Alternative app stores will arive on iOS - but there are substantial caveats

[hishnash]

7 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

maybe, but this law actually demands a lot more from "gatekeepers" no more walled garden,  no questions asked basically,

no you miss understand it only applies to areas/features were the gatekeeper has a large enough % of the eu population using it.    That same gatekeeper (even on the same product) can have very strict walled gardens but as long as only a small % of EU users are using that feature this law does not apply to that feature.

This is why it does not apply to iMessage for example, as the iMessage usage within the EU is very low, the courts and commission already ruled it did not apply to iMessage. For apple they were very clear about the areas it applies to (App Store, NFC card payments and Web Browsers) this law requires the ability for light third party EU companies (not random members of the public) to have a fair even footing to apple if they so wish to offer these features on apples platform. 

The law does not require apple to remove all walled gardens, for example it has no impact on the iPad or Apple Watch since neither of them have any features or product areas that have high enough adoption within the EU.     It also only requires that apple offer equal conditions for third parties as apple impose upon thier own teams, for example Firefox and Chromium will not have more sys access then webkit and are going to be require to use the same 2 underlying frameworks that web-kit users to talk to the OS and system web extensions and render UI.  It does not require apple to offer new HW features that WebKit does not use.

Same is true of the app stores, apple is require to provide the same system level apis that the Apple Apps store has:
* Install apps
* Update apps
* List apps (that it installed)
* Be informed of some app usage (for apps it installed) metrics (when an app is opened, when it is deleted etc) 
* Have a 2 way XRPC secure signed communions channel between the apps and the store app so that apps can check if a user has paid for an IAP, if a subscription has been canceled etc
* Have the ability to present inline (remote view controler) UI within/ontop of the apps it installs (in such a way that those apps can modify the UI) to confirm payments etc (just like the apple App Store).

But this law does not for example require that these stores can read the file systems of these apps, or gain more detailed info about how users use these apps since the AppleAppStore does not do this.  

 

... The law is very clear on this fair footing.. this is also why apple are offering the new fee structure for devs within the apple App Store so that the fact that apps in other stores are required to follow this is still part of the equal footing. 

 

[HenrySalayne]

On 1/28/2024 at 4:47 AM, hishnash said:

Then you should not look at what happens on games consoles.

Sony (and I believe MS used to do this im not sure if they still do) will require you to pay them 30% even if the user did not buy the game from playation but then ended up playing it on PS.  Eg if you have a free to play game (like fortnight) and the user has the same account on PC and PS5, they then on their PC in the web browser go and buy some `coins` and then buy some in game skins, but then when playing on the PS5 use those skins or left over coins then Sony will send a bill to Epic to pay up... 

Apple explicitly not only do not require a % cut in this situation but have also in the past rejected apps for not letting users use digital content (and currency) that they have purchased elsewhere.   

In general if your looking a extortion then best bet it to look at the game console vendors first as they tend to set the industry standard (who game up with 30%... and that was even when your selling physical copies through a retail store they get 30%)

Since your whole "argumentation" is based around pointing fingers as something you consider "as bad" or "even worse", I guess you have no other point? 

"Apple is bad, but we should not talk about it because I found something else which is bad!"

 

[HenrySalayne]

7 hours ago, Kisai said:

Here's a perfect analogy.

 

Have you ever been to a public pool? What are the typical rules?

- No peeing in the pool

- Shower before and after you enter the pool

- No running

 

All of those are safety rules, but third parties will be like "well I don't think I should shower before I go into the pool cause I'm gonna get wet anyway", ignoring the fact that doing so spreads things from you or your clothing/makeup/sunscreen from you to everyone in the pool. 

 

If the third party doesn't want to play by the most basic of rules to keep everyone on the platform safe, then they should be banned from the platform. That's what happened to Epic Games.

What a terrible analogy. Anyway, you forget a few rules:

- All peeping toms are forbidden except Apple's own version of peeping toms. Apple's version is basically identical, but all data is only used by Apple not by third parties.

