Netflix is the latest company to try bypassing Apple’s app store

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-is-the-latest-company-to-try-bypassing-apples-app-store-2018-08-23

by gbaygon • 8 years ago

378 462 8 years ago

orf5• 8 years ago

Epic Games will be launching its hit game Fortnite for Android on its own website, and fans will only be able to download the game there, not on Google Play ... while the setting that blocks third-party installations can be disabled on Android phones.

If they are talking about disabling it system wide vs disabling it for a single application, is this not pretty irresponsible? Lots of kids play Fortnite, saying "hey to play your favourite game just disable this security setting" to millions of them seems risky.

bluehazed• 8 years ago

It's possible they're using the uncomfortable security risks as a play to get better terms out of Google.

scaasic2• 8 years ago

Not an Android nor Fortnite user, but I believe from other reports there is a prompt to re-enable the setting after installing the app.

draw_down• 8 years ago

Is it not irresponsible for the platform to force the choice to be that coarse-grained?

slivym• 8 years ago

You're right that it's a bad situation for millions of kids to be told to turn off security settings, it seems like that's a bad situation for Android/Google/Samsung than it is for Epic Games. It's kind of Google's own fault for tying their 'security' into a huge tax. If Google offered certification for a fixed cost then this wouldn't be an issue - you could distribute certified apps yourself and not have the problem. The problem is they tied certification into a tax and appearing in the appstore.

kodablah2• 8 years ago

The problem is they tied certification into a tax and appearing in the appstore.

If you were more profit motivated, you might argue the problem is allowing externally installed software. Granted they foolishly obtained too large of a market share to have any say in that anymore.

If you care about users though, yes, the cost barriers for devs are a problem no matter who puts them up. Ideally the cost is in the phone purchase, not the continued use.

MiddleEndian4• 8 years ago

Hopefully these kids will be exposed to the idea that they can choose what software they use rather than being limited to a curated store.

jryan49• 8 years ago

They will most likely be scammed into downloading spyware.

dragonwriter2• 8 years ago

If they are talking about disabling it system wide vs disabling it for a single application, is this not pretty irresponsible?

It's not a system wide setting, it's an app-specific setting (that is, it's for the app you wish to be able to install other apps.)

Setting it to “allow” for the default browser and leaving it that way is something of an issue, though.

iokanuon• 8 years ago

In my experience its only an app-specific setting on Samsung devices. Their phones give you a prompt for disabling the setting "just this one time".

orf5• 8 years ago

So in this case Chrome or Firefox? Does not seem any better. In fact, way worse.

mscrivo• 8 years ago

This is not much of an issue with newer versions of Android. see Tim Sweeney's tweet about the situation: https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/102553539172465049...

toast0• 8 years ago

Installing a downloaded APK means you miss out on Google's identity verification process, and maybe on Google's malicious code scanning -- but Google Play Protect says it will scan all apps on your device, and may upload your apps to Google[1], so it might not be that big of a difference in practice, if you get linked into the appstore by a shady website, you can get a shady app.

There's a bigger difference on iOS, if a similar setting was even available, because Apple curates much more strongly than Google.

[1] https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/2812853?hl=en

nijave2• 8 years ago

Unless there's a different app store doing the same thing. (Such as Amazon app store for Android or F-Droid)

phobosdeimos3• 8 years ago

Android doesn't have system wide sideloading anymore, if I allow sideloading for one app its still disabled for other apps.

tk75x• 8 years ago

IIRC, the setting only needs to be disabled temporarily to allow the installation of a third party app. If you re-enable the blocking setting after you install the game, I don't see any reason things can't work and be secure.

pas2• 8 years ago

How will they handle updates?

MiddleEndian4• 8 years ago

Excellent, hopefully this trend continues on all platforms.

ihuman• 8 years ago

Doesn't this violate the App Store guidelines?

Section 3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services:
Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired elsewhere, including consumable items in multi-platform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.

To me, it sounds like Netflix is, "directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase." I'm not saying they should or shouldn't break the rules, I'm just saying that they are.

scaasic2• 8 years ago

Given that Spotify, a direct competitor to an Apple service, is allowed to remain while also breaking this rule makes it seem like this won't be enforced in Netflix's case. But who knows, maybe when Apple launches their video service they'll come down on both companies, and we'll see what happens.

scosman• 8 years ago

They will enforce on anyone that won't make international headlines by punting from app store, which is to say 99.99% of developers.

ckocagil2• 8 years ago

I'll tell you what will happen: an anti-trust case of massive proportions.

godzillabrennus2• 8 years ago

I think Apple would face backlash from too many of their customers if they boot netflix for this.

Netflix is potentially more popular than iPhone as a brand.

I could be wrong but it would be amazing to see it play out.

amyjess• 8 years ago

They booted Amazon before for similar. Amazon caved.

Edit: actually, it was Google, not Apple. Google Play's brand isn't as strong as the App Store, but Amazon still caved to Google, which only underscores my point. https://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/amazon-...

But there was a case back in 2011 where Amazon removed the Kindle Store from their iOS app at Apple's request: https://www.cultofmac.com/105966/amazon-caves-to-apple-remov...

vorpalhex2• 8 years ago

Yes, they are running a gambit that their app is critical enough that Apple won't ban them. Given how many people use Netflix on their phones (a ton), that's a safe bet. Same gamble Spotify is doing and winning.

binomialxenon6• 8 years ago

This is a pretty shady restriction by Apple. I can see why they wouldn't want IAPs in games to be moved out-of-channel, but making it a violation for subscription services to send you to their website is pretty bad.

bepotts3• 8 years ago

Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable.

Want to bypass that cut? Build a web app and make it play well on mobile. If you want to run it on Android and iOS devices, then I don't really see how anyone can say "Apple and Google are taking too much of my cut".

Disagree with it sure, but don't act as if they're some thugs stealing from companies.

pm90• 8 years ago

Nobody denies that they created an amazing ecosystem. But their ecosystem also has no competition: they’ve captured the market, just like Standard Oil did with the petroleum market in the beginning of the 20th century. And neither is good for consumers.

patmcc• 8 years ago

30% of a single app purchase might be reasonable, we can argue about that.

30% of a recurring monthly subscription (like netflix) is bonkers.

Redoubts• 8 years ago

It's half that after 1 year.

microtonal5• 8 years ago

Want to bypass that cut? Build a web app and make it play well on mobile.

I can understand the argument that they should accept the 30% cut to be listed in and downloadable from the App Store. However, an iOS device is also the property of its owner and the owner should be allowed (morally) to install software outside the app store. Even if that comes with potential security problems. Android already permits this.

A world where you can only install software accepted by a gatekeeper is a world that is similar to one where you can only read books that are accepted by a gatekeeper.

gst• 8 years ago

However, an iOS device is also the property of its owner and the owner should be allowed (morally) to install software outside the app store. Even if that comes with potential security problems. Android already permits this.

The owner has the choice between iOS and Android. Why should Apple change their policies (and lose revenue) if the majority of users appear to be sufficiently happy with those restrictions (otherwise they wouldn't buy iOS devices)?

ballenf2• 8 years ago

If the whole model depends on getting the cost of the device plus a cut of everything I spend going forward, it's more like I'm renting the device than owning.

It would be users demanding this, not devs, if the cost were more like a sales tax instead of VAT (added after instead of before total).

stcredzero• 8 years ago

However, an iOS device is also the property of its owner and the owner should be allowed (morally) to install software outside the app store. Even if that comes with potential security problems.

This is supportable by well known technologies. The user could opt-in to various app-signature blacklists and whitelists. App stores and hardware vendors could publish their official app blacklists and whitelists, and even require their use for warranty purposes. On the other hand, the user could also opt-out.

bepotts3• 8 years ago

Only on the internet does the notion of a "gatekeeper" leading to some authoritarian universe make sense.

