Apple doesn't let users install apps any other way. So I'd turn this around: if Apple's value proposition is so great, why don't they allow alternatives?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Discussed 'Punitive Measures' Against Netflix for Dropping In-App Purchases
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
say there are 3 stores with apple's policies and i want my subscription service app on each. my client buys the subscription on device with store A, but they consume all my sub content on device B and C. why should store A receive 30% of my profit and what's keeping the other 2 stores for demanding 30% too leaving me with only 10%?
I would argue they didn’t necessarily generate anything. I pretty much never ‘shop’ the App Store - I go in already knowing what I want. Taking Netflix as an example, Apple doesn’t host their content and the only reason they host their app is Apple designed that to be the only viable option. They don’t deserve a cut for a monthly subscription that they have no part in supporting themselves.
They have said they weren’t designing the App Store to be a profit generating venture and that everyone has to play by the same rules with no favorites. You could argue that it’s legal for them to not follow through on those statements but you can’t then still expect the goodwill those statements created to stick around. They don’t get it both ways.
Easy. Switch to Android.I want to be able to buy books in the kindle app.
what an awful analogy. How many people are paid by their landlord in the first place?
Exactly, I don’t see this as any different from physical stores/supermarkets and their deals made for prominent advertising/deals. And some of those are truly shocking.
A curated walled garden is indeed much better than one filled with rusty matresses, old furniture and overgrowing weeds.
Wouldn’t work because of the apps needing to be signed.
I for one don’t want my kids having access to a plethora of malware on their devices.
Not always, or perhaps it is. If you want that kind of experience there is already Android available as a perfectly fine alternative that does exactly what you want.
I would not like to have accounts with say five app stores and leave my details with all of them just so I can get the apps I want. I also really like that the Apple App Store considers the whole family, so I can get requests from my children to approve. There is a lot to like about the way it works and if you don't like it and think apps are not good value and cheaper elsewhere then you can already exercise that choice today. But please don't force it upon others.
it's not logical fallacy there are examples of apple punishing app developers. For example parental control apps, there were good until apple made their own and many more examples.
Well, if the logic was wrong in this understanding then I’m pretty sure it would have been wrong in the assessment of those many more examples supposedly about punishment.
You want the government to tell a private business how they run their business. That’s not regulation, that’s Nationalization. Regulation is “don’t hire anyone under 18 years old” or “please don’t use this substance we’ve determined is harmful to your health in your pre-packaged potato salad”. Nationalization is “The government will determine how much of a profit you make and will determine who you do business with, EVEN when there’s no national security risk because that other business is based in the US.” And, if the government is going to do that, they may as well just develop their own mobile platform IF your “essential products” are so essential that every person in the US should have access to it (which is highly dubious to anyone NOT living in a suburb).
You know, let’s get back to that, it’s QUITE a stretch to say ALL of those to require access from a mobile OS platform. Only ONE possibly does, COVID tracking/tracing, and that’s not “essential”, it’s a nice to have. Mobile ticket sales, Mobile banking, mobile payment? Yes, all of those of course would require a mobile phone. However, subtract “mobile” and you get banking, public transport and payments which are all handled perfectly well without a phone. Emergency alerts, personal messaging works fine via SMS and doesn’t require a smartphone. I just signed up for medical services on my laptop, but I could have done so using a telephone… a plain telephone. The vast majority of Americans never have to deal with customs declaration or visa applications, so including those are fairly questionable at best. It’s like they were added to pad the list because you thought it would have been too short otherwise
In going over your list, know what I’ve found? Even if I wanted to force myself to do them all using a smartphone, engagement with an AppStore of any kind still isn’t required for the majority. Companies aren’t going to be getting rid of their websites any time soon because a large portion of the population still use computers for all those activities. And, they’re preferred in a lot of cases because your personal info is left on a hard drive safe at home and not on your person.
I think that, if you HAVE to start with a premise of “I WANT THESE COMPANY’S APP STORES TO BE REGULATED” and then build backwards to build a case you’ll end up with a case that doesn’t hold up well, as I’ve shown. What SHOULD be done is first build the case for why they need to be regulated and define why. The problem, though, is looking at it this way means that you end up with Google’s and Apple’s engagements with the developers of Candy Crush, Fortnite, and Angry Birds should be regulated. Because THOSE things… THOSE really DO require interaction with an App Store.
You have a very distorted view of what regulation is. Regulation of an industry like this is basically government saying "hey, we're given it a shot, but you can't be trusted to play fair so here's a set of rules you've got to go by".
Same way financial services, advertising, etc are regulated.
At the end of the day, Apple has created a locked ecosystem in which is it showing monopolistic practices. The effect of this isn't just limited to developers. How about all of those users who are paying more because of IAP? How about developers who have had to switch to subscription models, and thus users paying more over their lifetime, because Apple refused to allow upgrade options, which has been commonplace in the industry for years.