- Every transaction on the premise, even transactions mainly happening outside the premise (which were only set in motion on the premise), entitle Apple to 1/3 of the revenue. However, talking about this will get you banned. Changing your pricing will get you banned. Trying to evade it will get you banned.

 

Not to mention the reality:

You are owning this pool. It's not a public pool but your private pool. However, the manufacturer is still enforcing rules.

 

[leadeater]

9 hours ago, Kisai said:

But the people complaining about are not Apple's customers. They are companies who want free access to Apple's customers without playing by the safety rules.

How is taking 30% of Netflix monthly subscription playing or have anything to do with "safety rules". After Netflix App install and payment of service to Netflix for Netflix exactly what part does Apple play in keeping the Netflix service safe?

 

Walmart or even Samsung and LG for that matter do not get a cut of Netflix subscription fees just because you purchased a TV from Walmart or used their product to subscribe. Exactly what safety does Walmart provide for Netflix? What safety does Samsung/LG provide for Netflix?

 

Not only that but Netflix pays Samsung/LG to have their App included with those TVs so any costs associated with ensuring the App itself is complaint with the standards and guidelines of Apps on the TV and checked over by those device makers have already been paid for, so again why would they be entitled to a cut of the subscription fee?

 

9 hours ago, Kisai said:

If the third party doesn't want to play by the most basic of rules to keep everyone on the platform safe, then they should be banned from the platform. That's what happened to Epic Games.

Apple literally stealing money, yes stealing money, from other corporations is not playing by safety rules. In fact Apple stealing money they have no business having is unsafe.

 

The only issue until now was there was no legal framework to classify this theft of money as actual legal theft. Even then it was only dealt with by half measure, force Apple to allow payment processing outside of their App Store.

 

This is, by what you are saying, not "what happened to Epic". Epic disagreed that Apple was in any way deserving or entitled to having a revenue share of what goes on exclusively within their service, which Apple literally does nothing about to ensure safety of that service.

 

The Italian mob threatening to break your knees unless you pay "protection money" is not "safety rules".

[Kisai]

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

How is taking 30% of Netflix monthly subscription playing or have anything to do with "safety rules". After Netflix App install and payment of service to Netflix for Netflix exactly what part does Apple play in keeping the Netflix service safe?

They acquired the customer on the device, and that was the rule they agreed to. You may not like it, but that's the cost of doing business. You are literately whining about the merchant taking it's cut. It does not affect YOU. You do not get a cheaper price for subbing to the service via their own merchant.

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Walmart or even Samsung and LG for that matter do not get a cut of Netflix subscription fees just because you purchased a TV from Walmart or used their product to subscribe. Exactly what safety does Walmart provide for Netflix? What safety does Samsung/LG provide for Netflix?

I'm sure they would love to take a cut too, especially Samsung, since they were ballsy enough to stick ads on the TV and track what you do on the device.

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Not only that but Netflix pays Samsung/LG to have their App included with those TVs so any costs associated with ensuring the App itself is complaint with the standards and guidelines of Apps on the TV and checked over by those device makers have already been paid for, so again why would they be entitled to a cut of the subscription fee?

I'm pretty sure the SmartTV vendors do no checking. Samsung literately had piracy apps on their stores, and even mentioned them as features in the manual.

 

Case in point: https://eu.community.samsung.com/t5/tv/fraudulent-and-piracy-programme-on-samsung-app-samsung-smart-tv/td-p/427572/page/2

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Apple literally stealing money, yes stealing money, from other corporations is not playing by safety rules. In fact Apple stealing money they have no business having is unsafe.

You agreed to the rules, the developer agreed to the rules. When they break the rules they get shown the door, and when YOU break the rules you lose access to Apple's services, which include the App store and all the purchases you made with your Apple account.

 

People want to cry so hard about not being able to do things on the device, and then decide they're going to anyway. That's a risk they're willing to take, and there are clear consequences for it.

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

The only issue until now was there was no legal framework to classify this theft of money as actual legal theft. Even then it was only dealt with by half measure, force Apple to allow payment processing outside of their App Store.

