Some Developers Say Apple Letting Apps Like Netflix and Spotify Share a Link to Web for Account Sign-Up Isn't Enough

[Nuno Lopes]

xcept there is actual data to back up my claim.

There is no data to back your statement of: And carriers would sell a lot fewer data plans without the iPhone.

Without the iPhone you have no idea what would happen. As we have no idea what would happen without the Internet.

You may find that if X therefore Y. But it does not mean that without X you don’t have Y or otherwise. Check this out: From “When it rains people use umbrellas” you cannot conclude “When it is not raining people don’t use umbrellas”.

Yes, there would be a lot fewer iPhone users.

You have no idea what would happen to the iPhone in terms of users without Facebook and Instagram. What you know is that Facebook and Instagram contributed greatly to the iPhone popularity ... so did Google Search and Google Maps. Airs definitely not only the other way around.

I dont agree with your points, which are being stretched. Net neutrality isn’t about applications , it’s about keeping the lanes of the internet from being regulated by fiefdoms.

Not really. The Internet is so powerful and useful to humanity that Net Neutrality principles have come to make sure that its not dominated by fiefdoms or chiefdoms. It was applied by regulators first to ISP because they were the first with potential to be the gatekeepers of the Internet, the original gatekeepers. But others with such a potential are emerging through their device and OS control at the edges, having most if not all nodes pointing to theirs digital services by fully controlling and discriminating which Clients (ends points) can be deployed and how and with what features on users devices of 48% of the planet population.

Anyway, its ok to disagree.

PS: I believe that all this discussion is poised by a narrative fully controlled by Apple. Google is simply on the same train. This is not about devs vs Apple, this is not about margins, digital stores, rights to own property or whatever. All this measures being bring forward by regulators are simply bandaids being applied on the wrong abstraction.

Like you, I don't like micro regulation much. So probably its time we have regulatory concepts such like Tiers in Internet enabled devices. Like we have in network providers. Say Tier 1: PCs, Smarphones, Tablets. Tier 2: Gaming Consoles, Setopboxes, Smartwatches, ... All keep the Internet away from a structure based on chiefdoms or fiefdoms. This I think would be better than circumstantially regulate, this device needs to support third party payments, that one does not, this needs to support multiple App Stores others do not ... I think the current approach is somewhat unfair to products like iOS and Android enabled devices as they may seam so specific to those. Clouding the actual challenge entirely. It is ridiculous we are all being dragged into “share a link” solutions to keep chiefdoms and fifdomes out of the Internet ecossystem … its the virtuous conclusion of Apple controlling the narrative.

 

[Pezimak]

It's not supposed to. Some Apple will just win on their own merits. This was simply to address the finding of one specific investigation and allowed just the activity that many "reader" apps were already employing or on the cusp of employing and Apple was already looking the other way on enforcing.

If that was the case, why are they making this a global change as opposed to a change in the country this specific investigation you mention is taking place?

 

[arobert3434]

As I've said before, people need to be careful what they wish for. Although in this case I think it is a minority vocally wishing their desires upon the majority. Just to give another example of why things aren't really bad as they are now – I hate subscriptions but if I have to have them I'm really happy to have Apple's one-stop subscription management page where I can see everything I'm paying and that might be auto-renewed.

 

[dumastudetto]

BS. It’s rent seeking at this point. Heck even Phill Schiller knew this back in 2011 when he questioned whether the 30% cut should exist forever.

What happened? Do you hate Apple now? You used to be so supportive and positive about this company.

 

[I7guy]

BS. It’s rent seeking at this point. Heck even Phill Schiller knew this back in 2011 when he questioned whether the 30% cut should exist forever.
[…]

And they are entitled to seek rents legally.

 

[I7guy]

Did iOS invent games?

No but ios invented the App Store on which devs could develop and consumers could play games. But there is always webapps for those who don’t want to use the App Store.

 

[I7guy]

[...]
Not really.[...]

Yes, really

The Internet is so powerful and useful to humanity that Net Neutrality principles have come to make sure that its not dominated by fiefdoms or chiefdoms. It was applied by regulators first to ISP because they were the first with potential to be the gatekeepers of the Internet, the original gatekeepers. But others with such a potential are emerging through their device and OS control at the edges, having most if not all nodes pointing to theirs digital services by fully controlling and discriminating which Clients (ends points) can be deployed and how and with what features on users devices of 48% of the planet population.

