It's about obeying the rules of the platform and the legal contracts.
Epic could have removed the ability to buy VBucks in their iOS app just as Apple removed the ability to buy/rent stuff here.
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
It's about obeying the rules of the platform and the legal contracts.
Epic could have removed the ability to buy VBucks in their iOS app just as Apple removed the ability to buy/rent stuff here.
And yet, Apple just complied with their legal contract with Google.
No complaints, no PR campaign, no complaining to EU or Congress, no court cases. Apple just dealt with it following the rules of the platform.
Epic should have done the same thing.
If Google disallowed it, Apple would also not mention it in their apps.
It's about following the rules of the platform which a developer agreed to through legal contracts.
lol, you know very well apple services aren't free. And apples does something in the play store they explicitly don't allow other developers to do in the App Store
Thank god for laws and regulations that can prevent unjust contracts. developers should complain to enact changes
The point is apple doesn't follow their own rules because it's inconvenient
Yes, but unfortunately it's going to hurt consumers a lot more than it will hurt Apple. This is a terrible black mark on adoption of digital content if it's permanent. I'd be pissed if I started building an iTunes movie/TV collection and then couldn't add more without annoying workarounds.
True, at least Apple is following its own policy, even if it results in an objectively worse customer experience. Profits over user experience, am I right?
I thought 30% was a fair fee according to Apple? they were doing good for the developers and business to host their apps on their store and create the "eco-system" ??
no its going to hurt them not the consumer. Its actually easier to get a pirated movie than having to jump throw all the legal hoops to download officially.
It’ll look good, because Apple is showing that it doesn’t try to call the platform provider a monopoly and simply complied with what the platform allows. In fact, this is good for Apple, because Google cracking down on IAP alternatives in non-gaming apps strengthens Apple’s position, which was always to require IAP.
Funny to see Apple getting a taste of their own medicine, though- and it turn me out they don’t like paying 30% either! Who woulda thunk?
Why wouldn’t Apple just increase the price by 30% on the platform rather than just not offering it? Seems like lost money and opportunity to expand your ecosystem
In that Google would likely be asked to explain their actions in an antitrust context (why are you asking your biggest competitor to pay 27% when other companies with apps in identical situations in the Play store pay you 0%)
They contractually can't - they do an agency pricing model for all third party items in stores (music, books, movies, etc), where the owner sets the price, with the understanding that apple takes a fixed cut.
Apple agreed not to turn around and sell other people's content for more or for less than the agreed-upon price.
For your example, no. I'll see if I can accurately represent a similar story.
Hey.com ran into that - they published an app which only presented a sign in prompt, with no mention or link to the external paid registration page.
Apple basically said the app was unusable without a separate paid account sign up, and if they wanted to completely gate functionality behind a subscription then they had to offer in-app purchasing as a subscription option.
There was much arguing about other apps, including other email apps, with the determination that the expectation was that those being enterprise focused had an excusion (e.g. that the user could not set up an email account via in-app purchasing, because the sales model was blocks of email seats for a company and not individual email accounts)
Thats why I said its easiest to consider Apple's subscription and in-app payment 'upgrade' cut to be about customer acquisition.
Hey turned around and added a feature - you could use the app without any registration to get a randomized (non vanity) email account with limited functionality. This met Apple's requirement (the app actually did something when people downloaded it) and Hey's requirement (to not give a penny to Apple in subscription revenue on moral grounds, even if there might be a business case for in-app purchasing leading to a much larger larger revenue base)
What are you talking about Apple TV existed well before TV's had downloadable software. The very first Apple TV was released in 2007. Every major streaming app is available on Apple TV and the experience is much better than the Roku and Amazon Fire Stick.
The only area I think Apple dropped the ball on was gaming. If they just came out with a standard affordable controller for Apple TV sooner or partnered with Sony Playstation or Xbox. Apple TV would have been huge.
Apple is following it’s own guidelines, ether pay the fee or remove the buy and rent options. It’s how it should be.
I have laughed about this for years, and I love that Alanis's lack of a true understanding of irony has made it into this thread. Thanks, everyone! Good stuff!
Well Apple isn’t their biggest competitor, and they doesn’t even compete in the TV market. And it’s more interesting what apple allow on their own platform.
It’s against the rules to point to another website to pay for a subscription.
Just like how Netflix works like now. The app doesn’t do anything unless you have an account and they are banned from telling you to go to their website to subscribe