PDA

View Full Version : Hulu Complies With Apple's New iOS In-App Subscription Rules Without Sharing Revenue




MacRumors
Jun 20, 2011, 09:33 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/20/hulu-complies-with-apples-new-ios-in-app-subscription-rules/)


All Things Digital reports (http://allthingsd.com/20110620/hulu-plays-along-with-apples-new-rules-whos-next/) that in the latest update to its Hulu Plus (http://appshopper.com/entertainment/hulu-plus) application, television streaming company Hulu has brought itself into compliance with Apple's new In-App Subscription rules, taking advantage of a recent shift (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/09/apple-reverses-course-on-in-app-subscriptions/) in Apple's stance to simply remove an external link to sign up for the paid service rather than offering subscriptions inside the application under a system in which Apple would take 30% of the revenue.All Hulu had to do was strip out the link that sent potential subscribers to its Web site, because Apple's new rule will ban "apps that link to external mechanisms for purchases or subscriptions to be used in the app."As initially deployed (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/15/apple-debuts-app-store-subscriptions/) back in mid-February, Apple's In-App Subscription mechanism allowed publishers to set prices, but also required them offer the same offers inside their applications as found through external mechanisms. Under the program, Apple would retain 30% of the revenue on subscriptions generated within the applications as a fee for bringing the subscriber to the service. The new terms were set to go into effect on June 30th for existing subscription-based applications, leading many to wonder how services such as Hulu and Netflix would deal with the requirements.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/hulu_plus_linkout_text.jpg

External subscription link text (bottom) removed from Hulu Plus login screen
But with Apple reversing course (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/09/apple-reverses-course-on-in-app-subscriptions/) earlier this month, those services now have a much easier path to compliance with Apple In-App Subscriptions terms. Under the revised terms, publishers with subscription programs are not required to also offer In App Subscriptions, provided that they do not link users to external purchasing mechanisms.

Consequently, apps like Hulu Plus can meet the requirements by simply having their subscription links removed from within the app. Hulu loses the benefit of direct link-outs for new subscribers, but does not have to offer In-App Subscriptions that would undoubtedly result in significant amounts of revenue being diverted to Apple. Users interested in subscribing to Hulu will simply have to visit Hulu's site on their own, manually entering the address or finding it through a search engine, in order to sign up.

All Things Digital notes that the solution adopted by Hulu is likely to make its way to a number of other prominent services such as Netflix and Rhapsody, although it is unclear how others such as Amazon's Kindle Store will be able to satisfactorily comply with the new rules going into effect next week without removing a significant convenience factor of being able to purchase individual e-books via link-outs from the app itself.

Article Link: Hulu Complies With Apple's New iOS In-App Subscription Rules Without Sharing Revenue (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/20/hulu-complies-with-apples-new-ios-in-app-subscription-rules/)



ratzzo
Jun 20, 2011, 09:36 AM
Clever move. I wonder if Apple will do anything against that, they seems to shift their policies every week..

soco
Jun 20, 2011, 09:38 AM
This makes me nervous.

Only because there's a lot of mumbo-jumbo behind the rules. What happened to being a blind consumer? Those were the days.

mrblack927
Jun 20, 2011, 09:38 AM
Seems like it just makes it harder/more confusing for the user.

soco
Jun 20, 2011, 09:40 AM
Seems like it just makes it harder/more confusing for the user.

Friggin BS. Buscemi wanted to be Mr. Black...

arn
Jun 20, 2011, 09:41 AM
Clever move. I wonder if Apple will do anything against that, they seems to shift their policies every week..

unlikely, since this was the intended purpose of the rule changes. So apps like Hulu and Netflix could continue to exist in the app store

arn

baleensavage
Jun 20, 2011, 09:43 AM
It's too bad that Apple is pushing this 30% on the app developers. For the user, it makes far more sense to be able to get these things Apple's way through in-app purchases, even the link to the Web site was a PITA. But the 30% charge will deter many of these providers, particularly the big ones who already have a built-in subscriber base and in the end it's the consumer who suffers.

ratzzo
Jun 20, 2011, 09:45 AM
This makes me nervous.

Only because there's a lot of mumbo-jumbo behind the rules. What happened to being a blind consumer? Those were the days.

Really? I would very much prefer to be aware of what's going on with what I use than be ignorant around it.

Amazing Iceman
Jun 20, 2011, 09:47 AM
Removing a link???
Well, HULU should be able to still show the URL without making a link, and still be compliant, shouldn't they?

Removing these links just causes aggravation to the End-Users.
I can't believe a link would be so relevant.

FriarNurgle
Jun 20, 2011, 09:47 AM
Paying for Netflix is enough.

Consultant
Jun 20, 2011, 09:49 AM
Netflix is better and without ad. Why would anyone pay for hulu and still see ads?

Seems like it just makes it harder/more confusing for the user.

Well, perhaps the additional App Store eye balls will simply not pay.

pdjudd
Jun 20, 2011, 09:51 AM
Removing a link???
Well, HULU should be able to still show the URL without making a link, and still be compliant, shouldn't they?

Removing these links just causes aggravation to the End-Users.
I can't believe a link would be so relevant.
I don't know if they can do a non-active link, but they should be able to mention the existence of their website or provide a link to their homepage.

jamied95
Jun 20, 2011, 09:53 AM
I'm no lawyer, but this seems to me to be anti-competitive practices, especially considering it has the ability to stop Netflix & Amazon (both of whom have competing products to Apple) from functioning in a manner that 1) is profitable, and 2) is in any way competitive with Apple's own offerings - in reality, this is edging a little too close towards the IE/Windows debacle for my liking.

ChazUK
Jun 20, 2011, 09:53 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.4; en-gb; Nexus S Build/GRJ22) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

A simple move to comply. I'd assume some others would follow doing this.

dustinsc
Jun 20, 2011, 09:59 AM
Apple, all you have to do is lower the cut and you'll get people on board with in-app purchases. 30% is onerous. 10% is probably manageable for most companies.

And yes, I know no one who can change this will ever read my comment.

rhett7660
Jun 20, 2011, 10:01 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.4; en-gb; Nexus S Build/GRJ22) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

A simple move to comply. I'd assume some others would follow doing this.

I agree. I can see a slew of apps following suit and doing this if they haven't already.

benpatient
Jun 20, 2011, 10:04 AM
Apple has just done the hard work for anyone who wants to sue them for this policy.

I'm looking at you, Amazon.

Oletros
Jun 20, 2011, 10:04 AM
Apple, all you have to do is lower the cut and you'll get people on board with in-app purchases. 30% is onerous. 10% is probably manageable for most companies.

And yes, I know no one who can change this will ever read my comment.

I highly doubt that companies like Amazon, Netflix, Spotify or Hulu will get on board even with a 10% cut. Why they would give 10% of revenue to anyone by doing nothing they're are doing?

marksman
Jun 20, 2011, 10:05 AM
I don't know if they can do a non-active link, but they should be able to mention the existence of their website or provide a link to their homepage.

No. If App developers are going to use the Apple infrastructure to sell subscriptions then Apple should get a share of the revenue. I suspect given these very lenient considerations by Apple that the will be pretty strict with people who try to circumvent these rules.

It is ridiculous to think that App developers should just be able to perch on Apple's infrastructure and sell their product to Apple's customers with Apple not being involved. This is why this is.

Companies can bring their own customers to their apps, but they can't just use Apple's platform to recruit new paying customers for free.


I'm no lawyer, but this seems to me to be anti-competitive practices, especially considering it has the ability to stop Netflix & Amazon (both of whom have competing products to Apple) from functioning in a manner that 1) is profitable, and 2) is in any way competitive with Apple's own offerings - in reality, this is edging a little too close towards the IE/Windows debacle for my liking.


You are way off base here. The App Store is a retail store. Retail stores can sell whatever they want, pretty much however they want. This has nothing to do with any sort of anti-trust issue or competitive practices.

err404
Jun 20, 2011, 10:06 AM
I wonder if they could have left the link, and simply changed the verbiage to not include the term "sign up". Surely apps are still allowed to link back to a website.

Maybe if the link said "Need help? Goto ...)

Oletros
Jun 20, 2011, 10:07 AM
No. If App developers are going to use the Apple infrastructure to sell subscriptions then Apple should get a share of the revenue.

Which infrastruture is using Amazon when a Kindle book is sold?

OllyW
Jun 20, 2011, 10:08 AM
It's a slight inconvenience for users though not as much of an inconvenience as losing the app altogether, which could have been the outcome had Apple not relaxed it's rules.

FriarNurgle
Jun 20, 2011, 10:12 AM
How about just making Hulu work on iOS? I'm fine with "watching" a couple ads. Just think of their ad exposure if they opened it up to work in mobile safari or a stand alone free app.

err404
Jun 20, 2011, 10:13 AM
I highly doubt that companies like Amazon, Netflix, Spotify or Hulu will get on board even with a 10% cut. Why they would give 10% of revenue to anyone by doing nothing they're are doing?

Because with a IAP Apple would be facilitating the payment process making it safer and easier for a user to purchase the content. With IAP, the user wouldn't even need to log in. There have been many times when I did not sign up for a subscription simply because I did not know the reputation of the site well enough to trust sending my payment details.

The way I see it, charge 10% and don't enforce matching prices. In most cases you will make up for the lost percentage through increased membership.

Oletros
Jun 20, 2011, 10:18 AM
Because with a IAP Apple would be facilitating the payment process making it safer and easier for a user to purchase the content. With IAP, the user wouldn't even need to log in. There have been many times when I did not sign up for a subscription simply because I did not know the reputation of the site well enough to trust sending my payment details.


You're talking about the user, I'm talking about the companies? In which way Apple is facilicitating Amazon with IAP?

diamond.g
Jun 20, 2011, 10:22 AM
Which infrastruture is using Amazon when a Kindle book is sold?

Apples, duh ;)

Cobra502
Jun 20, 2011, 10:23 AM
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Oletros
Jun 20, 2011, 10:24 AM
Apples, duh ;)

Really?

When you buy a Kindle book on Kindle for Mac or Kindle for Windows do you use Apple or MS infrastructure?

newagemac
Jun 20, 2011, 10:27 AM
Netflix is better and without ad. Why would anyone pay for hulu and still see ads?



Well, perhaps the additional App Store eye balls will simply not pay.

Since when did Hulu compete with Netflix? Netflix focuses on movies and some older tv shows. Hulu Plus concentrates on current seasons of hit tv shows plus entire back seasons of many of them on demand.

So Hulu's competition is the cable operators and cable networks not Netflix. Last time I checked, cable subscriptions were upwards of $75 a month and include far more ads than Hulu.

So Hulu is offering a far cheaper product as well as far less ads then their competition. Their catalog isn't as big as cable but I think the idea that people actually want hundreds of channels is fast disappearing.

BaldiMac
Jun 20, 2011, 10:28 AM
Really?

When you buy a Kindle book on Kindle for Mac or Kindle for Windows do you use Apple or MS infrastructure?

Are you missing the fact that iOS belongs to Apple?

dvkid
Jun 20, 2011, 10:30 AM
No. If App developers are going to use the Apple infrastructure to sell subscriptions then Apple should get a share of the revenue.

Except that the amount of infrastructure Apple provides when it comes to subscriptions in minute in comparison to an app sale.

It goes like this:

User buys application, Apple takes 30%, Apple's servers provide the file, developer gets an electronic funds transfer roughly 2 months later.

