I'm convinced that my iPhone is not a shelf on the App Store. Rather, it belongs to me, usage of iOS included. Apple could control what's going on on their shelves, but let me control what's going on on my device.
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
unlikely. I know very few people who get netflix for iOS. It being on iOS is pure bonus to them and some of the reason why they bought there iPad was because netflix could be used on it.
I have see and been ask the question way to many times on does netflix play on *blank* and if the answer is no they go on and find something it will play on. People get netflix for the home TV. Not to play on iOS.
I'm convinced Apple's App Store is not just an icon on an iPhone. Rather it belongs to them, control of products offered included. You can control what's going on your phone, but let Apple control what's going in their store.
It harms consumers because ultimately that 30% will get made up for somewhere. Either consumers will pay more for the product, or they will loose access to that product when using iOS devices.
IMO if I was a content provider, I would start requiring subscribers to pay for "Apple device access" and make it really obvious why they are paying more per month than everyone else.
Those situations? Didn't you understand that my point was that those situations are pretty much the same thing as In-app subscriptions on iOS?
I was asking, since you seem to think that the rediculous 30% Apple takes for IAS is perfectly fine, if you also think that the hypothetical situations I described would be alright, which you would if you want to be consistent.
But we're NOT discussing purchasing Apps that Apple hosts and delivers through their App Store, we're discussing subscriptions, which is completely different
Your antitrust claims are too vague to respond to. Just to make things clear, let's start with a simple question. What market are you claiming that Apple "has way to much market power" in?
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
I'm a college student, I dont own a tv. Hulu plus is great for me. I can watch whatever, whenever, on my laptop. I don't care about ads.
Using your argument, you should also be complaining that the cable you pay for has ads.
I'm a college student, I dont own a tv. Hulu plus is great for me. I can watch whatever, whenever, on my laptop. I don't care about ads.
Using your argument, you should also be complaining that the cable you pay for has ads.
Wrong again. Was "I do not think they should charge 30% for anything." not clear enough? Why do you keep making up what I think?
Well lets see they have the largest share of tablets. They have the largest share of Apps, they are by far the biggest App store out there.
That blocking puts a huge limitation. They could use it blocking on iOS to gain more power for iBooks, more power for iTunes video streaming ect.
It is basicly a way apple could abuse the system and it was the fact that Apple more or less changed the fulls after the fact and they got all those Apps to gain market power that is there.
There is no way around the fact that these restriction only benefit Apple and hurt the consumer. Remember Europe Courts are much less forgiving on companies that hurt consumers than the US courts.
Agree, but don't forget that after you download an App it is in your iPhone and not in Apple App Store anymore.
Then why didn't Apple enforce the previous rules and kicked the app out of iOS until compliant and revised their own rules instead?
You may know "very few people who get netflix for iOS," but that's merely anecdotal. Between idevices and apple tv, I think netflix gets a lot of subscriptions. And I'd venture to guess that apple tv is right at the top of the list of ways people watch netflix on their home tv's.
Of course, I could be wrong, but my arbitrary guesses are as valid as yours
(In my house we have 2 ipads and 2 apple tv's that regularly view netflix. If netflix was not on Apple devices, I wouldn't cancel, though - I still rely on netflix mailing disks, too. But I wouldn't go get some other device just for streaming netflix.)
Ok, I apologize if I incorrectly assumed that you think 30% for in-app subscriptions is fair, I thought you were only referring to the examples I gave
"Largest share" does not equal "way to much market power." But I asked what market specifically you were talking about when you made your claim. And then we can move on to what specifically Apple is doing in violation of the law.
That's called "leveraging your assets". iOS and the App Store are Apple's assets. The are not a public resource. It's part of competition. It's not anti-competitive unless Apple is found to be abusing a monopoly position. I think most people would agree that at this point, the App Store is leveraging the popularity of the iPhone and vice versa. And the iPhone is hardly in a monopoly position, especially in Europe as opposed to the US. The tablet market is new and evolving and hardly the focus of antitrust scrutiny.
How does it hurt consumers? Not just iOS device customers, but consumers in general.
Can you be a little more vague and add a little more innuendo?
You obviously aren't allowed to control what going on your device thanks to the Walled Garden.
Is the Walled Garden there to make sure that people aren't installing apps that do bad things or apps that show bad things? It's obvious that Apple's control of apps isn't thorough enough (for example; The flashlight/tethering app and the Big Brother app) and it's only because of how secure the underlying OS is that installed apps can't maliciously do bad things. If you want to see the things that you can't see in apps, then you only have to open Safari and start browsing.
Perhaps the Walled Garden is only there because it makes sure that Apple controls the selling of Apps?
If only NF pulled out, maybe. If Apple pushed all the content providers out then iOS devices become expensive paperweights. Apps are where it's at. Apple shows this every chance they get talking about the raw number of apps in the app store, etc... iOS devices rely on content from these apps, and if that content starts leaving that is not a good situation for Apple.
How many Apple TVs have been sold (1-2M?)? Now look at how many game consoles (xbox360 alone - 22M in North America), TVs, DVD players, etc... that have been sold that also can stream NF.
The ATV is likely last in most people's list along with Boxees, Rokus, and Tivos.
Source here:
I have a PS3 and never turn it on for netflix. I suspect it's a generational thing. I also suspect those apple tv numbers are way out of date, and that boxee and roku aren't even close.
I bet you would if Apple TV no longer could use Netflix.
I have used my 360 for it. Personally I find the Roku boxes good if you dont have something else that can use it.
A good friend of mine she uses her bluRay player for netflix. I have used my 360 and any bluRay player I would buy would be required to run netflix. Heck I willing to bet that it will not be long before it is common place for most TV to come with the ability to run netflix. As more things are added to the list the more damage Netflix being more or less forced off iOS would hurt apple.
No I wouldn't, I think. It is loud, it is a pain to use, and it doesn't integrate into the rest of my home theater cleanly - half the time the universal remote I use to control it stops working whenever the PS3 is turned on.
It comes down to Wife Acceptance Factor. My wife hates using the PS3 and loves using the apple tv. The apple tv "just works." She can use the same remote she uses for everything else (press "watch" then press "apple tv"), it's instant-on, it doesn't get too hot and loud, and there's no fiddling around to "log in" etc. When it's running, our fancy IR->RF remote system keeps functioning, unlike with the PS3. She tried PS3 a couple times for use with netflix (at the time we even had to insert the netflix dvd to get it to work - what a pain THAT was), and gave up. She uses the apple tv nearly every day (and can effortlessly switch to viewing our own collection of 1000 ripped dvds and blu-rays).
Those Apple numbers would have to be way out of date.
From mdatwood's source:
And from another source:
That would mean that six months ago, about 5.2 million Xbox Live Gold users were watching more than 30 hours of digitally distributed television and movies a month.
In April, Apple had sold 2 million Apple TV units.
So the 1M number was out of date. I get the sense ATV sales are accelerating. Nowhere near dominant, but I think next generation will break through (because I assume they're adding 1080p and, more importantly, an app store).
The 1M numbers was for an article published in January.
So, the next version of Apple TV will break through, just as the next iPhone will change the current downward curve? There's a lot of that kind of waiting here.
Downward curve? The iPhone is up year over year. Or are you referring to something else?
Tell Best Buy that they're entitled to WOW subscriptions and they're losing a lot of mony for not demanding Blizzard their cut