They didn't create most of the apps. Other developers did.
I suspect the percentage of Netflix users who actually see any media coverage of their price increases is very low. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if it was in the single digits.
I understand your premise but that's not what will really happen.
The apps that the developer is selling to consumers are not possible without the hardware and operating systems that Apple has created. A "middle man" is someone who has no role in the production of the good/service being sold. You can't make that claim about Apple.
You’re still notified, as stated in the article.
There is little difference from subscribing in some other way. Then they’ll send you an email.
Oh, ALL of them? What about.. privacy?
Which is the case here.
Yes, it‘s your own responsibility to monitor your subscriptions. That’s the same with any other subscription. They’ll inform you of changes.
Most companies automatically charge you the more expensive price anyway and notify of the upcoming increase in an email. This sounds similar
This is an exaggeration. It's not difficult to track subscriptions on iOS/iPadOS. You can either use Apple's built-in tracking in Settings or get apps that track subscriptions in more granular detail.
What do you mean? The app store is a big cash cow for Apple. If they make it easier for apps to increase the price you pay 10% then Apple’s cut also goes up 10%. So there is a big financial incentive to make this feature automatic to as many apps as possible.
You're probably right. It's amazing that websites like MacRumors and networks like ABC manage to stay in business with such a lazy group of humans who pay so little attention.
Could you explain what you mean by Stockholm Syndrome in this case?
Such absolute claim is not supported by practice and reality.
I can certainly make it about iTunes S.à.r.l.
Apple's cut % doesn't increase. Their revenue would increase. So if Disney+ goes from $6.99 to $7.99, Apple's revenue would increase from around $1.05 to $1.20 on a 15% rate subscription.
iOS/iPadOS apps will only run on iOS/iPadOS. iOS will only run on Apple iPhones. iPadOS will only run on Apple iPads. So regardless of whether you download Netflix or a video game, the app has to make use of an operating system Apple created AND hardware that Apple created.
My point is the entire Services segment is only at 15% of Apple’s revenue, and this specific situation could only ever hope to increase revenue by a tiny amount. But the downside is huge - many more users could cancel and stop signing up for new subscriptions because they don’t feel there are enough protections in place. It seems to me there must be another factor at play for them to risk so much to gain so little. Certainly the fact that Apple is continually being pulled in front of judges for accusations of having too much power standing between developers and consumers would impact a decision like this.
The hardware is not free. There’s a reason Apple makes tens of billions in profits every quarter.
Wouldn’t it make more sense for Apple to charge developers for what it actually costs for them to be in the App Store and for all the SDKs/tools/dev support etc? And charge every developer regardless of whether their app is free to download with no IAP or not? Right now big companies pay Apple next to nothing while small developers have to give Apple 30% or 15% of their revenue stream.
What relevance does that have? If it were easy to make tens of billions every quarter on hardware then you'd have hundreds of different companies selling their own mobile hardware and mobile OS. In reality, even Microsoft flopped when they tried to do it. The degree of difficulty dwarfs anything related to app development.
When the App Store originally launched, 70/30 was the typical "store" arrangement for people that wanted a higher profile for their software than just a personal web site or mail order. Apple turned it around to 30/70 with the App Store. Now it's 15/85 for less than a million revenue or 30/70 for over a million revenue.
