3 ms·

Do we know for a fact Apple made fewer deals like these? I don't think we do. Apple makes a lot of deals. A lot. I'd expect them to be about even.

dagmx 3y ago
We know that Epic asked and were refused prior to the lawsuit. Beyond that there’s no evidence one way or another that there are any sweetheart deals. None of the public documents from the trials showed that. Anything beyond that is speculation.
jonbell 3y ago
There was a whole trial about this. If Apple had these deals, it would have come out. Google and Apple ran things differently.
- hackernewds 3y ago
  or perhaps Apple just had a stronger policy to not create documentation around these
  - MBCook 3y ago
    I mean a lot of it just doesn’t apply. Google was caught paying off Samsung to encourage them not to put alternate app stores on their devices. Squashing competition where it should exist. Apple makes the devices, so they aren’t making others squash competition. They’re exactly what they say.
    - lern_too_spel 3y ago
      Apple made deals to set the default search engine and the default maps app, and rejected other app stores. As bad as Google is, Apple is even worse, setting worse terms for deals and rejecting other deals outright to favor their own products.
      - theshackleford 3y ago
        Your second sentence is not even remotely supported by the first.
madeofpalk 3y ago
Details on some of these came through in the Epic v Apple case, but they were very light https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/5/22421734/apple-epic-netflix-in-app-purchase-removal-emails https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/5/22421734/apple-epic-netfli... Google just has more types of companies in the ecosystem to make deals with. Apple’s iOS OEM deals can’t be found anticompetitive because they don’t have those deals to begin with.
- adamwk 3y ago
  It’s interesting that none of the desperate arrangements were lower fees; the closest being ability to upsell preexisting subscribers (off apples platform)
dwaite 3y ago
Apple was pretty careful not to make deals. For instance Microsoft and Epic both publicly complained about not getting deals. Supposedly, the 15%-after-first-year rule for subscriptions that they instituted was because they were trying to entice Netflix to continue to take in-app payment for subscriptions. Rather than a sweetheart deal, they rolled it out as a platform change. There are areas which I think are more questionable, such as their Apple TV partnerships with Amazon and a few others.
- MBCook 3y ago
  Netflix reportedly had special terms for years before that policy change for everyone else. I don’t think they were the only ones. I think Apple just did that because it was becoming clear that what they were saying wasn’t true/they were getting political pressure about charging 30% no matter what. I don’t remember the exact timing on the change so my guess as to the cause may be wrong.

dagmx 3y ago

We know that Epic asked and were refused prior to the lawsuit. Beyond that there’s no evidence one way or another that there are any sweetheart deals. None of the public documents from the trials showed that. Anything beyond that is speculation.

jonbell 3y ago

There was a whole trial about this. If Apple had these deals, it would have come out. Google and Apple ran things differently.

hackernewds 3y ago
or perhaps Apple just had a stronger policy to not create documentation around these
- MBCook 3y ago
  I mean a lot of it just doesn’t apply. Google was caught paying off Samsung to encourage them not to put alternate app stores on their devices. Squashing competition where it should exist. Apple makes the devices, so they aren’t making others squash competition. They’re exactly what they say.
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    Apple made deals to set the default search engine and the default maps app, and rejected other app stores. As bad as Google is, Apple is even worse, setting worse terms for deals and rejecting other deals outright to favor their own products.
    - theshackleford 3y ago
      Your second sentence is not even remotely supported by the first.

madeofpalk 3y ago

Details on some of these came through in the Epic v Apple case, but they were very light https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/5/22421734/apple-epic-netflix-in-app-purchase-removal-emails https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/5/22421734/apple-epic-netfli... Google just has more types of companies in the ecosystem to make deals with. Apple’s iOS OEM deals can’t be found anticompetitive because they don’t have those deals to begin with.

adamwk 3y ago
It’s interesting that none of the desperate arrangements were lower fees; the closest being ability to upsell preexisting subscribers (off apples platform)

dwaite 3y ago

Apple was pretty careful not to make deals. For instance Microsoft and Epic both publicly complained about not getting deals. Supposedly, the 15%-after-first-year rule for subscriptions that they instituted was because they were trying to entice Netflix to continue to take in-app payment for subscriptions. Rather than a sweetheart deal, they rolled it out as a platform change. There are areas which I think are more questionable, such as their Apple TV partnerships with Amazon and a few others.

MBCook 3y ago
Netflix reportedly had special terms for years before that policy change for everyone else. I don’t think they were the only ones. I think Apple just did that because it was becoming clear that what they were saying wasn’t true/they were getting political pressure about charging 30% no matter what. I don’t remember the exact timing on the change so my guess as to the cause may be wrong.