11 ms·

For comparison Netflix spends about $1.2 Billion dollars per year on AWS (Amazon Web Services). Their total revenue last year was 27.5B. So that means that AWS

For comparison Netflix spends about $1.2 Billion dollars per year on AWS (Amazon Web Services). Their total revenue last year was 27.5B. So that means that AWS fees account for 4.3% of Netflix's revenue. AWS is streaming video, operating hundreds of edge location CDN locations, and everything else running on expensive server infrastructure. AWS has real serious costs with offering that service, to the point that Netflix has yet to determine that it is better to build it themselves. Apple by comparison demands 15% which is 3.5x as much of a cut. Apple provides credit card processing, and approval into the App Store (plus according to a comment in this email, it sounds like they keep Netflix in the App Store promotion rotation as "free" ad-space). This isn't anywhere near the value that AWS provides, despite demanding a much higher premium. Of course this is the "generous" 15% IAP cut, instead of the normal 30% which is even more atrocious. Apple seems to maintain the expectation that they deserve 30% of revenue from massive corporations like Netflix, Amazon, etc.. Even the "generous" 15% fee is quite atrocious, especially considering the fact that Apple provides next to no value for Netflix, if anything they are a pain in their side or a necessary evil for Netflix. Apple is wildly delusional on the value that they provide. It is absolutely no surprise to me that Netflix would consider not allowing IAP subscriptions at all. They already have the marketing power to force people to subscribe at their website. I am surprised Netflix is honestly being as understanding on this issue as they seem to be.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
garblegarble 5y ago
>AWS is streaming video, operating hundreds of edge location CDN locations, and everything else running on expensive server infrastructure. AWS has real serious costs with offering that service, to the point that Netflix has yet to determine that it is better to build it themselves. Somewhat off the core topic, but netflix run their own CDN (I also don't see any evidence for that 1.2 billion AWS bill figure, can you provide a link? Their latest SEC filing doesn't separate cloud service costs from the running of their Open Connect CDN)
- PoignardAzur 5y ago
  I'm not sure Netflix Open Connect counts as a CDN? They might still use distributed servers from AWS.
  - fragmede 5y ago
    The hardware they use for their CDN was recently discussed on HN. They don't use AWS hardware for their CDN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28584738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28584738
  - redis_mlc 5y ago
    > They might still use distributed servers from AWS. Once again, since HN readers are so thick ... They never used AWS for streaming, unless it was a test of some kind, or maybe to feed origin servers in their CDN, etc. The only conceivable situation where they would is if AWS rolled out a new region in Oceania or somewhere else remote and there was no alternative at launch time. Source: ex-Netflix.
  - garblegarble 5y ago
    Netflix themselves classify it as a content delivery network, and that seems pretty fair - how else would you classify a network they have built to optimise content delivery, by way of peering agreements and physical kit they deliver to ISPs on demand? They do use AWS for a lot of their internal compute and packaging, but it wouldn't be cost-effective to use AWS for content delivery, even with a deep discount to the highway robbery standard AWS egress prices.
  - robocat 5y ago
    The CDN nature of Netflix appliances is clear if you read their docs on fill patterns: https://openconnect.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360035618071 https://openconnect.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/3600356180... Netflix installs appliances at peering exchanges around the world: https://www.peeringdb.com/net/457 https://www.peeringdb.com/net/457 Disclaimer: I don’t know much beyond a few Google searches on the topic.
- SSLy 5y ago
redis_mlc 5y ago
> AWS is streaming video, operating hundreds of edge location CDN locations, and everything else running on expensive server infrastructure. AWS has real serious costs with offering that service, to the point that Netflix has yet to determine that it is better to build it themselves. Not sure if you made some typos, but ... Netflix does not stream from AWS, and never has. It used to use outsourced CDNs, has now its own CDN. This seems to be a long-running misunderstanding on HN. Anybody who knows AWS' egress costs knows better.
jiveturkey 5y ago
> Apple is wildly delusional on the value that they provide. I haven't studied it, so I'm speaking out of turn, but I'm thinking that it's cheap for smaller players and expensive for larger ones, and not as a smooth function. NFLX is well past the knee in the curve I guess. If you buy that, then it's unfair to say Apple is delusional about their value add. On average it's probably fair within reason.
- hackerfromthefu 5y ago
  In the same way that the mafia is being fair taking your money for not removing your kneecaps
bredren 5y ago
Is it reasonable to suggest AWS's primitives and even finished cloud products for video delivery are largely commodities? Wheras, there is no such thing as the other App Store? IIRC, Apple customers spend more and don't quote me on this, but are more influential in the spending of others. If that's true, then I think this comment under-represents the utility of operating in the App Store. It doesn't necessarily mean that it should command the 15% tax, but it isn't "no value" either.