 

This is, by what you are saying, not "what happened to Epic". Epic disagreed that Apple was in any way deserving or entitled to having a revenue share of what goes on exclusively within their service, which Apple literally does nothing about to ensure safety of that service.

 

The Italian mob threatening to break your knees unless you pay "protection money" is not "safety rules".

Oh BS.

 

You buying a Lamborghini doesn't entitle you to using '87 octane gasoline. That is what you're complaining about. There is a premium requirement to use the luxury hardware that is made by the manufacturer, and you're complaining that you need to spend more money on the '98 octane, when you chose to buy the expensive toy in the first place. Go buy the Samsung AO4e Honda Civic if you want a cheap car on cheap gas.

 

You, the customer chose the device, maybe you chose poorly if you're unwilling to follow the manufacturer's rules, and if you ruin the device by ignoring it, you're in for expensive repairs, or you lose the ability to use it entirely.

 

I can't believe people sincerely believe they are going to save any money by trying to avoid the App store. Does this happen anywhere else? No it doesn't. When a game is released, it's the same price on Steam and Epic. The developer maybe gets more money, but you don't.

 

[HenrySalayne]

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

You do not get a cheaper price for subbing to the service via their own merchant.

Yes, you do - except Apple forces the price across platforms to be identical. So EVERYBODY AND THEIR DOG pay for Apple's greed, not only Apple users.

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

You buying a Lamborghini doesn't entitle you to using '87 octane gasoline. That is what you're complaining about. There is a premium requirement to use the luxury hardware that is made by the manufacturer, and you're complaining that you need to spend more money on the '98 octane, when you chose to buy the expensive toy in the first place. Go buy the Samsung AO4e Honda Civic if you want a cheap car on cheap gas.

Imagine you fill up your car and you have to pay a cut to the car's manufacturer for every cent of fuel you put in the tank. Wiper fluid? Oil change? Same story. This is once again the actual analogy - not what you came up with.

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

I can't believe people sincerely believe they are going to save any money by trying to avoid the App store.

Are we saying this? Nope. I don't for a second think Netflix subscription will change at all due to this. What I have and am saying is that Apple should never be entitled to or be taking a cut of a monthly subscription to a service that is not theirs that happened to be process through the App Store payment process which Apple require(d) for the longest time or the App was not allowed on the App store.

 

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

Oh BS.

Not BS, that is actually what Apple was doing. Protection rackeering the likes of Netflix to get subscription money they had no business having or kicking them off the App Store/iOS.

 

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

They acquired the customer on the device, and that was the rule they agreed to. You may not like it, but that's the cost of doing business. You are literately whining about the merchant taking it's cut.

 I care about what is right, just and fair.

 

You don't, that is fine.

 

And false, they did not acquire the customer on the device. This could be an existing user for many years that now has an iOS device and wants to use it on their iOS device but if they update payment information on that iOS device Apple goes from getting 0% monthly subscription share to greater than 0%, an amount greater than they are justified in having.

 

Also Apple does not drive users to Netflix so again implying in any way Apple helped acquire them is complete bogus.

 

Even if Apple was the reason Netflix got the customer that does not entitle them to a share of the subscription fee, only an acquisition fee once. Explain to me exactly how Apple would be entitled to a 30% share of a hypothetical service that costs $1000/month to provide. Exactly what would Apple be providing to deserve $300 every month from every user? Then go on and explain how the service cost is exactly the same if the subscription is not payment processed through Apple App Store?

 

Apple was perfectly happy to allow Netflix users to use Netflix on iOS device while getting 0% and $0 from them. If Apple was incurring any costs at all to justify a share then Netflix wouldn't be allowed at all on iOS and yet it was and all Apple was getting was the developer fees.

 

So please do explain why Apple would allow Apps like Netflix on App Store and iOS that are free Apps and allow subscriptions to be setup elsewhere if it actually cost Apple anything at all in regards to the monthly subscription cost of Netflix.

 

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

The developer maybe gets more money, but you don't.

Good, they are actually doing the work and incurring the cost, not Apple.