User buys subscription or in-app purchase of new content, Apple takes 30%, developer's server delivers the content, developer gets an electronic funds transfer of the 70%, again roughly 2 months later.

In the first scenario, Apple provides credit card processing, hosting and fulfillment (both initially and for re-downloads) and provides eyeballs to the application.

In the second scenario, Apple provides credit card processing and eyeballs.

In my app's case, I'd be very surprised to learn that most of the folks buying it aren't buying it because of my company's efforts. We do a big email blast to our customers, sales of new content spike. They then dwindle back down until we contact the customers again.

Of course, there are some new sales, and for those Apple certainly deserves something. Buy 30% on an in app purchase is still quite steep. I'm getting less for that 30%. I feel like I should be charged less.

mdntcallr
Jun 20, 2011, 10:30 AM
For Apple to have a computer OS for iOS (or potentially Mac OS), which forces outside companies to pay 30% for any transactions, sales, or to be listed for subscription is outrageous. It is anti-competitive.

it is why Apple TV isn't open, sadly it looks like Apple will continue their closed wall program. as more people move to a ipad for some everyday usage from a pc or mac, it limits what those users can do.

will Apple be anti-competitive and block Spotify App from ipad/iphone because it competes with itunes in north america?

will they block an apple tv variant? some of this smacks of anti-trust issues and being anti-competitive.

nwcs
Jun 20, 2011, 10:30 AM
Really?

When you buy a Kindle book on Kindle for Mac or Kindle for Windows do you use Apple or MS infrastructure?

It has more to do with who generated the customer. Apple is not in the business of driving customers to other vendors -- especially those who sell competing products. I personally think Apple should have left well enough alone but I can see their point of capturing what is, in essence, referral fees.

Oletros
Jun 20, 2011, 10:31 AM
Are you missing the fact that iOS belongs to Apple?

And? OS X belongs to Apple, Windows 7 belongs to MS and Android to Google.

Is Amazon using any of thos infrastructures when a Kindle book is bought though the Knidle app or a browser?

mdatwood
Jun 20, 2011, 10:32 AM
Are you missing the fact that iOS belongs to Apple?

Windows belongs to MS. Should they get a cut of every piece of software sold to run on Windows? MS would be laughed at and then sued for anti-trust if they tried to get a cut of Netflix subscriptions.

newagemac
Jun 20, 2011, 10:33 AM
I highly doubt that companies like Amazon, Netflix, Spotify or Hulu will get on board even with a 10% cut. Why they would give 10% of revenue to anyone by doing nothing they're are doing?

If Apple's App Store is doing "nothing" then why are they trying to be in it? Do you think Walmart, Amazon, or Best Buy lets anyone place their products in their store for free? I think you need to rethink things a bit.

nwcs
Jun 20, 2011, 10:33 AM
some of this smacks of anti-trust issues and being anti-competitive.Not in the slightest is it either of these. Retail stores can do what they want.

Oletros
Jun 20, 2011, 10:33 AM
It has more to do with who generated the customer. Apple is not in the business of driving customers to other vendors -- especially those who sell competing products. I personally think Apple should have left well enough alone but I can see their point of capturing what is, in essence, referral fees.

And people buys iPhones/iPads because there are those applications.

Oletros
Jun 20, 2011, 10:35 AM
If Apple's App Store is doing "nothing" then why are they trying to be on it? Do you think Walmart, Amazon, or Best Buy lets anyone place their products in their store for free? I think you need rethink things a bit.

Are Kindle books on Apple Store? I don't think so.

And tehy're are there because Apple has guidelines about free and pay apps.

I think you need to rethink things a bit.

Oletros
Jun 20, 2011, 10:36 AM
Retail stores can do what they want.

No, they can't. They mus obey laws.

BaldiMac
Jun 20, 2011, 10:37 AM
And? OS X belongs to Apple, Windows 7 belongs to MS and Android to Google.

Is Amazon using any of thos infrastructures when a Kindle book is bought though the Knidle app or a browser?

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I just answered your question.

Derekuda
Jun 20, 2011, 10:40 AM
Why is this news...NO ONE uses Hulu Plus, or cares about hulu or supports hulu. It's a website that should have died a long time ago. Trying to charge people to watch a handfull of shows. LAME!!!!

Oletros
Jun 20, 2011, 10:40 AM
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I just answered your question.

No, you didn't. I was asking about which infrastructure was used, no which OS was used or who owns the OS?

nwcs
Jun 20, 2011, 10:42 AM
No, they can't. They mus obey laws.

Yes but the "anti-competitive" crap being thrown around here doesn't apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

BaldiMac
Jun 20, 2011, 10:43 AM
Windows belongs to MS. Should they get a cut of every piece of software sold to run on Windows?

You mean like they do on the xBox?

MS would be laughed at and then sued for anti-trust if they tried to get a cut of Netflix subscriptions.

That would be because they are a monopoly. There are different rules for monopoloies that for everyone else. What is illegal for a monopoly is not illegal for everone.

mdatwood
Jun 20, 2011, 10:43 AM
I always thought Apple would back down on the subscriptions and they did. I expect them to back down even more if the content providers keep pushing. Apple needs the content providers much more than they need Apple, especially now. If iOS ends up as the only device without Amazon books, Netflix, HULU etc, people will buy an Android device even if they wanted an iOS device.

Put simply, content is king.

BaldiMac
Jun 20, 2011, 10:44 AM
No, you didn't. I was asking about which infrastructure was used, no which OS was used or who owns the OS?

The OS is definitely part of the infrastructure used to deliver the content to the device. :rolleyes:

JusChexin
Jun 20, 2011, 10:46 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Really?

When you buy a Kindle book on Kindle for Mac or Kindle for Windows do you use Apple or MS infrastructure?

Are you missing the fact that iOS belongs to Apple?

The thing I don't understand about this argument is this: Apparently Apple owning iOS means that if I download a 3rd-party application through Apple's mechanism for downloading applications on their operating system (ie the App Store), Apple is somehow entitled revenue when I conduct an economic transaction within that third-party application and only with/between that third-party, because Apple gave them the benefit of distributing the original 3rd-party application in the App Store. Yet, if I download or buy an application from a 3rd party on Apple's mechanism for accessing acquiring applications over the Internet on a regular pc (ie downloading an application through Safari on OSX) or the same from Microsoft (downloading an application through IE on Windows), then the OS company isn't entitled revenue from the third-party transaction. (of course this is changing with the advent of the Mac App Store and Lion, but you can still access apps through the Internet on Safari and other web browsers, to be installed in the OS, whereas on an iOS device, you have to go through Apple's official mechanism of the App Store, as far as I know).

I just don't understand how it was found anti-competitive back in the day for MS to only offer IE pre-installed on a Windows PC, and yet today Apple can lock down iOS devices and set all the rules for dealing with applications installed on their devices to their hearts content. I really enjoy Apple and iOS devices, but I'm just so curious if anyone can explain the legal distinctions to me. Thanks!

mattraehl
Jun 20, 2011, 10:47 AM
It's an unfortunate compromise, but I see both sides of argument here.

Hulu cannot afford to give away 30% of it's subscription revenue, it's not profitable that way.

But, from Apple's perspective, we are talking about someone who was NOT a Hulu plus subscriber, and only wanted to become one AFTER they started using an app downloaded through the Apple App Store on an Apple device, using Apple-provided in-app purchase APIs and infrastructure. So if you're Apple, your thinking hey, we brought you a customer, you're using our payment system, we deserve a cut. Not to mention, these services are directly competing with iTunes for content dollars; Apple would literally be insane to let them do this for free.

30% seems high to me but I'm not in the business. I suspect only high-profile services with established customer bases will be able to get away with not having an in-app subscription option. Having an app in the App Store gets you access to 100+ million iOS users, the business model for iOS content is low margins and high volume.

The big problem that content middle-men like Netflix and Hulu have is that an additional subscriber has a much larger marginal cost to them, because they have to turn around and pay the studios and networks. Contrast to a newspaper or magazine buyer, the additional subscription costs the publisher basically nothing (just bandwidth really), so they're more inclined to let Apple take 70% rather than nothing.

Anyways, the stakes here are huge. Apple created the iPod, a device people loved and wanted to use to listen to their music. They leveraged this into iTunes store, and now they are the largest music retailer in the world. With the iPad, they are going for world domination - they want to become to movies, tv shows, books, magazines, and newspapers what they already are for music.

Oletros
Jun 20, 2011, 10:47 AM
The OS is definitely part of the infrastructure used to deliver the content to the device. :rolleyes:

Ohh, pushing the meaning of words?

diamond.g
Jun 20, 2011, 10:49 AM
Really?

When you buy a Kindle book on Kindle for Mac or Kindle for Windows do you use Apple or MS infrastructure?

I was being sarcastic. In the case of IAP content, Apple doesn't store it. So they literally are only a payment processor. Amazon has all of their own infrastructure that they use to send me content that I purchase through the Kindle Store.

Amazing Iceman
Jun 20, 2011, 10:50 AM
I don't know if they can do a non-active link, but they should be able to mention the existence of their website or provide a link to their homepage.

That's the problem; it's currently a gray area to explore.
Link or no Link, I don't see how it aggravates Apple. It only aggravates the End User.

deannnnn
Jun 20, 2011, 10:50 AM
This policy just makes me mad. Apple is being greedy.

lars666
Jun 20, 2011, 10:51 AM
Would have loved in-app purchase as it would have FINALLY given me a chance to get HuluPlus with my US iTunes account - as Hulu doesn't have any loop hole from other countries to pay, even PayPal and credit cards are not accepted if not located in the US. I want to give them my money, but aren't allowed to...

Porchland
Jun 20, 2011, 10:52 AM
Seems like it just makes it harder/more confusing for the user.

Link or no Link, I don't see how it aggravates Apple. It only aggravates the End User.

That outcome is by design but not for that reason.

Apple's vision for the App Store is that is can be used by developers to extend an existing service to iOS users but should be used as a billboard on Apple's commercial territory to divert revenue away from Apple. If you are coming to the app from finding it on the App Store and not as an existing customer of the third party, why should Apple make it easy for the third party to divert that revenue?

It's the same result as Conde Nast magazine subscriptions; if you want to subscribe as an in-app purchase you can, if you want to enter your subscriber information from your print edition for free access you can, but the app is not bait for getting you to go to the magazine's web site to subscribe outside of Apple.

I think removing the links is a good outcome that balances Apple and the third parties' commercial interests without making things particularly difficult on consumers. It puts the ball in the third parties' court to make the user experience easier for the consumer by providing them a way to subscribe through an in-app purchase.

In the case of IAP content, Apple doesn't store it. So they literally are only a payment processor. Amazon has all of their own infrastructure that they use to send me content that I purchase through the Kindle Store.

