Mattie Num Nums
macrumors 68030
You so called "dinosaur" has evolved. Its called Apple.
Apple's App Store Subscription Policies Raise Antitrust Issues as Content Providers F
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You so called "dinosaur" has evolved. Its called Apple.
bobr1952
macrumors 68020
Apparently not otherwise Rhapsody would not be in such a huff as their subscription model is the same as Netflix.
C00rDiNaT0r
macrumors 6502
Maybe vendors can randomly send emails to say, 10% of the subscribers after their first one-time payment on iTunes. The email will say it's a limited, 30% off promotion that's only available to the lucky recipients, while there's actually nothing stopping them from fowarding the deal to others, or re-posting on twitter, fatwallet, slickdeals, etc.
tigres
macrumors 601
Question.
Why don't the devs and content providers explain to the customer in the app that the purchase of any medium must be done at www dot si dot com.
Allow the customer to save it as an iCal event, and move along w/ life until at a computer. I know it's not pretty, but how can apple not allow that- which does indeed circumvent the deed.
Why don't the devs and content providers explain to the customer in the app that the purchase of any medium must be done at www dot si dot com.
Allow the customer to save it as an iCal event, and move along w/ life until at a computer. I know it's not pretty, but how can apple not allow that- which does indeed circumvent the deed.
If Microsoft wasn't even found to be "exploiting monopoly market power", I doubt that any legal challenge to Apple on this issue will work. According to US law, it's Apple's platform and they can do what they want with it.
But that doesn't mean that this isn't bad for the consumer. It is very clearly anticompetitive, exploitive of their market dominance, and rent-seeking. This is a failure of our public policy and I know that some European countries will be able to challenge this under their own antitrust laws, and I'm sure that Apple will continue to sell in those countries, just like they continue to sell in France even though France mandates that all phones have to be carrier unlocked.
I would support a law saying that all computing platforms must be fundamentally open and that developers cannot create undue burden on consumers for them to implement 3rd party software (eg that we are required to jailbreak in order to install native applications that aren't on the app store).
We already have laws EXCACTLY LIKE THIS on other consumer products. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 says that consumer product warranties cannot require that the product be serviced or modified only with approved parts. This means that car companies can't void your warranty if you install a 3rd party stereo system, and computer companies can't void your warranty if you install 3rd party RAM. I have no idea why this isn't be applied on the software side to the iPhone. To me the spirit of this law would say that Apple should not be allowed to void warranties for jailbreaking and possibly even that Apple should not be allowed to implement software that requires people to jailbreak to install 3rd party software.
But that doesn't mean that this isn't bad for the consumer. It is very clearly anticompetitive, exploitive of their market dominance, and rent-seeking. This is a failure of our public policy and I know that some European countries will be able to challenge this under their own antitrust laws, and I'm sure that Apple will continue to sell in those countries, just like they continue to sell in France even though France mandates that all phones have to be carrier unlocked.
I would support a law saying that all computing platforms must be fundamentally open and that developers cannot create undue burden on consumers for them to implement 3rd party software (eg that we are required to jailbreak in order to install native applications that aren't on the app store).
We already have laws EXCACTLY LIKE THIS on other consumer products. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 says that consumer product warranties cannot require that the product be serviced or modified only with approved parts. This means that car companies can't void your warranty if you install a 3rd party stereo system, and computer companies can't void your warranty if you install 3rd party RAM. I have no idea why this isn't be applied on the software side to the iPhone. To me the spirit of this law would say that Apple should not be allowed to void warranties for jailbreaking and possibly even that Apple should not be allowed to implement software that requires people to jailbreak to install 3rd party software.
rwilliams
macrumors 68040
I think it depends on each publisher's existing model and how much profit they make off of transactions in the current system vs. how much they will make under Apple's new rules. If they're going to lose money or just break even under Apple's system, it makes no sense to stay with iOS.
And you care... because???
If 30% is too high, the market will sort it out.
Frankly, I'm amazed at the furor this is causing.
Apple wants to
1) run a business, and not a charity
2) Apple is keeping the publishers from getting their grubby hands all over our private data. I'd think this was a good thing, but apparently there is no issue to hypocritical for Apple haters to run with.
johnnymg
macrumors 65816
Warbrain
macrumors 603
A couple things to note:
1) Immature market. Everything is still fluid in the tablet and smartphone markets. This isn't like Microsoft owning 90% of all computing during the 90s. This isn't AT&T being the only telephone provider. There are numerous ways for companies to provide their service or deliver their good without going through Apple.
2) Outside options still exist.
3) Any marketplace that sells products gets a cut. Is 30% high? Sure. But Apple is managing the storage, the means of distribution, and a large amount of the development needed to deliver such services.
