Yea nvm you’re right.
Mac rumors mods, please take down this story. No reason in having it up.
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
Mac rumors mods, please take down this story. No reason in having it up.
Then don’t use the App Store, clearly it’s not worth the price to you and that’s ok. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
It’s not necessarily the fee. What devs wants to be able to do is convey messaging that you can sign up elsewhere. As of now you are not allowed, in Netflix for example, to even mention that you can sign up on the web. That’s what devs want to be able to do.
this starts to go into the debate where apple seems to think, even after you buy it, that it’s still their phone. At what point is it the customer’s phone? Users should have a choice as to where they can sign up right? On top of that, there should be a better user experience (speaking as a user experience designer) convey and communicating that to users.
No it’s not “bruh”, there is a non-trivial difference in how iOS and macOS work. That they share a common core, doesn’t mean it’s as easy as flipping a switch to make things the same. You clearly have little to no knowledge of how software, especially large scale software is developed/works.
Even if developers were allowed to, at the very least, mention in their signup pages that they can also sign up on the web, as opposed to signing up in-app, I imagine would people would still do it for the sake of convenience. It’s a matter of giving users a choice and I feel like a lot of people are missing that point here.
Devs want lots of things, and they have the right to try and convince Apple to give them those things, but they don’t have the right to force Apple to do whatever they want.
And no, Apple doesn’t think it’s still their phone, after a customer buys it they are free to do whatever they want with it. What you (and others) are saying is that Apple should be FORCED to do things it doesn’t want to. You buy the iPhone knowing what it can and cannot do, either that is worth it to you or it isn’t. If you want to install Apps from multiple stores or directly to the device, don’t buy an iPhone, it doesn’t allow that. Buy something that does. I can’t play Mario Kart on my PS4 either, though it would be more convenient for me to have only one game console. But Sony never promised me that so I have zero grounds to demand they give that feature to me. Same with the iPhone. You can ASK for it. You can try and convince Apple to give it to you. You can argue all you want. But when you try and force it, as Epic is doing, that’s when you cross the line.
To sum up:
- Wanting the iPhone to be different? OK
- Complaining that the iPhone is not different in the way you want? OK
- Walking away from the iPhone and trying to convince others to do so too so Apple changes their mind?
OK
Demanding Apple change and expecting they do whatever you want just because you want it? Not OK
This to me doesn’t make sense.
As a developer, why would you care whether the console is sold at a loss, or whether the iPhone is sold at a profit? You are still giving up 30% of your revenue either way.
That Apple is able to do both just means they are good at what they do. Or are you suggesting that Apple essentially run their App Store at a loss and subsidise it with hardware profits?
That’s the critical distinction though. Netflix is doing just fine without signups through the AppStore, and they can do that because they have their own marketing, established brand, and well built subscription infrastructure.
If a dev can’t make it work without relying on IAP or even notices within the app itself, it means they don’t have those things and need to rely on their presence in the AppStore to reach their customers— in other words, Apple’s service is providing value and thus Apple deserves compensation.
It’s really simple business logic — devs don’t need to pay Apple a fraction of their subscription, so if they do it must be worth it.
The ps4 is not a general purpose computer. That comparison has been made over and over.
Well, that's the point of antitrust regulation though: it's goal is to force powerful companies to do things they would not otherwise do as a way to limit their ability to distort competition.
Depending on your take on whether Apple is abusing a dominant position to distort competition, it's actually entirely reasonable to argue for it to be forced to do things differently and if the antitrust argument stands it might actually be forced to do exactly that.
Don’t you look at your CC statement before paying it? Unless Netflix offers a yearly subscription, I see $8.99 on my CC statement monthly, so it’s hard to forget.
Apple is a minority player in every market that isn’t expressed as a tautology. They aren’t in violation of antitrust.
And, for the majority of developers, it’s worth it. There are millions of developers quietly cashing their checks improving their apps, growing their business, carving out a niche of loyal users for themselves.
Where did this “general purpose computer” nonsense come from? Oh, Epic. Prior to this, no one considered that as a serious claim.
I mean. I could say, “The PS4 doesn’t start with ‘A’ and contain 5 letters. Neither does ‘Switch’ and neither does ‘Xbox’ so of COURSE they’re in a different category” It makes precisely the same amount of sense.
You don't need to have the absolute majority nor a monopoly of a market share to have a strong enough position to distort competition and claiming that Apple is not a strong player in the mobile market would be disingenuous. Furthermore it's not clear yet whether the "100% on iOS" argument stands or not.
Whether Apple's strength is enough for them to fall under antitrust regulation and whether their practices are actually a violation of said regulations is anyone's guess, but the case would have been dismissed already were things so clear-cut against the plaintiff's arguments.
THEY were considering it??? What are you talking about? No, it says… Carson Oliver considered it! That’s different. And it was only a question! “Do we want to take any punitive measures”. You can’t blame a whole company for ONE MAN’s CONSIDERATION/QUESTION. Actually one shouldn’t blame anyone for asking a question… for discussing options! It’s not like he decided what the company actually should do. And who’s to say he didn’t send other mails earlier or later on with totally different (stand points) angles! It’s what is finally decided and officially made public by the company that should truly be scrutinized or criticized. Every company would stop any kind of brainstorming or tactical thought process if questions and individual employees considerations was a no go. From the facts we have you hardly can determine wether Apple as a company was going too far or not! Maybe Carson Oliver did. But even that we DONT KNOW!
Last edited:
Do you have a good example of a minority player being sanctioned under anti-trust?
Who is “they?” One guy? Out of the 10s of thousands of employees? So now we’re thought police?
I own my house, I own my business and I own a house in another country, thanks for your concern. By the way Apple cannot tax people nor companies? That can only be done by Federal, State and Local authorities.
This is a misconstruction of reality. Epic is developing their own system and are more than capable of dealing with their own payment system and electricity bill man. Paying 30% for distribution is exorbitant and unnecessary for them, they owe Apple nothing.
This is a lie, show your evidence. Qualcomm never violated any agreement, Apple did because they didn't want to comply with their licensing system and simply stopped paying. Qualcomm was being unfair into forcing Apple to pay a license for things other than the modems and Apple just didn't want to pay because that was something they didn't need... So should Apple use Qualcomm's technology for free? You see it now?
Well you are comparing apples to oranges too... The App Store is a distribution market, good, then they must comply with commercial codes and treat everyone fairly, it is not a "membership". Forcing users and companies into only paying them is not fair, giving Amazon special prices for large volume of purchases affects the smaller players too, being gate keeper, referee and sole dictator is not fair either. I know people that have had their app pulled from the store without a clear explanation... at least recently Apple implemented the appeals process but before you just lost your money and time and had no way to appeal. None of that is fair.
Also, how about competing stores??? There is no other store, that alone is anticompetitive.