That's not where Apple brings value to Amazon. For users who come to the Kindle via the iOS Kindle app, Apple is the would-be point of sale, i.e., Apple is effectively a Kindle reseller that broaden's Amazon's market for Kindle and its content.

logandzwon
Jun 20, 2011, 10:52 AM
not for nothing, but I said this is all the app makers needed to do back when the restrictions were first announced...

joe8232
Jun 20, 2011, 10:53 AM
I haven't read the whole thread but I don't really see what the fuss is about. Spotify has been like this since it launched. The only way to use the Spotify app is to have signed up to premium on their website before it lets you sign in. Surely this is just the same?

darbus69
Jun 20, 2011, 10:54 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I'm no lawyer, but this seems to me to be anti-competitive practices, especially considering it has the ability to stop Netflix & Amazon (both of whom have competing products to Apple) from functioning in a manner that 1) is profitable, and 2) is in any way competitive with Apple's own offerings - in reality, this is edging a little too close towards the IE/Windows debacle for my liking.

no company is being forced into including their apps in apples stores where millions of people have credit cards and are ready to spend their money on products snd services.

diamond.g
Jun 20, 2011, 10:56 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)



no company is being forced into including their apps in apples stores where millions of people have credit cards and are ready to spend their money on products snd services.

I am sorry, I must have missed where Apple has started allowing side loaded applications...

Socratic
Jun 20, 2011, 10:57 AM
unlikely, since this was the intended purpose of the rule changes. So apps like Hulu and Netflix could continue to exist in the app store

arn

I think it's more likely that the intended purpose was for apple to reap in 30%. Next week there will be a new rule: customers must be able to sign up in-app.

bsolar
Jun 20, 2011, 11:03 AM
I think removing the links is a good outcome that balances Apple and the third parties' commercial interests without making things particularly difficult on consumers. It puts the ball in the third parties' court to make the user experience easier for the consumer by providing them a way to subscribe through an in-app purchase.
I agree that using the in-app purchase would be better, but 30% is a ridiculous fee, it's obvious it's not going to work for most third parties, some of which already have in place their payment processing infrastructure.

Also to "cripple" a bit these apps might be a double-edged sword. I love my iPhone but I would never have bought it without the Kindle app. If using the Kindle app on the iPhone becomes a nuisance I will surely consider switching to a different device instead of the new iPhone model.

skellener
Jun 20, 2011, 11:06 AM
How about just making Hulu work on iOS? I'm fine with "watching" a couple ads. Just think of their ad exposure if they opened it up to work in mobile safari or a stand alone free app. There is a free app. It's called HuluPlus. The service is $7.99 though. I hear you though. It's ridiculous to see the website come up on a laptop, but not on an iPad. You just sit there and think WTF??? It's the same thing. Why does it matter? There are a lot of problems with Hulu. Believe me. But for that $7.99 I get The Daily Show, on my HDTV through my XBOX360 and do not need cabletv and do not have to sit in front of the computer. So it depends on what you personally find useful. For some people it's just not enough.

ranReloaded
Jun 20, 2011, 11:06 AM
You are way off base here. The App Store is a retail store. Retail stores can sell whatever they want, pretty much however they want. This has nothing to do with any sort of anti-trust issue or competitive practices.

Forgive him. Everybody wants their free ride in Apple's iTunes Store.

Oletros
Jun 20, 2011, 11:09 AM
Forgive him. Everybody wants their free ride in Apple's iTunes Store.

What free ride?

BaldiMac
Jun 20, 2011, 11:10 AM
The thing I don't understand about this argument is this: Apparently Apple owning iOS means that if I download a 3rd-party application through Apple's mechanism for downloading applications on their operating system (ie the App Store), Apple is somehow entitled revenue when I conduct an economic transaction within that third-party application and only with/between that third-party, because Apple gave them the benefit of distributing the original 3rd-party application in the App Store. Yet, if I download or buy an application from a 3rd party on Apple's mechanism for accessing acquiring applications over the Internet on a regular pc (ie downloading an application through Safari on OSX) or the same from Microsoft (downloading an application through IE on Windows), then the OS company isn't entitled revenue from the third-party transaction. (of course this is changing with the advent of the Mac App Store and Lion, but you can still access apps through the Internet on Safari and other web browsers, to be installed in the OS, whereas on an iOS device, you have to go through Apple's official mechanism of the App Store, as far as I know).

First of all, I wasn't making an argument. I was just answering a simple question with a simple answer.

More importantly, your understanding of the situation is off. Apple only gets revenue from content transactions within an app if the customer uses IAP (In App Purchasing) in which case Apple is the middle man. They do not get paid if you deal with the third party directly.

I just don't understand how it was found anti-competitive back in the day for MS to only offer IE pre-installed on a Windows PC, and yet today Apple can lock down iOS devices and set all the rules for dealing with applications installed on their devices to their hearts content. I really enjoy Apple and iOS devices, but I'm just so curious if anyone can explain the legal distinctions to me. Thanks!

Microsoft was convicted of abusing their monopoly status. What is illegal for an abusive monopolist is not necessarily illegal for anyone else.

Ohh, pushing the meaning of words?

Whatever. You seem to be trying to turn what I said into your strawman. Apple's platform seems to me to be an important part of the infrastructure used by apps to deliver content to an iOS device. If you disagree with my understanding of the word "infrastructure", feel free to provide your own definition.

I still have no idea what your point is.

macnisse
Jun 20, 2011, 11:12 AM
Not surprised, business is business, i.e. profit > sharing.

err404
Jun 20, 2011, 11:14 AM
You're talking about the user, I'm talking about the companies? In which way Apple is facilicitating Amazon with IAP?

By authenticating the user, authorizing the transaction and processing the payment. Apple does this in a way which reduces the barrier for the user to complete the transaction. This translates to potentially more sales.
And best of all, these benefits are optional for the provider.

For the record, I agree that 30% is far to much and the original plan of making this mandatory was terrible. In fact I had decided that I would not buy the next iPhone unless this was addressed. Fortunately the current process seems fair enough to eliminate my concerns.

bbeagle
Jun 20, 2011, 11:16 AM
I just don't understand how it was found anti-competitive back in the day for MS to only offer IE pre-installed on a Windows PC, and yet today Apple can lock down iOS devices and set all the rules for dealing with applications installed on their devices to their hearts content. I really enjoy Apple and iOS devices, but I'm just so curious if anyone can explain the legal distinctions to me. Thanks!

It is illegal to use your monopoly in one market to gain a monopoly in another market.

Microsoft was a monopoly. Microsoft Windows controlled 95% of the OS market. Microsoft was using this monopoly to try and corner the browser market.

Apple's iOS does not have a monopoly. Android is neck and neck with iOS. Apple can do whatever it wants with it's AppStore, because you don't NEED an iOS device to do anything. You have choices. This was not the case back in the Windows days - there were very little legitimate options.

BaldiMac
Jun 20, 2011, 11:20 AM
I am sorry, I must have missed where Apple has started allowing side loaded applications...

I'm not sure what his claim has to do with side loaded apps, but since you asked...

http://www.apple.com/webapps/whatarewebapps.html

gkpm
Jun 20, 2011, 11:35 AM
Think people are failing to see that iOS is a new model, it comes free with the device for starters and you usually get 2 major upgrades for free as well.

Have you looked at how much a copy of Windows costs? That's why Microsoft doesn't need to chase Amazon for payments when it sells books on the Windows Kindle application.

iOS also has a very easy app delivery and upgrade infrastructure.

That automatically makes it different from desktop OSs. iOS devices are closer to the console model.

Now, looking at consoles if you try to put your App in Xbox, Playstation or the Wii you'll get a huge upfront joining up bill plus a commission structure that makes 30% seem just like an add-on option. They also don't allow anyone else to install stuff in their machines, even to going to extremes like Sony. Free apps? You'd be laughed at.

So Apple is already quite open in what they allow.

So the devices, iOS itself, the marketing, app store system, and of course free app delivery is all infrastructure that these companies ride for free.

You can claim that these products also help Apple sell more devices, but one can also argue that what Apple's offers also has value, and in a fair agreement they should also be compensated.

To just ask not to include a link is IMHO a very generous offer.

I'd like to see what would happen if Apple asked Amazon to let them sell iBooks directly on the Kindle.

jamied95
Jun 20, 2011, 11:35 AM
Yes but the "anti-competitive" crap being thrown around here doesn't apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

"Competition law prohibits agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business"

By making Amazon (rival of iBooks) or Netflix (rival of iTunes) have to shell out an extra 30%, that restricts competition because it is impossible for either of those two companies to compete with Apple on pricing - what most people purchase on.

Presumably also, Safari on iOS is in kind of the same position as IE was on Windows? By far the dominant mobile browser, and almost impossible to compete with because it's there when you install it, and you can't create a competitor that is as good with the tools provided.

In its very nature, a "closed system" is anticompetitive because it means a user either can't access, or makes it almost impossible to access competing services. Hulu Plus might have a drop in traffic now as people don't understand how to get an account because the page their greeted with doesn't allow them to sign up to an account, the consumer will therefore go for the easiest thing to consume their TV: iTunes.

I like the App Store and everything about the experience, but I do think Apple are a bit arrogant and anti-competitive.

toph2toast
Jun 20, 2011, 11:37 AM
No. If App developers are going to use the Apple infrastructure to sell subscriptions then Apple should get a share of the revenue. I suspect given these very lenient considerations by Apple that the will be pretty strict with people who try to circumvent these rules.

It is ridiculous to think that App developers should just be able to perch on Apple's infrastructure and sell their product to Apple's customers with Apple not being involved. This is why this is.

Companies can bring their own customers to their apps, but they can't just use Apple's platform to recruit new paying customers for free.


You are way off base here. The App Store is a retail store. Retail stores can sell whatever they want, pretty much however they want. This has nothing to do with any sort of anti-trust issue or competitive practices.

Well I can watch netflix on my computer, xbox, blu-ray player, heck, even the Apple TV, so why is any different? Sure, you can't sign up right on these devices (to the best of my knowledge), but it gives you the website to create an account. I don't see why this is so different.

Heck, I can click on a netflix ad in safari on my iMac, which takes me to the netflix page to sign up, then I can watch an episode of 'the office' within seconds, yet I bet Apple wishes I went to iTunes and rented that episode for $ 0.99. I understand the app is in apples "app store", but I feel like this is a bit greedy when you can watch netflix on a slew of other devices with no problems.

alhedges
Jun 20, 2011, 11:41 AM
It is illegal to use your monopoly in one market to gain a monopoly in another market.

Microsoft was a monopoly. Microsoft Windows controlled 95% of the OS market. Microsoft was using this monopoly to try and corner the browser market.

Actually, MS controlled 90% of the *consumer* OS market. Which points out the importance of defining what the relevant market is in determining whether there is a monopoly.



Apple's iOS does not have a monopoly. Android is neck and neck with iOS. Apple can do whatever it wants with it's AppStore, because you don't NEED an iOS device to do anything. You have choices. This was not the case back in the Windows days - there were very little legitimate options.

IOS does not have a monopoly on mobile OS's. However, iOS may be coming close to having a monopoly on tablet OS's. And of course iTunes is also close to having a monopoly on music downloads. So Apple does have to at least keep an eye on possible anti-competitive issues.

addicted44
Jun 20, 2011, 11:43 AM
I'm no lawyer, but this seems to me to be anti-competitive practices, especially considering it has the ability to stop Netflix & Amazon (both of whom have competing products to Apple) from functioning in a manner that 1) is profitable, and 2) is in any way competitive with Apple's own offerings - in reality, this is edging a little too close towards the IE/Windows debacle for my liking.

How is this anti-competitive? You think Best Buy would be okay with Apple placing coupons for $100 off on their packaging if they buy the mac from an Apple Retail Store?

