That's not true. I did the same thing this year, in the middle of my billing cycle. You don't have to cancel or wait when upgrading to a more expensive plan. Took about 5 min and I was able to watch in 4k..
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.
Netflix No Longer Offering In-App Subscription Options on iOS Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's not true. I did the same thing this year, in the middle of my billing cycle. You don't have to cancel or wait when upgrading to a more expensive plan. Took about 5 min and I was able to watch in 4k..
I don’t know. But that kind of exposure is never free. No company gives away free advertising.
Asinine arguments abound on both sides here, particularly team Apple.
Simple math, if post 12 months Apple can profit on 15%, then they are admitting that the 1st 12 months are greater than 100% gouge. Thats military contractor/whoring levels of profit.
Take into account the 2/3 tiers offered by streamers and Apple starts to look hypocritical in its Qualcomm stance.
As of October 2018 wikipedia puts them at 137million subs worldwide. We can unscientifically exclude webOS, Opera, et all. Androids big in tv sets , but Apple fanboys are tech savvy cashed up entertainment fiends, well call it 50/50.
working on US standard price,
10.99x15%= 1.64
1.64x68500000=112340000
112340000x12=$13448080000
US$1.344billion annually
This is all made up, except the subscriber numbers as at 10/18. Who knows how many people running what OS. If the fanboys are right and iOS dominates, that figure goes up, and we did not allow for year 1 30%'rs, 4K tv adopters, multiple screen needers etc. If these figures were ball park, you'd call it money for nothing, so why the 30%?
30% is indefensible, 15% seems semi reasonable.
Simple math, if post 12 months Apple can profit on 15%, then they are admitting that the 1st 12 months are greater than 100% gouge. Thats military contractor/whoring levels of profit.
Take into account the 2/3 tiers offered by streamers and Apple starts to look hypocritical in its Qualcomm stance.
As of October 2018 wikipedia puts them at 137million subs worldwide. We can unscientifically exclude webOS, Opera, et all. Androids big in tv sets , but Apple fanboys are tech savvy cashed up entertainment fiends, well call it 50/50.
working on US standard price,
10.99x15%= 1.64
1.64x68500000=112340000
112340000x12=$13448080000
US$1.344billion annually
This is all made up, except the subscriber numbers as at 10/18. Who knows how many people running what OS. If the fanboys are right and iOS dominates, that figure goes up, and we did not allow for year 1 30%'rs, 4K tv adopters, multiple screen needers etc. If these figures were ball park, you'd call it money for nothing, so why the 30%?
30% is indefensible, 15% seems semi reasonable.
I'll help you. Nothing. There will be a small licence type fee when on the price of the TV.
It’s hard when people keep sidestepping.
Netflix’s margins should be a lot higher as they shouldn’t have to pay royalties for a lot of older content. How is that not relevant?
When you get big enough, and cross-platform enough, Apple needs you more than you need Apple. Reasonable for Netflix to pull off the iTunes billing. I didn't even think of this route when I signed up. For smaller developers though, the 30% / 15% cut is reasonable given that Apple gave them the exposure to a vast number of actually paying customers - and I don't feel comfortable giving them my credit card information.
That’s completely wrong. Netflix as a service runs entirely on Amazons AWS cloud platform. The App Store is just one of many sales channels for the end user app. A 30% continuous fee for just providing a one-time download link to end users is extremely greedy!!!
The main issue coming is Apple being anticompetitive with its competition, and how authorities worldwide may view such practice going forward (antitrust laws exist in both the US, and are even tighter in the EU, for example).
When they release their video service (or mixed media service), obviously they won’t charge themselves for In App Purchases, but all their competitors are still charged the 30/15% cut.
If the likes of Netflix/Amazon/etc. still allowed subs through IAP, they’d have to either charge the same per month and take the percentage hit, or charge more per month to cover the percentage hit. The former one they lose a chunk of sub money to their competitor, the latter one they have to charge more than Apple per month to cover Apple’s fee, so look more expensive in comparison to Apple who’d be able to charge less &/or have less costs.
Clearly Amazon and now Netflix (the big two), have both realised this pending issue, and have removed IAP accordingly. Presumably they don’t hold out much hope in the anticompetitive authorities stepping in to stop this issue directly.
The main thing they’re banking on, is that they’re big enough not to need to offer IAP in the first place, as users know these services well enough to go online to subscribe directly. So effectively, Apple will lose all the money they currently earn from IAP, while those users who want to are slightly more inconvenienced by not being able to use IAP to subscribe.
Who wins/loses? The customer loses the convenience, but all three companies won’t care. Netflix & Amazon will still have almost all users anyway, charging whatever they decide, all without sacrificing a cut to Apple. While Apple may lose their cut, but will gain a monopoly on IAP subs within it’s app(s) as they don’t have to pay it, making it more tempting for users to subscribe to their service compared to their competitors, presuming the content offering is decent enough.
When they release their video service (or mixed media service), obviously they won’t charge themselves for In App Purchases, but all their competitors are still charged the 30/15% cut.