spiffytech 5y ago
> Apple seems to maintain the expectation that they deserve 30% of revenue from massive corporations like Netflix, Amazon, etc. That's exactly what Apple believes. From Tim Cook's testimony in Epic v. Apple, from Ars Technica: > The in-app-purchasing (IAP) system itself, Cook said, is simply the most efficient way of collecting a 15 to 30 percent commission on each in-app sale. "If not for IAP, we’d have to come up with another system to invoice developers. It would be a mess." This view is explicitly affirmed in the Epic v. Apple verdict[1]: > Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional. The court found the 30% rate arbitrary but not objectionable[2]: > Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property. Personally, I don't approve of Apple feeling entitled to a cut of commerce that doesn't hit their app store, but the court's take (before appeals) is that it's perfectly legal. [0]: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/ceo-tim-cook-faces-pointed-questioning-as-epic-games-v-apple-winds-down/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/ceo-tim-cook-faces-po... [1]: Page 67, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631/apple-epic-judgement.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631/apple-epic-j... [2]: Page 150
- Retric 5y ago
  Yea, legally it’s clear Apple can charge whatever they want. The actual leverage large companies have is by not having their Apps on iOS Apple may lose customers. But at this point I doubt Netflix is willing to risk it as there is simply to many streaming options. However, Netflix doesn’t need to use IAP so for them it’s a question of increased conversions with IAP rather than dropping the platform. Assuming their also saving a little on CC processing fees a 15% cut is probably a reasonable deal for increasing the number of Netflix customers and quite a bit of revenue for Apple.
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    > But at this point I doubt Netflix is willing to risk it as there is simply to many streaming options. Well, but as you point out, they aren't using IAP at the moment so there's nothing to risk. An interesting question is what would happen if Apple decided to play hardball and demand Netflix use IAP again, with no external option, similar to what is required for video games. Honestly, my money would be on Netflix pulling out of iOS.
908B64B197 5y ago
> Apple by comparison demands 15% which is 3.5x as much of a cut. Apple provides credit card processing, and approval into the App Store [...] . This isn't anywhere near the value that AWS provides, despite demanding a much higher premium. It's access to an extremely valuable demographics. Everyone ships on the App Store first because that's where paying customers and high value users are. All that AWS infrastructure to stream media is worthless without consumers at the other end of the wire.
- EugeneG 5y ago
  Correct. You can go to AWS, Azure, GCP, IBM, host yourself, others, if you want cloud infrastructure. It's more or less commoditized. On the other hand, if you want access thousands of customers who are willing to pay for and use your product ... well that's tough. And it's expensive. The real value is getting exposure to people who will pay real money. Value isn't equal to technical difficulty. That's why Google Ads are pricy, and that's why ads in a niche industry magazine targeting a very specific demographic can be even more expensive.
JohnBooty 5y ago
Apple by comparison demands 15% which is 3.5x as much of a cut. Apple provides credit card processing, and approval into the App Store (plus according to a comment in this email, it sounds like they keep Netflix in the App Store promotion rotation as "free" ad-space). This isn't anywhere near the value that AWS provides That's debatable. To put it mildly. Apple provides them access to, literally, nearly a billion potential customers who, on average, spend twice as much on app store purchases relative to Android users. [1] Apple spends billions of dollars to do this, by creating (by many measures) best-in-class hardware devices, including designing their own bespoke in-house CPUs that trounce the majority of their consumer level competition. It's not directly comparable to what AWS does, so I'm not sure we could possibly quantify how valuable it is to Netflix vis-a-vis AWS. However: it sure isn't nothing, and may well be 3.5x the value that AWS provides. [1] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/iphone-users-spend-more-money-on-apps-than-android-users-report/articleshow/83947757.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/iphone-user...
- CardenB 5y ago
  Apple doesn’t provide access to these customers. Maybe a small portion are limited to iOS access for Netflix. In reality there are many general service platforms that provide access to Netflix in combination with ISPs. If chrome had a 15% fee to allow users to access websites then I think it would be pretty damaging to innovation on the web.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > If chrome had a 15% fee to allow users to access websites then I think it would be pretty damaging to innovation on the web. It would also be very damaging to Chrome, because users would promptly download another browser. People generally carry one phone and switching to another is much more costly than switching browsers.
- richardw 5y ago
  Apple’s value is the set of customers who sign up first on iOS rather than web (edit: and who couldn’t be nudged to the web). I’d guess the number isn’t the full billion, but enough that Netflix doesn’t want to lose them.