And the 30% cut is necessary, because it helps Apple maintain the App Store (and other online properties). Unlike MS, and Google, Apple likes their properties to at least break even. They don't like throwing away money just to entrench a monopoly.

diamond.g
Jun 20, 2011, 11:43 AM
I'm not sure what his claim has to do with side loaded apps, but since you asked...

http://www.apple.com/webapps/whatarewebapps.html

Awesome, now show me the Infinity Blade web app...

gkpm
Jun 20, 2011, 11:43 AM
Well I can watch netflix on my computer, xbox, blu-ray player, heck, even the Apple TV, so why is any different? Sure, you can't sign up right on these devices (to the best of my knowledge), but it gives you the website to create an account. I don't see why this is so different.

Do you think Netflix doesn't pay Microsoft or Sony to let them be on the Xbox and PS3? Or even the Apple TV for that matter.

addicted44
Jun 20, 2011, 11:44 AM
"Competition law prohibits agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business"

By making Amazon (rival of iBooks) or Netflix (rival of iTunes) have to shell out an extra 30%, that restricts competition because it is impossible for either of those two companies to compete with Apple on pricing - what most people purchase on.


The App Store is a retail operation. Thats like saying Walmart is being anti-competitive because they don't return 100% of the retail price to Colgate, when selling their toothpastes.

diamond.g
Jun 20, 2011, 11:50 AM
Do you think Netflix doesn't pay Microsoft or Sony to let them be on the Xbox and PS3? Or even the Apple TV for that matter.

I don't think Netflix paid MS nor Sony (or Apple) to be on their systems. AFAICT it is in MS, Sony, and Apple best interest to allow Netflix on their devices. As another feature checkbox. If anything there seemed to be payment going netflixs way (in the case of MS) for native exclusivity. So in the interim we had to use a disc to get to Netflix (which used java) on the PS3 (not sure what the Wii used).

pyramid6
Jun 20, 2011, 11:56 AM
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/18/us-justice-department-and-ftc-looking-into-apples-new-subscript/

Depending on how you define the market, what Apple was doing was anti-competitive. I would be willing to bet the policy was changed because of talks with the Justice Department. Apple can and does do what they want, but the Justice Department can and does do what it want's too. ;)

gkpm
Jun 20, 2011, 11:59 AM
I don't think Netflix paid MS nor Sony (or Apple) to be on their systems.

The Microsoft deal may have been covered simply because users needed to pay $50/year subscription to Microsoft Live Gold subscription to use Netflix.

Would people be happy paying Apple an yearly subscription so you could have subscription-based apps? Probably wouldn't go down too well.

BaldiMac
Jun 20, 2011, 12:00 PM
"Competition law prohibits agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business"

By making Amazon (rival of iBooks) or Netflix (rival of iTunes) have to shell out an extra 30%, that restricts competition because it is impossible for either of those two companies to compete with Apple on pricing - what most people purchase on.

Presumably also, Safari on iOS is in kind of the same position as IE was on Windows? By far the dominant mobile browser, and almost impossible to compete with because it's there when you install it, and you can't create a competitor that is as good with the tools provided.

In its very nature, a "closed system" is anticompetitive because it means a user either can't access, or makes it almost impossible to access competing services. Hulu Plus might have a drop in traffic now as people don't understand how to get an account because the page their greeted with doesn't allow them to sign up to an account, the consumer will therefore go for the easiest thing to consume their TV: iTunes.

I like the App Store and everything about the experience, but I do think Apple are a bit arrogant and anti-competitive.

Your argument seems to be based on the idea that Amazon and such have a legal right to be on iOS devices. They don't. Apple is not forcing them to do anything. They can sell their app under Apple's terms or not. There are plenty of alternatives, including investing in their own platform (as Amazon has done.)

Again, Microsoft was convicted of abusing a monopoly. Bundling IE was not illegal in and of itself. Despite your claim, Safari is only installed on 25% or so of smartphones sold in the US.

Awesome, now show me the Infinity Blade web app...

:confused: I never claimed Infinity Blade made a web app.

justinfreid
Jun 20, 2011, 12:06 PM
Glad to see these apps have found a way to stick around on the App Store, but the change is inane.
In order to comply with Apple's requirements, the app developers have essentially had to give up on user education within the app. Unless they're allowed to say something like "We can't tell you how to login here or how to become a subscriber but you can certainly Google it".

bbeagle
Jun 20, 2011, 12:07 PM
Regarding the iPad monopoly:

Another criteria for a government regulation of a monopoly is when it becomes coercive.

A monopoly is said to be coercive when the monopoly actively prohibits competitors from entering the field by using unfair competitive practices which derive from its market or political influence.

There are no unfair practices selling an iPad vs. Android tablets. Microsoft was definately coercive when it forced PC manufacturers (dell, hp, gateway, compaq, etc.) to buy Windows OS licenses for ALL their machines they sold regardless of what OS was actually installed on the PC.

alent1234
Jun 20, 2011, 12:12 PM
Seems like it just makes it harder/more confusing for the user.

only if you're a retart. i've never met any non-techie person who had any trouble signing up for a digital service without apple's help

pyramid6
Jun 20, 2011, 12:13 PM
Regarding the iPad monopoly:

Another criteria for a government regulation of a monopoly is when it becomes coercive.

A monopoly is said to be coercive when the monopoly actively prohibits competitors from entering the field by using unfair competitive practices which derive from its market or political influence.

There are no unfair practices selling an iPad vs. Android tablets. Microsoft was definately coercive when it forced PC manufacturers (dell, hp, gateway, compaq, etc.) to buy Windows OS licenses for ALL their machines they sold regardless of what OS was actually installed on the PC.

The FTC and Justice Department see things differently. At least enough to investigate. In terms of total money spent on apps and total number of tablets, Apple does have the lions share.

The Phazer
Jun 20, 2011, 12:15 PM
Congrats Apple, your greed has created a crap UX for customers. Bravo.

If Apple's App Store is doing "nothing" then why are they trying to be in it?

Because Apple try to restrict competition by making it the only way to install software on a large amount of devices.

If the App Store had to compete against other stores on that hardware it would not do very well, because it's not very good.

Do you think Walmart, Amazon, or Best Buy lets anyone place their products in their store for free?

Yup. Last time I checked if Walmart refused to carry newspapers that contained advertising for their competitors they'd be laughed out of town.

The Phazer
Jun 20, 2011, 12:17 PM
Regarding the iPad monopoly:

Another criteria for a government regulation of a monopoly is when it becomes coercive.

A monopoly is said to be coercive when the monopoly actively prohibits competitors from entering the field by using unfair competitive practices which derive from its market or political influence.

Apple patently have prevented other competitors from entering the field of tablet applications, as they require themselves to sign any applications sold to a monopoly level share of devices.

Phazer

*LTD*
Jun 20, 2011, 12:22 PM
Apple patently have prevented other competitors from entering the field of tablet applications, as they require themselves to sign any applications sold to a monopoly level share of devices.

Phazer

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

BaldiMac
Jun 20, 2011, 12:22 PM
Apple patently have prevented other competitors from entering the field of tablet applications, as they require themselves to sign any applications sold to a monopoly level share of devices.

Phazer

Your statement makes as much sense as your understanding of antitrust law. Apple has thousands of competitors in "the field of tablet applications."

*LTD*
Jun 20, 2011, 12:25 PM
brought itself into compliance with Apple's . . .

I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot more of this activity. The tablet market is quite lucrative, but for the time being the tablet market is more correctly termed the "iPad market."

When are we going to see some decent competition in this segment?

heybrakywacky
Jun 20, 2011, 12:30 PM
There are many shades of grey in the iOS in-app purchase model, which I think are being missed here.

For developers relying on their iOS app as the primary delivery mechanism of their content, I understand Apple's stance of taking a cut on subscriptions, especially if those purchases are being managed through the App Store.

Now let's look at the other extreme. Let's say you have an iOS app that's free in the App Store. Let's say you use that app as a secondary medium to draw users to your primary service, which exists on the web--a service differentiator, if you will. Let's say that you want non-subscriber users to be able to use that free app as a conduit to purchasing other services on your web service. Let's say that Apple did allow outside links in your app, and you give your users a web link in the app to subscription options that exist entirely on your web site, with the ability to purchase those options, again with the purchasing mechanism being entirely run through your own web service. And that, no matter what option they purchased and what features it offered them on the web, it wouldn't change their iOS app experience at all from another non-subscriber user.

Would you still argue that Apple deserves 30% of that revenue cut? For the people making the Wal Mart analogy, let me give you a more accurate version. This is akin to Wal Mart saying, "You can't have any cross-product advertising inside the box. If the user buys Widget A from our store, there better be no mention of somewhere else to buy Widget B when they open that item up."

In my scenario, this analogy is correct. In the scenario where you open the box up and find a note that says, "Hey, come get Widget B over by the bathrooms from that guy with the purple hat," the Wal Mart wants a cut argument is legitimate.

My question is, what are the people in my scenario to do? Having a mobile app starts to become cost-prohibitive to your primary business model.

bsolar
Jun 20, 2011, 12:33 PM
Think people are failing to see that iOS is a new model, it comes free with the device for starters and you usually get 2 major upgrades for free as well.
The alternative would be to provide the device without a pre-installed OS, which would be pretty silly.

Have you looked at how much a copy of Windows costs? That's why Microsoft doesn't need to chase Amazon for payments when it sells books on the Windows Kindle application.
If you buy a new PC usually windows comes pre-installed and the cost is hidden, just like the development costs of iOS. Apple too doesn't need to chase anyone since it's making money through selling the devices themselves (as opposed as e.g. some gaming consoles which are sold at loss and money is expected to come through game sales).

iOS also has a very easy app delivery and upgrade infrastructure.

That automatically makes it different from desktop OSs. iOS devices are closer to the console model.
In the Linux world the concept of a "software manager" exist since ages and there are user-friendly interfaces and "software centers" which automatically install and upgrade software since decades. It's true that usually these managers don't handle payments, so only "free apps" are available, but this discussion is in general about free apps and what they are allowed to do or not.

So the devices, iOS itself, the marketing, app store system, and of course free app delivery is all infrastructure that these companies ride for free.

You can claim that these products also help Apple sell more devices, but one can also argue that what Apple's offers also has value, and in a fair agreement they should also be compensated.

To just ask not to include a link is IMHO a very generous offer.

I'd like to see what would happen if Apple asked Amazon to let them sell iBooks directly on the Kindle.
Apple can ask whatever it likes and probably has the right to enforce the rules it wishes for the apps in it's App Store, but this doesn't make it a good idea. A 30% fee to process payments is not going to work for most third-parties no matter what. Apple tried to force it, failed and had to revise the rules.

With this "remove the link" policy the end result will only be that these app's experience in iOS will be inferior to the same app's experience in Android or whatever. Then at the next hardware upgrade the customer will decide if it's worth it or not. It's true that these app's experience in iOS would be far better with the Apple in-app system, but at that pricing it will never happen no matter how much Apple pushes for it.

celo48
Jun 20, 2011, 12:33 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Apple will make them pay or not have their apps in the app store. They will find a way. Don't worry.

bbeagle
Jun 20, 2011, 12:34 PM
Apple patently have prevented other competitors from entering the field of tablet applications, as they require themselves to sign any applications sold to a monopoly level share of devices.

Phazer
1) How exactly does Apple stop developers from putting tablet applications in the Android Market?


2) What is a 'monopoly level share' of devices? Does Nintendo own the 'monopoly level share' of game devices controlled through motion detection?