 

But I guess what you are actually saying and what I should accept is "Well I guess fuck me and everyone else for actually wanting change? For wanting better consumer practices or just wanting change at all?".

 

Do you not like change, do you not like things to get better?

 

Edit:

But how about we just settle this discussion, it's quite easy to do so. Many people including legislators and legal experts agreed Apple was unjustified in blocking in App purchases and payment processing there by forcing everyone in to App Store payment processing and giving Apple a share so laws and regulations were amended to require Apple to allow that.

Edited January 29 by leadeater

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

You buying a Lamborghini doesn't entitle you to using '87 octane gasoline. That is what you're complaining about. There is a premium requirement to use the luxury hardware that is made by the manufacturer, and you're complaining that you need to spend more money on the '98 octane, when you chose to buy the expensive toy in the first place. Go buy the Samsung AO4e Honda Civic if you want a cheap car on cheap gas.

If you are going to make analogies then at least try and make them relevant and applicable. This has absolutely no applicability or relation to the situation at all.

 

Lamborghini does not get a percentage share of your fuel spend simply because you own a Lamborghini.

 

Do you even read these back to yourself and cross check relevance? It's very obvious what you said has nothing to do with this at all, rather than try and create some scenario to back up your point how about first check if your premise even relates to the discussion.

 

As you said yourself "you do not get a cheaper price" so any changes would not change what I would spend on fuel and it would not change what the Netflix subscription price is either.

 

At want point did I or anyone complain about the subscription cost of Netflix? Why are you talking about the cost of it and not who is entitled to a share of it, you know, the actual discussion point.

[Kisai]

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

At want point did I or anyone complain about the subscription cost of Netflix? Why are you talking about the cost of it and not who is entitled to a share of it, you know, the actual discussion point.

You're failing to see the fallacy that Epic, Spotify, Netflix, etc, have about trying to make it seem like Apple is why their subscription to their service costs as much as it does, when it's in fact the services taking that choice away from you so they get to keep more money.

 

This argument would be completely different if it was Mastercard and Visa saying so. Because you don't have an option other than Mastercard or Visa (or maybe AMEX). If your bank doesn't work with Apple Pay, then you get zip. You're locked out.

 

Epic skirts around this by making you buy their Fortnite fun-money-not-redeemable-in-EpicGameStore.

And so does every other company, as it lets them adjust the prices of things internationally without having to deal with the exchange rates. You buy the fun-money in USD, you get X many fun-money, you buy it somewhere else that has a different exchange, but you still get the same amount of fun-money.

 

Digital products have zero actual distribution costs. Everyone knows that. It's all infrastructure costs. Middle-men taking their cut. And why should I have any sympathy for Epic, Netflix or Spotify crying about how much money it costs them to have their app on the Apple store, when that does not translate into a lower cost for the customer.

 

Netflix, actively tries to hide the fact you can use Apple to pay for Netflix:

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/25097

 

Spotify is even more of a crybaby

https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/6/23785523/spotify-premium-subscribers-apple-app-store-payments-support

 

All I'm saying, is you agreed to the cost of doing business on the app store, and no single developer has the leverage to make Apple charge less, and before that happens, Valve, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have to also charge less. The only one charging less is Epic, and only if you're playing fortnite.

 

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, Kisai said:

You're failing to see the fallacy that Epic, Spotify, Netflix, etc, have about trying to make it seem like Apple is why their subscription to their service costs as much as it does, when it's in fact the services taking that choice away from you so they get to keep more money.

Excuse me but literally again I am not and never was talking about the actual cost of the service.

 

I am not failing to see any fallacy at all.

 

Why are you failing to see that Apple provides completely and absolutely zero service towards a Netflix monthly subscription and people watching Netflix on iOS devices costs them exactly $0 which is why they allow Netflix on iOS as a free App with zero way to manage subscriptions on iOS.

 

14 minutes ago, Kisai said:

All I'm saying, is you agreed to the cost of doing business on the app store, and no single developer has the leverage to make Apple charge less, and before that happens, Valve, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have to also charge less. The only one charging less is Epic, and only if you're playing fortnite.

