U.S. Developers Can Now Offer Non-App Store Purchasing Option, But Apple Will Still Collect Commissions

[BaldiMac]

1. That's fair.
2. The reader designation is itself what I am taking issue with, if Apple is going to put forth the argument that the IAP commission is used to fund iOS development then there is no logical reason that Reader apps should be exempt.

Of course there is a logical reason. That's why it was added in the first place. As to you taking issue with it, how would it benefit you to remove it? You think Apple should be making more money?

If you cannot subscribe to Netflix from within their app but you can subscribe to AppleTV+ from within their App that could be said to be favouring their own apps.

Nope. Netflix has the same option as AppleTV+ to subscribe in app. They just choose to not use that option to save money.

The also don't treat all developers equally as many complaints posted to the internet over the years can attest to.

Edge cases will always exist. No one is saying they are perfect. How many apps have you seen complaints from? 50? 500? That's less than 0.01%!

For a recent example, Netflix is currently violating the rules by providing a subscription gaming service while no one else is allowed to do so.

That's not true. Anyone can provide a subscription gaming service.

I think emulators should be allowed in the App Store actually as they are usually legal and a perfectly valid way to run old software.

It's weird. Anonymous people on the internet defending emulators always claim to use them for legal reasons. They even create their own ROMs from physical media. But every person I actually know that uses emulators uses them to pirate stuff.

 

[bcortens]

Of course there is a logical reason. That's why it was added in the first place. As to you taking issue with it, how would it benefit you to remove it? You think Apple should be making more money?

The reader exemption has a logical reason from a business perspective in that it makes Amazon, Netflix and Spotify, if not happy, happier. It has a logical reason from a regulatory perspective in that it helps apple avoid accusations of anticompetitive behaviour by giving apps that compete with built in apps a slightly more even playing field (even if not fully even).

It does not have a logical reason if you try and look at the policies holistically from a higher level. There is no reason cross platform reader apps should be exempt from the commission while all other cross platform apps are not.

Suppose you were setting up a set of rules for an App Store. What reasons can you give for exempting reader apps that are not also applicable to many non-reader apps? Reasons that are about keeping big companies happy are exactly the kind of inconsistent picking winners and losers kind of rules that have caused regulators to into Apple as the gatekeeper to the iOS platform.

It is not logical given Apple’s justification for the commission in the first place (costs of running the App Store) as Reader apps cost them just as much to host and review on the App Store as non-reader apps.

Do I want Netflix to pay more?
If Apple wants to have a consistent set of rules for developers, and they should, then yes.
This is especially true if Apple is deemed to be a gatekeeper to a platform of important public interest.

Apple should either be collecting commission from everyone regardless of how the app earns money for the company, or from only those that make use of their payment infrastructure. The kind of picking and choosing who has to pay is inconsistent and IMO counter to both the spirit of the regulations and good developer relations.

Nope. Netflix has the same option as AppleTV+ to subscribe in app. They just choose to not use that option to save money.

An unusable option isn’t a real choice.

Edge cases will always exist. No one is saying they are perfect. How many apps have you seen complaints from? 50? 500? That's less than 0.01%!

The point is not that they are supposed to be perfect, but that Apple doesn’t do a good job enforcing its rules consistently.

That's not true. Anyone can provide a subscription gaming service.

Unlike anyone else on the platform, Netflix’s subscription gaming service does not have to pay the commission to Apple because it is bundled with their video service.

It's weird. Anonymous people on the internet defending emulators always claim to use them for legal reasons. They even create their own ROMs from physical media. But every person I actually know that uses emulators uses them to pirate stuff.

I actually don’t use emulators and have no real interest in doing so. I did try and use my legit copy of Eternal Sonata PS3 to run it emulated on my Mac but it was to cumbersome so I just bought a “new” PS3.

 

[1129846]

Nope. Netflix has the same option as AppleTV+ to subscribe in app. They just choose to not use that option to save money.