mlang23 5y ago
I think you are underestimating the value of being present on the platform that is Apple. I basically only created my Netflix subscription (which I cancelled by now) because it was super easy to sign up on my Apple TV. I probably wouldn't have bothered to do so on a PC.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  I just don't understand why netflix couldn't charge someone like you more.
  - mlang23 5y ago
    Which would make the offering they have for european customers even more laughable.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Thankfully Apple isn't as popular compared to North America.
mbesto 5y ago
> This isn't anywhere near the value that AWS provides, despite demanding a much higher premium. > Apple is wildly delusional on the value that they provide. For non-Netflix-like services, strongly disagree. A service with no customers means 0 costs required to pay AWS. Say what you want, but sales & distribution is one of the most important, if not THE most important factor of a business. > They already have the marketing power to force people to subscribe at their website. Yes, Netflix specifically does, but other developers who leverage Apple's ecosystem? Not so much. What's interesting here is that other traditional distributor and retailers of goods and services often have negotiated rates. Apple does no such thing - it's rate is fixed (on paper), meaning Apple thinks is distribution is equal in value for all developers - I think this is where the criticism should be.
martimarkov 5y ago
Maybe this is not a popular opinion but I think that Apple do provide the value. They created the device, the OS, the marketing behind it, the physical stores, all of that. The iPhone is an iconic device because of all the investment Apple put into it. Yes, there are also the millions of developers and apps out there. But the one thing that Apple did right (for me and I guess most iOS users) is that they kept control over the UI & UX. This was my main driver into getting an iPhone. The fact that I interact with Apple and not just every developer in the world. I want to keep that interaction. What I don't want is for most apps to force me to enter my personal info (email) and card details store them somewhere "securely". I want to have a single vendor I trust (arguable this might not be Apple atm). But for me and for most ppl I know that single place is the thing that is the driving factor to keep in the eco system. What I don't understand is why developers feel entitled (maybe the wrong word) to harming my UX by requesting external payment methods. Again, the investment for this "great" eco system comes from both sides and Apple do deserve a % of that. Maybe 15/30% is not fair but this is the free market. You can always decide not to develop for iOS - nobody is forcing you. Except your customers who I feel in this case developers/companies ignore as per the given theory above.
- mkishi 5y ago
  Remove all third-party apps from the ecosystem. How long do iDevices survive in this scenario? Even now that it's already such a behemoth of a platform? Now do the opposite—make Apple as a whole disappear. What would app developers do? I'm not saying Apple doesn't provide value, but let's not pretend they don't need the third-party developers they are so keen on squeezing no matter what. More than they need Apple, at least.
  - martimarkov 5y ago
    Yes they do. I don’t think I was arguing the opposite. On the contrary. I think it’s a relationship. But one where Apple from day 1 have set the expectations on what and how they want that to work. In the end it’s their platform. Developers make the choice to create apps there and they are not happy with the rules. (Ignoring the Apple Watch keyboard and other features stealing issues here as Apple are 110% at fault there). What my arguments is: Apple want their devices to have a specific feel and UX - so they enforce rules for iAP. But it’s the feel of an Apple product and customers vote with their money they like that feel. I know you can make the case of let ppl vote when you have alternative forms of payment but we all know that if that is allowed a certain part of the UX will be hurt. Apple simply do not want to compromise their “vision”, “magic” , “feel” or whatever they want to call it so that developers earn more money.
m0zg 5y ago
> next to no value for Netflix Apple basically has an iron-fisted grip on _worldwide_ audience of people with money to spend. Google, for example, does not, and their App store is a raging dumpster fire in comparison. I'm not saying that their "cut" shouldn't irritate people, it should - that's just market forces at play, but one must also recognize that for Netflix to not be in the App Store would be pretty catastrophi revenue-wise, much for the same reason why it'd be catastrophic for Google to not be the default search engine in iOS.
wbl 5y ago
AWS does not stream video for Netflix. Netflix runs its own edge caches.
cortesoft 5y ago
AWS is NOT doing much of the streaming for Netflix. They do their own streaming. AWS is just for their management infrastructure.
Handytinge 5y ago
The value that Apple brings - which bafflingly you seem to have missed - is over a billion users. That's a significant value. I doubt more than 50 companies in the words history have been able to provide that level of user base on their platform. I'm not saying 15% isn't a high fee, but your argument that Apple provide little to no value is simply false.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