The law is changed, Apple must allow in-app purchases and payment processing taking them out of the equation and removing them from getting a share of any one time or ongoing subscription fees.

 

14 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Digital products have zero actual distribution costs. Everyone knows that. It's all infrastructure costs. Middle-men taking their cut.

That is the Apple developer fees, done and dusted. Apple allows free Apps on the App Store and all costs for this are covered by the developer fees.

 

I have zero sympathy for you or for Apple crying about getting money they are unjustified of getting, none. That is anti consumer practices and they got forced to change that, too bad for you and Apple.

 

Now Apps and Services can ensure Apple gets no money that they are not entitled to or justified in having, how terrible. Poor Apple, my heart bleeds for them.

[Kisai]

13 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Why are you failing to see that Apple provides completely and absolutely zero service towards a Netflix monthly subscription and people watching Netflix on iOS devices costs them exactly $0 which is why they allow Netflix on iOS as a free App with zero way to manage subscriptions on iOS.

So, you're trying to tell me you have never heard of Netflix at all before buying an iPhone? Cause I doubt you are.

 

At one point in time, Netflix, to grow their customer base, was engaging in those "Free month" schemes where the person who promoted Netflix got a kickback from signing up that new customer. 

 

Do realize that these affiliate schemes continue until that customer cancels their account. You're trying to tell me that the affiliate should only get their commission once right? That some how Apple doing this is some how completely different? Cause it's not.

 

Without divulging privileged information , I can tell you that people who are subscribed to Netflix, including myself for 10 years, likely are still contributing to that affiliate kickback to the person or company who acquired the customer. You see these schemes today with Hello Fresh.

 

Netflix is only being a baby here because they see money they want to keep that Apple is rightly entitled to, because Apple is the one who acquired the customer, and is facilitating the payment. If Netflix wants to be a jerkass and cancel all their Apple customers accounts to prove a point, they can go right ahead, and see how many of them are going to sign back up, because 99% of them aren't. That ire will be on Netflix, not Apple. 

 

Everyone else who initially signed up through something else is still giving a kickback to that affiliate.

 

I have no sympathy for companies who try to cut out the middleman to spite their face.

 

When you see this on ISP's pages, these are affiliate kickbacks:

Don't try to tell me they aren't being paid to promote this.

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, Kisai said:

So, you're trying to tell me you have never heard of Netflix at all before buying an iPhone? Cause I doubt you are.

What on earth? Are you seriously saying Apple legitimately played a significant part in popularizing Netflix?

 

Show me historical evidence of Apple at all ever promoting Netflix.

 

And yes I had heard of and used Netflix before shock horror, having never ever brought an iPhone in my life. The only iPhones I have had have been work provided that I used for work.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, HenrySalayne said:

 

Imagine you fill up your car and you have to pay a cut to the car's manufacturer for every cent of fuel you put in the tank. Wiper fluid? Oil change? Same story. This is once again the actual analogy - not what you came up with.

That's exactly what happens when you get your car serviced. Do you think the oil the dealership is putting in is any different from the oil being put in from the dealership across the street, but you are being charged three times the amount for?

 

Just sayin, People seem to have this huge disconnect between what Apple is asking developers to do and the companies pissing their pants and throwing a tantrum that they don't get all the money while wanting to eat the cake too.

 

Don't fall for this buffoonery. This is all about a few developers who have their apps on everything and are using Apple as the punching bag, because they think they have the leverage to do so, it's very likely they are paying the same kickbacks to signups on everything, and it's just Apple they object to because the game consoles don't do subscriptions. Or at least not until the Xbox 360... in case people forgot:

 

https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/microsoft-to-nix-xbox-live-gold-requirement-for-netflix-report-says/

[leadeater]

31 minutes ago, Kisai said:

If Netflix wants to be a jerkass and cancel all their Apple customers accounts to prove a point, they can go right ahead, and see how many of them are going to sign back up, because 99% of them aren't.

I'm extremely sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about. Since Netflix on iOS operated for years without being able to manage subscriptions from within the App on iOS then yes people would sign up.