If the likes of Netflix/Amazon/etc. still allowed subs through IAP, they’d have to either charge the same per month and take the percentage hit, or charge more per month to cover the percentage hit. The former one they lose a chunk of sub money to their competitor, the latter one they have to charge more than Apple per month to cover Apple’s fee, so look more expensive in comparison to Apple who’d be able to charge less &/or have less costs.
Clearly Amazon and now Netflix (the big two), have both realised this pending issue, and have removed IAP accordingly. Presumably they don’t hold out much hope in the anticompetitive authorities stepping in to stop this issue directly.
The main thing they’re banking on, is that they’re big enough not to need to offer IAP in the first place, as users know these services well enough to go online to subscribe directly. So effectively, Apple will lose all the money they currently earn from IAP, while those users who want to are slightly more inconvenienced by not being able to use IAP to subscribe.
Who wins/loses? The customer loses the convenience, but all three companies won’t care. Netflix & Amazon will still have almost all users anyway, charging whatever they decide, all without sacrificing a cut to Apple. While Apple may lose their cut, but will gain a monopoly on IAP subs within it’s app(s) as they don’t have to pay it, making it more tempting for users to subscribe to their service compared to their competitors, presuming the content offering is decent enough.
Last edited:
The most educated? Where did you get that?
Some people really do think Apple control everything, lol! They don’t realise that Windows still accounts for ~90% of users worldwide.
And Linux users are likely to be very educated, given how tech savvy one generally has to be compared to Apple/Win, to use them effectively.
Yes, Apple users could be argued have higher disposable incomes and are more spendy, but 'more educated' is rather silly. Many people have higher than average education levels, but are not necessary high earners.
I got my copy of iTunes on my PC via the Microsoft Store. I assume Apple are happy to pay Microsoft 30% for all content I purchase/subscribe to using this app...
Not sure why Netflix even bothered doing this in the first place..
They used it to gain as many subscribers as possible to grow their subscriber base into the largest it can be to control the market.
Then with Apple coming, they dropped IAP as they know they didn’t need to offer it any more, given most users who would sub have done so, and the few that may do later are sufficiently knowledgable about their service now, to simply do so online.
Clever brand building technique. Become the biggest, then drop unnecessary costs later.
What about all the free apps in the AppStore? Is The Weather Channel app a freeloader because it costs nothing for me to download and doesn’t require IAP to use? Or does freeloading only apply to apps where customers pay a monthly/yearly fee to use?
Not enough. The inability to change the ads on my remote was the reason I returned my roku for an Apple TV. Sure, it cost more upfront, but now I never hit what looks like the HBO NOW button only to be taken to DirecTV Now.
Anything that is purchased within an app, and ends up on your iOS device, must be purchased through the App Store. Apple charges the developer 30%, 15% for subscriptions after the first year. So of $9.99 charged through the iOS app, the developer gets $6.99 or $8.49. (Apple keeps $3.00 or $1.50, but has the cost of supplying whatever is supplied, putting it on their store, any charges, any losses because people have gift cards purchased with 20% rebate etc. )
Anything that is purchased from the developer's website, the developer gets the complete amount, except they have to pay for credit card charges, maintaining their website, and so on. Netflix obviously decided that this is more money.
The App Store rules say that the app _must not_ link the user to an external website. So anybody who downloads the Netflix app must figure out for themselves how to get to the Netflix website, or they won't become paying customers. That's the downside of not offering subscriptions through the app. Netflix has decided that these losses are acceptable, if they can keep more money from those subscribers that find their website.
[doublepost=1546088427][/doublepost]
It's most common that companies charge themselves, because that is the only way they can find out whether something makes money or not. Let's say the top manager of "video services" reports proudly "we had $100 million revenue and made $10 million profits; I want a huge bonus", then Tim Cook will tell him "no you didn't, you forgot to subtract the 15% App Store fee, so you only had $85 million revenue and lost $5 million; you're fired."
[doublepost=1546088805][/doublepost]
Not at all. Apple offers any reputable company in the world a deal to put their apps on the App Store, as long as they conform to the App Store rules. We may assume that Netflix will continue following the rules. If they use the App Store in a way where Apple doesn't make money from the App Store, as long as they follow the App Store rules, then what they are doing is absolutely fine.
Companies that are selling products through the App Store that don't end up on your phone, like eBay, department stores, estate agents, and so on, always had free apps where Apple doesn't make a penny from the App Store.
Will Apple pull it off? Will it actually be able to compete with the likes of Netflix?
All these competing services are annoying as hell, seperate apps and subscriptions.
There should be only one service with shares vested by the seperate companies.
Eh? The only reason I even keep Netflix is because T-Mobile pays for it for me. This doesn't really matter to me either way.
It would definitely hurt Netflix since I only use their service on Apple devices and a large percentage of Americans are only using ios
Yea 30% is probably high. No fee seems unreasonable too or at least will be passed on to consumers when apple’s revenues fall. I don’t know the answer.
Most Americans are not only using iOS. I’d say most Americans are agnostic to the OS for media consumption.
And no, Netflix will be fine. The only thing changing is IAP which based on this thread affects a very very small minority.
And nearly all will have tvs and a good percentage of those tvs will likely have Netflix built into the tv.