Apple Approves Netflix and Kindle Updates Despite New In-App Purchase Rules

[shamino]

WRT Netflix and Hulu (and other services that use subscriptions), they will simply respond by raising their prices to compensate. Maybe they'll make iOS-compatibility an extra-charge option, so people without iPhones won't have to subsidize those who do.

 

[err404]

I doubt that anyone ever hears about Netflix for the very first time by browsing the App Store.

Apple isn't asking for anything from users who are already subscribers. Nor is Apple forcing future users to subscribe via iTunes. This rule only applies for new users who chose to create their initial subscription via the in-app purchase.

Still, Apple is over estimating their role. I understand that Apple is facilitating the transaction and that is worth something. Personally I feel Apple could fairly charge 30% of the first month and 5% for the ongoing CC processing. Beyond that, this could be crippling to the business.

 

[logandzwon]

Apple already said that the new policy does not apply to SAS applications (Software As a Service) like Netflix.

The issue is that the definition of SAS is very vague.

this. however Netflix is not a SAS, it still isn't covered by the 30% thing. Only apps trying to use "shortcuts" to try and side-step the 30% publishing fee are effected. IE Kindle.

 

[irun5k]

Apple isn't asking for anything from users who are already subscribers. Nor is Apple forcing future users to subscribe via iTunes. This rule only applies for new users who chose to create their initial subscription via the in-app purchase.

Understood... but- I thought that Netflix would be be required to also offer in-app subscriptions. If true, it isn't a matter of just disabling in-app sign up, since you are actually required to allow it, and thus required to give Apple 30% of the revenue.

This also means there are two completely separate billing channels for guys like Netflix. That changes a heck of a lot of things internal to an organization.... all because you decided to offer an iOS app? Sounds viral to me.

 

[QuarterSwede]

this. however Netflix is not a SAS, it still isn't covered by the 30% thing. Only apps trying to use "shortcuts" to try and side-step the 30% publishing fee are effected. IE Kindle.

Exactly. Netflix's app is only for current subscribers.

[EDIT] Although, I just logged out and Netflix does link to their site saying, "Not a member? Visit netflix.com to sign up." Interesting.

 

[SG1-1]

I posted that it would not effect Netflix & the others because the sub model that Apple is using is for "Print Media" only.

Of course allot of Macrumours forum posters ( very new posters ) tried to dispute my post and told me I was wrong.

To all those that posted I was wrong, your proof is here, read it slowly & take it in.

It's not worth the time, to many idiots are online & no matter what, we have seen what idiots have done to the U.S Politcal system, the Internet is even worse fo those whom have any logical type of thinking.

 

[err404]

this. however Netflix is not a SAS, it still isn't covered by the 30% thing. Only apps trying to use "shortcuts" to try and side-step the 30% publishing fee are effected. IE Kindle.

Understood... but- I thought that Netflix would be be required to also offer in-app subscriptions. If true, it isn't a matter of just disabling in-app sign up, since you are actually required to allow it, and thus required to give Apple 30% of the revenue.

This also means there are two completely separate billing channels for guys like Netflix. That changes a heck of a lot of things internal to an organization.... all because you decided to offer an iOS app? Sounds viral to me.

It was reported that Netflix would NOT be bound to the 30% IAP rule. That's actually the problem; the rules are not being enforced across applications.
Netflix Not Affected by Apple's New Subscription Plan
From what I have heard the exception was due to Netflix being classified as SAS by Apple (correct usage of the term or not). I'm concerned that a loose definition of the term 'SAS' by Apple will allow them to play favorites.

 

[ss4rob]

There are a lot of negative comments in the App Store about how Netflix can no longer manage your queue - did the previous iPad version allow this?

 

[benji888]

Exactly. Netflix's app is only for current subscribers.

[EDIT] Although, I just logged out and Netflix does link to their site saying, "Not a member? Visit netflix.com to sign up." Interesting.

Hmmm, you're right it does say that. ...with that being the exception, and considering no one would get Netflix just for use on their iOS device...