 

Netflix already proved their point without canceling subscriptions, they just complied with Applies unjustified and unwarranted App rules by removing subscription management from the iOS App and wouldn't you know it people kept using Netflix on iOS.

 

31 minutes ago, Kisai said:

When you see this on ISP's pages, these are affiliate kickbacks:

Show me where Apple is doing this.

 

31 minutes ago, Kisai said:

You're trying to tell me that the affiliate should only get their commission once right?

That is how many of them work yes.

 

31 minutes ago, Kisai said:

because Apple is the one who acquired the customer

Nope they did not.

  

31 minutes ago, Kisai said:

and is facilitating the payment.

Forcing facilitating payment by racketeering mob tactics, oh wait no because Netflix middle fingered and remove subscription management.

[leadeater]

33 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Don't fall for this buffoonery.

Don't fall for Apple's lol

 

You screaming about us falling for XYZ company when we aren't even remotely and yet you can't justify why Apple is actually truly entitled to a monthly subscription of literally any service that had an App on the App Store while also in the middle of discussion about Netflix and trying to say Apple promotes and drives customers to Netflix all while Apple operates a competing service, Apple TV+.

 

Apple doesn't care about you just as much as I don't care about any company names you keep throwing around and saying we are falling for. 

 

What if we are actually capable of logical and sound thought processes and evaluating a situation and can figure out Apple is proving nothing that warrants them getting a part of a monthly subscription? Maybe that is actually what is going on here....

[Kisai]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

Don't fall for Apple's lol

 

You screaming about us falling for XYZ company when we aren't even remotely ...

Shush. You know exactly what's going on here.

 

"The trillion dollar company doesn't need a white knight any more than the billion dollar one"

 

I'm just saying how it is. You are not entitled to anything and all the back and forth on this thread is just calling out the obvious. Just because you don't think Apple is entitled to something doesn't mean they're not going to defend their actions, point to other businesses and go "that is just business."

 

Ultimately, you as the customer get zero benefit no matter who is right. It's just a matter of how much of your money they are sharing. Netflix and Spotify is not entitled to any more money than Apple is, and if these companies really wanted to put their money where their mouth is, they would make their service free to watch at the same resolution and quality as their subscription service, and instead charge their own customers to publish on their platform, exactly how Apple works. 

 

Or are you gonna say that spotify and netflix should only pay their clients once?

 

[HenrySalayne]

7 hours ago, Kisai said:

8 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

That's exactly what happens when you get your car serviced. Do you think the oil the dealership is putting in is any different from the oil being put in from the dealership across the street, but you are being charged three times the amount for?

YES, that's the whole point: you have a choice and you are not forced to use the car dealership.
Apple doesn't let you choose, there is no competition and you have to pay an egregious proportion to Apple.

 

[leadeater]

7 hours ago, Kisai said:

Shush. You know exactly what's going on here.

 

"The trillion dollar company doesn't need a white knight any more than the billion dollar one"

 

I'm just saying how it is. You are not entitled to anything and all the back and forth on this thread is just calling out the obvious. Just because you don't think Apple is entitled to something doesn't mean they're not going to defend their actions, point to other businesses and go "that is just business."

You tried to point to an example where two companies are forming a formal agreement of exchange of services where when people sign up to a service, internet service, that includes a subscription to another one i.e. Netflix.

 

Netflix directly benefits because they get 1) A user 2) Money from that ISP. That ISP benefits becuse someone might choose to use their internet service because it comes with the additional benefit of i.e. Netflix.

 

Remind me again how this is similar to Apple forcing all money transactions on iOS to go through the App Store?

 

7 hours ago, Kisai said:

I'm just saying how it is

You are not saying how it is. You are saying and defending Apple's entitlement to take a portion of a service fee that they have zero active involvement in and haven't given a good justification as to why they are actually entitled to it.

 

Apple not allowing applications to do in-app transactions through their own processing or 3rd party does not entitle them to this, this is how it is or was but that does not define how and why they are entitled to it.

