You could start with 7.2.2 lossless audio on the Apple TV. Do the android devices support anything above 5.1 highly compressed?
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 Removes Ability to Buy and Rent in Update to Apple TV App for Android TV and Google TV
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Reader apps are a defined category of apps (in the App Store guidelines) that provide access to digital analogues of traditional media rather than providing more abstract services.
The two advantages that reader apps have here IMHO are:
- There are a lot of cases where apps which provide services need to provide an in-app purchasing option going to Apple (you can take money separately, but the user needs to be able to get functionality from the app without leaving the app). Reader apps have a bit more flexibility for no in-app purchasing.
- Reader apps are now able to call out to out-of-app purchasing in more cases, such as in email correspondence. This is likely to continue to expand from regulatory pressure, since Apple is growing their competition in media services.
Generally Apple's model is that apps are partners with an agreement that Apple charges for services as well as for the corresponding marketing and customer acquisition. Things like linking to an out-of-app experience in order to avoid paying for customer acquisition, or taking money directly in-app without giving apple their cut is the quickest way for them to decide not to work with you anymore.
Reader apps were a carry-over from the iPod days where you could load arbitrary third party music onto Apple's devices. As Google has learned, you get far more regulatory scrutiny when you _tighten_ rules over time as you get more marketing power.
Apple has really only added new services or loosened rules, although they have had rules which they were more lax on enforcing at times in the past. That said, they have added new media services which will may count as them trying to leverage their platform to get into new markets, and hence they may have more 'reader' style concessions (for instance, for Peloton-style fitness services)
Yeah, it kinda sucks shelling out 30% of your revenue for content that isn’t delivered by the service that’s charging you.
Obviously all App Store defenders are going to avoid this thread.
So how is this going to look in court when Apple is trying to defend its 30% cut?
Not sure what you’re getting at. The point was, they could have been a leading Smart TV platform AND content provider if they licensed ATV much sooner and bought Netflix or created content 10 years when they had the chance, but they didn’t because they lack bold leadership with vision.
who in their right mind would buy Netflix? They are the titanic. Increased profits were due to increased rates and decreased spending for new content. But subscribers are jumping ship, and spending more money to earn them back will reduce earnings. They have only survived because they were already big.
Just checked, and in addition to not being able to rent, I can't access my iTunes purchases through the ATV app on my Sony Bravia (Google TV). So they are now blocking previuously purchased content, too.
(EDIT/UPDATE: Looks like that was an iCloud glitch that affected many, and was unrelated to the new ATV policy. While I can't rent from the ATV Google TV app, I can access my library (and rentals). So, minor inconvenience.)
(EDIT/UPDATE: Looks like that was an iCloud glitch that affected many, and was unrelated to the new ATV policy. While I can't rent from the ATV Google TV app, I can access my library (and rentals). So, minor inconvenience.)
Last edited:
I think I wasn’t clear. You mentioned a Roku device but what I meant was that Amazon used to prevent iOS users from making purchases directly through their iOS apps, instead making you go to their website to do so. Exactly what Apple might be doing for Google devices now.
They might still do this but I’ve not tried to rent/purchase for some time through them because it was such a disjointed experience.
Wouldn’t it be great if you could just sign-in to the Apple TV+ app on Google TV with your Apple ID, and just rent and purchase with that linked account? Wouldn’t it just make sense for Apple to get all of the money from the service that they are providing, by processing the payment and hosting the content? That’s the way life should be. On all platforms.
Companies should make money off the hardware they sell and the services they directly supply. If they have a payment option to make it easier for small third-party developers to make money, great! In that case, the company should get a fee for that. If the developer is big enough to handle their own payment processing, also great! Let them do that without inserting yourself in the middle and taking a 30% cut.
Someday, the world will get there. It’s just not today.
