one day, the distinction between interactive movies - e.g. Bandernatch, and real-time interactive games may go away. That day is not here yet. It’s also true that if Apple won’t sell us what we want, we’ll buy it from someone else.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    But there's no consumer-facing or technical difference between a games streaming platform and a video streaming platform that would make it logical for one to be treated fundamentally different than the other in terms of pricing, right? It's very obvious that the reason why Apple chose the largely meaningless difference between a video and a game to make this category is because they were negotiating with Amazon, and that was a convenient distinction to build a category around. To extend from your argument, everyone also in fact makes a distinction between striped shirts vs solid shirts, and buzzcuts vs crewcuts, and green eyes vs blue eyes. Everyone would agree that those are different things. So does that mean giving a discount to my friend Tim is totally fine, and I'm not carving out special exceptions that are designed to target him specifically?
    - 6y ago

by hbosch 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jeroenhd 6y ago

That doesn't clarify anything. What's a "premium" streaming app? Why doesn't (or didn't) Spotify, who publicly opposes the 30% cut, qualify? No official source qualifies and the article you linked just guesses based on screenshots. It also tells you that Apple does take the 30% cut if you trick the user into not realizing there's an Apple tax. The video I linked (I know, it's long) discusses limitations as decreed by Apple itself. There's another video on that channel with even more in-depth information from Apple. There's no offer to make a deal and become a "premium service". I'm sure these guys would love to get their app available on more platforms, providing more value than they already can with just smartphone apps.

thawaway1837 6y ago
Premium = Too large to be bullied by Apple
- stefan_ 6y ago
  Or you know, the other pillar of anti-competitive business practices, if Apple still needs their goodwill in some other vertical of theirs.
  - monocularvision 6y ago
    Like selling their physical products on Amazon. Amazon famously would not allow the Apple TV to be sold on their site until after this deal was made.
hbosch 6y ago
I can't speak for or stand up for Apple here. I'm just posting examples of how/when Apple doesn't take their standard cut.
zimpenfish 6y ago
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203630/apple-amazon-prime-video-ios-app-store-cut-exempt-program-deal https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203630/apple-amazon-prim... "The requirement: those platforms must be able to integrate core Apple services, apps, and features — including AirPlay 2, universal search and Siri support, and single or zero sign-on, among others."
ummonk 6y ago
"It is only for individual purchases, and not for subscriptions." Spotify is a subscription service. To be honest I don't understand the rationale here - the criteria seem somewhat arbitrary - but I don't think Apple is being inconsistent in applying the criteria.
briandear 6y ago
It’s not an “Apple Tax.” Developers get something of value for that percentage.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  I get stuff of value for my state and federal taxes, too. They're mandatory and there's significant punishment for non-payment - hard to argue they're not taxes.

danShumway 6y ago

Sure, but in the context of Amazon's negotiations with Apple, "Premium Streaming Apps" is a narrowly targeted category that's designed to include Amazon and not a ton of other products. Why does this bypass exist for Premium Streaming Apps, but not exist for Game Streaming? What's the fundamental difference between streaming video and streaming a game, or purchasing an Ebook? Apple's 'we apply the rules to everyone' defense is a bit like a store-owner saying, "I'm not playing favorites, I'm giving a special discount to anyone with green eyes, a buzzcut, and a striped t-shirt. It just so happens that my friend Tim fits that description."

zepto 6y ago
Streaming video and streaming games are pretty obviously different things. You can say ‘they are fundamentally the same’ in the sense that bits are traveling in both ways across the network. But everyone does in fact make a distinction between games and movies. That’s why we have two different words for them. It’s true that one day, the distinction between interactive movies - e.g. Bandernatch, and real-time interactive games may go away. That day is not here yet. It’s also true that if Apple won’t sell us what we want, we’ll buy it from someone else.
- danShumway 6y ago
  But there's no consumer-facing or technical difference between a games streaming platform and a video streaming platform that would make it logical for one to be treated fundamentally different than the other in terms of pricing, right? It's very obvious that the reason why Apple chose the largely meaningless difference between a video and a game to make this category is because they were negotiating with Amazon, and that was a convenient distinction to build a category around. To extend from your argument, everyone also in fact makes a distinction between striped shirts vs solid shirts, and buzzcuts vs crewcuts, and green eyes vs blue eyes. Everyone would agree that those are different things. So does that mean giving a discount to my friend Tim is totally fine, and I'm not carving out special exceptions that are designed to target him specifically?
  - 6y ago