 

7 hours ago, Kisai said:

Netflix and Spotify is not entitled to any more money than Apple is

Yes they absolutely are. They operate the service and incur all the costs of running it and that includes paying Apple a developer fee to have their App on the App Store at all and for Apple to cover the distribution and updating of the App.

 

Every application developer is fully entitled to calculate the cost of their service and charge users for it. Why is it not a problem that only on iOS that a portion goes to Apple and nowhere else. What uniquely entitles Apple to a share of this service fee and nobody else?

 

Apple can defend their interest as much as they want, they should. That doesn't make their point of view and what they are doing right and interestingly enough the law now agrees.

 

Don't get mad at me when you make bad points and bad comparisons.

 

And again I do not give a damn and never have and never will about Spotify and Netflix, both of which I do not use. You know it is actually possible to care about what is right and advocate for fair and just business practices in the absence of a specific company? Just because I use Netflix as an example, because it's easy and well known, doesn't mean I personally have any interest in them or any other company. Don't accuse me or anyone else of such ridiculous things and I won't find it so necessary to harshly correct you. If I say I don't care about Netflix then that is it, end of story, you don't get to keep banging on about how I do.

[leadeater]

7 hours ago, Kisai said:

Ultimately, you as the customer get zero benefit no matter who is right

That is not true. Firstly due to Apple's business practices the user experience for iOS versions of many Apps is worse for no justifiable reason due to Apple i.e. the inability to manage subscriptions.

 

Fees that Apple require do in fact impact whether or not an App is viable on a platform or the cost of it or the willingness for developers to bring their App to that platform. This isn't just about the huge companies like Netflix, this effects everyone.

 

Do you not think Apple taking a 30% cut of every single Floatplane subscription might be a little bit of a problem? You are aware the subscription costs were calculated without Apple taking a sizable portion of the monthly subscription because everywhere else this would not and does not happen. Not only that an iOS App did not exist for Floatplane at the time or a long time after, the iOS App was delayed far longer due to Apple's business practices and you are trying to argue that this does not effect real people and businesses.

 

Come on. An unfair market restriction is bad no matter who is doing it. 

 

Past businesses conducting bad business practices is not a defense or justification for businesses doing it now. Current businesses conducting bad business practices is not a defense or justification for other businesses to do it. I have been highly critical of streaming services like Netflix but those aspects simply don't apply here so I don't see any reason to talk about them.

[Lunar River]

Absolutely wild that people are defending apple for this...

[HenrySalayne]

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Do you not think Apple taking a 30% cut of every single Floatplane subscription might be a little bit of a problem? You are aware the subscription costs were calculated without Apple taking a sizable portion of the monthly subscription because everywhere else this would not and does not happen. Not only that an iOS App did not exist for Floatplane at the time or a long time after, the iOS App was delayed far longer due to Apple's business practices and you are trying to argue that this does not effect real people and businesses.

I think it's necessary to remind people what this actually means (in Europe):

10€ subscription (end user price)

-30% Apple (3€)

-20% VAT (1.40€)

= 5.60€

That's what's left for the content, the infrastructure and profit. If you are not exclusively selling digital goods (like a game) with every unit sold being a net profit, this would literally kill any business or make it insanely expensive for customers.

 

Netflix' profit margin is around 15%. A good estimation for payment processing fees on other platforms is below 5%. So Netflix keeps 7.50€ with operating costs being 6.50€ and 1€ profit. This means that every customer on other platforms is subsidising Apple.

 

I think that's something worth keeping in mind.

 

 

[Beskamir]

On 1/26/2024 at 12:16 AM, HenrySalayne said:

only for European customers

It keeps confusing me how they intend to enforce that. VPNs exist. European expats exist. Buying phones from abroad is a thing. And so on. For example, I'm technically an EU citizen that's living in Canada. Would that be enough to qualify me as an European customer if was to buy an iphone in Europe and bring it back with me to Canada? Not that I have any intention of giving such a terrible company any money.

[Kisai]

13 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

And again I do not give a damn and never have and never will about Spotify and Netflix, both of which I do not use. You know it is actually possible to care about what is right and advocate for fair and just business practices in the absence of a specific company? 

