Do you think Netflix doesn't pay Microsoft or Sony to let them be on the Xbox and PS3? Or even the Apple TV for that matter.
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.
Hulu Complies With Apple's New iOS In-App Subscription Rules Without Sharing Revenue
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do you think Netflix doesn't pay Microsoft or Sony to let them be on the Xbox and PS3? Or even the Apple TV for that matter.
The App Store is a retail operation. Thats like saying Walmart is being anti-competitive because they don't return 100% of the retail price to Colgate, when selling their toothpastes.
I don't think Netflix paid MS nor Sony (or Apple) to be on their systems. AFAICT it is in MS, Sony, and Apple best interest to allow Netflix on their devices. As another feature checkbox. If anything there seemed to be payment going netflixs way (in the case of MS) for native exclusivity. So in the interim we had to use a disc to get to Netflix (which used java) on the PS3 (not sure what the Wii used).
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/18/us-justice-department-and-ftc-looking-into-apples-new-subscript/
Depending on how you define the market, what Apple was doing was anti-competitive. I would be willing to bet the policy was changed because of talks with the Justice Department. Apple can and does do what they want, but the Justice Department can and does do what it want's too.
Depending on how you define the market, what Apple was doing was anti-competitive. I would be willing to bet the policy was changed because of talks with the Justice Department. Apple can and does do what they want, but the Justice Department can and does do what it want's too.
The Microsoft deal may have been covered simply because users needed to pay $50/year subscription to Microsoft Live Gold subscription to use Netflix.
Would people be happy paying Apple an yearly subscription so you could have subscription-based apps? Probably wouldn't go down too well.
Your argument seems to be based on the idea that Amazon and such have a legal right to be on iOS devices. They don't. Apple is not forcing them to do anything. They can sell their app under Apple's terms or not. There are plenty of alternatives, including investing in their own platform (as Amazon has done.)
Again, Microsoft was convicted of abusing a monopoly. Bundling IE was not illegal in and of itself. Despite your claim, Safari is only installed on 25% or so of smartphones sold in the US.
I never claimed Infinity Blade made a web app.
Glad to see these apps have found a way to stick around on the App Store, but the change is inane.
In order to comply with Apple's requirements, the app developers have essentially had to give up on user education within the app. Unless they're allowed to say something like "We can't tell you how to login here or how to become a subscriber but you can certainly Google it".
In order to comply with Apple's requirements, the app developers have essentially had to give up on user education within the app. Unless they're allowed to say something like "We can't tell you how to login here or how to become a subscriber but you can certainly Google it".
Regarding the iPad monopoly:
Another criteria for a government regulation of a monopoly is when it becomes coercive.
A monopoly is said to be coercive when the monopoly actively prohibits competitors from entering the field by using unfair competitive practices which derive from its market or political influence.
There are no unfair practices selling an iPad vs. Android tablets. Microsoft was definately coercive when it forced PC manufacturers (dell, hp, gateway, compaq, etc.) to buy Windows OS licenses for ALL their machines they sold regardless of what OS was actually installed on the PC.
Another criteria for a government regulation of a monopoly is when it becomes coercive.
A monopoly is said to be coercive when the monopoly actively prohibits competitors from entering the field by using unfair competitive practices which derive from its market or political influence.
There are no unfair practices selling an iPad vs. Android tablets. Microsoft was definately coercive when it forced PC manufacturers (dell, hp, gateway, compaq, etc.) to buy Windows OS licenses for ALL their machines they sold regardless of what OS was actually installed on the PC.
only if you're a retart. i've never met any non-techie person who had any trouble signing up for a digital service without apple's help
The FTC and Justice Department see things differently. At least enough to investigate. In terms of total money spent on apps and total number of tablets, Apple does have the lions share.
Congrats Apple, your greed has created a crap UX for customers. Bravo.
Because Apple try to restrict competition by making it the only way to install software on a large amount of devices.
If the App Store had to compete against other stores on that hardware it would not do very well, because it's not very good.
Yup. Last time I checked if Walmart refused to carry newspapers that contained advertising for their competitors they'd be laughed out of town.
Because Apple try to restrict competition by making it the only way to install software on a large amount of devices.
