
Netflix is the latest company to try bypassing Apple’s app store - gbaygon
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-is-the-latest-company-to-try-bypassing-apples-app-store-2018-08-23
======
madrox
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.

~~~
kitsunesoba
_> 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.

~~~
sametmax
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.

~~~
ysavir
Companies aren't innovating anymore, though. We've reached the point where we
have dominant players controlling the field, and any "innovation" we see has
to do only with profit margins.

~~~
georgeecollins
People are trying all kinds of innovations around streaming video apps, you
are just aware of them. I am no expert, but off the top of my head I can think
of people trying to create streaming subscription services for horror movies,
for esports, for anime.. I'm sure most will fail, but who could have predicted
Twitch ten years ago?

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

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

~~~
ypeterholmes
They also often get their own rules. I've designed apps that onboard exactly
like the big boys, and been rejected.

------
peatmoss
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.

~~~
bepotts
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?

~~~
ballenf
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.

~~~
macintux
> 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.

Here are some benefits to the one-size-fits-all policy Apple uses:

* Developers are forced to comply with Apple's rules. Otherwise companies could develop shitty apps that use private APIs to work around Apple's restrictions and then force customers to open up their devices to use it.

* Apple and every 3rd-party support person/company/family member in the world isn't forced to deal with a steady stream of "Somebody told me to change this setting and now my phone has a virus" support requests.

* People aren't misled (more than they already are) about the safety of the iOS ecosystem by a steady stream of news stories about people who changed the setting and got their phone infected.

~~~
dwaite
> * Developers are forced to comply with Apple's rules. Otherwise companies
> could develop shitty apps that use private APIs to work around Apple's
> restrictions and then force customers to open up their devices to use it.

This. Apple consistently chooses to make workaround options complex for the
purposes of discouraging this sort of activity.

See:

* Deprecated APIs are actually obsoleted and removed; your app won't run in the new OS version and that means people buying hardware can't run your app.

* Right click has long been a hardware feature but off by default, so that apps wouldn't build in non-standard mouse 'gestures'.

* New ITP anti-tracking features in Safari have no off switch The solution to cookie issues is to change how your app works (such that you don't use hidden cross-domain redirects/frames)

* Side loading apps onto iOS devices is not possible without a business profile or the end user having a development environment - and misused business profiles are revoked.

* The option to turn off app signatures has been removed from the UI (not always the case - Minecraft for instance used to tell users to turn app signature verification off globally to work around their lack of app signing).

* Android has a list of permissions you must grant apps in order to install them. iOS on the other hand requires the application to prompt for individual permissions (location information, microphone access, etc), requires a description of _why_ they want that permission, and per App Store guidelines must run with (reduced) functionality should the user say no.

~~~
scarface74
Everything you posted is a benefit to the developer but not the end user.

~~~
macintux
You have a strange interpretation of that list. Additional privacy in web
views, selective privacy controls for app permissions, how exactly are those
developer enhancements and not user benefits?

------
menacingly
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"

~~~
tommymachine
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
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.

~~~
tommymachine
The answer is yes. They already fought with Spotify over this. Spotify had to
clean up their game quite a bit to pass App Store review. Apple still has
plenty of leverage. Being the highest grossing app on the platform is a double
edged sword - and Netflix needs to be on iOS even more than Apple needs them
to. But it's very unlikely that Apple would go so far as to delist Netflix.
Apple will just reject the new updates until Netflix submits a version that
plays by the rules. If Apple delisted an approved (live) version of any app
based on something extra that turned up during review of a newer update, and
the change wasn't in the live version, that would be unprecedented as far as I
know, and likely an error that would be corrected promptly. And the Netflix
user base is so big, there's almost no way that error would be allowed to
happen.

~~~
dhimes
Why can Netflix just use the mobile browser? Are they allowing downloads for
offline viewing? If they are only online streaming I see no reason at all to
even have an app. Just a mobile web page. Can somebody enlighten me?

~~~
tommymachine
User experience is better in apps

~~~
dhimes
In my experience it depends on the site and the app. Streaming vids seems like
a perfect job for the browser.

~~~
tommymachine
Agree but overall users seem to prefer apps versus browsers at a ratio of 9 to
1 (in terms of time spent in each medium) .

------
orf
> 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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

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

~~~
binomialxenon
I don't think this is how it works, at least not from my past experience with
Lineage. A browser isn't an app installer, as when you download an APK from
it, the APK is staged through the phone's integrated file manager (aka
"Downloads" app), and is treated as having no real source.