 

Then pick different examples where you can actually see "harm" in this status quo, because Spotify and Netflix are not being harmed by Apple. They want to be on the platform, they can play every platform's rules, like it or not.

 

If you don't like the rules, then you advocate for your country to regulate this stuff. Otherwise, this is just devils advocating, and you know it. 

 

As a small developer, eg, someone who maybe operates an art site, or a turn-based MMORPG, there are things I can object to that make no sense, but the "cost of acquiring the customer" is not one of them. If "I" the developer of the software cared about this, I would not be making the option to purchase on the app an option. I would make the app free to play/ad-supported and if you want to subscribe to things, open the web browser and pay for the subscription. Inconvenient, and loses a lot more sales. But hey if you're willing to lose dollars to save pennies, keep on doing it.

 

One of the reasons why my client does not have an app on the phone, despite there being dozens of piracy apps on the android store pirating our content, is because Apple wants you to censor things. This is again, another work-around where you have to turn NSFW media on in the website, so it appears on the app. It does not appear in the app by default. But these piracy apps do not have these controls because they do not own the content they are stealing/hot-linking to. Their apps only get approved because there is nothing in the app to show.

 

Netflix and spotify could do this too, they could make the app work in an offline mode by default, and when it connects to the their service, it has to download/progressively-stream the media before it plays it. Apple can't exert their controls on the software if it doesn't talk to anything. It's just a dumb interface to something else the customer has.

 

But again Inconvenient, and loses a lot more sales. Netflix and Spotify lose more money by not having the option to pay on the iPhone, because customers are less willing to try an app that does nothing. If Netflix was smart, they would throw some of their content in a "Free-to-play" part of the app at the intended quality, without ads, like https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/80994695 (Carmen Sandiego: To steal or not to steal) or  https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/81004016 (We lost our human), both are interactive movies that only work in the Netflix app on the phone, or only on the web browser (not the app) on the PC. That way people can see how the app works on their device.

 

Other movie content, they can get a better experience buying the title on blueray, or iTunes, because those DVD-extras do not exist on Netflix. Netflix has to compete with the physical media and also iTunes and Amazon Video. 

 

And if you wanna pull the "ISP double dipping" argument, bandwidth costs nothing. Only infrastructure does. ISP's are greedy and want to charge both YOU and Netflix for the same bytes. These companies should already be on Peering networks and be paying nothing for bandwidth, because THAT-IS-HOW-IT-WORKS, and has always worked that way. If you are paying for bandwidth, you are small and paying a third party who is paying nothing instead.

https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/verizon-blames-cogent-for-unbalanced-peering-netflix-dispute

 

[leadeater]

7 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

This means that every customer on other platforms is subsidising Apple.

Well in reality no, because Netflix simply didn't allow anyone to pay through Apple because of that. They used to but I don't remember how long ago, but very from my understanding.

[leadeater]

45 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Then pick different examples where you can actually see "harm" in this status quo

No I do not need to. Bad is bad irrelevant of how much you care it impacts users and involved businesses. Just because Netflix is able to operate as it does, without allowing people to pay through Apple doesn't mean people are not affected because they cannot manage any billing on iOS without using the web browser which while is an option it's still a worse consumer experience than anywhere else.

 

So there is actually harm, you just don't care.

45 minutes ago, Kisai said:

If you don't like the rules, then you advocate for your country to regulate this stuff. Otherwise, this is just devils advocating, and you know it. 

What do you think this topic is about????

 

May I reminded you the rules just actually changed! Ergo you are wrong, you were wrong and it has always been a problem and needed to be addressed and got addressed.

 

45 minutes ago, Kisai said:

But again Inconvenient, and loses a lot more sales. Netflix and Spotify lose more money by not having the option to pay on the iPhone, because customers are less willing to try an app that does nothing. If Netflix was smart

Netflix is smart, they don't allow an operating condition where the users result in a net loss.

 

If there were more sales and profit to be had for Netflix then they would allow it, they don't because there isn't. Why are you arguing that a for profit publicly traded company is choosing to not make more money? Netflix is smart.