garblegarble 5y ago

>AWS is streaming video, operating hundreds of edge location CDN locations, and everything else running on expensive server infrastructure. AWS has real serious costs with offering that service, to the point that Netflix has yet to determine that it is better to build it themselves. Somewhat off the core topic, but netflix run their own CDN (I also don't see any evidence for that 1.2 billion AWS bill figure, can you provide a link? Their latest SEC filing doesn't separate cloud service costs from the running of their Open Connect CDN)

PoignardAzur 5y ago
I'm not sure Netflix Open Connect counts as a CDN? They might still use distributed servers from AWS.
- fragmede 5y ago
  The hardware they use for their CDN was recently discussed on HN. They don't use AWS hardware for their CDN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28584738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28584738
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  > They might still use distributed servers from AWS. Once again, since HN readers are so thick ... They never used AWS for streaming, unless it was a test of some kind, or maybe to feed origin servers in their CDN, etc. The only conceivable situation where they would is if AWS rolled out a new region in Oceania or somewhere else remote and there was no alternative at launch time. Source: ex-Netflix.
- garblegarble 5y ago
  Netflix themselves classify it as a content delivery network, and that seems pretty fair - how else would you classify a network they have built to optimise content delivery, by way of peering agreements and physical kit they deliver to ISPs on demand? They do use AWS for a lot of their internal compute and packaging, but it wouldn't be cost-effective to use AWS for content delivery, even with a deep discount to the highway robbery standard AWS egress prices.
- robocat 5y ago
  The CDN nature of Netflix appliances is clear if you read their docs on fill patterns: https://openconnect.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360035618071 https://openconnect.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/3600356180... Netflix installs appliances at peering exchanges around the world: https://www.peeringdb.com/net/457 https://www.peeringdb.com/net/457 Disclaimer: I don’t know much beyond a few Google searches on the topic.
SSLy 5y ago

redis_mlc 5y ago

> AWS is streaming video, operating hundreds of edge location CDN locations, and everything else running on expensive server infrastructure. AWS has real serious costs with offering that service, to the point that Netflix has yet to determine that it is better to build it themselves. Not sure if you made some typos, but ... Netflix does not stream from AWS, and never has. It used to use outsourced CDNs, has now its own CDN. This seems to be a long-running misunderstanding on HN. Anybody who knows AWS' egress costs knows better.

jiveturkey 5y ago

> Apple is wildly delusional on the value that they provide. I haven't studied it, so I'm speaking out of turn, but I'm thinking that it's cheap for smaller players and expensive for larger ones, and not as a smooth function. NFLX is well past the knee in the curve I guess. If you buy that, then it's unfair to say Apple is delusional about their value add. On average it's probably fair within reason.

hackerfromthefu 5y ago
In the same way that the mafia is being fair taking your money for not removing your kneecaps

bredren 5y ago

Is it reasonable to suggest AWS's primitives and even finished cloud products for video delivery are largely commodities? Wheras, there is no such thing as the other App Store? IIRC, Apple customers spend more and don't quote me on this, but are more influential in the spending of others. If that's true, then I think this comment under-represents the utility of operating in the App Store. It doesn't necessarily mean that it should command the 15% tax, but it isn't "no value" either.