In the real word, it isn't immoral to sell devices that don't run non-trusted binaries. If Tim Cook and Sundar Pichai could speak to every user and tell them "the reason our platform's default behavior is to not run non-trusted apps is because we don't want your device to get viruses or perform non-trusted functionality", and you told those users that it's "immoral for these companies to make those decisions for you", nine times out of ten those users would choose to have all developers go through Apple and Google instead.

aiyodev2• 8 years ago

the owner should be allowed (morally) to install software outside the app store

The inability to do this is a feature. I don’t want my phone to run random garbage like Android does. The curated app store is the main reason I keep buying iPhones.

tommymachine23• 8 years ago

The Fahrenheit 451 analogy sort of falls apart though when they give open access to the internet via Safari. What Apple does with the App Store is maintain a safe & friendly environment for users, where they can trust they won't run into things like viruses or pornography. This creates a healthy market for developers who don't necessarily have the notoriety of a Netflix / Spotify / Amazon to push their product, and instead rely at least somewhat on organic App Store searches to be discovered.

So if these larger companies want to bypass that sales funnel, and they can afford to do so, it's not a huge deal. They're still providing value to the platform in making iOS a better experience. The 30% cut is something along the lines of "Hey, we spend a lot of time maintaining this market place so that users will trust the download button, and we're giving you this opportunity to benefit from that by paying us a cut so you too can benefit from being found organically via our curated market place."

From the standpoint of a fledgling app company, I'd rather pay them to maintain that sales funnel for me. Whereas a Netflix / Amazon already has the brand strength to where they don't need it, so the 30% is very expensive for them (because they can generate plenty of sales on their own, and aren't reliant on organic searches for users to discover their product).

On Google Play, the market is very different and since it's not curated, there is so much more fluff to sift through for users, and it makes it much harder for a brand to gain notoriety through Google Play alone -- hence why so many new app products start on iOS and then grow into Android. The sales funnel created by any non-curated market place will never be as strong as a curated one (assuming the curation is carried out in the interest of promoting welfare of the customers/users on the platform, their privacy, safety, satisfaction, etc.).

butterfi• 8 years ago

We already have gatekeepers for books. The publisher who decides what to publish, the book store owner who decides what to stock, and the librarian who selects what book stays or goes. Gatekeeping doesn't seem like much of an argument.

swsieber• 8 years ago

I guess they aren't thugs - they're just unreasonable rent seekers at this point.

godman_8• 8 years ago

I don't think the app owners should get a free ride but 30% is waaaay too much of a chunk. Even 15% is a lot of money after the first year. I'm almost positive 5% would cover costs and sprinkle some profit on top.

beaner2• 8 years ago

Do you think this argument also applies to personal computers? If not, what's the difference?

berbec• 8 years ago

I am not 100% sure and able to provide a link, but I'm almost certain the Microsoft store does this too.

autokad• 8 years ago

"he 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable."

Not really, the fee's much of big tech often puts on people are draconian, and they are able to continue doing so because of the monopolies they hold. 30% is huge. Just try running a business when you loose 30% strait off the top line.

"Want to bypass that cut?"

break the monopolies.

The cuts big tech muscle on their constituents actually hurts them in the long run. Facebook's cuts are so deep, its nearly impossible to run a sustainable business and ultimately limits the apps and services people are providing through facebook to their users.

I'd argue the same for mobile.

naravara3• 8 years ago

Just try running a business when you loose 30% strait off the top line.

Brick and mortar retail does just that. Even online retail, once you factor in the costs of maintaining a secure payment system, managing fulfillment, customer service, etc. it winds up adding up to a lot.

d1zzy• 8 years ago

Because instead of having 2 players that ask for 30% cut, having 6 that do the same is going to make Netflix any happier. There's no reason to think other similar platforms wouldn't charge the same. Look at GOG vs Steam, both charge 30% too, even tho GOG is much smaller market and for devs it means spending resources making the GOG version in addition to the Steam version, GOG still charges as much as Steam and doesn't see a reason to lower the cut.

nickjj2• 8 years ago

Just try running a business when you loose 30% strait off the top line.

What's your take on taxes?

Most business owners lose a lot more than 30% straight off the top from governments with no way to opt out (other than not to work at all which isn't really feasible in most countries if you want to enjoy your life).

s73v3r_7• 8 years ago

"Just try running a business when you loose 30% strait off the top line."

Like every retail business ever?

People here seem to have forgotten what it was like to sell something back before Apple's App Store. 30% was considered insane in just how small it was.

8note• 8 years ago

But the webapp will still play through apples browser, and apple should still get a cut on all your sales for providing it

vorpalhex2• 8 years ago

They uh, could charge for the operating system if they wanted to recoup their costs.

Or, they could have their app store with their 30% cut, and allow other app stores to be available. Google does this, it solves 99% of the problems available, and seems to be an OK balance.

Apple totally disallows this, has a draconian policy, and does everything in their power to make sideloading borderline impossible - oh, and prevents sales of anything through apps, which makes things like the Kindle app useless.

By your logic, your ISP ran all the lines, runs the service, services your modem, and should be allowed to determine exactly what websites you can and can not visit, and if it wants to charge you $50/month to go to Netflix.com then it can.

rootusrootus4• 8 years ago

1) My ISP got a hefty chunk of my tax dollars to run those lines.

2) They have a monopoly. Rules are different for monopolies.

maxsilver• 8 years ago

"Visa and Mastercard not only created the device used for payments, but funded the R&D for it, widely deployed all of the payment readers, created the entire ecosystem of businesses that use it, support all of this infrastructure (for hundreds of millions of users).

So, a 30% cut of every purchase made using a Visa card is more than reasonable."

jonathanyc2• 8 years ago

Yep. The difference is that even though your choice of payment network is still relatively limited, there at least is some genuine competition on price. The Android/iOS duopoly seems to have become stuck at a particularly bad Nash equilibrium. 30% would never survive in a competitive market.

Spivak• 8 years ago

I mean they already charge 1-3% why not 30% if they can get away with it? What are you going to do, not accept credit cards? Take cash on your website? I think people are rightfully mad when they realize how much leverage someone has over them but it doesn't usually change that fact.

markkanof• 8 years ago

But in a case like Netflix the whole ecosystem that Apple/Google have built aren’t providing any value for Netflix. No one discovers Netflix through the App Store. The iPhone is just one more device that Netflix will try to support because customers want to be able to access Netflix on as many different types of devices as possible. This is way different than for example an indie dev building a game that is best enjoyed on a mobile device.

IMTDb2• 8 years ago

Netflix can choose to disable subscribing to it's services through the app. Maybe no one "discovers" netflix through an iOS device, but apparently a lot are starting their subscription through it.

macintux3• 8 years ago

But in a case like Netflix the whole ecosystem that Apple/Google have built aren’t providing any value for Netflix.

There's some added value. I wouldn't have a Netflix subscription without an iPad, since I don't own a TV.

kodablah2• 8 years ago

Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable.

Do you believe this with regards to laptops? Laptops masquerading as tablets? Tablets? If not, why? And if it was the case with laptops, i.e. near 100% of users are on only two OS's both (and especially one) of which effectively force native apps through their channel for discovery, would you change your stance or accept that as a reasonable development/computing model for native development?

naravara3• 8 years ago

Build a web app and make it play well on mobile.

I suspect most of the executives making these decisions not only don't even know such a thing is possible, but probably don't even understand wha the difference is.

The vast VAST majority of apps in the iOS App Store would be better served by just being websites. If those services would just focus on making decent sites for the mobile web instead of expecting all mobile visitors to download a separate app they would be much better.