Companies should make money off the hardware they sell and the services they directly supply. If they have a payment option to make it easier for small third-party developers to make money, great! In that case, the company should get a fee for that. If the developer is big enough to handle their own payment processing, also great! Let them do that without inserting yourself in the middle and taking a 30% cut.
Someday, the world will get there. It’s just not today.
Interesting. Xbox is not mentioned, and it has been really handy having the app there, as there remain items that are hard to find elsewhere. No interest in any of the subscription TV offerings, but having the films I already bought on there more readily available has been great. This seems like a petty move, but yes maybe it will herald an actual Apple TV. It is a hell of a market to enter though!
Bad example. Apple didn't try to plow through Google's terms then cry foul. They take the medicine and move on because they are operating on someone else's platform.
The question is, can you monetize the content on your own? If no = then pay your 30% fee to leverage someone else's multimillion dollar investment. If yes = your own multimillion dollar investment for a platform or advertising direct to consumer is paying off.
If you buy a car and start uber driving, do you think it is fair that uber takes 30% of the fee? shouldn't you be able to use their platform for free. I mean you are doing all the driving right? You bought the car. They just have a stupid platform. Who cares? right?
Yeah, why does uber take a cut? We want free platforms. Build something, charge little to nothing for the masses to use and make money.
If you build a platform, how you monetize it is up to you. Sorry you don't like the rules of the game....
Would be more ironic if they whined and complained like Sweeney Tim from Epic.
It will help Apple, because (1) it shows that 30% is standard; (2) it shows that developers have a choice to simply not sell in a store if they don’t like the terms.
Assuming this was done because of Google's 30% cut, I don't see this as a problem for Apple's position on their own cut. In fact, I think it strengthens it.
Simply put, when Google's cut became unprofitable for them they just eliminated that feature from their app, requiring customers to pay another way.
I am pretty sure that is how Apple wishes to be treated as well. ?♂️
-kp
Simply put, when Google's cut became unprofitable for them they just eliminated that feature from their app, requiring customers to pay another way.
I am pretty sure that is how Apple wishes to be treated as well. ?♂️
-kp
If only Apple had you working for them - with your vision and agression Tim could really take this company somewhere!
I'm sorry, but apple doesn't allow you to direct users to their homepage to pay or subscribe for a
come back when apple actualy allow developers to link outside the store and pay 0% commision to apple, instead of 27%
Good thing Apple has already acclimated the consumer to these ridiculous OS "tolls" already! As much as Apple claims to deliver a seamless, intuitive user experience on their devices, when it comes to making profit, they are willing to throw the whole experience out the window.
I’ll ask again. Can any app in the App Store that offers digital goods/services choose to not to offer IAP or is that only allowed for apps Apple categorizes as reader apps? For example could I create a drawing app that had no functionality without a subscription and only allow a sign-in screen when launching the app?
That's actually a great example. Uber gets a cut because they have created a service to connect drivers and riders. Apple does not get any money in that transaction, because they have nothing to do it.
Should your cell phone service provider or ISP get a cut of every transaction on your iPhone? They built the network after all. If Apple doesn't like it, they should just build their own cell phone network, right?
When Apple created the App Store, in-app purchases were great for small developers who didn't have a way to monetize their app, and it's still a great option today.
But Apple shouldn't expect a cut of video rentals or purchases from Amazon or Google and Amazon and Google shouldn't expect a cut from Apple. Just allow the apps on all of the app stores, let people sign-in with their existing accounts and pay with their existing payment methods. It's that easy.
All of the anti-competitive practices are just hurting consumers and creating confusion.
I should get a cut because some of the data travel over my property!
I mean, there are logical limits to who owes who what. Store owners should get a cut of all profit made using their store. But, the real issue is that developers have control over the sale of second-hand apps. Why can't I seek apps I no longer use? Why can developers bind app functionality to their third-party servers that they can shut down at any time?
Developers should be required to provide all source code needed with Apple, and if 12 months go by without app update the code should be made available to anyone who has downloaded the app.