If the App Store had to compete against other stores on that hardware it would not do very well, because it's not very good.
Yup. Last time I checked if Walmart refused to carry newspapers that contained advertising for their competitors they'd be laughed out of town.
Apple patently have prevented other competitors from entering the field of tablet applications, as they require themselves to sign any applications sold to a monopoly level share of devices.
Phazer
Your statement makes as much sense as your understanding of antitrust law. Apple has thousands of competitors in "the field of tablet applications."
brought itself into compliance with Apple's . . .
I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot more of this activity. The tablet market is quite lucrative, but for the time being the tablet market is more correctly termed the "iPad market."
When are we going to see some decent competition in this segment?
I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot more of this activity. The tablet market is quite lucrative, but for the time being the tablet market is more correctly termed the "iPad market."
When are we going to see some decent competition in this segment?
Not a black-and-white issue
There are many shades of grey in the iOS in-app purchase model, which I think are being missed here.
For developers relying on their iOS app as the primary delivery mechanism of their content, I understand Apple's stance of taking a cut on subscriptions, especially if those purchases are being managed through the App Store.
Now let's look at the other extreme. Let's say you have an iOS app that's free in the App Store. Let's say you use that app as a secondary medium to draw users to your primary service, which exists on the web--a service differentiator, if you will. Let's say that you want non-subscriber users to be able to use that free app as a conduit to purchasing other services on your web service. Let's say that Apple did allow outside links in your app, and you give your users a web link in the app to subscription options that exist entirely on your web site, with the ability to purchase those options, again with the purchasing mechanism being entirely run through your own web service. And that, no matter what option they purchased and what features it offered them on the web, it wouldn't change their iOS app experience at all from another non-subscriber user.
Would you still argue that Apple deserves 30% of that revenue cut? For the people making the Wal Mart analogy, let me give you a more accurate version. This is akin to Wal Mart saying, "You can't have any cross-product advertising inside the box. If the user buys Widget A from our store, there better be no mention of somewhere else to buy Widget B when they open that item up."
In my scenario, this analogy is correct. In the scenario where you open the box up and find a note that says, "Hey, come get Widget B over by the bathrooms from that guy with the purple hat," the Wal Mart wants a cut argument is legitimate.
My question is, what are the people in my scenario to do? Having a mobile app starts to become cost-prohibitive to your primary business model.
There are many shades of grey in the iOS in-app purchase model, which I think are being missed here.
For developers relying on their iOS app as the primary delivery mechanism of their content, I understand Apple's stance of taking a cut on subscriptions, especially if those purchases are being managed through the App Store.
Now let's look at the other extreme. Let's say you have an iOS app that's free in the App Store. Let's say you use that app as a secondary medium to draw users to your primary service, which exists on the web--a service differentiator, if you will. Let's say that you want non-subscriber users to be able to use that free app as a conduit to purchasing other services on your web service. Let's say that Apple did allow outside links in your app, and you give your users a web link in the app to subscription options that exist entirely on your web site, with the ability to purchase those options, again with the purchasing mechanism being entirely run through your own web service. And that, no matter what option they purchased and what features it offered them on the web, it wouldn't change their iOS app experience at all from another non-subscriber user.
Would you still argue that Apple deserves 30% of that revenue cut? For the people making the Wal Mart analogy, let me give you a more accurate version. This is akin to Wal Mart saying, "You can't have any cross-product advertising inside the box. If the user buys Widget A from our store, there better be no mention of somewhere else to buy Widget B when they open that item up."
In my scenario, this analogy is correct. In the scenario where you open the box up and find a note that says, "Hey, come get Widget B over by the bathrooms from that guy with the purple hat," the Wal Mart wants a cut argument is legitimate.
My question is, what are the people in my scenario to do? Having a mobile app starts to become cost-prohibitive to your primary business model.
The alternative would be to provide the device without a pre-installed OS, which would be pretty silly.
If you buy a new PC usually windows comes pre-installed and the cost is hidden, just like the development costs of iOS. Apple too doesn't need to chase anyone since it's making money through selling the devices themselves (as opposed as e.g. some gaming consoles which are sold at loss and money is expected to come through game sales).