Better put Apple gives AppleTV+ a 15-30% discount abusing its position with a vertical power. It is using is doulopoly poision in mobile apps to give AppleTV a huge discount. That is the favoring its own app giving them a huge discount.

That is the bigger issue is Apple line up of things requiring to give them a cut of money line up pretty heavily with other services they are getting involved in. Lets see apple sells music, music subscription service, Digital books, streaming services, movies. All the big items app wants a cut off as well.

That is the underling issue. Mix that with there is no way onto the iOS device minus threw the app store so that runs into other issue.

 

[BaldiMac]

The reader exemption has a logical reason from a business perspective in that it makes Amazon, Netflix and Spotify, if not happy, happier. It has a logical reason from a regulatory perspective in that it helps apple avoid accusations of anticompetitive behaviour by giving apps that compete with built in apps a slightly more even playing field (even if not fully even).

It does not have a logical reason if you try and look at the policies holistically from a higher level. There is no reason cross platform reader apps should be exempt from the commission while all other cross platform apps are not.

Suppose you were setting up a set of rules for an App Store. What reasons can you give for exempting reader apps that are not also applicable to many non-reader apps? Reasons that are about keeping big companies happy are exactly the kind of inconsistent picking winners and losers kind of rules that have caused regulators to into Apple as the gatekeeper to the iOS platform.

It is not logical given Apple’s justification for the commission in the first place (costs of running the App Store) as Reader apps cost them just as much to host and review on the App Store as non-reader apps.

Do I want Netflix to pay more?
If Apple wants to have a consistent set of rules for developers, and they should, then yes.
This is especially true if Apple is deemed to be a gatekeeper to a platform of important public interest.

Apple should either be collecting commission from everyone regardless of how the app earns money for the company, or from only those that make use of their payment infrastructure. The kind of picking and choosing who has to pay is inconsistent and IMO counter to both the spirit of the regulations and good developer relations.

Again, this is a concern made up whole cloth. You even acknowledge legitimate business justifications for the policy which is a legal standard. A consistent set of rules doesn't mean that everyone pays the same amount. It just means that means that any app can qualify for the same rate if they follow the same rules.

An unusable option isn’t a real choice.

I have no idea what that means. It's certainly a usable option.

The point is not that they are supposed to be perfect, but that Apple doesn’t do a good job enforcing its rules consistently.

Where is your evidence that they don't enforce the rules consistently? The fact that you think they get it wrong less than 0.01% of the time?

Unlike anyone else on the platform, Netflix’s subscription gaming service does not have to pay the commission to Apple because it is bundled with their video service.

Absolutely. I've mentioned before that I think this is an issue. One of those edge cases that Apple needs to figure out. They've grandfathered them in as a reader app, but this is unfair to competing subscription gaming services.

 

[BaldiMac]

Better put Apple gives AppleTV+ a 15-30% discount abusing its position with a vertical power. It is using is doulopoly poision in mobile apps to give AppleTV a huge discount. That is the favoring its own app giving them a huge discount.

That is the bigger issue is Apple line up of things requiring to give them a cut of money line up pretty heavily with other services they are getting involved in. Lets see apple sells music, music subscription service, Digital books, streaming services, movies. All the big items app wants a cut off as well.

That is the underling issue. Mix that with there is no way onto the iOS device minus threw the app store so that runs into other issue.

That's nothing but loaded language and other nonsense. Apple spends billions on iOS. They aren't getting a discount.

 

[Kastellen]

Well, that "technicality" is actually how stores work. You buy from the store and the store pays their suppliers.

And THAT is why developers want there to be an alternative to using Apple's App Store.

 

[bgillander]

And THAT is why developers want there to be an alternative to using Apple's App Store.

Because of how stores work? Because they don't like being paid only 70% if they sell over a million? Because...?

 

[1129846]

That's nothing but loaded language and other nonsense. Apple spends billions on iOS. They aren't getting a discount.

