They don't force Netflix to pay them 30% either. The reality is they take 30% where they can overpower the other party. Where they are overpowered, they acquiesce.
This is because Netflix, knowing Apple would take 30%, does not allow you to sign up via an iPhone app. Apple takes 30% if you sign up via iPhone, not if you sign up via web and then use the iPhone app.
Netflix was able to do this because Apple carved out an exception for them by gerrymandering the rules so Netflix could do this. They did that because Netflix was powerful enough. Hey tried to do a similar thing, but Apple was having none of it. They were going to force them to pay them 30%, because they were not powerful enough. When the social media storm made them more powerful, Apple acquiesced.
The little tiny company I work for plays by the same rules. We don't support any subscription payments through either of the app stores, only through our website.
Every couple months Apple will reject us over it, but it always escalates and we always get approved.
Google at least allows us to link to our own website, but if you use our iOS app, you have to figure it out on your own if you want to subscribe.
Netflix does not allow you to sign up in their iOS app. You have to sing up and set up payment through their website, but you can use your username and password to use your subscription in iOS. They do not pay the Apple Tax.
Hey tried to use the exact same, but Apple said they MUST allow sign ups in the app, using in-app purchase API, and paying 30% to Apple. Apple was not going to allow Hey to do what Netflix/Spotify/etc have done for ages, until public sentiments and social media storm forced them to acquiesce.
if you read the twitter thread or the verge article you'll see this isn't true. fanhouse did disable in app purchases and force transactions via the web and apple threatened to pull their app unless they reenabled in app purchases
Apple has always had clear exceptions for video, audio, magazine and newspaper apps.
"3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video). Reader apps may offer account creation for free tiers, and account management functionality for existing customers."
It isn't because Netflix or Amazon are "powerful" enough, but that they saw that these were traditional multiplatform services.
I disagree with the ridiculous Hey situation (and note that Apple backed down), however let's be accurate.
1. Apple has strong convictions about what it is entitled to proceeds from and what it is not. It is a coincidence that the things it believes it is not entitled to proceeds from are things that the powerful companies produce; things people would leave the platform for rather than live without, like Netflix.
2. Apple is throwing its weight when it can and acquiesce when it can's. That's why exceptions are carved for the likes of Amazon and Netflix without specifically naming them.
Apple's rules, as I have mentioned elsewhere [1], are too convoluted for the first explanation to make sense, at least to me. I fully understand if that explanation makes sense to other people, but I am convinced it is a matter of power.
Yes, of course it is. And it's self-serving. Apple saw that they needed to have these cross-platform services -- from big and small and medium sized creators and businesses -- and they carved out exemptions.
This is another thread where anything contrary the mob is going to hit -4, but here I am because such things are a bit fun.
I replied to someone specifically claiming that Apple made an exception for the all powerful Netflix, but that Hey was too small to get the same exception -- it's just big v small. In actuality Apple has a "gerrymandered" broad set of categories that are exempt (whether you are a garage company or a multinational), otherwise you have to provide basic functionality in your app without such a subscription. Hey didn't fit in the categories, and they didn't provide the functionality.
I may disagree with Apple on this -- and there should be an App label denoting that external subscriptions are necessary -- however phrasing and truth actually matters.
There are a core group of extremely passionate anti-Apple folks who seem to go through every Apple thread and downvote anything that doesn't have torch in hand. It's pretty silly, but whatever.
I just saw one of these guys sincerely claim that Safari was "notoriously outdated and incompatible with the modern web". It is beyond parody.
There was a thread the other day that seriously argued that Apple promised the App Store was "completely secure" (which apparently extends out to guaranteeing the honesty, security and operational practices of every business if they happen to have an app on the App Store). I took multiple -4 downvote sprees for pointing out actual fact and reality, and felt good that I at least wasted a bit of their time.
It's boring and below HN, but it's the reality we live with.
This is true, but it's still an exception made for their specific situation. Email app Hey tried doing the same thing recently, and Apple rejected the update and refused to push further feature updates until they removed it. It's a double standard, no matter how you cut it.
They did not just draw a line; they gerrymandered a line so Netflix would not leave App Store and Apple would not lose its income from smaller players while pretending it is a fair line in the sand. Even Marco Arment has commented on the ridiculousness of the complexity of the line. I highly recommend reading the link below.
That post is from Sept. 2020, but Netflix (and Audible, Comixology + others) have been dodging the 30% cut for years simply by not allowing you to pay within the app. I'm not sure Apple had Netflix in mind with this change.
> But you also cannot pay for Netflix in the iPhone app. You have to do it on their website
The App Store explicitly rejects smaller apps that attempt to do this. See Hey, the email client that tried the exact same thing and got the cold-shoulder.