The only thing that would make web apps better is ways to take advantage of the identity management and authorization stuff you can do by installing through the App Store. If Apple could just create a way to do that the mobile web would be 1000x better.

kryptiskt• 8 years ago

It's rent-seeking behavior and negative for society. If they don't want to open their platform for competition then the app stores should be regulated like the public utilities they are.

RcouF1uZ4gsC• 8 years ago

As a counter point consider Microsoft Windows. It also represented a huge investment and R&D and for the most part, you can easily build and deploy and application to anybody without ever having to pay a fee.

That was because Microsoft made money from selling Windows. With Android, Google gives it away free and has to extract money by either monetizing user data, or taking a cut from application developers.

nijave2• 8 years ago

Android OS is free but manufacturers still pay for the Google ecosystem that sits on top https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/...

ryanianian• 8 years ago

Not thugs, just deceptive and double-dipping (in a short-sighted, money-grabbing way).

I'm the customer when I buy the phone, but then I'm the product when I buy software. This double-aligns the incentives and is the reason why it's such a terrible (non-existent) experience trying to buy digital media on an iPhone.

Sure, Amazon & Netflix could pay the 30% cut and make it seamless for me, but this is similar to a trade tariff. Ultimately the cost will be paid by the users of the phones since companies have to charge those users more to make the same profit.

This is "fair" from a "welcome to capitalism" stance, but it's outright counter to usual mantra of "we make money when people buy devices."

(s/Apple/Google/ if you want)

erentz• 8 years ago

I don’t know how this came to be accepted as normal. I’m older so I remember when you used to buy a device or OS and software to run on it separately. What you paid for the device or OS was what funded those things. There is no reason why the same shouldn’t be true for Apple iOS/iPhone and Google Android/whatever-they’re-stopping-support-for-next.

App Store takes a cut to use the App Store? Fine. But a reasonable cut simply for that convenience would be more like 10%.

Wonder if we’ll ever see a government crack down on tech company monopolies again (or any monopoly).

rootusrootus4• 8 years ago

They would have to have a monopoly first, yes? Otherwise you're just asking for tighter regulations across the board.

drb912• 8 years ago

Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable.

I follow you up until the 30% cut. Users are already paying for the hardware and software. Why is Apple taking a continual cut for value produced by other parties? If anything, they should be paying the writers of the software for selling their phones. Without the apps on the store, they're just a browser and a phone stuck together.

rootusrootus4• 8 years ago

They made a bet that the platform was worth more than any individual app. Seems to be working out so far. Prove 'em wrong.

dangjc• 8 years ago

They are thugs, using their market power to extract more than their fair share. In a competitive market, you may gain an advantage because you came up with the first fancy cafe chain, but then other coffee shops are built and keep the price of fancy coffee at cost plus some reasonable margin.

Apple and Google have raked in tens of billions from their app stores, which has long since surpassed the cost of building them. If the market had fair competition, we would have many other viable app stores, not unlike the way we have so many apps. This is why EU antitrust is starting to scrutinize Google for forcing its app store to be bundled with Android.

alienreborn• 8 years ago

Straight out of r/HailCorporate

Neil44• 8 years ago

This is not an indie game that needs exposure and a platform from Apple, this is Netflix and I would argue they receive little to no value from Apple.

zahrc• 8 years ago

I personally find Netflix is being a little bit of a hypocrite there. Netflix is actively using the play store to identify old and unidentified devices and roms to stop them from downloading the app.

Not judging them here, just saying.

ryneandal• 8 years ago

I think the number is too high, but a portion of proceeds to Google/Apple is certainly justified.

At least Epic Games is practicing what they preach. UE4 is free to use, and here's their royalty breakdown:

UE4 is free to use, with a 5% royalty on gross product revenue after the first $3,000 per game per calendar quarter from commercial products.

inawarminister2• 8 years ago

And after the runaway success of Fortnite, they repaid out excess cost to developers: >The increase (of rate paid to creators), from 70 percent of the sales price to a new 88 percent pay rate, will also apply retroactively, with additional payments doled out for all sales since the Unreal Marketplace's 2014 launch.[0]

[0] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/07/epic-ups-unreal-marke...

hamandcheese• 8 years ago

Some might say the $600-$1000 price tag paid by consumers should reasonably cover everything.

smacktoward• 8 years ago

The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable.

When you're a platform vendor, what's reasonable is something you work out collaboratively with the people who use your platform. They will frequently have different ideas of what's reasonable than you do. You can disagree, but if you simply refuse to negotiate the users will eventually get fed up and go somewhere else. To succeed as a platform vendor you need users, so it's in your interest to be flexible enough to find a modus vivendi that both you and your users feel is reasonable -- or at least, close enough to reasonable for everyone to live with.

funwie• 8 years ago

Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features,

App developers have to pay for Apple’s and Google’s R&D and devices? Do consumers not pay for this when they buy their devices.

but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users.

These were created for their consumers and not for developers. You think features are added to their devices to please developers? Why do developers have to pay for these things?

The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable.

More than reasonable? Do a little experiment. Run a business and have 30% of your revenue taken from you.

asdkhadsj2• 8 years ago

The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable.

If only we could prove this. Ie, is Apple honestly selling $1,200 phones for a loss such that they need to recoup money from the App Store to turn a profit? If they didn't take the %30 cut, would they still be profitable?

I'm not proving a point, simply asking questions I'm curious about. Would be neat if we knew these answers.

s73v3r_7• 8 years ago

Neither one of those questions is relevant, though.

mping• 8 years ago

Following that logic, it should require the 30% until the costs of R&D are covered.

This is monopolistic behaviour. I write an app, can't install on someone's device without paying apple? Want 30% fine but it's my device, I should be able to put whatever I want in there. Let's face it, the best price is when people complain but pay. This is just extracting more money, plain and simple.

bostik• 8 years ago

30% percent cut is extortionate. Good agents with personal connections and an unearthly ability to land multi-million $currency_unit gigs get 15%.

But back in the naughties Apple's 70/30 split was considered reasonable in contrast to what was available. In the dark ages when flash games were aggregated on sites such as Newgrounds that could demand more than 80% of any revenue.

In that kind of situation the highway robbery of 30% sure looks like a bargain. But it's still highway robbery.

tusharsoni• 8 years ago

Apple and Google should update their policies where they take a much smaller cut if the user got to the App Store page directly (via external link) or a direct search. They deserve the 30% cut if users find the app by browsing the store (which doesn't happen nearly as often).

phobosdeimos3• 8 years ago

Yeah I doubt anyone has ever learned about Netflix through Google/Apple app store. Netflix is a huge brand.

segmondy• 8 years ago

Maybe intel deserves 30% of the cut since you used their CPU to find an app when you use a web browser. How about Firefox, do they deserve a cut? Maybe Comcast since you used their network. Apple & Google don't deserve 30%, their app store is a monopoly. The same way it's unfair for Microsoft to force you to only use Internet explorer is the same way it's unfair for us to be forced to use the app store. There should be other alternatives, and none of them should have a restriction such as, "You can't publish your apps with us if you do with another store".

craftyguy• 8 years ago

There are alternatives, like F-droid or Amazon's app store.

I agree that Google being allowed to bundle their app store (and no other alternatives) amounts to them being as anti-competitive as MS bundling IE.

ckocagil2• 8 years ago

What alternatives are there on iOS?

z3t4• 8 years ago

The platform fee should be treated as a platform tax, just add it to the price, then user can choose to install via platform store and pay the extra or side load it and pay normal. Or is there something in the publisher agreement that prevents this ?

peatmoss• 8 years ago

I miss the idea that a platform, applications, and marketplace were not a vertical stack owned by one entity.

As a consumer, I’d love to buy a phone, not a content distribution straight jacket.

bepotts3• 8 years ago

As a consumer, I love it.

