Apple isn't paid in that situation. Apple is only paid if you use their infrastructure as you define it.
Yes, but the OP was saying that they can't be allowed to do that.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/12792166/
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
Yes, but the OP was saying that they can't be allowed to do that.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/12792166/
1) As a web developer and smart phone developer, I consider Android/iPad tablets as a distinct market from web, desktop, and embeded.
2) Given the Agency Model, I would agree that you can say that it doesn't really harm consumers. Maybe if there are fewer choices, like iBooks/Kindle, that could be harmful.
I agree that it would be for the courts to decide. I may be wrong, and I am not a lawyer, but I thought anti-trust is more civil matter than criminal. If it is civil, only the courts can decide.
I can't say whether Apple or the Justice Department would prevail, but I can say that the Justice Department, could bring suite, and it would be expensive for both. That's why I think Apple backed down.
Answer me this then, I bought a Samsung blu-ray player that allows me to stream netflix on it. Say that I don't have a netflix account so when I click on that "app" on my blu-ray player, it says "Please Sign Up For A Membership at netflix.com, Then Log In". I go to my laptop/ipad/iphone/whatever and make a netflix account. Samsung isn't taking a 30% cut, even though they developed the hardware and software for that blu-ray player, and let netflix install an app on it. And I seriously doubt netflix paid samsung since myself (like many consumers) probably bought that device because it was enabled with netflix.
Same thing with my xbox. Yes, you need a gold membership, but if that's why you use your xbox then you wasted a lot of money on a powerful dvd player
I read what he says differently, but the fact remains that an app can do what you described under the current rules.
Do Apple have to pay Netflix for using the Netflix infrasturcture to grow their business? I have a feeling if Netflix pulled support for iOS it would decrease peoples interest in buying an iPad.
That's what most people don't get. It's true that being in the App Store is very interesting, but also for Apple every popular app available adds value to their devices. "Leveraging for free" makes sense only if you ignore this added-value which for some apps is very big.
No it's not. The difference is that Walmart is already charging you to place the box itself on their shelves or are getting their cut from the box. If Apple gets no cut at all, that is akin to me just walking into Walmart and placing my tshirts on their shelves for sale.
If I was paying Walmart for the shelf space, then yes I would like a little bit more control over how my items are placed. However, I can't even get in Walmart without paying them upfront or giving away 50% or more of my revenue.
You're expecting Apple to allow anyone to place their wares in their store for free. Even if they aren't selling anything, at the very least that is akin to unlimited solicitors getting to advertise their products in Walmart for free. At pretty much anything retail store you go to their is a rule against solicitation in their store's premises whether you are charging for it in there or not and for obvious reasons.
The App Store likewise is a retail operation. It's not there just so you can advertise or provide your services that you charge elsewhere for. There is Safari and the web for that since they are not Apple's retail operation.
What's your point? Do you think Apple should get 30% every time someone uses Safari on a Mac to sign up for some service, MS getting 30% if you do it with IE instead?
Who is taking about getting a free ride? Each developer account costs $99 a year and Apple takes 30% of the price of the App itself (which, Apple unlike IAP content, hosts on their servers)
I think Apple is entitled to some of it, but 30% is just insane for IAP which Apple has almost nothing to do with, more like 5% would be reasonable
Windows is usually bundled with new PC's, even cheap ones. In these cases, the price is baked into the price of the PC, just as the price of iOS is baked into the price of the iOS device. Service packs for Windows are always free.
LOL - Have you seen the Netflix streaming library recently?
Its great if you want to watch mutant shark Vs. godzilla (versions 1 thought 8), the direct to DVD sequel of XYZ movie, or something from the 80s.
If you want up to date content, Hulu is where it is at.
No you said that web apps are a sufficient way of getting applications on an iOS device without going through the App Store. I asked (albeit poorly) for an example (that runs on an iOS device) of a web app like (the App Store game) Infinity Blade.
Thank's for proving the point; Apple doesn't provide "shelf space" for or handle the distribution of any IAP/IAS content, that's what we're discussing here.
It's not exactly retailing for Apple when it comes to IAP/IAS, more like a mere money transaction service. As I said, I think Apple is entitled to a cut for providing that service, but 30% is insane.
Last edited:
As others have noted, there is kind of a grey area here. Apple sets their predetermined "30%" cut regardless of what your product is, but I bet Walmart negotiates with each of the companies who sells their item in their store. So, say john doe walks in and wants to sell some shirts under ABC company. There isn't a lot of room to negotiate because no one knows about ABC company. However, Apple comes in and says I want to sell ipods/iphones/ipads. Walmart will negotiate more with Apple since it is a brand everyone knows and wants to own. And on top of this, where is the electronics department in Walmart? In the very back of the store. Do you know how likely it is that someone will walk out with just an ipod? Or will they buy an ipod, and some chips, and a DVD, etc. So Apple is happy because they are selling a product and walmart is happy because they got their cut (however small it may be) and people bought other items they may not have bought if they werent in the store to by an ipod.
