But most likely it wasn’t an Apple referral that made them download the app in the first place. They heard about a show from friends or on social media. It certainly wasn’t Apple promotion. Why would Apple be promoting Netflix content when they have their own streaming service?
Because that was the old system they decided on when they created MacOS and Windows. Software at the time was not digitally downloaded and always purchased from brick and mortar stores. iOS, Playstation, Android, Amazon devices, Kindle all came around when only digital installs were around (exception is the older Playstation/XBOX that people bought disc - but Sony and Microsoft still get paid licensing fees for discs I believe) and all of the above get a cut for digital downloads on their systems. Of course the brick and mortar companies also got a cut for selling software. There is NO free-ride for having your product sold, NOR should there be.
They carved out the payment processing, which they never contended amounted to anything more than 3%. The rest was itemized, core technology (development of the system and APIs), accounting and tax services. This is why you see only the giant corporations having a fit. They have silos defending their existence within the company in their own treasury/accounting/finance teams. For the average developer, it’s a steal.
Ah, but the fact is they *didn’t* sign up before, and the app has referred them.
Ok, but the only issue is that Apple is a private company. The government can't force Apple to charge a certain amount. I agree with the part about Apple being anticompetitive with the anti steering, but if a developer doesn't like the terms of a platform, they don't have to use it.
Apple's rules mostly impact big corporations trying to maximize profits and keep shareholders happy. These restrictions help level the field for smaller developers like me. Without them, giants like Microsoft could exploit loopholes and crush competition.
Apple frequently promotes Netflix in the App Store using editorials, App Store user rankings, and recommendations aimed at new iPhone users.
It's a functioning app if you can log in and get access to whatever you're paying for outside of Apple's ecosystem, - there's no issue with that because, as you put it, Apple doesn't require paying services to put IAP in their iOS apps.
Even today, long after digital downloads became the norm, I can still release software on macOS and Windows without paying them a commission every time somebody buys my app or subscribes to my service.
Difference being that Apple isn't forced to go through Best Buy to get to me as a consumer. A developer cannot get to me on my iOS device without going through Apple.
This comes back to the core issues I have with Apple and the way they try and gain a piece of all transactions that occur on iOS even those they do not facilitate. I don't think they are entitled to a fee just because there is a link in the App. The difference between an App with either a link in the app or not is so trivial to the API side of things it isn't worth mentioning. The rule exists solely to make linking out less desirable and thus developers stay away from the option and thus the apps are worse. Apple is practicing en********ation to protect revenue they don't even make! They aren't even making this money because Netflix doesn't put a link in the app right now anyway. They are fighting and dying on this hill for no good reason.
People here will argue to death that apple deserves that 27% cut.
As has been brought up in multiple threads, Apple doesn't charge for API access equally, only apps that offer digital goods are charged and only if they want to mention those digital goods in app. If they sell the same goods for the same app outside of the app, all hunky dory, no payment necessary. The app doesn't meaningfully change by letting them link out to a website. The API access doesn't change. This is why this argument is mostly nonsense and I think the EU and US should look at this argument and throw it out on the grounds that Apple doesn't actually treat it this way. They might claim this is the reason for the commission but they don't actually bother to collect a commission from many many many many apps that use their services.
Referred to them? That's a stretch. For something like Netflix a user probably manually searched for it.
A developer can reach Windows users through multiple avenues outside of the Epic store.
That technically isn't true, she allowed that Apple could collect payment for its IP but declined to comment on the specific amount of the commission. It also isn't clear that her comments that payment for IP being allowed is something Apple can collect via commission on payments processed via an external website.
It’s clear that Netflix and Spotify should contribute more than $99 per year to support the iOS ecosystem — I’m sure that’s Apple’s view 😉
And they get charged 5% no matter what store it’s sold through. This has nothing to do with the store, everything to do with charging a licensing fee for Unreal Engine… like what Apple is doing for their core technology fees.
So far I'm with you but the user experience would be better if there was a button in the Netflix app that said, "Sign up here"
No they won't because Netflix isn't going to give up 27% of each new subscription for the privilege of including a link.
Since this referral isn't going to happen Apple gets no commission, so the only thing that this new rule is going to change is that the user experience is going to continue to be bad but Apple gets to pretend they complied with the ruling.
Umm a link from the app to a Netflix payment page is literally a referral.
Pretend is not accurate. They provided a link out mechanism to handle external payment processing.
They could just add the CTF (or a better version of it anyway) to the App Store worldwide...