No it is not but you can choose to pretend to not understand how vertical monoployies work and pretend to think that Apple being able to under cut completion by 15-30% in other markets is not an abuse of power.

Apple spent billions on iOS to sell more iOS device. It has zero to do with Apple TV + or Apple music so that does not apply.

Apple TV can under cut Netflix in the end by 15-30% for the exact same amount of revenue. Apple Music can undercut Spotify by 30% for the exact same amount of of revenue in the end. That or Apple can choose to match the price and get 15-30% more revenue. it is using its market position in one area to squeeze out others in a different market.

But hey you can say it is a load of bull but it seems more you know the facts are against you on that and want to pretend otherwise unless you can explain how it is not taking their market position and squeeze others out. Then again the rules being applied is the same exact ones that made sure MS did not make Apple a footnote in the history books.

 

[bgillander]

No it is not but you can choose to pretend to not understand how vertical monoployies work and pretend to think that Apple being able to under cut completion by 15-30% in other markets is not an abuse of power.

Apple spent billions on iOS to sell more iOS device. It has zero to do with Apple TV + or Apple music so that does not apply.

Apple TV can under cut Netflix in the end by 15-30% for the exact same amount of revenue. Apple Music can undercut Spotify by 30% for the exact same amount of of revenue in the end. That or Apple can choose to match the price and get 15-30% more revenue. it is using its market position in one area to squeeze out others in a different market.

But hey you can say it is a load of bull but it seems more you know the facts are against you on that and want to pretend otherwise unless you can explain how it is not taking their market position and squeeze others out. Then again the rules being applied is the same exact ones that made sure MS did not make Apple a footnote in the history books.

How exactly can Apple TV undercut Netflix or Spotify in the end by 15-30%? Neither use links in their apps to sell anything, so Apple makes no commission from them.

 

[1129846]

How exactly can Apple TV undercut Netflix or Spotify in the end by 15-30%? Neither use links in their apps to sell anything, so Apple makes no commission from them.

In those case Apple is blocking them from being Apple to even offer subscription or a way to sign up for subscription in the app making it even harder to do. Instead you force them to do a work around a risk loosing a customer because Apple can offer in app subscription.

 

[bgillander]

In those case Apple is blocking them from being Apple to even offer subscription or a way to sign up for subscription in the app making it even harder to do. Instead you force them to do a work around a risk loosing a customer because Apple can offer in app subscription.

That isn't undercutting. And they are not blocking them.

 

[bcortens]

That isn't undercutting. And they are not blocking them.

But it is not competing on equal terms.

 

[bgillander]

But it is not competing on equal terms.

Equal terms? I didn't realize Spotify was paying artists the same rate as Apple. I'm not sure equal terms exist in the entertainment business.

You are making those links sound magical and like Apple is massively undervaluing them at 30% and should be charging more. Netflix and Spotify both have so much name recognition that the links are of practically no value to them, as they already have their subscribers. Apple isn't undercutting Netflix like you seem to think, it is just that Netflix keeps raising their prices. Audible, on the other hand, where it isn't just a simple "all you can eat" subscription and you actually buy individual items, in that case the links might have more of an impact, but the lack of those links in the Audible app didn't seem to help Apple with their own audiobook sales. I personally prefer the Audible app because it is a library and not a marketplace, as I can just listen and don't feel like they are just trying to sell me more while I'm just trying to enjoy a book.

If those links were as much of an advantage as you seem to think, Apple wouldn't be giving out free trials of AppleTV+ when I pay for my parking. For all these media companies that are bigger outside the Apple ecosystem than they are inside it, adding the links would make an infinitesimal difference because almost no one is just discovering them on their iOS app, anyway. Apple doesn't promote them and they don't promote Apple. Check out the Netflix app for Apple Vision Pro, for example.

Now, independent developers... they aren't spending millions advertising on TV and in all other media like these big media companies... those are the ones to whom the app store offers value. And they offer value to Apple.