I love that I buy an iPhone and Apple doesn't allow any non-trusted binaries to run on my phone, enforces strict style guidelines (the average app just looks better on my iPhone than Android IMO), has one place where all possible apps are, maintains a distribution channels that allows all my apps to be updated easily, and builds hardware and software that is designed to work together.

I love my iPhone because Apple is such sticklers about apps, design, and creating a consistently nice user experience. The average user doesn't care about how "open" Android is. They just want something that works.

Even if you didn't want to go the walled garden approach, who could look at how Europe treats Android and come to the conclusion that Google made the right decision by being open?

ballenf2• 8 years ago

Is it that you love that they don't give you the choice of restricting or not restricting installs? Or simply appreciate that app vetting and security are services you're willing to pay for. It seems more like the latter, but you're expressing more like the former.

I can see the value in the vetting service to a lot of people, but I just don't understand the idea of embracing a forced restriction on other people that you happen to like yourself.

shady-lady3• 8 years ago

I don't quite get the last sentence.

who could look at how Europe treats Android and come to the conclusion that Google made the right decision by being open?

Google was fined on antitrust grounds. I don't see which direction to leap to make that sentence relevant to them being fined.

From the EU’s competition commissioner

Fine of €4,34 bn to @Google for 3 types of illegal restrictions on the use of Android. In this way it has cemented the dominance of its search engine. Denying rivals a chance to innovate and compete on the merits. It’s illegal under EU antitrust rules. @Google now has to stop it

sparkpeasy• 8 years ago

All this plus-it is so much easier to have all my subscriptions for apps in one place to know who I'm paying monthly, and to able to cancel them all in one place through Apple.

I'm tired of signing up for subscriptions and going through a series of dark patterns on a zillion websites to figure out how to manage and cancel my subscriptions. The worst is when there's one click to subscribe and they make you phone in to an annoying retention specialist to cancel.

IMTDb2• 8 years ago

Just give us the ability to manually whitelist external developers signing keys. That way you can choose to only install apple signed apps (the current situation which would become the default of the new system) or to accept apple signed apps + selected devs applications (which is currently impossible). It already works on OSX.

wvenable12• 8 years ago

As a consumer, you're paying 30% on every app purchase for that privilege. That's a pretty high tax on all your apps, if you ask me.

tomc19853• 8 years ago

As a consumer I feel much safer recommending iPhones to friends and family. Play Store is a minefield and that scares me. But on iPhone my mom can wander around the App Store and I don't have to worry too much about her wrecking her phone because some app couldn't be trusted.

As a developer I hate it :/

bluecalm• 8 years ago

You could still have app store and side channels. If you want security and Apple stamp of approval just use default app store. If you want cheaper apps, maybe from trustworthy trusted companies, install them as well.

Supporting obligatory 30% tax on any developer work makes my blood boil. If Apple model wins it will be a disaster for innovation and salaries. I will never buy or recommended Apple products for this reason. It's worth it to me a stand even if user experience is temporarily better.

dwaite2• 8 years ago

Android isn't truly open though. Sure, the AOSP is. However, before Gingerbread there were still a lot of advantages reserved for those who entered a commercial relationship - for instance, access to the Google Apps (mail, calendar, chrome).

Post-Gingerbread, Google has put the vast majority of their development into the Google Play APIs, which are not open and are only available to partners. This means that use of things like chromecast (for instance) are restricted to apps distributed through the Play store, and handsets running partner builds of Android.

gesman2• 8 years ago

+1 = I love iPhone for that + their privacy stance.

+1 = I will never build (or invest into) business that is built on a single platform controlled by someone else.

drivingmenuts• 8 years ago

The monolithic stacks are targeting the "average" person, who just wants to get a thing done, rather than worry about the how to get to the point where you can do a thing. Those stacks are great for that sort of thing: pay small fee without thinking about it, really, and then just do the thing.

That all falls apart if you're an over-thinker, penny-wise, or a skeptic, though. By virtue of having some tech-savvy, you are automatically sort-of excluded from the target marketing for most platform/app/marketplace stacks. You want to pick and chose to try and gain efficiency or cost-savings or whatever.

NeedMoreTea• 8 years ago

For the non-technical majority they are a huge advantage. We're never going to have average users fully technically aware.

I well remember the state of Windows during Win 98 and XP where most had no idea what they were downloading, and it seemed every machine had malware, hidden pop ups and 37 IE toolbars. I was constantly asked to clean up friend's machines from the damage done by Kazaa and its associated garbage or some other drive-by crap.

If a restrictive app store is the cost of avoiding that and gaining some minimum enforced standards, safety and confidence to avoid crapware, I've actually come to think it a price well worth paying.

The fact that Google are so laissez faire about the Android app store, and let so much crap in, just further highlights the potential benefits that Google aren't fully providing.

wvenable12• 8 years ago

Imagine of Microsoft had a similar store to Apple in 1995 with the same restrictions on downloading and executing external code. The web itself could have been killed in the cradle on day one.

The fact that you are here typing this reply right now is entirely because of the state of Windows during 98 and XP. It's a balance between security and freedom. You are arguing for the benefit of security while ignoring the effect that freedom has had on the last 30 years of computing.

phobosdeimos3• 8 years ago

Freedom is slavery.

CaptSpify3• 8 years ago

But Apple has had a bunch of problems with crapware in their store. If they were actually vetting stuff, then I'd kind of agree, but as it stands, you are being limited on what you can do with your own device, but without the benefits. Their security feels a lot like the TSA: It's only there to give you warm fuzzies.

I agree that Android is worse, but that doesn't make Apple's store "Good".

sakisv• 8 years ago

Maybe I have my nostalgia lenses on, but I think I'd rather have the internet of kazaa era in terms of how things were working.

There were viruses? Yes. 37 IE toolbars? Of course! But consider for a moment what we have today instead: Instead of the simple and (comparatively) mostly harmless viruses we now have ransomware. Instead of kazaa installing spyware we have the OS itself trying to phone home. Instead of having a virus to delete random files, you now have one of the Big 4 delete stuff from your device without asking you.

You say we had crapware we had to avoid back then, I see that today we install the crapware ourselves and consider it a treat. Back then when you bought a piece of software you owned it. You didn't have micro transactions and DLCs and all these "innovations" that drive "engagement". You didn't have to have data connection to sync something with bluetooth.

Sure there were also some crappy things, but things are not all that better today. We just got used to it.

iknowstuff• 8 years ago

Windows is very different from iOS in that it had no sandbox and its API allowed developers to do everything they wanted. Users unknowingly granted admin privileges to every application they ran.

iOS, on the other hand, restricts its apps heavily - they are sandboxed, can't access other apps' files (no ransomware) and need explicit user permission to meddle with their private data.

Now, yes, exploits exist, but look at macOS - Apple still controls developer certificates and can pull the plug on misbehaving developers. An alternative to the app store wouldn't be nearly as devastating as win32.

You raise an interesting point about Android malware. Does it stem from the fact that Android apps can access the filesystem?

matheusmoreira2• 8 years ago

As long as real computers don't go extinct, I can agree with this. I don't mind trusted computing; the problem is who owns the keys.

realusername3• 8 years ago

I well remember the state of Windows during Win 98 and XP where most had no idea what they were downloading, and it seemed every machine had malware, hidden pop ups and 37 IE toolbars. I was constantly asked to clean up friend's machines from the damage done by Kazaa and its associated garbage or some other drive-by crap.