I'm not saying Apple needs to negotiate their cut with every app developer, that would be a costly and enormous task, but some apps are definitely more valuable than others to an ecosystem like iOS and products like the iPad and iPhone
Ok so let's compare it to something that's a little closer to what Apple was trying to do. Let's say you go to Walmart to purchase an MMO like World of Warcraft. Yes Walmart will get a cut of the original sale... but they don't get a % of your monthly subscription to WoW... nor should they.
Apple does not pay any money to maintain Netflix servers or bandwidth. They do not pay or share any licensing deals with studios. They do not have any investment in improving the services offered through subscriptions... so they should not get any money from the subscription. That should go only to the company offering it so they can use it to provide those of us paying for it the best service possible.
In your comparison with Walmart, what Apple should be doing is charging Netflix or Hulu a set amount of money per download of an app... regardless if those of us downloading it pay anything. That way, they pay Apple for the "shelf" space... but get no money for the operation of a subscription business.
Apple's gain is more in the actual device sale, and having apps available for it is a big factor. An iOS device with less apps is worth less, and there are competitors ready to take any opportunity to gain market share.
To develop for iOS you have to pay an upfront fee, albeit pretty small. In any case Apple's problem is that they cannot charge more either through the fee or the publishing of apps or the processing fees because they risk losing apps and make their devices less attractive.
Regardless of intention, the possibility of a user searching for streaming tv apps in the App Store, downloading the Hulu app and then discovering that it's useless remains high. Is that good for the App Store?
Granted, this hypothetical user could have read the app description to discover that he has to subscribe at Hulu.com, but then isn't Hulu still circumventing Apple's intention, as you've implied it to be.
The idea that content providers have to be super secret about selling their services outside of the App Store to remain compliant still seems silly.
Being able to access Hulu and Netflix or the NY Times via App Store apps enriches the experience for users and maybe Apple should prioritize that over squeezing 30% out of subscription fees and abolish the arbitrary limits. And, with apps like the ones I mentioned, the bandwidth and support will be furnished by the content provider, not by Apple.
Marksman: What does your signature mean, exactly? You should update to iOS 4.3.3.
Last edited:
You are inventing my argument here. I was just answering a simple question. I do not think Apple should get 30% for any of those situations. I do not think they should charge 30% for anything. And, to point, Apple does not charge 30% and has not tried to charge 30% for purchases made through a browser.
Apple got greedy and overreached.
We can all hope that Apple's share of the tablet market or the smart phone market never ends up looking like Apple's share of the PC market, because this move has pissed of a number of content providers who would just love to retaliate.
All this is bad for the consumer.
We can all hope that Apple's share of the tablet market or the smart phone market never ends up looking like Apple's share of the PC market, because this move has pissed of a number of content providers who would just love to retaliate.
All this is bad for the consumer.
No, I didn't. I just pointed out that there is a way to get an app on an iOS device without going through the App Store. That's it. No claim as to the quality of those apps. No claim that they were "sufficient." No claim that web apps are as good as native apps.
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 would say that Apple would have a stronger case if there was a way to get on iOS device with out having to threw Apple app store. If there was 3rd party App stores or a way to side load I would not see a problem with Apple's demand. But at this point Apple controls its App store it has way to much market power and is abusing it and I could easily see Anti trust laws over in Europe kicking in on them which are a hell of a lot harsher than in the US. Europe is more inclined to protect consumers.
Come on the real reason Apple gave was because they were bordering on being sued by some big players and easily losing over in Europe and had a good chance of losing in the US.
Apple might of had a case if they enforced it from day one but it more of a rule change in an established market it controls that has some pretty long lasting effects.
I have a feeling that if Netflix pulled support for iOS, it would hurt Netflix's bottom line more than Apple's.
If any of these companies felt they could make more money by doing only Android apps, and not iOS apps because they didn't like Apple's rules, they would.
This view is absolutely ridiculous. If you have a product and stock it in a store, that store needs to make a profit on the sale. It's business 101. I don't know why people think the App Store is some kind of charity. The store has to cost millions to maintain and it provides an invaluable service to developers by presenting their product to millions and millions of people on a daily basis all one the world and making it extremely easy for them to buy it. Clearly, that is worth 30%. If you stocked your software in Best Buy, for example, do you think they are entitled to make a profit on it? Of course. Why then should the App Store be denied?
Why are we still arguing this? Yes, This was big deal a few months ago, but Apple has back-peddled since then. A developer is not forced to use Apples IAP. The only restriction is that Apple does not want your app to be a sales portal.
While it's a bit less then ideal, the current situation is more of a nuisance than a crysis.
While it's a bit less then ideal, the current situation is more of a nuisance than a crysis.