Apple Removes Ability to Buy and Rent in Update to Apple TV App for Android TV and Google TV

[svish]

Might be due to commission on in - app purchase. Will not be convenient for the users.

 

[Hessian]

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.

So close, but you are missing nuances.

1.) Uber created a platform and gets a cut = Apple created iOS and Xcode

Uber App is providing access to a limited supply, physical service with labor => Apple doesn't take a cut

2.) Content providers provide access to the infinitely scalable supply.

I can play music 1 time or 1,000 times and the labor is the same on the backend.

3.) Rentals

If you want to leverage a platform to rent or sell infinitely scalable "service" you pay. That makes sense. Do you think they should be able to leverage iOS, Xcode, and the App Store marketplace for $0? What gives companies inalienable rights to someone else's platform investment?

4.) Anti-competitive is actually taking someone else's products/services and making them hand it over to the competition. That is the definition of removing competition. You think it is anti-competitive to make someone else actually compete fairly. Giving away the house for free to the opposition in business isn't competition, it is a form of communism.

5.) Internet - Actually we all pay for internet (at least most of us do). It is a peer network, so we pay the provider that builds the infrastructure and participates with the other peers on the network. Everyone pays or contributes. Should we have microtransactions on the internet? Depends. Would you rather have an internet you pay $0/month and then just pay per GB? How it is monetized is based on the market. Developers monetize, Apple does too. That's the game. If you don't like it, stick to the SourceForge forums.

 

[macsforme]

Have a taste of your own medicine, Apple.

 

[jamcgahey]

Oh the irony if this is the case.

Oh yes, but they did it without crying to the world about it...

 

[jamcgahey]

View attachment 1977821

this isn't the same. Apple didn't want to pay it so set it up so they could avoid the 30% cut. They aren't suing or crying to Google to be exempt or to lower the fees...

 

[jonblatho]

And just like apple doesn’t FORCE anyone else to be in the App Store and doesn’t FORCE anyone in the App Store to sell stuff there, Apple decided to no longer sell those digital goods in the Play Store. Apple is playing by exactly the same rules it asks others to play by.

That’s not fully true. There exist instances (from a few years ago, if my memory serves me) of Apple having rejected apps/updates when a reviewer noticed the app could have offered in-app purchases but elected not to, when the app didn’t fit the narrow/partially arbitrary categories of apps that could be considered “reader apps” at the time. That sounds an awful lot like Apple having forced someone in the App Store to sell stuff there.

In fairness to your point, I’m not sure whether it still occurs following modifications to non-IAP payment method rules in the years since then. (Notably, in 2018, they seem to have updated App Store policy to “clarify” a rule that wasn’t originally there for non-reader apps but was being “enforced” anyway — if you allow users to access existing digital content/services from a non-reader app, that content/those services must also be available as in-app purchases.)

 

[dominiongamma]

Curious if everyone’s views is still the same years later or if they shifted