I still prefer that personally than the crippled smartphones.

tommymachine23• 8 years ago

Has there not always been unequal distribution of apps / content across platforms?

akshayB• 8 years ago

Apps stores are work great if you are a small company and can get access to big audience for 30% cut. Apps stores essentially acts like middleman who does payment processing, can advertise and also provides fraud protection. But when you are already a big company like Netflix or Microsoft those benefits essentially just don't add up.

sxp62000• 8 years ago

I'd like to see some sort of a breakdown of how Apple uses the 30% to improve the app store. Even if they were spending 15% of that cut on improving iTunes Connect etc. it would've shown.

donarb3• 8 years ago

This is a list of some of the benefits of the App Store. The idea is not that every developer may want/need every feature, but think how much it would cost a developer to implement each one by themselves.

  - 24/7 worldwide availability, instant payment/download
  - Easy re-install after deletion, you still own the app even if deleted
  - Region restriction
  - Separate app pricing by region
  - Revenues paid to developer from multiple region currencies without conversion fees
  - Tax calculation and collection
  - Customer refunds
  - User rankings and reviews
  - App store advertising in category listings
  - Video previews of the app in operation
  - Packaging of media content allowing developers the ability to load game levels as the user needs them rather than all at once
  - App sales stats

mcphage3• 8 years ago

Easy re-install after deletion, you still own the app even if deleted

It’s not universal. I’ve lost access to several apps that I had paid for—and that’s not even getting into iOS 11 incompatibility.

sambroner• 8 years ago

There's two arguments: Apple/Google developed the device, support the platform, built the api, maintain the infrastructure, and market the experience.

The other is that app developers have a symbiotic, probably synergistic relationship with the phone makers. Apps are a huge part of the draw of a good platform.

My take is that until we decide that a given platform is a monopoly, we let the platforms fight for a larger market share by attracting high quality apps using this "tax" as leverage (better dev experience, larger market share, superior hardware are other tactics). Microsoft tried (and failed) to improve their platform by offering developers a larger share of the take away and hoping they'd improve the ecosystem.

My hope is the market gets more competitive so that app makers get a larger share of the profit.

akira2501• 8 years ago

and market the experience.

While locking their devices and users to that experience, or forcing those users to make large-scale security compromises just to avoid it.

My take is that until we decide that a given platform is a monopoly

They seem like they are. Is there another app store that iPhone users can use? Android users? Does the operating system on these phones let you easily change your "app store" preference?

we let the platforms fight for a larger market share by attracting high quality apps using this "tax" as leverage

How does that benefit consumers? Is it impossible to achieve these same benefits in any other way than the somewhat draconian system we have now?

Microsoft tried (and failed) to improve their platform by offering developers a larger share of the take away and hoping they'd improve the ecosystem.

Microsoft had more problems with their platform than just the price. There's already a workable distribution channel for third-party software on their systems. Their "app store" really didn't add any benefit to people already familiar with their software. Plus, they never really sold a volume of phones that puts them close to Apple or Google so their Monopoly position in this regard was severely hampered.

My hope is the market gets more competitive so that app makers get a larger share of the profit.

How is that going to happen when you only have one app distribution mechanism to choose from per platform?

fx32s• 8 years ago

They seem like they are. Is there another app store that iPhone users can use? Android users? Does the operating system on these phones let you easily change your "app store" preference?

Companies are not forced to change their hardware to run a competitors binaries really. There's choice in platforms which means iOS or Android phones in this case. If this were true every game console was a monopoly.

tommymachine23• 8 years ago

My hope is the market gets more competitive so that app makers get a larger share of the profit.

Isn't the nominal size of a slice of cake more important than it's percentage relative to the overall cake?

Sure, it would be great if developers got a larger chunk of a large market. But what if they got a smaller chunk of a much bigger market? 70 % of a hundred million is a lot more than a hundred percent of 500 bucks. Worrying about percentages can sometimes just be about jealousy/ego.

jobu• 8 years ago

Didn't Apple change the rules about external accounts and subscriptions a couple years back? I thought you could create an app that required an external account (and external purchases) as long as there was no links to the external site from the app and no mention of subscription or external purchases within the app.

Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, and a few others have been doing it this way for a while, so I'm surprised this is news.

harryf• 8 years ago

Audible.com is a clear example of this. All purchases have to be made on their website. The app is just a player with the ability to browse and put content on your wish list but nothing more. It's a horrible user experience but a 30% price hike on content might make me think twice about impulse purchases

cpeterso• 8 years ago

Oh! So these Apple fees are why Audible doesn't allow you to purchase audio books in the app.

c487bd62• 8 years ago

Does this means that any app distributed outside the store doesn't get access to closed features like Google Cloud Messaging? If so that's another reason to support sideloading since right now using MicroG seems like a pain in the ass (if you, like me, need a lot of problematic apps)

inawarminister2• 8 years ago

Uh, I used to install apps directly from APKs and they don't seem to disable GCM or any other features?

Different outcome when you haven't flashed gapps though. Haha.

s73v3r_7• 8 years ago

It entirely depends on whether the phone itself has Google Play on it or not. When you distribute through the Play Store, you know that's true. When you distribute through other means, you can't be sure of that.

chacham15• 8 years ago

To everyone saying that Apple/Google maintain the hardware/infra for Apps and so deserve a cut, I think the question here is about being forced into it. Imagine if Microsoft did the same with Windows; people would be outraged.

tolmasky3• 8 years ago

Ultimately it’s of course their choice, but I truly believe that a “fee-less” App Store would be better for the party that so seldom gets mentioned: me, the consumer. I’m the one that’s ultimately paying the 30%, not the apps. I already paid 1000$ for this phone, if I spend money on Netflix I want that money going to making great tv shows, all of it, not 70% of it.

donarb3• 8 years ago

Who cares what the developer has to pay Apple? Do you care how much the developer pays in rent for his office, or his high speed internet? Maybe the app would be cheaper if the developer pays himself $50/hour rather than $100. All of those costs are part of the app price as well.

tolmasky3• 8 years ago

I would absolutely care if a new price materialized out of thin air that then got passed off to me. 30% is a lot. I posit that if a new 30% penalty was instilled tomorrow in just about every piece of software you interacted with, you would both notice and care.

I also care when the 30% applies solely by proxy through me. That is to say, since Apple doesn't allow you to differentiate pricing on the Store (IOW, charge 30% more on the App Store), the developer is forced to have me be a lower-value customer than if I used the product through another means. That means that in the developer's eyes, I am necessarily a less important customer, the same way someone that pays for the basic account is lower priority than someone that pays for the Pro account. This is not true of all the other costs you mentioned, rent and salary aren't dynamically changing customer to customer. By placing a 30% fee on the App Store, Apple is obscuring my importance to the developer.

990528825145692• 8 years ago

IMO The European Commission Versus Android[1] from Stratechery is required reading if you want to understand the app store battles of 2018.

[1] https://stratechery.com/2018/the-european-commission-versus-...

menacingly• 8 years ago

I do think the Apple/Google cut has been natural. The phone and successful app stores aren't accidents, they're endpoints in a long chain of work to focus consumer attention in a way that sells software.

That said, these benefits have an expiration date. I don't think the app store cut has been a ripoff for its entire history, but if the temperature of the room has shifted toward hostility, it might be that they've spent the goodwill they earned with their innovation and now it's time for a more sustainable long term arrangement.