First there is no such thing as net neutrality because it is not legal to have certain content flowing through the internet. But even if you say not really, you seem to support my view of net neutrality, which is a fair system of keeping the bits of internet flowing from a source to a destination without have some bits have privilege. This means two apps will have a fair chance of their bits going from point a to point b in the same speed without hinderance. It does not attempt to regulate the apps themselves.

Anyway, its ok to disagree.

Yep.

PS: I believe that all this discussion is poised by a narrative fully controlled by Apple. Google is simply on the same train. This is not about devs vs Apple, this is not about margins, digital stores, rights to own property or whatever. All this measures being bring forward by regulators are simply bandaids being applied on the wrong abstraction.

Ok.

Like you, I don't like micro regulation much. So probably its time we have regulatory concepts such like Tiers in Internet enabled devices. Like we have in network providers. Say Tier 1: PCs, Smarphones, Tablets. Tier 2: Gaming Consoles, Setopboxes, Smartwatches, ... All keep the Internet away from a structure based on chiefdoms or fiefdoms. This I think would be better than circumstantially regulate, this device needs to support third party payments, that one does not, this needs to support multiple App Stores others do not ... I think the current approach is somewhat unfair to products like iOS and Android enabled devices as they may seam so specific to those. Clouding the actual challenge entirely. It is ridiculous we are all being dragged into “share a link” solutions to keep chiefdoms and fifdomes out of the Internet ecossystem … its the virtuous conclusion of Apple controlling the narrative.

Apple controls their narrative. That Apple control their narrative already shows we are in the weeds of micro-regulation.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

That Apple control their narrative already shows we are in the weeds of micro-regulation.

Not really.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Yes, really

Not really.

 

[sdwaltz]

These developers really love biting the hand that feeds, don’t they?

 

[Cesar Battistini]

It's never gonna be enough. Apple will design awesome products, create a huge base of users, and as long as they charge developers for taping into that, some will not be happy.

They could change the commission to 15% and still it wouldn't be enough.

I still don't understand how it's legal to force apple to charge less for a service they created.

 

[LeadingHeat]

The problem here is more and more devs are not seeing the value from Apple.
And again... Apple should charge more per year for a dev license to cover the toolset since devs are the only ones using them.

While that does make sense initially, I just don’t think that even $299 would hold a candle to the amount of cash 15% of every transaction brings in. (15% of $1,000,000 is $150,000). Even at the developer making $3,000 Apple still comes out ahead. I don’t see them giving that up without a fight.

 

[Cesar Battistini]

While that does make sense initially, I just don’t think that even $299 would hold a candle to the amount of cash 15% of every transaction brings in. (15% of $1,000,000 is $150,000). Even at the developer making $3,000 Apple still comes out ahead. I don’t see them giving that up without a fight.

You can't run a millions of dollars business and pay 350 USD a year, for the company that makes your business possible.

Makes no sense.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

You can't run a millions of dollars business and pay 350 USD a year, for the company that makes your business possible.

Makes no sense.

For the sake or argument as yours. Why not? Facebook, Pinterest and others pays zero and run billions.

PS: I don’t agree, even if possible which is not, forcing Apple to charge less by the way.

 

[JeMeCasse]

Apple are only making this change because they have to. Their constant and unrelenting shakedown of everyone is being called out and it's about time too. Apple, unfortunately, have become a very ugly business.

 

[Cesar Battistini]

For the sake or argument as yours. Why not? Facebook, Pinterest and others pays zero and run billions.

PS: I don’t agree, even if possible which is not, forcing Apple to charge less by the way.

Because the app in itself is free. User pay with their lives data.

All apps can be free and avoid taxes.

If Facebook implements in app purchases, they will pay, just like the rest of developers.

I personally will give-up on some purchases if they require a full profile and payment info.

The App Store is more convenient. And I am more likely to purchase something because of that, and apple built it and they deserve their cut.

 

[svish]

This is never ending. A long way to go before developers and apple can meet in between.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Because the app in itself is free. User pay with their lives data.