spiffytech 5y ago

> Apple seems to maintain the expectation that they deserve 30% of revenue from massive corporations like Netflix, Amazon, etc. That's exactly what Apple believes. From Tim Cook's testimony in Epic v. Apple, from Ars Technica: > The in-app-purchasing (IAP) system itself, Cook said, is simply the most efficient way of collecting a 15 to 30 percent commission on each in-app sale. "If not for IAP, we’d have to come up with another system to invoice developers. It would be a mess." This view is explicitly affirmed in the Epic v. Apple verdict[1]: > Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional. The court found the 30% rate arbitrary but not objectionable[2]: > Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property. Personally, I don't approve of Apple feeling entitled to a cut of commerce that doesn't hit their app store, but the court's take (before appeals) is that it's perfectly legal. [0]: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/ceo-tim-cook-faces-pointed-questioning-as-epic-games-v-apple-winds-down/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/ceo-tim-cook-faces-po... [1]: Page 67, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631/apple-epic-judgement.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631/apple-epic-j... [2]: Page 150

Retric 5y ago
Yea, legally it’s clear Apple can charge whatever they want. The actual leverage large companies have is by not having their Apps on iOS Apple may lose customers. But at this point I doubt Netflix is willing to risk it as there is simply to many streaming options. However, Netflix doesn’t need to use IAP so for them it’s a question of increased conversions with IAP rather than dropping the platform. Assuming their also saving a little on CC processing fees a 15% cut is probably a reasonable deal for increasing the number of Netflix customers and quite a bit of revenue for Apple.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  > But at this point I doubt Netflix is willing to risk it as there is simply to many streaming options. Well, but as you point out, they aren't using IAP at the moment so there's nothing to risk. An interesting question is what would happen if Apple decided to play hardball and demand Netflix use IAP again, with no external option, similar to what is required for video games. Honestly, my money would be on Netflix pulling out of iOS.

908B64B197 5y ago

> Apple by comparison demands 15% which is 3.5x as much of a cut. Apple provides credit card processing, and approval into the App Store [...] . This isn't anywhere near the value that AWS provides, despite demanding a much higher premium. It's access to an extremely valuable demographics. Everyone ships on the App Store first because that's where paying customers and high value users are. All that AWS infrastructure to stream media is worthless without consumers at the other end of the wire.

EugeneG 5y ago
Correct. You can go to AWS, Azure, GCP, IBM, host yourself, others, if you want cloud infrastructure. It's more or less commoditized. On the other hand, if you want access thousands of customers who are willing to pay for and use your product ... well that's tough. And it's expensive. The real value is getting exposure to people who will pay real money. Value isn't equal to technical difficulty. That's why Google Ads are pricy, and that's why ads in a niche industry magazine targeting a very specific demographic can be even more expensive.

JohnBooty 5y ago

Apple by comparison demands 15% which is 3.5x as much of a cut. Apple provides credit card processing, and approval into the App Store (plus according to a comment in this email, it sounds like they keep Netflix in the App Store promotion rotation as "free" ad-space). This isn't anywhere near the value that AWS provides That's debatable. To put it mildly. Apple provides them access to, literally, nearly a billion potential customers who, on average, spend twice as much on app store purchases relative to Android users. [1] Apple spends billions of dollars to do this, by creating (by many measures) best-in-class hardware devices, including designing their own bespoke in-house CPUs that trounce the majority of their consumer level competition. It's not directly comparable to what AWS does, so I'm not sure we could possibly quantify how valuable it is to Netflix vis-a-vis AWS. However: it sure isn't nothing, and may well be 3.5x the value that AWS provides. [1] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/iphone-users-spend-more-money-on-apps-than-android-users-report/articleshow/83947757.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/iphone-user...

CardenB 5y ago
Apple doesn’t provide access to these customers. Maybe a small portion are limited to iOS access for Netflix. In reality there are many general service platforms that provide access to Netflix in combination with ISPs. If chrome had a 15% fee to allow users to access websites then I think it would be pretty damaging to innovation on the web.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > If chrome had a 15% fee to allow users to access websites then I think it would be pretty damaging to innovation on the web. It would also be very damaging to Chrome, because users would promptly download another browser. People generally carry one phone and switching to another is much more costly than switching browsers.
richardw 5y ago
Apple’s value is the set of customers who sign up first on iOS rather than web (edit: and who couldn’t be nudged to the web). I’d guess the number isn’t the full billion, but enough that Netflix doesn’t want to lose them.