IDK, it seems to me Netflix is a software as service app. The only reason a question comes up is because apple rents streaming movies and tv shows online. Difference here being, they charge for each individual episode, and there's a time limit as to how long you have to watch it. You have to have an iTunes account, and a computer or apple tv.

I'm trying to sort this out, but, for now Netflix is a SAS app. What apple is planning on doing is unclear. However, apple is the one that won't support blu-ray in Macs (apparently due to the licensing structure), and wants us to believe the future will be streaming only. I don't think that would be, and if it would, it is a long ways off.

 

[benji888]

There are a lot of negative comments in the App Store about how Netflix can no longer manage your queue - did the previous iPad version allow this?

Yes it did, and I know now what they did, they made the Netflix app universal, that's why it looks the same on both iPhone & iPad, it's only one app now instead of two. I would call this taking a step backward, except that the previous iPad app may have been nothing more than accessing Netflix through your browser, just without the safari bar at top. ....which brings me back on subject, thank you...


Hey ppl, all Netflix has to do is make it so that it works better with your iOS browser, then, if at some point apple kicks them out of the app store, problem solved.

 

[McGiord]

If Apple applies their own rule, this would be beneficial for us the consumers: iTunes movie rentals will be unlimited for a low monthly fee of the same or less than what Netflix charges. This would be very interesting if this is the case. A good competition is what drives a better market for the consumers.

 

[Incindium]

One angle that Amazon has brewing that could get around this whole issue is Kindle for Web which is an HTML 5 web version of the Kindle app. They get it working optimally on iPhone and iPad and they won't need an App Store app anymore.

 

[revelated]

Apple knows what's best for them. A lot of their customers would be furious if they cut off Netflix and Amazon support.

Furious yet still sheeple.

 

[Chwisch87]

Well honestly this own in-app puchasing was really designed for those by which it made most sense. Magazines and Newspapers who have margins of 70% anyway.

 

[tbobmccoy]

Couldn't an app like NetFlix give the page for someone to subscribe in the app, and then tell the user that if they subscribe through the App store app, they'll be paying 30% more, and have a different price structure for that? I'm still a bit confused of how this is going to work with multi-platform subscriptions... it's not like NetFlix is exclusively on the iOS or anything.

 

[Daveoc64]

Couldn't an app like NetFlix give the page for someone to subscribe in the app, and then tell the user that if they subscribe through the App store app, they'll be paying 30% more, and have a different price structure for that? I'm still a bit confused of how this is going to work with multi-platform subscriptions... it's not like NetFlix is exclusively on the iOS or anything.

Apple's rules state that the in app price would have to be the same as the price when purchasing the subscription/content elsewhere.

Your confusion doesn't surprise me though, Apple's rules have always been incredibly vague.

 

[shamino]

Apple's rules state that the in app price would have to be the same as the price when purchasing the subscription/content elsewhere.

Yes, but a service like Netflix could, if forced, charge customers an extra surcharge in order to "enable" their account for iOS streaming. Those who don't pay can stream to everything except for iOS devices.

That wouldn't violate Apple's rules - they mandate that in-app prices match prices sold externally. They don't require that the prices cost the same as content for other apps on other platforms.

And yes, this would tick off many customers. I'm just pointing out one way a company can work around Apple's rules.

 

[Nuvi]

Well honestly this own in-app puchasing was really designed for those by which it made most sense. Magazines and Newspapers who have margins of 70% anyway.

Eh, show me a newspaper or magazine with 70% profit margin and I show you a gold mine. Face the facts mate, FYI todays newspaper industry has trouble of maintaining 15-20% profit margin.

 

[Nuvi]

Regarding Amazon if this goes thru they pull the ability to buy the books directly and then you just have to import them separately. Not nice but understandable since 30% cut is just insane when it comes to books. Even more so, in many European countries the iBook store is far worse (in some countries you only have the old free books) then in US so in reality Amazon Kindle store is totally in different league then in iBook store.

 

[marksman]

on the contrary .. what was it the Sony reader or something that did not get accepted for exactly that reason?