1) Immature market. Everything is still fluid in the tablet and smartphone markets. This isn't like Microsoft owning 90% of all computing during the 90s. This isn't AT&T being the only telephone provider. There are numerous ways for companies to provide their service or deliver their good without going through Apple.
2) Outside options still exist.
3) Any marketplace that sells products gets a cut. Is 30% high? Sure. But Apple is managing the storage, the means of distribution, and a large amount of the development needed to deliver such services.
Warbrain
macrumors 603
Apple will provide information to the publisher if you want it to be given. Google can give that to anyone without you even signing up.
talkingfuture
macrumors 65816
Full of Win
macrumors 68030
So much justification for evil and anti-conusmer actions by Apple Consumer Electronics.
Sad, very sad.
Sad, very sad.
You're right, iOS was not created specifically for Netflix but it was created for distributing media to a huge consumer base (Netflix included). Also, it's not a function of whether or not they deserve it. Apple realizes that there are many, many more people watching Netlfix via iOS devices than internet capable TVs and Blu-Ray players. Netflix wouldn't pay a penny to either of those manufacturers because it is insignificant relative to the number of people who use iOS devices. Netflix doesn't have to pay a penny to Apple either, for that matter, if they don't want to. They will simply no longer have access to one of the most effective means of distribution that is available to them. I'm not happy that Apple decided to do this because I fear the repercussions but on the other hand I find it hard to fault them.
NebulaClash
macrumors 68000
It's just the opposite, actually. The publishers are fighting Apple because they want access to MORE of our private data, and Apple is fighting back.
The 30% outrage is a smokescreen. Publishers want to make money off your personal data and Apple is resisting.
Not that you would know this from the professional Apple haters.
Aduntu
macrumors 6502a
You're not very smart. Apple is one of the biggest reasons content is available as easily and for the prices it is now. Did you forget what it used to be like to have to purchase an entire CD at a store just for the one or two songs you liked on it?
1: It is a charity, for Apple: Credit card processing for a large company costs 2%. Apple wants 30% to do that job. With a lot of these streaming media subscriptions, its not at all like the App store for applications, which will host your free demo versions, which hosts and serves the apps, which can accrue decent bandwidth costs. For the 30% cut, its not like Apple is going to be the one serving Netflix video to all the iPhones. Netflix will still accure all server costs. Apple is trying to kick those content providers off their platform, plain and simple, in preparation for their own offering. They don't want competition on their own platform. This is anticompetitive.
2: Umm you are delusional. Apple wants to keep the data so that they can use it in the exact same way that others would use it.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
But they already have their own paying mechanism, apple is now forcing them to use theirs.
Joker Eh said:
But they already have their own paying mechanism, apple is now forcing them to use theirs.
So if I'm a preexisting Netflix customer , or if I'm existing New Yorker customer that buys a New Yorker app, then they don't need to pay apple 30% on my subscription (just the app).
For in-app purchases they get a smaller cut but a potentially much bigger market size.
Phil A.
Moderator emeritus
Actually, for in-app subscriptions, Apple do not provide storage or distribution. Personally, I don't care whether Apple get 1% or 90% but I will care if providers abandon the platform.
From a consumer point of view, In-App subscriptions are brilliant because they're easy to manage and if you want to update your payment method you only need to do it one place. However, if the alternatives are disjointed subscription methods or no subscription method because the provider has left the platform, then I'll choose the former all day long
Mattie Num Nums
macrumors 68030
Very well played by Google.
spazzcat
macrumors 601
Isn't google having issues with getting people to buy apps from their Android phones?
grockk
macrumors 6502
if you think about it, all of these subscription based apps are free on the App store. So Netflix, Hulu+, Kindle, etc, all get free advertising, user base, selling point for subscription (Hulu+ is only on iOS, it's free on computers!). So if these providers are selling a service outside of the app store and then offering the veiwer app for free they are cutting out Apple entirely.
If netflix cost 8.99 for the service but the iOS steaming was an additional 99c and apple gets a cut of the 99c. or you can sign up on the netflix website for 9.98 and get iOS streaming and Netflix gets the whole cut. but in this way apple has a fair shot at earning something from Netflix instead of sitting idly by and earning nothing for their efforts to support apps like netflix streaming.
If netflix cost 8.99 for the service but the iOS steaming was an additional 99c and apple gets a cut of the 99c. or you can sign up on the netflix website for 9.98 and get iOS streaming and Netflix gets the whole cut. but in this way apple has a fair shot at earning something from Netflix instead of sitting idly by and earning nothing for their efforts to support apps like netflix streaming.
Maybe for magazines they are handling the storage and distribution, but not for Rhapsody and Netflix. They are simply trying to kick Rhapsody and Netflix off of the iOS platform after they lured them in with their previous rules and convinced them to invest money developing iOS apps. Now they are spontaneously changing the rules to either become a 30% partner in the business or kick them off the platform.