We can find middle ground between "Apple did nothing for me" and "Apple deserves 30% of software sales for eternity"

tommymachine23• 8 years ago

But to negotiate that, you have to be able to threaten them with leaving. And there's no other way to get iPhone users, who are by far the biggest spenders. And if you're going to go this route of web-only transactions, you're going to have some user drop-off and missed sales, it's just a question of how much. Like, where does it make sense to switch. If its 30% drop off it doesn't matter either way. If its 15% or 5%, you'd better do it. If it's 70%, no way in hell should you do it. And I can guarantee you that every app business will have a different number for this, and it's nearly impossible to know what the drop off is before making the jump. So many are not willing to leave, and here we are. Netflix has a strong multi-platform use case already, so it's a natural move for them. Other apps may not fair so well. I think losing these larger companies is somewhat inevitable as long as the rates stay this high. We'll see Apple fight to retain them, but it would be a real surprise to see them booted from the platform over the switch, since they are still adding value. And can you imagine the backlash over the even less fair solution: Apple decides to negotiate special rates for these behemoths (just to keep them honest) while charging upstart developers the full rate! That would cause even more outrage than the 30%!

ocdtrekkie• 8 years ago

It would be interesting if Netflix decided to straight up call Apple's bluff on their revenue restriction. Would Apple risk losing Netflix on the iPhone to enforce their rule about web signup links? Netflix is a ubiquitous expectation, and if it got delisted, Google and Samsung would have a field day talking about how you had to get an Android to get Netflix.

r00fus2• 8 years ago

And there's no other way to get iPhone users, who are by far the biggest spenders.

Well, it's not like iPhone users can't simply buy Androids. I have mostly iOS household with a few Androids sitting around - mostly unpowered and gathering dust (kids use them mainly to watch Netflix on road trips).

I think Netflix has a strong position to negotiate with Apple over this.

roasm2• 8 years ago

I'm sure it would cause outrage, but I can definitely imagine a negotiation happening. It's in both Apple and Netflix's best interest to stay together. The rest is just negotiating a percentage that works.

Of course, there is no way they would use that negotiated the percentage for the rest of us.

I think it would take an anti-trust action of some sort to cause a dent here, but I'm not holding my breath.

rconti• 8 years ago

Can someone help explain how this works today? I'm a bit unclear. The Netflix app is, as far as I know, free. I use it, and I have a subscription paid for via their website. (well, okay, I've never really watched content on a phone or tablet, but I know it works).

Is the problem that new users who sign up via the iOS app have to make an in-app payment for their subscription, thus triggering the 30% cut?

I assume this also means Apple will reject any app that submits payment through the Netflix iOS app directly to Netflix, bypassing the normal iOS payments process.

Why doesn't Netflix just not allow you to sign up via the app, forcing everyone to use a web browser (either on mobile or on desktop)?

It seems like other app developers could do the same thing, allowing the app to sign in to your web account to view content. For example, the Remember The Milk todo list service. I believe I pay on the website, but they have a companion iOS app that allows me to sign in.

tommymachine23• 8 years ago

Correct. They also must have had a way to sign up through the app itself, which would require going through StoreKit and the App Store (as any app that allows purchasing of products delivered to the device without giving apple a cut will be rejected during the review process). So they are now doing exactly as you suggest and just disallowing the in app purchase.

hrktb• 8 years ago

I think there are restrictions to forbid apps from arbitrarily forcing users to have an account.

Apple can request in some cases that there is a way to use your application without any account, or that you provide a signup form inside the app. There are exceptions, but I assume you have to justify them to Apple aside from "I don't want to pay your fees".

Basically, the rules are a bit more complex I think and they cover a number of potential loopholes.

makecheck• 8 years ago

It made me so mad to see Tim Cook on stage with a gazillion dollar check, as if any significant amount of that money actually benefited developers or content owners compared to what a sensible market would have allowed.

Heck, for a year or so it almost would have been lying to claim to be paying developers (plural) when a single developer like Supercell was raking in so much.

Let’s be honest: there’s a giant check from people blowing money on games that they shouldn’t (gems, etc. to fuel addictions), and a large check for a very short list of apps constantly in the top 10 due to app store positive feedback loops. The remaining $4.52 of all payments to anyone is split 145,622 ways to the 98.9% of developers trying to survive.

And let’s not forget, Apple’s store platform feels like it was once one person’s side project and is now 5% of a different person’s time. It doesn’t feel like they’ve cut any checks to make this a good marketplace.

JumpCrisscross• 8 years ago

as if any significant amount of that money actually benefited developers

I don’t see a shortage of well-paid app developers nor multibillion dollar single-app startups.

twodayslate• 8 years ago

Just 30% when purchased through the app store. Sounds like a simple solution.

michaelmrose11• 8 years ago

Can we just establish a list of app stores by registration and a fee to pay for vetting by independent experts and force apple to include at first run a choice of stores to enable kind of like forcing MS to include other browsers in the EU. With the understanding of course that they don't exclude users who pick alternative stores from the official apps/store.

Then if we don't want to deal with their bullshit we can just have an iphone shipped from the EU and enjoy a device we actually own.

dperfect• 8 years ago

They are being redirected to the mobile web version of the app and asked to enter payment details with Netflix directly.

Sorry, but if Apple's policies are applied consistently (I know they often aren't), this won't fly.

I have an app with a basic email/password sign-in screen (the app represents a small part of a larger web-based SaaS product). Apple has rejected my app for including anything in the app that even remotely hints to the service existing outside of the App Store. This includes a "Sign Up" button linked to the web signup, a "Learn More" button that links to the website, or even a "Support" button that has navigation that can lead to a signup or pricing page. After a long chat with someone from the App Store review team, I learned that you can't link to any page of a site that contains other links that can indirectly lead to a signup or pricing information. It's a pretty harsh policy.

So my app was finally approved, but without any links to support documentation on my site. Congratulations, Apple - you win :)

andyfleming• 8 years ago

IF applied consistently. This is Netflix though. I'll be interested to see how this plays out.

djsumdog2• 8 years ago

The big players can dictate a lot of the rules of the game.

wilsonnb36• 8 years ago

It's a lot easier and cheaper to switch from a $10 a month Netflix subscription to a $10 a month Hulu/HBO Go/Amazon Prime subscription than it is to switch from an iPhone to an Android phone.

tommymachine23• 8 years ago

It will be some vague "you can't do this here" message that doesn't directly link. A la current state of affairs with Spotify / Audible / Amazon

As a suggestion regarding your situation... obviously its more work but you could always open the support pages in a webView that blocks the purchase urls via [1].

1. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/uikit/uiwebviewdel...

chrischen2• 8 years ago

But why would people be signing up from your App if not by discovering about your app through the App store? Is that not marketing through the App store?

8ytecoder• 8 years ago

Searching for Netflix on Google, the App Store link is the second link with reviews and a button to install. Right after the main website. Which one do you think a user is likely to click? Is that App store marketing? In an App centric world there are countless other ways where users discovers apps first or even developers/businesses/website want the users to download the app first.

roasm2• 8 years ago

We have a couple apps and there really is no "discovery" through the App Store. You have to pay for ads, whether in the stores directly or in the many ad networks that put you in other apps or other advertising. Unless you're already at the top of the lists (because of your off-store brand), or you win the lottery in the game of getting featured, the App Store doesn't drive new users.

For the majority of apps, the App Store doesn't provide discovery. It provides a nearly frictionless delivery and purchase interface. That's worth something, but not 30% off the top. That's worth a premium on top of processing fees, like X cents per transaction and Y% of the transaction, where Y < 6, I think.

Edit: I should say, I don't think there's any way this is going to happen. It would take an anti-trust action to make any difference, but that's not likely to happen.

zaidf• 8 years ago

Amazon app already does this.

TheSpiceIsLife• 8 years ago

I wonder if it would be possible for developers / other stake holders to launch an investment fund who's sole purpose is buy shares in Apple / Microsoft / etc with the view to influence internal policy.

Activist investor style.

sleepychu• 8 years ago

Activist investors are a bit of a misnomer, unlike traditional activists these investors are squarely interested in their own investment.

briandear3• 8 years ago

And those shares would lose money specifically because of what they want to accomplish. Your “fund” would lose more from the stock loss than the gain from attempting to influence policy.

And you’d need a $100 billion fund to even get noticed. Even Warren Buffet isn’t calling the shots at Apple.

DaiPlusPlus• 8 years ago

Given Apple’s current market-cap - over 1TN USD - you’ll need a lot of investors.