That was a new app that was denied. Any new apps have to meet the new rules now. Existing Apps have until the deadline to change. That is all. Point stands. Netflix and Kindle apps were pre-existing and have until the deadline to change.

The Sony Reader was a new app and thus has to be in compliance before they allow it into the store.

Why would te Kindle be OK and the Sony reader not?

Neither are okay. That is why the Sony reader got rejected and why Amazon has until the deadline to change the Kindle application.

 

[CylonGlitch]

I don't agree with that assessment.

My understanding is that Apple doesn't want an App Store where they are spending hosting dollars on FREE applications, and not making any money at all.

Imagine that instead of charging $4 for 'Angry Birds', it's FREE in the App Store, but only a demo. An update to make it the full version could be bought inside the app through Rovio for $4. Apple is getting NOTHING for this.

Apple wants to avoid these type of issues. The App Store would go away completely if this would be allowed to occur, since Apple would lose money on it.

Therefore, I can completely see Apple's point of view here. However, something like a Netflix subscription is a different thing completely. To say that Apple would even think about taking 30% of a Netflix subscription is ludicrous!

Very well said, this is EXACTLY what was happening (with smaller developers at least) and thus the rules changed.

Now, I would suspect that Apple and Amazon could come to an agreement that would benefit them both and thus the Kindle app could be approved as it is/was. Just because the rules are written, doesn't mean there aren't other, monetary based ways, to get around them.

 

[CodeJingle]

As I am aware, NetFlix used to be only 'dvd rental from home'. That was their thing. Then at one point they introduced a service for subscribers, where they could watch certain movies instantly from their computer. The service was a free bonus for current subscribers of their 'dvd rental from home'.

Then that changed, time has flipped things around and now the main service for NetFlix is the instant streaming for $8 a month, and 'dvd rental from home' is a secondary feature for an additional $2 a month.

It is difficult to speculate what 'should be' based on that churn. If anything can be argued most successfully it might be that since the 'dvd rental from home' is an add-on feature it has to be offered through the iOS app. Though since it is only $2 that would suck. When you search in the iOS app for a movie that isn't offered through the streaming service, you get a search result back that says 'disc only', so that can be argued as a form of advertising for the extra service. Netflix would have to remove all references to their add-on service from the iOS app, when you search for a move that isn't available through the service it would have to simply say 'not available' and leave it at that.

 

[diamond.g]

As I am aware, NetFlix used to be only 'dvd rental from home'. That was their thing. Then at one point they introduced a service for subscribers, where they could watch certain movies instantly from their computer. The service was a free bonus for current subscribers of their 'dvd rental from home'.

Then that changed, time has flipped things around and now the main service for NetFlix is the instant streaming for $8 a month, and 'dvd rental from home' is a secondary feature for an additional $2 a month.

It is difficult to speculate what 'should be' based on that churn. If anything can be argued most successfully it might be that since the 'dvd rental from home' is an add-on feature it has to be offered through the iOS app. Though since it is only $2 that would suck. When you search in the iOS app for a movie that isn't offered through the streaming service, you get a search result back that says 'disc only', so that can be argued as a form of advertising for the extra service. Netflix would have to remove all references to their add-on service from the iOS app, when you search for a move that isn't available through the service it would have to simply say 'not available' and leave it at that.

I thought physical good were exempt? Otherwise wouldn't eBay and Amazon (proper) have to pay for goods you buy through the apps?

 

[cozmot]

I believe Apple said developers with apps already in the App Store have until June to comply with the new rules...no news here.

If that's so, and Apple forces Netflix and Kindle to comply with this ridiculous policy, both companies should dump their iPad/iPhone platforms. This will drive many, like me, to Samsung or Motorola devices.

 

[McGiord]

The kindle is something different from Netflix service.
What should Netflix offer through the App Store? They're not currently selling you anything. The Netflix app is for current subscribers only. As I mentioned in another post, if Netflix wants to pursue using Apple's marketing infrastructure to gain more new customers, because whatever reason then they may find it a good thing for their business and use it. If not then they will be fine because they are not selling you anything through the iOS App.