3 ms·

> Apple provides them access to This is in many ways the same argument that ISPs used during the net neutrality debates as to why Netflix should have to pay th

> Apple provides them access to This is in many ways the same argument that ISPs used during the net neutrality debates as to why Netflix should have to pay them extra money. Netflix was using all the bandwidth, and ISPs were keeping that access fast... blah, blah, blah. Many of the objections that I had to ISPs trying to double-dip on bandwidth fees back then also apply to this idea that Apple's product to Netflix is its customers. The thing is that Apple provides a platform for their customers to access Netflix. Apple benefits heavily from Netflix being on their platform, they would lose a lot of customers if every content provider decided to leave iOS tomorrow. Those customers pay Apple for a phone that they can use to watch their favorite TV shows, they pay Apple for a device that can keep pace in capabilities with other tablets and phone OSes on the market. So the argument that Apple deserves compensation for maintaining a market that is itself regularly compensating them is the same kind of double dipping that ISPs tried to engage in. I pay my ISP for an Internet connection so that I can access websites. People pay Apple for good hardware with a good app store. That's the arrangement; the deal isn't really happening on Netflix's side of the table. It's very difficult to argue that Apple has invested in best-of-class hardware for Netflix's sake. They did it so that people would pay them money to buy phones. Apple is not selling their phones at a loss, and they were clear during the recent trial with Epic that they do not look at the app store as a revenue target. Taking fees for maintenance is one thing, but it's very difficult to seriously argue that Apple had an idea for a 3rd-party platform and then made an attractive phone in order to support that platform. We all know that it's the other way around. This talk about Apple being the gatekeeper that graciously allows companies access to a market is also a somewhat dangerous road to go down, because it creates a lot of perverse incentives for the company. I have no doubt that some parts of Apple's leadership do think of their customer base as an asset that they offer other companies. And I think that attitude can help explain some of Apple's lock-in behavior and refusal to work with other platforms, because when users are an asset to be horded and leveraged, it becomes more important to force them to be loyal and to make it harder for them to switch platforms based on your future business decisions. I feel like one of the biggest lessons of the modern Internet is that it's dangerous for consumers when companies start referring to their customer base as a product. Apple is occasionally a breath of fresh air in that regard. But in this case, not so much.

chipotle_coyote 5y ago
If there's a really serious criticism I have of Apple -- well, there's a fair number of varying degrees of seriousness. But I think their original sin is that while they want everyone to acknowledge how much they ostensibly do for developers, they generally act as if applications bring no value to their platform. Many years ago, when BeOS was just getting going, Be CEO and former Apple exec Jean Louis-Gassee was asked what the difference between Be and Apple was. He answered, "We don't shit on our developers." It's disappointing, to say the least, that this is still a valid criticism criticism nearly a quarter-century later.
JohnBooty 5y ago
This is in many ways the same argument that ISPs used during the net neutrality debates as to why Netflix should have to pay them extra money. The parallels are there for sure. I would agree that gatekeeping is bad, and I often don't like how Apple behaves as gatekeeper. But there are massive key differences as well. Many ISPs have a local monopoly over broadband access. Many people have only a single choice for a broadband ISP and this can't be changed unless they move to a new address. By contrast, Apple doesn't even have a majority share of the mobile device market, much less a monopoly. Even if Apple booted Netflix out of the App Store tomorrow (or if Netflix packed up their bags and left) there are still myriad ways one could access Netflix. The same would not remotely be true if one's ISP blocked Netflix or demanded extra money to use it. Many people have no ISP alternative, and may be locked into contracts. You are under no such contract with Apple. You can switch to another device tomorrow, or use literally dozens of competing operating systems and platforms at the same time. Apple benefits heavily from Netflix being on their platform, they would lose a lot of customers if every content provider decided to leave iOS tomorrow Absolutely, sure. I asserted that Netflix derives massive value from Apple's platform and payment system. I didn't assert that it was a one-way street. Apple benefits as well, no doubt. It's very difficult to argue that Apple has invested in best-of-class hardware for Netflix's sake. Nobody's arguing that. The same could be said of AWS. Amazon didn't create it solely for Netflix's sake. But more importantly: huh? We all know that it's the other way around. Again, what does it matter whether or not apps are 1st or 729th on Apple's list of priorities? The question is whether or not Netflix derives value from their relationship with Apple, or not. Jobs didn't originally want an App Store, yeah, but that was 14+ years ago. Apps downloaded from the App Store are clearly the primary use case for iPhones/iPads in 2021. Apple has invested massively in their app store, payment system, SDKs, XCode, etc. But at any rate, I fail to see how this is even relevant to the question of whether or not Netflix derives value from their relationship with Apple.

chipotle_coyote 5y ago

If there's a really serious criticism I have of Apple -- well, there's a fair number of varying degrees of seriousness. But I think their original sin is that while they want everyone to acknowledge how much they ostensibly do for developers, they generally act as if applications bring no value to their platform. Many years ago, when BeOS was just getting going, Be CEO and former Apple exec Jean Louis-Gassee was asked what the difference between Be and Apple was. He answered, "We don't shit on our developers." It's disappointing, to say the least, that this is still a valid criticism criticism nearly a quarter-century later.

JohnBooty 5y ago

This is in many ways the same argument that ISPs used during the net neutrality debates as to why Netflix should have to pay them extra money. The parallels are there for sure. I would agree that gatekeeping is bad, and I often don't like how Apple behaves as gatekeeper. But there are massive key differences as well. Many ISPs have a local monopoly over broadband access. Many people have only a single choice for a broadband ISP and this can't be changed unless they move to a new address. By contrast, Apple doesn't even have a majority share of the mobile device market, much less a monopoly. Even if Apple booted Netflix out of the App Store tomorrow (or if Netflix packed up their bags and left) there are still myriad ways one could access Netflix. The same would not remotely be true if one's ISP blocked Netflix or demanded extra money to use it. Many people have no ISP alternative, and may be locked into contracts. You are under no such contract with Apple. You can switch to another device tomorrow, or use literally dozens of competing operating systems and platforms at the same time. Apple benefits heavily from Netflix being on their platform, they would lose a lot of customers if every content provider decided to leave iOS tomorrow Absolutely, sure. I asserted that Netflix derives massive value from Apple's platform and payment system. I didn't assert that it was a one-way street. Apple benefits as well, no doubt. It's very difficult to argue that Apple has invested in best-of-class hardware for Netflix's sake. Nobody's arguing that. The same could be said of AWS. Amazon didn't create it solely for Netflix's sake. But more importantly: huh? We all know that it's the other way around. Again, what does it matter whether or not apps are 1st or 729th on Apple's list of priorities? The question is whether or not Netflix derives value from their relationship with Apple, or not. Jobs didn't originally want an App Store, yeah, but that was 14+ years ago. Apps downloaded from the App Store are clearly the primary use case for iPhones/iPads in 2021. Apple has invested massively in their app store, payment system, SDKs, XCode, etc. But at any rate, I fail to see how this is even relevant to the question of whether or not Netflix derives value from their relationship with Apple.