In the Linux world the concept of a "software manager" exist since ages and there are user-friendly interfaces and "software centers" which automatically install and upgrade software since decades. It's true that usually these managers don't handle payments, so only "free apps" are available, but this discussion is in general about free apps and what they are allowed to do or not.
Apple can ask whatever it likes and probably has the right to enforce the rules it wishes for the apps in it's App Store, but this doesn't make it a good idea. A 30% fee to process payments is not going to work for most third-parties no matter what. Apple tried to force it, failed and had to revise the rules.
With this "remove the link" policy the end result will only be that these app's experience in iOS will be inferior to the same app's experience in Android or whatever. Then at the next hardware upgrade the customer will decide if it's worth it or not. It's true that these app's experience in iOS would be far better with the Apple in-app system, but at that pricing it will never happen no matter how much Apple pushes for it.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Apple will make them pay or not have their apps in the app store. They will find a way. Don't worry.
Apple will make them pay or not have their apps in the app store. They will find a way. Don't worry.
1) How exactly does Apple stop developers from putting tablet applications in the Android Market?
2) What is a 'monopoly level share' of devices? Does Nintendo own the 'monopoly level share' of game devices controlled through motion detection?
The tablet market is barely 1 1/4 years old. And less than .01% of people in the world have tablets. How in the world is Apple abusing a monopoly???
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Your post makes no sense. You can use your Netflix account on iOS as well. What Netflix can't do is leverage Apple's costly and valuable infrastructure to recruit new customers for free. Netflix is probably the biggest online advertiser over the past 5 years bar none. Why should they be able to sign up people from apple for free? I own a marketing company. This is a crazy expectation for anyone to have. Netflix can let subscribers use their netflix app for free. If they want to use the AppStore infrastructure to grow their business they have to pay apple.
toph2toast said:
Your post makes no sense. You can use your Netflix account on iOS as well. What Netflix can't do is leverage Apple's costly and valuable infrastructure to recruit new customers for free. Netflix is probably the biggest online advertiser over the past 5 years bar none. Why should they be able to sign up people from apple for free? I own a marketing company. This is a crazy expectation for anyone to have. Netflix can let subscribers use their netflix app for free. If they want to use the AppStore infrastructure to grow their business they have to pay apple.
1) Depending on how the market is defined, that is irrelevant.
2) they don't need market share, just enough to harm consumers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#Dominance_and_monopoly
They were using their iPad dominance to force all companies that use the Agency Model off the iPad (where they have a dominant position of tablets). This restricts the consumers choice of where they can buy books, music and movies on tablets. Thus, they were using their market dominance to harm consumers. That's one way Apple was being anti-competitive.
Any content bought through IAP isn't featured, hosted or delivered by Apple, the "only" thing Apple does is processing the payment.
So, in this case, Apple's infrastructure used is their payment processor.
In the case of Netflix, Kindle App, etc, I was responding to other OP saying that why Apple's doesn't have to ve paid when their infrastructure was used and I asked which infrasttructure is used because when you buy a Kindle book on the iPhone you use a web page on Safari, you use Amazon payment system, you use Amazon content hosting and you use Amazon delivery system. No Apple infrastructure is used, meaning infrastructure servers, payment processors, data centers, etc, not the OS.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Again it is intended to allow companies who ONLY want to extend their services to existing customers, not train or acquire new customers via Apple's infrastructure.
justinfreid said:
Again it is intended to allow companies who ONLY want to extend their services to existing customers, not train or acquire new customers via Apple's infrastructure.
1) 'market dominance' if Tablets are considered a market.
2) 'harm consumers' if this is deemed to be harming consumers.
All this is for the courts to decide.
The courts are non-techies, and I don't think they will subdivide the 'PC' market into a 'Tablet' market until tablets overtake sales of laptops and PCs. Also, I don't see how consumers being harmed - maybe corporations are, but consumers are getting things in the iOS store for the same price as things elsewhere.
Okay. I agree with the first half of the sentence. However, they do provide other services around processing the payment. The actual credit card transaction with VISA, etc, is just part of what they provide.
I disagree in that I think that the OS is part of the infrastructure that Apple provides to third party developers. IAP itself is a value added service to third parties.
Apple isn't paid in that situation. Apple is only paid if you use their infrastructure as you define it.