So because the App is free than Apple is not making their business possible? Just trying to understand what you mean by Apple making third party businesses possible.

 

[theotherphil]

As a consumer, I won’t be paying outside of IAP for any app that isn’t a “reader app…..of which the only one I use is Netflix. There is no way I am sharing billing details with every single developer. I did that once and the developer decided to send me email after email. This then meant I had to take time out of my day to unsubscribe/ go to the website and change my prefs….it’s annoying with a single dev, but would be a nightmare with 50+ apps.

Imagine going in to the local grocery store and paying every individual producer for each individual product separately - and give them your personal details and cc info? Why should I be forced into this model on the web? I go to a store for the store to handle the billing and my relationship is with the store owner….not Nestle, Heinz, Cadburys, Kelloggs etc, etc.

I don’t want to go back to visiting the baker for bread, or the butcher for meat, or the candlestick maker for candles. It’s not convenient, returns are a pain and it presents a larger surface area for a security incident relating to my personal info or credit card details.

I’d rather pay a premium for the convenience and ease of use. This is the very essence of why I use Apple products….my time is valuable.

Thankfully, there’s other options for those that want “freedom”.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I'd rather pay a premium for the convenience and ease of use.

Exactly. And I agree.

But that's you, the consumer.

None of these lawsuits and investigations were started by the consumer.

It's the developers who are complaining about Apple's App Store policies and fees. Netflix pulled subscriptions out of the App Store so they wouldn't have to pay Apple's fees. Spotify too.

So while you might be happy to pay a few extra dollars for a subscription or two... it's the developers who don't want to pay hundreds of million of dollars in App Store fees.

My question is... since Apple will now allow a link to a website for the consumer to purchase a subscription there... will developers also keep the in-app subscriptions that you enjoy?

Like you said... you're willing to pay a premium to keep your subscriptions in one place.

But that violates one of Apple's other rules: developers cannot have a cheaper price elsewhere.

Could developers charge $10 from their website and $13 in the store? I thought they used to do that, actually.

But I don't think they can anymore. We'll have to see if this changes too.

Even if they can... now the developer will have two sets of customers... one from the App Store and one from their website. I don't know how that will shake out.

So yeah... I know the consumer might be upset by these new changes... but this was never about the consumer.

 

[rafark]

Sorry Developers, but as an Apple customer I DO want one App Store, and one simple fast method of payment. This will become a hot mess if I have to click a link and set up an account & pay with each Dev. Not gonna happen. I. Just. Won't. Buy.

then don’t. Trust me, some developers would be more then happy to lose a small amount of customers like you if that means they’ll get more freedom to decide how to charge their products and services.

 

[MacBH928]

Ok how about this then. What if Apple makes a subscription model for their technology that makes ios apps store possible in the first place? All the SDK API xCODE metal or whatever... and they ask 30% cut of any apps they make using that.

Isn't this how the Unreal Engine works to make games?

 

[AdonisSMU]

Maybe Apple should just charge the developer .30 per download of their app or charge a monthly fee for a certain number of downloads per month. Keeps it simple. Let the developer decide what they want to do. 😁

Non-app store downloads should be allowed but I still think Apple should have some sort piracy protection...

 

[sudo-sandwich]

You have no idea what would happen to the iPhone in terms of users without Facebook and Instagram. What you know is that Facebook and Instagram contributed greatly to the iPhone popularity ... so did Google Search and Google Maps. Airs definitely not only the other way around.

The unique thing about Instagram is that it was deliberately iPhone-only the entire time until Facebook bought it.

 

[UBS28]

At the end of the day the consumer is always the one getting screwed. A) Subscribe through App Store, convenient but 30% more expensive so the developer can recoup Apple’s cut. B) Add a link to save the 30%, now I have to go follow a link to a payment processing service, pull out my credit card and hope that it eventually doesn’t get compromised in some data hack.
So basically the developer is not passing any savings to us consumers at all, I am the one having to jump hoops to save the developer 30%. Yes, argue all you want about Apple’s expensive fees (which they are), but don’t get me, the user, involved in back office business. This whole fight over the 30% cost of doing business is “user hostile” (damn I hate that phrase).

This was already happening.

Tidal was much cheaper if you got the subscription with them directly. And most of the promo deals was only if you paid with Tidal directly.