You’d have much better success by spending a fraction of the money to hire goons to kidnap Apple’s executives driving home from work and “convince” them to change corporate policy that way.

paulie_a• 8 years ago

I personally wouldn't bother with ios in that case.

75dvtwin• 8 years ago

Could this be analogous to the 'Net neutrality' arguments?

Only in this case Google and Apple are the 'bad guys' (the infrastructure providers, eg the ISP).

While the so called 'Over-the-top' application/service providers (eg Netflix, Spotify, Epic games, etc) and their users are the victims ?

I can see a small difference, where the ISPs did not have anything analogous to 'advertisement' benefit to their 'Over-the-top' application/service providers.

But surely, the advertising help the stores provide -- is not worth continuous 30% (or even 15%) take ?

quadrangle• 8 years ago

Totally. Device neutrality. Software freedom even. People should be able to run whatever legal software they want on their own devices for whatever legal purposes.

jefe_• 8 years ago

Accidentally subscribed to Youtube Red / Premium through the App Store. Got an e-mail a few months ago when Youtube shifted to Premium congratulating me that I was grandfathered into the old rate and features forever. I noticed their new rate of $11.99 seemed similar to what I was already paying. This is when I discovered Google had included a $3 surcharge to cover App store fees in the App store price (don't blame them). I looked into transferring and there is no way to transfer an App store subscription to Google without cancelling and starting fresh (thus losing grandfathering). Decided to stick with the App store to maintain grandfathering, but it's a bit ridiculous that Google wasn't allowed to nudge me to a browser to save $36 a year.

fireattack• 8 years ago

Most grandfathered plan will be deliberately hard to be transferred or modified ever so slightly.

The goal is, obviously, making you giving up your grandfathering. It doesn't surprise me.

ec1096852• 8 years ago

You aren’t allowed to charge extra for a subscription in an app in the App Store.

dhruvarora013• 8 years ago

I don't think that's true

$11.99 if you sign up on web - https://www.youtube.com/premium

$15.99 if you sign up through in-app - https://itunes.apple.com/app/youtube/id544007664 (Click on In-App Purchases under Information to see the price)

chrischen2• 8 years ago

The reason why Apple charges 30%—and is justifiable in doing so—is because the App store itself is a marketing platform.

If a user discovers the Netflix app, signs up, they are essentially discovering Netflix through the App store.

If a user discovers Netflix elsewhere, they can be pointed to download the app for extended utility.

In the latter case, it doesn't violate Apple's 30% revenue cut policy. But if they want to target people who discover Netflix from the App store platform, then they would have to pay.

bubblethink• 8 years ago

Salesmen have one-time commissions or finders fees. You won't pay your sales agent a cut of your mortgage every month, would you ?

gnicholas• 8 years ago

As another commenter pointed out, the "discovery surcharge" makes sense for a one-time purchase. It makes less sense for an ongoing subscription.

Also, does anyone actually discover Netflix through the App Store? Or do they know about Netflix, go to sign up, and the first device they sign up on happens to be running iOS?

dhimes3• 8 years ago

30% is the expected amount for an entire marketing budget. Back when the app store wasn't so overrun, it may have made some sense. (Remember, Jobs justified it when facing initial criticism by saying that most people were going to use mobile web sites anyway so the app stuff isn't really a big deal.)

Now, you have to give the cut and do marketing. It's usurious, and we need to stick to other channels.

madrox• 8 years ago

I worked on an app that is in the same category as Netflix. A week before launch, Apple chose to reject us in spite of months of meetings and reviews with their app teams and assurances we were in-bounds since we were working with them for launch featuring.

It came down to the fact we required an email address and password for IAP so you could bring your subscription to the web or other platforms. While everyone else in the category did this, they decided that policy was going to change and we were just going to be the first people to deal with it. Since having an email-based account was core to the architecture and the UX, I went through a week of refactor hell to make emails/passwords optional to meet our launch date.

Since other apps still get to do this, it's clear the policy change message was BS. I've suspected a lot has had to do with Apple's ambitions in the streaming space and their desire to be in a position to offer bundling and other over the top services. They're already trying to control the UX with the TV app and are offering companies better rev share rates to do the integration work.

It seems like Netflix is daring Apple to pull them from the store. If that's what's happening then I applaud them. I understand that Apple may think they're protecting the consumer by creating a walled garden, but as a developer whose livelihood is tied to their decisions, I'm tired of being jerked around.

IBM• 8 years ago

They won't pull the Netflix app, they just won't let it update until they've made changes. Spotify tried directing users to the web and that's what happened with them.

vbezhenar• 8 years ago

What if Spotify would make their app using JavaScript (something like React Native or Cordova) with ability to update bypassing AppStore?

Donzo5• 8 years ago

I actually just let my membership to their developer program lapse after 4 years.

In addition to having to pay money to develop on their platform, the return I get is questionable.

The straw was that they're forcing me to republish old programs, just to force them through their new compliance tunnels.

Frankly, I'm sick of their hoops and their walled-garden. I'm ok with forcing users to the browser now. Amazon does it for digital sales.

threeseed7• 8 years ago

I think you're being a bit disingenuous here.

The point of republishing old programs is to make sure they are running against the latest SDK. This is an important aspect for the ecosystem. It forces apps to work properly on the latest OS as well as support technologies like App Thinning.

It's not just to mess you around for compliance reasons.

tommymachine23• 8 years ago

IIRC, even YouTube subscriptions initiated on an iPhone don't transfer cleanly over to the web.

threeseed7• 8 years ago

but as a developer whose livelihood is tied to their decisions, I'm tired of being jerked around.

I am a developer of a dozen very popular apps and I couldn't disagree more with your position.

Developers having a wonderful experience or sustained livelihood isn't the goal here. It's to make sure consumers are protected and cared for. As Tim Cook would put it that's their North Star.

Shebanator• 8 years ago

I agree that this is mostly how Apple views things, but what you said doesn't contradict the post you replied to at all. He is a developer whose livelihood is dependent on Apple, and he is tired of being jerked around. Just because Apple doesn't prioritize his problems doesn't make that untrue.

gesman2• 8 years ago

Building business that solely relies on constant mercy of someone else's platform is an extremely risky endeavor to begin with.

Barrin92• 8 years ago

And virtually unavoidable in the smartphone app space because of the gatekeeping function of the stores. I don't know exactly how we got here given that nobody would have accepted this sort of curation on a desktop, but we somehow just walked into it on our phones.

vkou2• 8 years ago

Any business solely relies on the constant mercy of their power and water utilities.

For some reason, though, we don't tolerate Seattle City Light choosing to arbitrarily not supply electricity to another company, or Cupertino's water utility charging extortive rates to Apple, just because the latter has deep pockets.

dmead• 8 years ago

Isn't that illegal? Didn't Microsoft lose a huge case about IE just like this?

ripdog• 8 years ago

Only because Microsoft was in a monopoly position in it's market. Apple isn't, and thus is not subject to the same oversight.

Not that the current administration is going to be performing any anti-trust litigation anyway.

kitsunesoba• 8 years ago

They're already trying to control the UX with the TV app and are offering companies better rev share rates to do the integration work.

To be fair, that’s not the only reason the TV app was created. Most notably:

– Users want a single place to keep track of all the shows they’re following across all services. Streaming services weren’t coming up with a cooperative solution for this, so Apple did it instead.

– Plainly put, a large chunk (if not most) streaming service apps suck. The TV app adds value by letting users skip the choppy, inconsistent, badly organized, lowest-bidder browsing UIs so many streaming service apps have and get straight to watching this week’s episode.

I like the TV app and wish it did more. I wouldn’t be bothered if I never had to open a service-specific app again. All I need is a clean, frustration free way to browse the libraries of the services I subscribe to.

sametmax4• 8 years ago

On the other hand, Apple controlling the UI means, as usual, they kill other services ability to innovate.