The tablet market is barely 1 1/4 years old. And less than .01% of people in the world have tablets. How in the world is Apple abusing a monopoly???

marksman
Jun 20, 2011, 12:48 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

No. If App developers are going to use the Apple infrastructure to sell subscriptions then Apple should get a share of the revenue. I suspect given these very lenient considerations by Apple that the will be pretty strict with people who try to circumvent these rules.

It is ridiculous to think that App developers should just be able to perch on Apple's infrastructure and sell their product to Apple's customers with Apple not being involved. This is why this is.

Companies can bring their own customers to their apps, but they can't just use Apple's platform to recruit new paying customers for free.


You are way off base here. The App Store is a retail store. Retail stores can sell whatever they want, pretty much however they want. This has nothing to do with any sort of anti-trust issue or competitive practices.

Well I can watch netflix on my computer, xbox, blu-ray player, heck, even the Apple TV, so why is any different? Sure, you can't sign up right on these devices (to the best of my knowledge), but it gives you the website to create an account. I don't see why this is so different.

Heck, I can click on a netflix ad in safari on my iMac, which takes me to the netflix page to sign up, then I can watch an episode of 'the office' within seconds, yet I bet Apple wishes I went to iTunes and rented that episode for $ 0.99. I understand the app is in apples "app store", but I feel like this is a bit greedy when you can watch netflix on a slew of other devices with no problems.

Your post makes no sense. You can use your Netflix account on iOS as well. What Netflix can't do is leverage Apple's costly and valuable infrastructure to recruit new customers for free. Netflix is probably the biggest online advertiser over the past 5 years bar none. Why should they be able to sign up people from apple for free? I own a marketing company. This is a crazy expectation for anyone to have. Netflix can let subscribers use their netflix app for free. If they want to use the AppStore infrastructure to grow their business they have to pay apple.

pyramid6
Jun 20, 2011, 12:49 PM
1) How exactly does Apple stop developers from putting tablet applications in the Android Market?


2) What is a 'monopoly level share' of devices? Does Nintendo own the 'monopoly level share' of game devices controlled through motion detection?

The tablet market is barely 1 1/4 years old. And less than .01% of people in the world have tablets. How in the world is Apple abusing a monopoly???

1) Depending on how the market is defined, that is irrelevant.
2) they don't need market share, just enough to harm consumers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#Dominance_and_monopoly

They were using their iPad dominance to force all companies that use the Agency Model off the iPad (where they have a dominant position of tablets). This restricts the consumers choice of where they can buy books, music and movies on tablets. Thus, they were using their market dominance to harm consumers. That's one way Apple was being anti-competitive.

Oletros
Jun 20, 2011, 12:51 PM
Apple's platform seems to me to be an important part of the infrastructure used by apps to deliver content to an iOS device. If you disagree with my understanding of the word "infrastructure", feel free to provide your own definition.

Any content bought through IAP isn't featured, hosted or delivered by Apple, the "only" thing Apple does is processing the payment.

So, in this case, Apple's infrastructure used is their payment processor.

I still have no idea what your point is.

In the case of Netflix, Kindle App, etc, I was responding to other OP saying that why Apple's doesn't have to ve paid when their infrastructure was used and I asked which infrasttructure is used because when you buy a Kindle book on the iPhone you use a web page on Safari, you use Amazon payment system, you use Amazon content hosting and you use Amazon delivery system. No Apple infrastructure is used, meaning infrastructure servers, payment processors, data centers, etc, not the OS.

marksman
Jun 20, 2011, 12:52 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Glad to see these apps have found a way to stick around on the App Store, but the change is inane.
In order to comply with Apple's requirements, the app developers have essentially had to give up on user education within the app. Unless they're allowed to say something like "We can't tell you how to login here or how to become a subscriber but you can certainly Google it".

Again it is intended to allow companies who ONLY want to extend their services to existing customers, not train or acquire new customers via Apple's infrastructure.

bbeagle
Jun 20, 2011, 01:06 PM
Thus, they were using their market dominance to harm consumers. That's one way Apple was being anti-competitive.

1) 'market dominance' if Tablets are considered a market.
2) 'harm consumers' if this is deemed to be harming consumers.

All this is for the courts to decide.

The courts are non-techies, and I don't think they will subdivide the 'PC' market into a 'Tablet' market until tablets overtake sales of laptops and PCs. Also, I don't see how consumers being harmed - maybe corporations are, but consumers are getting things in the iOS store for the same price as things elsewhere.

BaldiMac
Jun 20, 2011, 01:08 PM
Any content bought through IAP isn't featured, hosted or delivered by Apple, the "only" thing Apple does is processing the payment.

Okay. I agree with the first half of the sentence. However, they do provide other services around processing the payment. The actual credit card transaction with VISA, etc, is just part of what they provide.

So, in this case, Apple's infrastructure used is their payment processor.

I disagree in that I think that the OS is part of the infrastructure that Apple provides to third party developers. IAP itself is a value added service to third parties.

In the case of Netflix, Kindle App, etc, I was responding to other OP saying that why Apple's doesn't have to ve paid when their infrastructure was used and I asked which infrasttructure is used because when you buy a Kindle book on the iPhone you use a web page on Safari, you use Amazon payment system, you use Amazon content hosting and you use Amazon delivery system. No Apple infrastructure is used, meaning infrastructure servers, payment processors, data centers, etc, not the OS.

:confused: Apple isn't paid in that situation. Apple is only paid if you use their infrastructure as you define it.

Oletros
Jun 20, 2011, 01:16 PM
:confused: Apple isn't paid in that situation. Apple is only paid if you use their infrastructure as you define it.

Yes, but the OP was saying that they can't be allowed to do that.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12792166&postcount=19

pyramid6
Jun 20, 2011, 01:18 PM
1) 'market dominance' if Tablets are considered a market.
2) 'harm consumers' if this is deemed to be harming consumers.

All this is for the courts to decide.

The courts are non-techies, and I don't think they will subdivide the 'PC' market into a 'Tablet' market until tablets overtake sales of laptops and PCs. Also, I don't see how consumers being harmed - maybe corporations are, but consumers are getting things in the iOS store for the same price as things elsewhere.

1) As a web developer and smart phone developer, I consider Android/iPad tablets as a distinct market from web, desktop, and embeded.
2) Given the Agency Model, I would agree that you can say that it doesn't really harm consumers. Maybe if there are fewer choices, like iBooks/Kindle, that could be harmful.

I agree that it would be for the courts to decide. I may be wrong, and I am not a lawyer, but I thought anti-trust is more civil matter than criminal. If it is civil, only the courts can decide.

I can't say whether Apple or the Justice Department would prevail, but I can say that the Justice Department, could bring suite, and it would be expensive for both. That's why I think Apple backed down.

toph2toast
Jun 20, 2011, 01:19 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)



Your post makes no sense. You can use your Netflix account on iOS as well. What Netflix can't do is leverage Apple's costly and valuable infrastructure to recruit new customers for free. Netflix is probably the biggest online advertiser over the past 5 years bar none. Why should they be able to sign up people from apple for free? I own a marketing company. This is a crazy expectation for anyone to have. Netflix can let subscribers use their netflix app for free. If they want to use the AppStore infrastructure to grow their business they have to pay apple.

Answer me this then, I bought a Samsung blu-ray player that allows me to stream netflix on it. Say that I don't have a netflix account so when I click on that "app" on my blu-ray player, it says "Please Sign Up For A Membership at netflix.com, Then Log In". I go to my laptop/ipad/iphone/whatever and make a netflix account. Samsung isn't taking a 30% cut, even though they developed the hardware and software for that blu-ray player, and let netflix install an app on it. And I seriously doubt netflix paid samsung since myself (like many consumers) probably bought that device because it was enabled with netflix.

Same thing with my xbox. Yes, you need a gold membership, but if that's why you use your xbox then you wasted a lot of money on a powerful dvd player

BaldiMac
Jun 20, 2011, 01:19 PM
Yes, but the OP was saying that they can't be allowed to do that.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12792166&postcount=19

I read what he says differently, but the fact remains that an app can do what you described under the current rules.

unlinked
Jun 20, 2011, 01:23 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)



Your post makes no sense. You can use your Netflix account on iOS as well. What Netflix can't do is leverage Apple's costly and valuable infrastructure to recruit new customers for free. Netflix is probably the biggest online advertiser over the past 5 years bar none. Why should they be able to sign up people from apple for free? I own a marketing company. This is a crazy expectation for anyone to have. Netflix can let subscribers use their netflix app for free. If they want to use the AppStore infrastructure to grow their business they have to pay apple.

Do Apple have to pay Netflix for using the Netflix infrasturcture to grow their business? I have a feeling if Netflix pulled support for iOS it would decrease peoples interest in buying an iPad.

bsolar
Jun 20, 2011, 01:29 PM
Do Apple have to pay Netflix for using the Netflix infrasturcture to grow their business? I have a feeling if Netflix pulled support for iOS it would decrease peoples interest in buying an iPad.
That's what most people don't get. It's true that being in the App Store is very interesting, but also for Apple every popular app available adds value to their devices. "Leveraging for free" makes sense only if you ignore this added-value which for some apps is very big.

newagemac
Jun 20, 2011, 01:32 PM
For the people making the Wal Mart analogy, let me give you a more accurate version. This is akin to Wal Mart saying, "You can't have any cross-product advertising inside the box.

No it's not. The difference is that Walmart is already charging you to place the box itself on their shelves or are getting their cut from the box. If Apple gets no cut at all, that is akin to me just walking into Walmart and placing my tshirts on their shelves for sale.

If I was paying Walmart for the shelf space, then yes I would like a little bit more control over how my items are placed. However, I can't even get in Walmart without paying them upfront or giving away 50% or more of my revenue.

You're expecting Apple to allow anyone to place their wares in their store for free. Even if they aren't selling anything, at the very least that is akin to unlimited solicitors getting to advertise their products in Walmart for free. At pretty much anything retail store you go to their is a rule against solicitation in their store's premises whether you are charging for it in there or not and for obvious reasons.

The App Store likewise is a retail operation. It's not there just so you can advertise or provide your services that you charge elsewhere for. There is Safari and the web for that since they are not Apple's retail operation.

Oletros
Jun 20, 2011, 01:33 PM
but the fact remains that an app can do what you described under the current rules.

And I haven't denied it

Lennholm
Jun 20, 2011, 01:36 PM
Are you missing the fact that iOS belongs to Apple?

What's your point? Do you think Apple should get 30% every time someone uses Safari on a Mac to sign up for some service, MS getting 30% if you do it with IE instead?

Forgive him. Everybody wants their free ride in Apple's iTunes Store.

Who is taking about getting a free ride? Each developer account costs $99 a year and Apple takes 30% of the price of the App itself (which, Apple unlike IAP content, hosts on their servers)
I think Apple is entitled to some of it, but 30% is just insane for IAP which Apple has almost nothing to do with, more like 5% would be reasonable

Think people are failing to see that iOS is a new model, it comes free with the device for starters and you usually get 2 major upgrades for free as well.

Have you looked at how much a copy of Windows costs? That's why Microsoft doesn't need to chase Amazon for payments when it sells books on the Windows Kindle application.

Windows is usually bundled with new PC's, even cheap ones. In these cases, the price is baked into the price of the PC, just as the price of iOS is baked into the price of the iOS device. Service packs for Windows are always free.