mlang23 5y ago

I think you are underestimating the value of being present on the platform that is Apple. I basically only created my Netflix subscription (which I cancelled by now) because it was super easy to sign up on my Apple TV. I probably wouldn't have bothered to do so on a PC.

ipaddr 5y ago
I just don't understand why netflix couldn't charge someone like you more.
- mlang23 5y ago
  Which would make the offering they have for european customers even more laughable.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Thankfully Apple isn't as popular compared to North America.

mbesto 5y ago

> This isn't anywhere near the value that AWS provides, despite demanding a much higher premium. > Apple is wildly delusional on the value that they provide. For non-Netflix-like services, strongly disagree. A service with no customers means 0 costs required to pay AWS. Say what you want, but sales & distribution is one of the most important, if not THE most important factor of a business. > They already have the marketing power to force people to subscribe at their website. Yes, Netflix specifically does, but other developers who leverage Apple's ecosystem? Not so much. What's interesting here is that other traditional distributor and retailers of goods and services often have negotiated rates. Apple does no such thing - it's rate is fixed (on paper), meaning Apple thinks is distribution is equal in value for all developers - I think this is where the criticism should be.

martimarkov 5y ago

Maybe this is not a popular opinion but I think that Apple do provide the value. They created the device, the OS, the marketing behind it, the physical stores, all of that. The iPhone is an iconic device because of all the investment Apple put into it. Yes, there are also the millions of developers and apps out there. But the one thing that Apple did right (for me and I guess most iOS users) is that they kept control over the UI & UX. This was my main driver into getting an iPhone. The fact that I interact with Apple and not just every developer in the world. I want to keep that interaction. What I don't want is for most apps to force me to enter my personal info (email) and card details store them somewhere "securely". I want to have a single vendor I trust (arguable this might not be Apple atm). But for me and for most ppl I know that single place is the thing that is the driving factor to keep in the eco system. What I don't understand is why developers feel entitled (maybe the wrong word) to harming my UX by requesting external payment methods. Again, the investment for this "great" eco system comes from both sides and Apple do deserve a % of that. Maybe 15/30% is not fair but this is the free market. You can always decide not to develop for iOS - nobody is forcing you. Except your customers who I feel in this case developers/companies ignore as per the given theory above.

mkishi 5y ago
Remove all third-party apps from the ecosystem. How long do iDevices survive in this scenario? Even now that it's already such a behemoth of a platform? Now do the opposite—make Apple as a whole disappear. What would app developers do? I'm not saying Apple doesn't provide value, but let's not pretend they don't need the third-party developers they are so keen on squeezing no matter what. More than they need Apple, at least.
- martimarkov 5y ago
  Yes they do. I don’t think I was arguing the opposite. On the contrary. I think it’s a relationship. But one where Apple from day 1 have set the expectations on what and how they want that to work. In the end it’s their platform. Developers make the choice to create apps there and they are not happy with the rules. (Ignoring the Apple Watch keyboard and other features stealing issues here as Apple are 110% at fault there). What my arguments is: Apple want their devices to have a specific feel and UX - so they enforce rules for iAP. But it’s the feel of an Apple product and customers vote with their money they like that feel. I know you can make the case of let ppl vote when you have alternative forms of payment but we all know that if that is allowed a certain part of the UX will be hurt. Apple simply do not want to compromise their “vision”, “magic” , “feel” or whatever they want to call it so that developers earn more money.

m0zg 5y ago

> next to no value for Netflix Apple basically has an iron-fisted grip on _worldwide_ audience of people with money to spend. Google, for example, does not, and their App store is a raging dumpster fire in comparison. I'm not saying that their "cut" shouldn't irritate people, it should - that's just market forces at play, but one must also recognize that for Netflix to not be in the App Store would be pretty catastrophi revenue-wise, much for the same reason why it'd be catastrophic for Google to not be the default search engine in iOS.

wbl 5y ago

AWS does not stream video for Netflix. Netflix runs its own edge caches.

cortesoft 5y ago

AWS is NOT doing much of the streaming for Netflix. They do their own streaming. AWS is just for their management infrastructure.

Handytinge 5y ago

The value that Apple brings - which bafflingly you seem to have missed - is over a billion users. That's a significant value. I doubt more than 50 companies in the words history have been able to provide that level of user base on their platform. I'm not saying 15% isn't a high fee, but your argument that Apple provide little to no value is simply false.