Well Microsoft already tried to and failedWell if those companies don't like the policy, they can just all become phone manufacturers and set their own unfair policies, amirite fellow self-hating consumers?
Well Microsoft already tried to and failedWell if those companies don't like the policy, they can just all become phone manufacturers and set their own unfair policies, amirite fellow self-hating consumers?
They should have a subscription or a one time fee for using the development tools just like Visual Studio or any commercial IDE out there.What compensation does Apple get for macOS apps? Microsoft for Windows apps?
Guess we'll get to see the reasoning for ourselves on whatever decision the court reaches.Why should Netflix get a free ad for their service?
They asked for the link, and Apple provided a mechanism.
If it converts within 7 days, you owe Apple for the referral.
Don’t want that, don’t include the link 🤷🏻♂️
My streaming apps, Apple gets nothing from because they are subscribed to from the companies' web sites and not through the subscriptions on the app storeYou can't possibly know this. To claim that the reason that someone downloads something like Netflix or Spotify is marketing by the App Store is just pure speculation, likely false pure speculation given how much of a household name Netflix is.
That part shows why Apple is being the bad guy here because they are being flippant with the injunction which is that yes they will comply with the injunction but they are going to charge dev's to take advantage of the injunction.
Meta, Microsoft, X, and Match today joined Epic Games to protest the way Apple complied with a court ruling requiring it to walk back its anti-steering rules. In an amicus brief in support of Epic Games (via The Wall Street Journal), the four companies said that the fees Apple is charging are too high, and that there are too many restrictions on how developers link to their websites. "The Apple Plan comports with neither the letter nor the spirit of this Court's mandate," reads the brief.
......
Apple in January claimed that it was in full compliance with the injunction, and that it has given developers a way to inform customers about alternative purchase mechanisms both in their apps and outside of their apps.
.....
If the tesla car is any indicator, I'd love to see how bad an X phone would turn outWell if those companies don't like the policy, they can just all become phone manufacturers and set their own unfair policies, amirite fellow self-hating consumers?
Then a link is really unnecessary, as Netflix is a household name!What free ad? Netflix is a household name, I very very very strongly doubt that the reason someone downloaded Netflix from the App Store is because it is within the App Store.
If Netflix paid for an App Store ad to get their app placed higher that is even more reason that this isn't a free ad.
A link improves the usability of the App. It allows a user to sign up or re-subscribe if they have canceled the subscription in the past. Just because they already know about Netflix doesn't mean they shouldn't' be able to have a better user experience.Then a link is really unnecessary, as Netflix is a household name!
Legal is questionable given that all of these companies think they have a chance of fighting it.The link out is there to provide an alternative payment processor, as the court ordered.
It’s not there to escape App Store commissions, as those are legal and agreed to by the developer.
Ah yes, we can’t know everything that’s for sure!You can't possibly know this. To claim that the reason that someone downloads something like Netflix or Spotify is marketing by the App Store is just pure speculation, likely false pure speculation given how much of a household name Netflix is.
Not really. The judge specifically said that Apple was able to collect it's commission in the ruling.Legal is questionable given that all of these companies think they have a chance of fighting it.
At this point who is downloading the Netflix app because of Apple marketing? Who was ever downloading it because of Apple’s marketing? The reason you’re downloading it from the App Store is because that’s the only way to get apps on iOS.This one is simple to me. If you download an app and you are already a customer Apple gets nothing seems fine to me.
If you download an app and you are a new customer then the app being marketed by Apple App Store has brought developer xyz business. Apple gets a cut.
Their current 30% cut is ridiculous. It should be 90%.If Apple feels like they should get a cut of in app purchases, I have no issue with that since those purchases enable new features, which rely on Apple's APIs. But companies should be able to direct customers to their website to sign up without any penalty.
Exactly how are they making money off of Apple’s platform? There’s obviously a reason Apple doesn’t require they offer IAP and allows them to offer a non-functioning app for download. They didn’t allow Hey to do this so Hey had to offer something for free in order to stay on the App Store.Yes, akin to Spotify and many others - you can't subscribe via their iOS app to avoid letting Apple take its cut for providing the platform 3rd-parties make some of their money off of.
What I find ridiculous is trying to cut off those who circumvent the ordeal via their own means tho, it's no where near as secure or convenient as an official app platform, but if some want to risk it, let them.
You know what would improve usability even more?A link improves the usability of the App. It allows a user to sign up or re-subscribe if they have canceled the subscription in the past. Just because they already know about Netflix doesn't mean they shouldn't' be able to have a better user experience.
Legal is questionable given that all of these companies think they have a chance of fighting it.