ThisIsNotMe
Jun 20, 2011, 01:40 PM
Netflix is better and without ad. Why would anyone pay for hulu and still see ads?

LOL - Have you seen the Netflix streaming library recently?

Its great if you want to watch mutant shark Vs. godzilla (versions 1 thought 8), the direct to DVD sequel of XYZ movie, or something from the 80s.

If you want up to date content, Hulu is where it is at.

newagemac
Jun 20, 2011, 01:42 PM
What's your point? Do you think Apple should get 30% every time someone uses Safari on a Mac to sign up for some service, MS getting 30% if you do it with IE instead?


Safari isn't a retail operation. The App Store is.

diamond.g
Jun 20, 2011, 01:44 PM
:confused: I never claimed Infinity Blade made a web app.

No you said that web apps are a sufficient way of getting applications on an iOS device without going through the App Store. I asked (albeit poorly) for an example (that runs on an iOS device) of a web app like (the App Store game) Infinity Blade.

Lennholm
Jun 20, 2011, 01:47 PM
No it's not. The difference is that Walmart is already charging you to place the box itself on their shelves or are getting their cut from the box. If Apple gets no cut at all, that is akin to me just walking into Walmart and placing my tshirts on their shelves for sale.

If I was paying Walmart for the shelf space, then yes I would like a little bit more control over how my items are placed. However, I can't even get in Walmart without paying them upfront or giving away 50% or more of my revenue.

You're expecting Apple to allow anyone to place their wares in their store for free. Even if they aren't selling anything, at the very least that is akin to unlimited solicitors getting to advertise their products in Walmart for free. At pretty much anything retail store you go to their is a rule against solicitation in their store's premises whether you are charging for it in there or not and for obvious reasons.

The App Store likewise is a retail operation. It's not there just so you can advertise or provide your services that you charge elsewhere for. There is Safari and the web for that since they are not Apple's retail operation.

Thank's for proving the point; Apple doesn't provide "shelf space" for or handle the distribution of any IAP/IAS content, that's what we're discussing here.

Safari isn't a retail operation. The App Store is.

It's not exactly retailing for Apple when it comes to IAP/IAS, more like a mere money transaction service. As I said, I think Apple is entitled to a cut for providing that service, but 30% is insane.

toph2toast
Jun 20, 2011, 01:48 PM
No it's not. The difference is that Walmart is already charging you to place the box itself on their shelves or are getting their cut from the box. If Apple gets no cut at all, that is akin to me just walking into Walmart and placing my tshirts on their shelves for sale.

If I was paying Walmart for the shelf space, then yes I would like a little bit more control over how my items are placed. However, I can't even get in Walmart without paying them upfront or giving away 50% or more of my revenue.

You're expecting Apple to allow anyone to place their wares in their store for free. Even if they aren't selling anything, at the very least that is akin to unlimited solicitors getting to advertise their products in Walmart for free. At pretty much anything retail store you go to their is a rule against solicitation in their store's premises whether you are charging for it in there or not and for obvious reasons.

The App Store likewise is a retail operation. It's not there just so you can advertise or provide your services that you charge elsewhere for. There is Safari and the web for that since they are not Apple's retail operation.

As others have noted, there is kind of a grey area here. Apple sets their predetermined "30%" cut regardless of what your product is, but I bet Walmart negotiates with each of the companies who sells their item in their store. So, say john doe walks in and wants to sell some shirts under ABC company. There isn't a lot of room to negotiate because no one knows about ABC company. However, Apple comes in and says I want to sell ipods/iphones/ipads. Walmart will negotiate more with Apple since it is a brand everyone knows and wants to own. And on top of this, where is the electronics department in Walmart? In the very back of the store. Do you know how likely it is that someone will walk out with just an ipod? Or will they buy an ipod, and some chips, and a DVD, etc. So Apple is happy because they are selling a product and walmart is happy because they got their cut (however small it may be) and people bought other items they may not have bought if they werent in the store to by an ipod.

I'm not saying Apple needs to negotiate their cut with every app developer, that would be a costly and enormous task, but some apps are definitely more valuable than others to an ecosystem like iOS and products like the iPad and iPhone

Oletros
Jun 20, 2011, 01:49 PM
Safari isn't a retail operation. The App Store is.

So, Apple isn't entitled to any cut if bought through Safari, is it?

Shaych
Jun 20, 2011, 01:54 PM
No it's not. The difference is that Walmart is already charging you to place the box itself on their shelves or are getting their cut from the box. If Apple gets no cut at all, that is akin to me just walking into Walmart and placing my tshirts on their shelves for sale.

If I was paying Walmart for the shelf space, then yes I would like a little bit more control over how my items are placed. However, I can't even get in Walmart without paying them upfront or giving away 50% or more of my revenue.

You're expecting Apple to allow anyone to place their wares in their store for free. Even if they aren't selling anything, at the very least that is akin to unlimited solicitors getting to advertise their products in Walmart for free. At pretty much anything retail store you go to their is a rule against solicitation in their store's premises whether you are charging for it in there or not and for obvious reasons.

The App Store likewise is a retail operation. It's not there just so you can advertise or provide your services that you charge elsewhere for. There is Safari and the web for that since they are not Apple's retail operation.

Ok so let's compare it to something that's a little closer to what Apple was trying to do. Let's say you go to Walmart to purchase an MMO like World of Warcraft. Yes Walmart will get a cut of the original sale... but they don't get a % of your monthly subscription to WoW... nor should they.

Apple does not pay any money to maintain Netflix servers or bandwidth. They do not pay or share any licensing deals with studios. They do not have any investment in improving the services offered through subscriptions... so they should not get any money from the subscription. That should go only to the company offering it so they can use it to provide those of us paying for it the best service possible.

In your comparison with Walmart, what Apple should be doing is charging Netflix or Hulu a set amount of money per download of an app... regardless if those of us downloading it pay anything. That way, they pay Apple for the "shelf" space... but get no money for the operation of a subscription business.

bsolar
Jun 20, 2011, 01:57 PM
No it's not. The difference is that Walmart is already charging you to place the box itself on their shelves or are getting their cut from the box. If Apple gets no cut at all, that is akin to me just walking into Walmart and placing my tshirts on their shelves for sale.

If I was paying Walmart for the shelf space, then yes I would like a little bit more control over how my items are placed. However, I can't even get in Walmart without paying them upfront or giving away 50% or more of my revenue.
Apple's gain is more in the actual device sale, and having apps available for it is a big factor. An iOS device with less apps is worth less, and there are competitors ready to take any opportunity to gain market share.

To develop for iOS you have to pay an upfront fee, albeit pretty small. In any case Apple's problem is that they cannot charge more either through the fee or the publishing of apps or the processing fees because they risk losing apps and make their devices less attractive.

justinfreid
Jun 20, 2011, 01:58 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)



Again it is intended to allow companies who ONLY want to extend their services to existing customers, not train or acquire new customers via Apple's infrastructure.

Regardless of intention, the possibility of a user searching for streaming tv apps in the App Store, downloading the Hulu app and then discovering that it's useless remains high. Is that good for the App Store?
Granted, this hypothetical user could have read the app description to discover that he has to subscribe at Hulu.com, but then isn't Hulu still circumventing Apple's intention, as you've implied it to be.
The idea that content providers have to be super secret about selling their services outside of the App Store to remain compliant still seems silly.
Being able to access Hulu and Netflix or the NY Times via App Store apps enriches the experience for users and maybe Apple should prioritize that over squeezing 30% out of subscription fees and abolish the arbitrary limits. And, with apps like the ones I mentioned, the bandwidth and support will be furnished by the content provider, not by Apple.

Marksman: What does your signature mean, exactly? You should update to iOS 4.3.3.

BaldiMac
Jun 20, 2011, 01:59 PM
What's your point? Do you think Apple should get 30% every time someone uses Safari on a Mac to sign up for some service, MS getting 30% if you do it with IE instead?

You are inventing my argument here. I was just answering a simple question. I do not think Apple should get 30% for any of those situations. I do not think they should charge 30% for anything. And, to point, Apple does not charge 30% and has not tried to charge 30% for purchases made through a browser.

AaronEdwards
Jun 20, 2011, 02:03 PM
Apple got greedy and overreached.

We can all hope that Apple's share of the tablet market or the smart phone market never ends up looking like Apple's share of the PC market, because this move has pissed of a number of content providers who would just love to retaliate.

All this is bad for the consumer.

BaldiMac
Jun 20, 2011, 02:04 PM
No you said that web apps are a sufficient way of getting applications on an iOS device without going through the App Store. I asked (albeit poorly) for an example (that runs on an iOS device) of a web app like (the App Store game) Infinity Blade.

No, I didn't. I just pointed out that there is a way to get an app on an iOS device without going through the App Store. That's it. No claim as to the quality of those apps. No claim that they were "sufficient." No claim that web apps are as good as native apps.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 20, 2011, 02:05 PM
Your argument seems to be based on the idea that Amazon and such have a legal right to be on iOS devices. They don't. Apple is not forcing them to do anything. They can sell their app under Apple's terms or not. There are plenty of alternatives, including investing in their own platform (as Amazon has done.)

Again, Microsoft was convicted of abusing a monopoly. Bundling IE was not illegal in and of itself. Despite your claim, Safari is only installed on 25% or so of smartphones sold in the US.



:confused: I never claimed Infinity Blade made a web app.

I would say that Apple would have a stronger case if there was a way to get on iOS device with out having to threw Apple app store. If there was 3rd party App stores or a way to side load I would not see a problem with Apple's demand. But at this point Apple controls its App store it has way to much market power and is abusing it and I could easily see Anti trust laws over in Europe kicking in on them which are a hell of a lot harsher than in the US. Europe is more inclined to protect consumers.

Come on the real reason Apple gave was because they were bordering on being sued by some big players and easily losing over in Europe and had a good chance of losing in the US.
Apple might of had a case if they enforced it from day one but it more of a rule change in an established market it controls that has some pretty long lasting effects.

firewood
Jun 20, 2011, 02:05 PM
I have a feeling if Netflix pulled support for iOS it would decrease peoples interest in buying an iPad.

I have a feeling that if Netflix pulled support for iOS, it would hurt Netflix's bottom line more than Apple's.

If any of these companies felt they could make more money by doing only Android apps, and not iOS apps because they didn't like Apple's rules, they would.

dolph0291
Jun 20, 2011, 02:06 PM
It's too bad that Apple is pushing this 30% on the app developers. For the user, it makes far more sense to be able to get these things Apple's way through in-app purchases, even the link to the Web site was a PITA. But the 30% charge will deter many of these providers, particularly the big ones who already have a built-in subscriber base and in the end it's the consumer who suffers.

This view is absolutely ridiculous. If you have a product and stock it in a store, that store needs to make a profit on the sale. It's business 101. I don't know why people think the App Store is some kind of charity. The store has to cost millions to maintain and it provides an invaluable service to developers by presenting their product to millions and millions of people on a daily basis all one the world and making it extremely easy for them to buy it. Clearly, that is worth 30%. If you stocked your software in Best Buy, for example, do you think they are entitled to make a profit on it? Of course. Why then should the App Store be denied?

err404
Jun 20, 2011, 02:07 PM
Why are we still arguing this? Yes, This was big deal a few months ago, but Apple has back-peddled since then. A developer is not forced to use Apples IAP. The only restriction is that Apple does not want your app to be a sales portal.

