Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,542
30,850



All Things Digital reports that in the latest update to its 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 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 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.

hulu_plus_linkout_text.jpg


External subscription link text (bottom) removed from Hulu Plus login screen
But with Apple reversing course 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
 

ratzzo

macrumors 6502a
Apr 20, 2011
829
35
Madrid
Clever move. I wonder if Apple will do anything against that, they seems to shift their policies every week..
 

soco

macrumors 68030
Dec 14, 2009
2,840
119
Yardley, PA
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.
 

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
16,363
5,795
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

macrumors 6502a
Aug 2, 2005
622
0
On an island in Maine
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

macrumors 6502a
Apr 20, 2011
829
35
Madrid
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

macrumors 603
Nov 8, 2008
5,304
4,054
Florida, U.S.A.
This Falls Between Ridiculous and Plain Stupid

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.
 

pdjudd

macrumors 601
Jun 19, 2007
4,037
65
Plymouth, MN
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

macrumors 6502
Sep 14, 2009
449
0
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

macrumors 603
Feb 3, 2008
5,393
25
Essex (UK)
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

macrumors regular
Nov 21, 2009
230
52
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

macrumors G5
Jan 9, 2008
14,224
4,304
Sunny, Southern California
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

macrumors 68000
Nov 4, 2003
1,870
0
Apple has just done the hard work for anyone who wants to sue them for this policy.

I'm looking at you, Amazon.
 

Oletros

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
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

macrumors 603
Jun 4, 2007
5,764
5
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

macrumors 68030
Mar 4, 2007
2,525
623
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 ...)
 

OllyW

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 11, 2005
17,196
6,799
The Black Country, England
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

macrumors regular
Jan 2, 2011
233
0
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

macrumors 68030
Mar 4, 2007
2,525
623
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

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
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?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.