But most apple users don't care to have very limited capabilities as long as the core value is here and it's streamlined in the apple experience. Hell, they used a phone without copy/paste for a long time and it didn't bother them.

amelius3• 8 years ago

Users want a single place to

Imho, we've got to solve that "single place" problem, because it creates a winner-takes-all situation. Not just with apps, but also taxi-cabs, food-delivery, etc. Perhaps a government should step in and say that you can have a "single place" but only if you don't abuse your power.

stronglikedan• 8 years ago

Users want a single place to keep track of all the shows they’re following across all services.

Isn't that the problem Trakt [0] solves?

[0] https://trakt.tv/

scarface7423• 8 years ago

Are you sure that’s the only reason? I can do in app purchases with Udemy that required an account to be used everywhere.

I also know that Hulu, Pluralsight, Netflix, and Evernote all work this way.

kbenson2• 8 years ago

The rest of the comment noted that it wasn't exactly a fair reason, but it was apparently the one given.

Since other apps still get to do this, it's clear the policy change message was BS.

mbesto• 8 years ago

but as a developer whose livelihood is tied to their decisions, I'm tired of being jerked around.

Let me get this straight. A for-profit company providing a marketplace that has allowed you to sustain a livelihood as a developer is now be considered as "jerking you around". This is truly fascinating.

EB66• 8 years ago

Is it surprising? No. Is it being "jerked around"? Absolutely.

A company wielding their quasi-monopoly power to change the rules of the game at the last minute on a whim is precisely what I'd call being "jerked around".

bogomipz• 8 years ago

Can someone say is the 30% just for the initial payment? For example has my credit card details does Apple still get 30% of the monthly payment on a recurring basis?

anfilt• 8 years ago

Makes me think of what band-camp has done with their app.

cletus• 8 years ago

In the frontier days of app stores, a lot of the policies made way more sense. 30% cut but you don't need to engage a payment processor and it makes it way easier for the consumer to pay? Sure! App approval required so people don't download malware? That's good for consumers, which is also good for the ecosystem. Apple is much better at this than Google is too as we've seen more misbehaving Android apps than iOS (eg crypto mining in the background).

But Apple (and Google, IMHO to a lesser extent) are starting to use their gatekeeper positions for their own advantage. And these markets are getting so huge and the potential damage to other companies so large that they're just inviting government action, probably by the EU first but I can also see the US getting to the point of taking antitrust action.

It's clear Apple has streaming and original content ambitions. They also have iTunes of course. If they're not careful they're going to trigger intervention when they arbitrarily start applying rules to Hulu and Amazon Prime Video that don't apply to others.

There are already some pretty silly contortions for these policies. Take Amazon. You can purchase items through the iOS app... except for anything digital like, say, Kindle books. But you can buy Kindle books elsewhere and then load them on the iOS Kindle app using your email and password. As others have noted, other companies haven't gotten these exceptions.

This is also why I think it's a huge mistake for Apple to get into the original content game. Their other businesses are so huge that original content will never be able to compete on a revenue basis. Yet they risk their own platform by favouring their own content. Government action could be ruinous for them. When Apple competes on their own platform against third parties it undermines faith in that platform and (IMHO) its long term health (even viability).

I don't know what the alternative is though. It's not letting anyone install anything as much as tech-savvy purists may think so. That's actually not what consumers want or need. Is it allowing competition in App stores? Maybe. There isn't just one domain registrar and just one root-level CA.

erikpukinskis3• 8 years ago

To me, the 30% is fine.

What disgusts me is that if I decline to use their platform, I can’t even tell users that there is a subscription available through another channel.

If Apple didn’t restrict our speech it would be an easier pill to swallow.

perseusprime11• 8 years ago

How is this different from Walmart taking a commission for putting your products on their shelf? Why does Apple get so much slack? 30% seems reasonable for giving access to its shelf.

erikpukinskis3• 8 years ago

Because I bought the shelf from Apple. It’s my shelf now. It’s my phone. Why is Apple involved at all if I want to stream videos from Netflix?

It’s like Wal-mart taking a cut of my cable bill because they sold me the TV. The overreach of Apple is preposterous.

camhart• 8 years ago

Netflix has been doing this for a while. For the longest time you simply couldn't sign up unless you went to the website.

teekert• 8 years ago

Dear Netflix, I want to use your services but you are the only app that I can't find in the play store of my not-rooted, fully Play store capable Lineage OS device. It's a pain. And why do I need the app? Because Chromecast is the only convenient way to start watching Netflix on a TV (for an Android user). Why won't you make a Kodi plugin?

If you want to be independent, be serious about it, make it easy to find the latest apk on netflix.com/apk, instead of apkmirror. Make it easy for users who pay to enjoy your service the way they want to. Seems to me like Netflix themselves are the ones pushing Play and App store official routes on official, completely locked-in devices.

I was on a app diet when I still had my first gen Moto G (with 8 GB of memory) and I found that almost everything I used apps for before had websites that were as functional as the app (or even more functional in the case of Facebook), minus all the obligatory tracking (if you choose so).

tempodox• 8 years ago

The app store is such a horrible experience, I'm glad for every single app that circumvents it.

happywage2• 8 years ago

I have a startup which builds a web-based enterprise product. A year ago we launched a companion app that provides a fraction of the functionality of the desktop application, just enough to help our customers extract the key information they need when they're on the road.

All of a sudden a few days Apple decides we have to implement in-app payments. I explained them that this is an enterprise product for an arcane industry and that our customers require quotations/invoices raised to their procurement department and would not pay several hundred to several thousand dollars through the app. They insist we have to implement in-app payments despite not helping our customers nor our business. We don't have automated billing at all, not even on our desktop product. The requested change means months of development for no value (at this point).

No way to appeal. We can currently not update our app and if we don't implement in-app payments in an unspecified time our current version will be pulled too.

Thanks, Apple.

ezekg• 8 years ago

Do you have any mentions of registering/purchasing in-app? I'd remove those, including any links leading to your website, and only show a login screen. I bet they'd let that pass. I think their main goal is making sure the possibility of registrations/purchases outside of IAP is near-zero.

aardshark• 8 years ago

Can you elaborate on this, because this is what I understand (from the point of view of someone who knows nothing about Apple's review process):

You can't provide your app at no cost on the App Store. You can't provide your app for a cost on the App Store, if you don't include in-app payments.

Or is it the case that you want to allow your customers to make nominal purchases through the app, and Apple say these must be processed through in-app payments?

happywage2• 8 years ago

>>>>is it the case that you want to allow your customers to make nominal purchases through the app, and Apple say these must be processed through in-app payments?

Yes!!

Customers will not be bypassing the app store, they're bypassing the in-app payment infrastructure. But Apple want to allow only in-app payments.

nkkollaw• 8 years ago

What's wrong with telling people to go to their website?

They apps seems like a thin wrapper around a web app, couldn't they just have people use the web app? If you add a link to the home screen, it's almost identical.

Not idea, but better than losing 30% of your revenue...

iamgopal• 8 years ago

The future is, where mobile is new TV, and you sbuscribe to your favorite content provider via Apple TV app. i.e. creator -> apple -> consumer.

thiswillis• 8 years ago

The App store is vehicle for censorship.

jscalo• 8 years ago

“Do as we say, not as we let others do.” — Apple

ezoe• 8 years ago

I say everyone involving in this are wrong.

What Netflix trying to achieve can be perfectly done by ordinary web browser. I don't know about their "app" but I bet it's just a wrapper of web browser.

The whole app ecosystem is crap. It must be abolished ASAP.

Netflix is the latest company to try bypassing Apple’s app store

Related Stories