While it's a bit less then ideal, the current situation is more of a nuisance than a crysis.

fifthworld
Jun 20, 2011, 02:08 PM
I'm convinced that my iPhone is not a shelf on the App Store. Rather, it belongs to me, usage of iOS included. Apple could control what's going on on their shelves, but let me control what's going on on my device.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 20, 2011, 02:14 PM
I have a feeling that if Netflix pulled support for iOS, it would hurt Netflix's bottom line more than Apple's.

If any of these companies felt they could make more money by doing only Android apps, and not iOS apps because they didn't like Apple's rules, they would.

unlikely. I know very few people who get netflix for iOS. It being on iOS is pure bonus to them and some of the reason why they bought there iPad was because netflix could be used on it.
I have see and been ask the question way to many times on does netflix play on *blank* and if the answer is no they go on and find something it will play on. People get netflix for the home TV. Not to play on iOS.

newagemac
Jun 20, 2011, 02:20 PM
I'm convinced that my iPhone is not a shelf on the App Store. Rather, it belongs to me, usage of iOS included. Apple could control what's going on on their shelves, but let me control what's going on on my device.

I'm convinced Apple's App Store is not just an icon on an iPhone. Rather it belongs to them, control of products offered included. You can control what's going on your phone, but let Apple control what's going in their store.

FX120
Jun 20, 2011, 02:20 PM
1) 'market dominance' if Tablets are considered a market.
2) 'harm consumers' if this is deemed to be harming consumers.

All this is for the courts to decide.

The courts are non-techies, and I don't think they will subdivide the 'PC' market into a 'Tablet' market until tablets overtake sales of laptops and PCs. Also, I don't see how consumers being harmed - maybe corporations are, but consumers are getting things in the iOS store for the same price as things elsewhere.

It harms consumers because ultimately that 30% will get made up for somewhere. Either consumers will pay more for the product, or they will loose access to that product when using iOS devices.

IMO if I was a content provider, I would start requiring subscribers to pay for "Apple device access" and make it really obvious why they are paying more per month than everyone else.

Lennholm
Jun 20, 2011, 02:21 PM
You are inventing my argument here. I was just answering a simple question. I do not think Apple should get 30% for any of those situations. I do not think they should charge 30% for anything. And, to point, Apple does not charge 30% and has not tried to charge 30% for purchases made through a browser.

Those situations? Didn't you understand that my point was that those situations are pretty much the same thing as In-app subscriptions on iOS?
I was asking, since you seem to think that the rediculous 30% Apple takes for IAS is perfectly fine, if you also think that the hypothetical situations I described would be alright, which you would if you want to be consistent.

I'm convinced Apple's App Store is not just an icon on an iPhone. Rather it belongs to them, control of products offered included. You can control what's going on your phone, but let Apple control what's going in their store.

But we're NOT discussing purchasing Apps that Apple hosts and delivers through their App Store, we're discussing subscriptions, which is completely different

BaldiMac
Jun 20, 2011, 02:22 PM
I would say that Apple would have a stronger case if there was a way to get on iOS device with out having to threw Apple app store. If there was 3rd party App stores or a way to side load I would not see a problem with Apple's demand. But at this point Apple controls its App store it has way to much market power and is abusing it and I could easily see Anti trust laws over in Europe kicking in on them which are a hell of a lot harsher than in the US. Europe is more inclined to protect consumers.

Your antitrust claims are too vague to respond to. Just to make things clear, let's start with a simple question. What market are you claiming that Apple "has way to much market power" in?

bijanorama
Jun 20, 2011, 02:25 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I'm a college student, I dont own a tv. Hulu plus is great for me. I can watch whatever, whenever, on my laptop. I don't care about ads.

Using your argument, you should also be complaining that the cable you pay for has ads.

BaldiMac
Jun 20, 2011, 02:28 PM
Those situations? Didn't you understand that my point was that those situations are pretty much the same thing as In-app subscriptions on iOS?
I was asking, since you seem to think that the rediculous 30% Apple takes for IAS is perfectly fine, if you also think that the hypothetical situations I described would be alright, which you would if you want to be consistent.

Wrong again. Was "I do not think they should charge 30% for anything." not clear enough? Why do you keep making up what I think?

Rodimus Prime
Jun 20, 2011, 02:32 PM
Your antitrust claims are too vague to respond to. Just to make things clear, let's start with a simple question. What market are you claiming that Apple "has way to much market power" in?

Well lets see they have the largest share of tablets. They have the largest share of Apps, they are by far the biggest App store out there.

That blocking puts a huge limitation. They could use it blocking on iOS to gain more power for iBooks, more power for iTunes video streaming ect.

It is basicly a way apple could abuse the system and it was the fact that Apple more or less changed the fulls after the fact and they got all those Apps to gain market power that is there.

There is no way around the fact that these restriction only benefit Apple and hurt the consumer. Remember Europe Courts are much less forgiving on companies that hurt consumers than the US courts.

fifthworld
Jun 20, 2011, 02:32 PM
I'm convinced Apple's App Store is not just an icon on an iPhone. Rather it belongs to them, control of products offered included. You can control what's going on your phone, but let Apple control what's going in their store.

Agree, but don't forget that after you download an App it is in your iPhone and not in Apple App Store anymore.

bsolar
Jun 20, 2011, 02:34 PM
I have a feeling that if Netflix pulled support for iOS, it would hurt Netflix's bottom line more than Apple's.
Then why didn't Apple enforce the previous rules and kicked the app out of iOS until compliant and revised their own rules instead?

cmaier
Jun 20, 2011, 02:36 PM
unlikely. I know very few people who get netflix for iOS. It being on iOS is pure bonus to them and some of the reason why they bought there iPad was because netflix could be used on it.
I have see and been ask the question way to many times on does netflix play on *blank* and if the answer is no they go on and find something it will play on. People get netflix for the home TV. Not to play on iOS.

You may know "very few people who get netflix for iOS," but that's merely anecdotal. Between idevices and apple tv, I think netflix gets a lot of subscriptions. And I'd venture to guess that apple tv is right at the top of the list of ways people watch netflix on their home tv's.

Of course, I could be wrong, but my arbitrary guesses are as valid as yours :-)

(In my house we have 2 ipads and 2 apple tv's that regularly view netflix. If netflix was not on Apple devices, I wouldn't cancel, though - I still rely on netflix mailing disks, too. But I wouldn't go get some other device just for streaming netflix.)

Lennholm
Jun 20, 2011, 02:37 PM
Wrong again. Was "I do not think they should charge 30% for anything." not clear enough? Why do you keep making up what I think?

Ok, I apologize if I incorrectly assumed that you think 30% for in-app subscriptions is fair, I thought you were only referring to the examples I gave

BaldiMac
Jun 20, 2011, 02:52 PM
Well lets see they have the largest share of tablets. They have the largest share of Apps, they are by far the biggest App store out there.

"Largest share" does not equal "way to much market power." But I asked what market specifically you were talking about when you made your claim. And then we can move on to what specifically Apple is doing in violation of the law.

That blocking puts a huge limitation. They could use it blocking on iOS to gain more power for iBooks, more power for iTunes video streaming ect.

That's called "leveraging your assets". iOS and the App Store are Apple's assets. The are not a public resource. It's part of competition. It's not anti-competitive unless Apple is found to be abusing a monopoly position. I think most people would agree that at this point, the App Store is leveraging the popularity of the iPhone and vice versa. And the iPhone is hardly in a monopoly position, especially in Europe as opposed to the US. The tablet market is new and evolving and hardly the focus of antitrust scrutiny.

There is no way around the fact that these restriction only benefit Apple and hurt the consumer.

How does it hurt consumers? Not just iOS device customers, but consumers in general.

Remember Europe Courts are much less forgiving on companies that hurt consumers than the US courts.

Can you be a little more vague and add a little more innuendo?

AaronEdwards
Jun 20, 2011, 02:54 PM
I'm convinced that my iPhone is not a shelf on the App Store. Rather, it belongs to me, usage of iOS included. Apple could control what's going on on their shelves, but let me control what's going on on my device.

You obviously aren't allowed to control what going on your device thanks to the Walled Garden.

Is the Walled Garden there to make sure that people aren't installing apps that do bad things or apps that show bad things? It's obvious that Apple's control of apps isn't thorough enough (for example; The flashlight/tethering app and the Big Brother app) and it's only because of how secure the underlying OS is that installed apps can't maliciously do bad things. If you want to see the things that you can't see in apps, then you only have to open Safari and start browsing.

Perhaps the Walled Garden is only there because it makes sure that Apple controls the selling of Apps?

mdatwood
Jun 20, 2011, 02:57 PM
I have a feeling that if Netflix pulled support for iOS, it would hurt Netflix's bottom line more than Apple's.


If only NF pulled out, maybe. If Apple pushed all the content providers out then iOS devices become expensive paperweights. Apps are where it's at. Apple shows this every chance they get talking about the raw number of apps in the app store, etc... iOS devices rely on content from these apps, and if that content starts leaving that is not a good situation for Apple.

And I'd venture to guess that apple tv is right at the top of the list of ways people watch netflix on their home tv's.


How many Apple TVs have been sold (1-2M?)? Now look at how many game consoles (xbox360 alone - 22M in North America), TVs, DVD players, etc... that have been sold that also can stream NF.

The ATV is likely last in most people's list along with Boxees, Rokus, and Tivos.

Source here (http://www.businessinsider.com/there-is-no-major-impact-on-the-industry-from-apple-selling-1m-apple-tv-units-2010-12):



Xbox 360: number sold as of Nov. 2010: 21.9M in NA, 45M worldwide (source: NPD)
PS3: number sold as of Sept. 2010: 16.6M in NA, 41.6M worldwide (source: Sony)
Roku: expect to reach 1M sold by end of 2010 (source: Roku)
Netgear Roku: number sold to date, too early to know
Apple TV: number sold as of December 2010: 1M (source: Apple)
Sony Netbox: number sold to date, too early to know
Boxee: number sold to date, too early to know
Logitech Revue Box, Sony Internet TV: number sold to date, too early to know
WD TV Live/Live Hub: number sold to date, no data released. I estimate less than 2M combined
TiVo: number sold to date: I estimate 750K TiVo HD units (source: estimate based on TiVo’s subscriber #s of 1.4M)
Broadband enabled TVs: iSuppli predicts almost 23M by 2013, TDG predicts 43M by 2014, DisplaySearch predicts 31M by 2013, Samsung predicts 20M by 2012
Broadband enabled Blu-ray players: as of October 2010, the total installed base of Blu-ray Disc playback devices in the U.S. was 21.1M. What percentage of those are "broadband enabled" is not known.

diamond.g
Jun 20, 2011, 02:59 PM
No, I didn't. I just pointed out that there is a way to get an app on an iOS device without going through the App Store. That's it. No claim as to the quality of those apps. No claim that they were "sufficient." No claim that web apps are as good as native apps.

Fair enough.

cmaier
Jun 20, 2011, 03:11 PM
If only NF pulled out, maybe. If Apple pushed all the content providers out then iOS devices become expensive paperweights. Apps are where it's at. Apple shows this every chance they get talking about the raw number of apps in the app store, etc... iOS devices rely on content from these apps, and if that content starts leaving that is not a good situation for Apple.