As far as I know, real "app installers" are purpose-built programs such as
Amazon Appstore and F-Droid.

~~~
orf
Hmm, you might be right, but I installed an APK recently (also on Lineage) and
it asked me to authorize Firefox, it had the Firefox logo and seemed to
suggest that future installs would be authorized. I cancelled it and opened it
through the file manager.

~~~
binomialxenon
Hmm, that might be one of the changes made in Oreo. Weird, I don't think it's
a very good change either.

------
happywage
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.

~~~
aardshark
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?

~~~
happywage
>>>>>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.

------
jefe_
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.

~~~
ec109685
You aren’t allowed to charge extra for a subscription in an app in the App
Store.

~~~
dhruvarora013
I don't think that's true

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

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

~~~
ec109685
You’re right. That is what Spotify is doing too. I really thought they
prohibited that, but can’t find evidence of that. Perhaps that was around
their bookstore.

~~~
jjeaff
You just can't tell the user in the app that they can get it cheaper by going
to your website.

------
teekert
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).

------
akshayB
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.

------
75dvtwin
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
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.

------
rconti
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.

~~~
tommymachine
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.

------
tusharsoni
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).

~~~
segmondy
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
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.

------
MiddleEndian
Excellent, hopefully this trend continues on all platforms.

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

~~~
mrep
Yep, and the same reason you cannot buy kindle books in the kindle app.

------
tolmasky
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.

~~~
donarb
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.

~~~
tolmasky
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.

~~~
donarb
What new price? Apple's 30% has been in place since the App Store opened.
Outside of the HN bubble, users have no idea what Apple charges developers,
nor do they care. If a customer wants an app, they check the price and
determine if they want to pay it or not, just as business is conducted every
day all around the world.

If a developer is losing money building apps (most cut their own throat with
$.99 apps), they need to increase the price to cover their costs, that's
Business 101.

~~~
tolmasky
Well, the point of the comment was the demonstrate that a 30% revenue cut is
rather onerous through the thought experiment of what would happen if an
additional one was placed.

That being said, existing _services_ absolutely went through this sort of
increase when customers wanting to use a service with a known pricing model,
interacted with the service on this new platform: services that wanted to put
their business on the App Store DID have to either add an additional 30%
increase across the board, or (as mentioned in the end of the comment), treat
App Store-acquired customers as 30%-less revenue generating. Again, from the
_customer 's_ perspective, which I have repeatedly tried to convey, this is
confusing and opaque. Notice that in none of my above comments do I ever
lament app developers, and thus do not need a business 101 explanation. I am
lamenting that Apple, through a combination of not just placing a large 30%
cut, but additionally not giving developers the flexibility to either increase
the price of the product by 30% on said platform, created an opaque situation
where the customers appears as a lower-revenue generating customer to a
business.

This was not imagined, it was discussed quite a bit in the space (especially
when the MAC App Store appeared), where EXISTING apps, pre App Store, found
themselves in the very unfortunate situation where they hoped people found the
app not through the App Store.

------
sxp62000
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.

~~~
donarb
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

~~~
mcphage
> 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.

------
99052882514569
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-...](https://stratechery.com/2018/the-european-commission-versus-
android/)

------
sambroner
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
> 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
> 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.

------
cletus
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.

~~~
erikpukinskis
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.

------
chacham15
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.

------
chrischen
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.

~~~
gnicholas
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?

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

------
c487bd62
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)

~~~
s73v3r_
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.

------
ezoe
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.

------
nkkollaw
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...

------
makecheck
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
> _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
Just 30% when purchased through the app store. Sounds like a simple solution.

------
ihuman
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.

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

------
perseusprime11
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.

~~~
erikpukinskis
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.

------
bogomipz
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?

------
iamgopal
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.

------
michaelmrose
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.

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

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

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

------
bepotts
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.

~~~
danieldk
_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._

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
> 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)?

~~~
gowld
Because of antitrust concerns.
[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/antitrust.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/antitrust.asp)

~~~
rootusrootus
iOS still has less than 50% of the market, however.

------
thiswillis
The App store is vehicle for censorship.

------
z3t4
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 ?

