3 ms·

I phrased that poorly. My point was that it isn’t clear if there’s a point at which the balance of the relationship shifts such that what was once reasonable (p

I phrased that poorly. My point was that it isn’t clear if there’s a point at which the balance of the relationship shifts such that what was once reasonable (paying fees to Apple for access to their customers, among other things) is no longer reasonable. In the Netflix scenario, it’s clear that Apple wasn’t the primary source of customer acquisition. The scenario where an unknown app grows and gets big based on Apple’s network effect highlights the complexity of the situation. > Apple doesn't own those customers now and for all time just because they originally found the service through Apple's app store! I’m not saying that Apple owns those customers. The pertinent question is what is or is not reasonable for them to charge and/or what restrictions are reasonable. The benefits of publishing in the App Store extend beyond just customer reach, and also involve Apple making good on the promises they've made to their customers (With few exceptions, I personally won't spend money on apps that use their own subscription mechanism, because I have no interest in cancellation hell). In addition to this, the vig covers access to platform capabilities and services that are arguably just as important as access to customers.

Ajedi32 3y ago
I don't think we need to decide precisely what dollar amount is reasonable for Apple to charge for the use of their app store; that's something Apple and the app developers can negotiate between themselves. The problem is that Apple is currently allowed to use their software in a way that effectively does give them ownership of your customers, and they're able to use that ownership as leverage in any negotiations. Apple can say "pay up, otherwise our customers won't be allowed to access your service anymore, even if they want to, and regardless of what app store they use to purchase your services". If Apple couldn't do that then the negotiations would be more fair.
- haswell 3y ago
  To be clear, I'm not a fan of Apple's vice grip here. But I also don't think I agree with this: > in a way that effectively does give them ownership of your customers Netflix and its users may find it annoying that anything related to subscriptions has to be danced around (I certainly do), but I don't think it's quite right to classify Apple's rules around directing users to subscription management features on the Netflix side as "ownership" of those customers. The restriction feels onerous, yes, but is something other than ownership. They are wielding the value of their marketplace as leverage, and it's this power that is (rightfully) under scrutiny.
  - Ajedi32 3y ago
    They're not just wielding the value of their marketplace though. If that was all it was, then Netflix could threaten to distribute their application to Apple customers through a different marketplace as part of their negotiations. But users aren't allowed to install applications without going through Apple's marketplace. Apple does, in some limited sense, "own" those customers. That's the issue. The DMA tried to fix this, but failed because Apple just shifted to charging per install even for applications that don't use Apple's marketplace. And if you don't want to play by those rules, Apple won't sign your app and iPhones will refuse to allow your customers to install it. There's no alternative, other than to abandon your iPhone-using customers entirely.
    - haswell 3y ago
      I'm trying to understand your point. Netflix already distributes its app via the App Store and pays no fees for users who subscribe directly with Netflix. I was a Netflix customer before I was an Apple customer, and have never touched Netflix billing from my Apple device. Netflix pays no money to Apple for my subscription. They pay money for customers who originate from the Apple in-app sales funnel. Netflix could choose to continue requiring all subscriptions to be handled externally, but I understand why they don't. > There's no alternative, other than to abandon your iPhone-using customers entirely. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely an alternative (to paying 30% of subscription fees), and it's what these companies are already doing. It's just an alternative that many people dislike, which is why the DMA exists. At issue is also a question of whether the DMA actually makes sense, which was the central point of my pondering in the GP comment. I think we might be arguing orthogonal points.
      - Ajedi32 3y ago
        > I think we might be arguing orthogonal points. Correct. You seem entirely concerned with the specifics of what rules Apple chooses to enforce and whether those rules allow developers alternatives to paying 30% of their revenue to Apple. But I'm not talking about an alternative to paying the fee, I'm talking about an alternative to having to follow Apple's arbitrary rules period. What if I decide I don't like the terms Apple is offering, and that I just want to sell a piece of software directly to an iOS user and cut Apple completely out of the process? Right now, I can't; Apple will simply refuse to sign the application and iOS devices will refuse to allow my customers to install it on their devices, and there's no alternative to that. I either comply with all of Apple's demands (however reasonable or unreasonable they might be), or I can't sell working software to my customers.

Ajedi32 3y ago

I don't think we need to decide precisely what dollar amount is reasonable for Apple to charge for the use of their app store; that's something Apple and the app developers can negotiate between themselves. The problem is that Apple is currently allowed to use their software in a way that effectively does give them ownership of your customers, and they're able to use that ownership as leverage in any negotiations. Apple can say "pay up, otherwise our customers won't be allowed to access your service anymore, even if they want to, and regardless of what app store they use to purchase your services". If Apple couldn't do that then the negotiations would be more fair.

haswell 3y ago
To be clear, I'm not a fan of Apple's vice grip here. But I also don't think I agree with this: > in a way that effectively does give them ownership of your customers Netflix and its users may find it annoying that anything related to subscriptions has to be danced around (I certainly do), but I don't think it's quite right to classify Apple's rules around directing users to subscription management features on the Netflix side as "ownership" of those customers. The restriction feels onerous, yes, but is something other than ownership. They are wielding the value of their marketplace as leverage, and it's this power that is (rightfully) under scrutiny.
- Ajedi32 3y ago
  They're not just wielding the value of their marketplace though. If that was all it was, then Netflix could threaten to distribute their application to Apple customers through a different marketplace as part of their negotiations. But users aren't allowed to install applications without going through Apple's marketplace. Apple does, in some limited sense, "own" those customers. That's the issue. The DMA tried to fix this, but failed because Apple just shifted to charging per install even for applications that don't use Apple's marketplace. And if you don't want to play by those rules, Apple won't sign your app and iPhones will refuse to allow your customers to install it. There's no alternative, other than to abandon your iPhone-using customers entirely.
  - haswell 3y ago
    I'm trying to understand your point. Netflix already distributes its app via the App Store and pays no fees for users who subscribe directly with Netflix. I was a Netflix customer before I was an Apple customer, and have never touched Netflix billing from my Apple device. Netflix pays no money to Apple for my subscription. They pay money for customers who originate from the Apple in-app sales funnel. Netflix could choose to continue requiring all subscriptions to be handled externally, but I understand why they don't. > There's no alternative, other than to abandon your iPhone-using customers entirely. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely an alternative (to paying 30% of subscription fees), and it's what these companies are already doing. It's just an alternative that many people dislike, which is why the DMA exists. At issue is also a question of whether the DMA actually makes sense, which was the central point of my pondering in the GP comment. I think we might be arguing orthogonal points.
    - Ajedi32 3y ago
      > I think we might be arguing orthogonal points. Correct. You seem entirely concerned with the specifics of what rules Apple chooses to enforce and whether those rules allow developers alternatives to paying 30% of their revenue to Apple. But I'm not talking about an alternative to paying the fee, I'm talking about an alternative to having to follow Apple's arbitrary rules period. What if I decide I don't like the terms Apple is offering, and that I just want to sell a piece of software directly to an iOS user and cut Apple completely out of the process? Right now, I can't; Apple will simply refuse to sign the application and iOS devices will refuse to allow my customers to install it on their devices, and there's no alternative to that. I either comply with all of Apple's demands (however reasonable or unreasonable they might be), or I can't sell working software to my customers.