How many Apple TVs have been sold (1-2M?)? Now look at how many game consoles (xbox360 alone - 22M in North America), TVs, DVD players, etc... that have been sold that also can stream NF.

The ATV is likely last in most people's list along with Boxees, Rokus, and Tivos.

Source here (http://www.businessinsider.com/there-is-no-major-impact-on-the-industry-from-apple-selling-1m-apple-tv-units-2010-12):

I have a PS3 and never turn it on for netflix. I suspect it's a generational thing. I also suspect those apple tv numbers are way out of date, and that boxee and roku aren't even close.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 20, 2011, 03:14 PM
I have a PS3 and never turn it on for netflix. I suspect it's a generational thing. I also suspect those apple tv numbers are way out of date, and that boxee and roku aren't even close.

I bet you would if Apple TV no longer could use Netflix.

I have used my 360 for it. Personally I find the Roku boxes good if you dont have something else that can use it.
A good friend of mine she uses her bluRay player for netflix. I have used my 360 and any bluRay player I would buy would be required to run netflix. Heck I willing to bet that it will not be long before it is common place for most TV to come with the ability to run netflix. As more things are added to the list the more damage Netflix being more or less forced off iOS would hurt apple.

cmaier
Jun 20, 2011, 03:19 PM
I bet you would if Apple TV no longer could use Netflix.

No I wouldn't, I think. It is loud, it is a pain to use, and it doesn't integrate into the rest of my home theater cleanly - half the time the universal remote I use to control it stops working whenever the PS3 is turned on.

It comes down to Wife Acceptance Factor. My wife hates using the PS3 and loves using the apple tv. The apple tv "just works." She can use the same remote she uses for everything else (press "watch" then press "apple tv"), it's instant-on, it doesn't get too hot and loud, and there's no fiddling around to "log in" etc. When it's running, our fancy IR->RF remote system keeps functioning, unlike with the PS3. She tried PS3 a couple times for use with netflix (at the time we even had to insert the netflix dvd to get it to work - what a pain THAT was), and gave up. She uses the apple tv nearly every day (and can effortlessly switch to viewing our own collection of 1000 ripped dvds and blu-rays).

AaronEdwards
Jun 20, 2011, 03:24 PM
I have a PS3 and never turn it on for netflix. I suspect it's a generational thing. I also suspect those apple tv numbers are way out of date, and that boxee and roku aren't even close.

Those Apple numbers would have to be way out of date.

From mdatwood's source:

Microsoft says that 42% of Xbox LIVE Gold members in the U.S. watch more than 30 hours of digitally distributed television and movies a month.

And from another source:
12.5 Million Subscribers (http://techgenie.com/latest/12-5-million-subscribers-for-microsoft-xbox-live-gold/) for Microsoft Xbox Live Gold

That would mean that six months ago, about 5.2 million Xbox Live Gold users were watching more than 30 hours of digitally distributed television and movies a month.

In April, Apple had sold 2 million (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/04/19/total_shipments_of_new_apple_tv_top_2_million_820k_sold_last_quarter_report.html) Apple TV units.

cmaier
Jun 20, 2011, 03:34 PM
Those Apple numbers would have to be way out of date.

In April, Apple had sold 2 million (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/04/19/total_shipments_of_new_apple_tv_top_2_million_820k_sold_last_quarter_report.html) Apple TV units.

So the 1M number was out of date. I get the sense ATV sales are accelerating. Nowhere near dominant, but I think next generation will break through (because I assume they're adding 1080p and, more importantly, an app store).

AaronEdwards
Jun 20, 2011, 03:44 PM
So the 1M number was out of date. I get the sense ATV sales are accelerating. Nowhere near dominant, but I think next generation will break through (because I assume they're adding 1080p and, more importantly, an app store).

The 1M numbers was for an article published in January.

So, the next version of Apple TV will break through, just as the next iPhone will change the current downward curve? There's a lot of that kind of waiting here.

BaldiMac
Jun 20, 2011, 03:48 PM
just as the next iPhone will change the current downward curve? There's a lot of that kind of waiting here.

Downward curve? The iPhone is up year over year. Or are you referring to something else?

Oletros
Jun 20, 2011, 03:49 PM
If you stocked your software in Best Buy, for example, do you think they are entitled to make a profit on it? Of course. Why then should the App Store be denied?

Tell Best Buy that they're entitled to WOW subscriptions and they're losing a lot of mony for not demanding Blizzard their cut

diamond.g
Jun 20, 2011, 03:56 PM
Tell Best Buy that they're entitled to WOW subscriptions and they're losing a lot of mony for not demanding Blizzard their cut

Ultimately Apple can charge what they want for items that exist in their store front. They can also charge for anything that you sell through the item that exists on said store front. It is up to developers and users to let Apple know they do not support this move, by not developing\buying applications on Apples store front.

heybrakywacky
Jun 20, 2011, 04:10 PM
Ok so let's compare it to something that's a little closer to what Apple was trying to do. Let's say you go to Walmart to purchase an MMO like World of Warcraft. Yes Walmart will get a cut of the original sale... but they don't get a % of your monthly subscription to WoW... nor should they.


Yeah, thank you, that was my original point too, which must not have come through very well. Yes, Apple/WalMart gets a cut of the product they put on their shelves. But I would argue that they shouldn't get a cut of a product a customer was driven to from that original product, unless the new product was also heavily reliant on the App Store / WalMart shelf to sell it.

The WoW analogy is an interesting one, because I think it could be argued either way. For instance, if WoW was an iOS-only app, you could probably argue that Apple should get a cut of those subscriptions, since without the app, the subscriptions are not sellable. But what if WoW was an iOS app, an Android app, and a Windows 7 app, and in their iOS app they wanted to link you back to subscription options sold through their web site which were equally applicable to any platform you chose to run WoW on? Why should Apple get a cut of revenue that no other platform provider gets, in that scenario?

As I said before, there are lots of shades of gray in there. A blanket policy could end up hurting or discouraging a lot of businesses that really shouldn't owe Apple anything more than the costs they've already paid them to utilize the App Store.

AaronEdwards
Jun 20, 2011, 04:11 PM
Downward curve? The iPhone is up year over year. Or are you referring to something else?

The size of the entire market is growing, I was referring to market share.

BaldiMac
Jun 20, 2011, 04:17 PM
The size of the entire market is growing, I was referring to market share.

Market share is growing as well year over year.

Shaych
Jun 20, 2011, 04:28 PM
Yeah, thank you, that was my original point too, which must not have come through very well. Yes, Apple/WalMart gets a cut of the product they put on their shelves. But I would argue that they shouldn't get a cut of a product a customer was driven to from that original product, unless the new product was also heavily reliant on the App Store / WalMart shelf to sell it.

The WoW analogy is an interesting one, because I think it could be argued either way. For instance, if WoW was an iOS-only app, you could probably argue that Apple should get a cut of those subscriptions, since without the app, the subscriptions are not sellable. But what if WoW was an iOS app, an Android app, and a Windows 7 app, and in their iOS app they wanted to link you back to subscription options sold through their web site which were equally applicable to any platform you chose to run WoW on? Why should Apple get a cut of revenue that no other platform provider gets, in that scenario?

As I said before, there are lots of shades of gray in there. A blanket policy could end up hurting or discouraging a lot of businesses that really shouldn't owe Apple anything more than the costs they've already paid them to utilize the App Store.

And my blanket policy would be... the only time Apple should see a financial benifit is if there is a cost associated with the transaction to Apple. Apple does maintain their servers and what not for the app store. They should see a return on that investment. That also covers all platforms for me... Android or Microsoft or any of them.

If the app is only in iOS, but of course the servers that run the game are housed and paid for by the company that built the app... then I still don't believe Apple deserves any profit from anything but the initial sell of the app. If Apple is willing to host the game servers and traffic and all that... then yes they should get a piece of the monthly action.

I'm not anti-Apple or anything like that... I just will only support their iOS platform as long as it doesn't start costing me money or costing the companies I chose to do business with additional cost outside Apple's investments. I would rather Netflix take that money and use it to buy licensing for better content for me. I'm greedy like that. ;)

stainlessliquid
Jun 20, 2011, 05:21 PM
So when is Amazon going to require Apple to give them 30% of sales through itunes because they allowed Apple to sell ipods and iphones on amazon.com?

cmaier
Jun 20, 2011, 05:57 PM
So when is Amazon going to require Apple to give them 30% of sales through itunes because they allowed Apple to sell ipods and iphones on amazon.com?

They're free to try to impose that. I imagine I know what would happen next.

marksman
Jun 20, 2011, 09:43 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)



Your post makes no sense. You can use your Netflix account on iOS as well. What Netflix can't do is leverage Apple's costly and valuable infrastructure to recruit new customers for free. Netflix is probably the biggest online advertiser over the past 5 years bar none. Why should they be able to sign up people from apple for free? I own a marketing company. This is a crazy expectation for anyone to have. Netflix can let subscribers use their netflix app for free. If they want to use the AppStore infrastructure to grow their business they have to pay apple.

Answer me this then, I bought a Samsung blu-ray player that allows me to stream netflix on it. Say that I don't have a netflix account so when I click on that "app" on my blu-ray player, it says "Please Sign Up For A Membership at netflix.com, Then Log In". I go to my laptop/ipad/iphone/whatever and make a netflix account. Samsung isn't taking a 30% cut, even though they developed the hardware and software for that blu-ray player, and let netflix install an app on it. And I seriously doubt netflix paid samsung since myself (like many consumers) probably bought that device because it was enabled with netflix.

Same thing with my xbox. Yes, you need a gold membership, but if that's why you use your xbox then you wasted a lot of money on a powerful dvd player

Actually it is likely that Samsung does get a commission for ant sign ups. Netflix also has a massive affiliate program that can pay out 3-4 months income as a commission for a sign up.

marksman
Jun 20, 2011, 09:46 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Do Apple have to pay Netflix for using the Netflix infrasturcture to grow their business? I have a feeling if Netflix pulled support for iOS it would decrease peoples interest in buying an iPad.
That's what most people don't get. It's true that being in the App Store is very interesting, but also for Apple every popular app available adds value to their devices. "Leveraging for free" makes sense only if you ignore this added-value which for some apps is very big.

That is like saying best buy should make 0 margin on apple devices because it is good for them to have them. I realize a lot of people don't have a businness/management background but it gets frustrating when people miss or misunderstand fundamental issues

KingCrimson
Jun 20, 2011, 11:01 PM
Netflix is better and without ad. Why would anyone pay for hulu and still see ads?



Well, perhaps the additional App Store eye balls will simply not pay.

With Hulu Plus you get the ENTIRE Criterion Collection, ad free.

Oletros
Jun 21, 2011, 12:02 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)



That is like saying best buy should make 0 margin on apple devices because it is good for them to have them. I realize a lot of people don't have a businness/management background but it gets frustrating when people miss or misunderstand fundamental issues

No, he is not impliying nothing lie you're saying. So, no he doesn't iss or misunderstand nothing.

CFreymarc
Jun 21, 2011, 01:36 AM
Does the mean Baldwin gets busted for stock fraud?

toph2toast
Jun 22, 2011, 09:04 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)



Actually it is likely that Samsung does get a commission for ant sign ups. Netflix also has a massive affiliate program that can pay out 3-4 months income as a commission for a sign up.

How would Netflix or Samsung know if I went on the netflix website and signed up because I was prompted to from my blu-ray player? I am not aware of any way that can be tracked.