Regulation doesn't have to be about just the app store - it doesn't have to be about a 30% cut. In my opinion, it's about a company saying that you cannot run something you want to, on a device you purchased, because they won't get their cut. It could be as simple as making it illegal to develop a computer which can only run apps determined by a certain company, and consider smartphones to be computers for the purposes of that regulation.
Someone will have to explain this to me like I am 5 years ago.
Netflix is saying you have to pay somewhere else to join/renew (I assume) and then you could use the app. Because apparently you can't use the app to purchase a membership or renew, correct?
Doesn't Walmart and Amazon have app's in the Apple App Store? I don't use those app's personally, but don't people buy stuff all the time using those particular app's? Why is app purchases allowed in one place and not another?
Netflix is saying you have to pay somewhere else to join/renew (I assume) and then you could use the app. Because apparently you can't use the app to purchase a membership or renew, correct?
Doesn't Walmart and Amazon have app's in the Apple App Store? I don't use those app's personally, but don't people buy stuff all the time using those particular app's? Why is app purchases allowed in one place and not another?
and this right there is why there's a problem with the current model.
Its one thing (frustrating) to play "gatekeeper" to enforce security of the apps being installed
I'ts another thing entirely to punish companies who don't outright want to use you as a payment processor.
Nobody got punished. And I would think it's well within rights to discuss customers; not to mention a normal thing for a company to do.
And yet that’s exactly what Spotify Netflix does in app purchases. The word Period. My foreman like you said me no matter what that matters to user and is thus since they are using the platform to distribute an interface to those users and it’s coded for that platform then they should play nice with the platform if not then the user misses out that is key. Furthermore the end-user that choose their platform still prefers that platform and if you’re making an app for that platform with an app purchases then you should play by the platforms rules if not don’t offer it on that platform nobody’s forcing them.
Microsoft with the Xbox X in ex boss ass (lol Xbox S I meant ~ voice to text read my mind lol), is doing exactly what apple does = offering apps or games on multiple platforms, the difference is they’re all apples platforms. Furthermor Microsoft is not trying to circumvent Apples App Store policies it agreed to, regardless of the consortium theyre apart of.
apple offers iTunes & Apple Music it’s replacement on Windows & Android. So come again.
Ok, lil’ joe. Get ready to watch a movie from Netflix, and at the same time order a movie from WalMart. You see that actual “thing” in your hand from WalMart? That’s the difference. Digital things SEEM like real things in that both can end up on your tv and you can enjoy them pretty much the same way. BUT, because one is now something you can keep and rewatch or even resell, the company providing that physical thing has more leeway in negotiations. That physical device doesn’t require anything from the AppStore to be able to enjoy it.
My examples are exactly that, where’s the distortion? “You can’t be trusted to play fair in hiring, so here’s a rule that says you can only hire adults”. “You can’t be trusted to keep poisonous things out of potato salad, so here’s a rule that says that you will NOT have poisonous things in your potato salad”. Even for financial services and advertising, regulations are “Disclose your APR and loan terms”, “No advertising of cigarettes.” BUT “You must provide everyone loans at 4% regardless of risk” and “You have to accept advertising from anyone with the money to pay” is NOT regulation. That’s nationalization.
You say it doesn’t have to be about the AppStore or the 30% cut. But, once you remove the AppStore from the equation, though, you’re left with a device that connects to the internet and can do all the things (legal and illegal) that connection allows. When you mention “a company saying you cannot run something you want to”, well, then you’re right back to talking about the AppStore that you said it doesn’t have to be about. The EULA everyone agrees to (which the government is not going to write… unless, you know, nationalism), says where you can get apps from, whether it’s Sony, Xbox, Nintendo, or Apple. I don’t like the fact that I can’t get Nintendo games on the Xbox. However, rather than buying the Xbox, then complaining that fact and asking the government to force Microsoft and Nintendo to work together to bring Mario Sunshine to the Xbox, I just don’t buy the Xbox because those terms are not agreeable to me.
Kinda like I was saying, starting with “I WANT THESE SPECIFIC COMPANY’S APP STORES AND DEVICES AND ONLY THESE SPECIFIC APP STORES AND DEVICES TO BE REGULATED” forces you down a path where you have to then try to call out how these stores and devices are different in questionable ways… like applying a definition of “computer” that just doesn’t hold up. Starting with “All App Stores and Devices should be regulated uniformly” is a good place to start that will lead to a more cohesive and all encompassing solution. But, THEN you would have the entire industry fighting it instead of just two members. It’s clear why, even though the prior approach is questionable, you have folks going for that one rather than the one that doesn’t look like an obvious attack on specific industry members.
Nothing wrong. Business is business.
That’s why there are Regular Clients and V.I.P. Clients.
Those who bring in more money get the royal treatment, those who don’t, well… still clients but may not get to sit with the V.I.P.s and get coffee and doughnuts served while waiting.
Oh no.. I understood. Keyword: “was”. Once Netflix got rid of IAPs, the incentive was gone. Netflix lost their V.I.P. status, as they were no longer bringing any money to AppStore.
I’ve been able to buy through Kindle App once I am signed in to my kindle account