Netflix stops paying the ‘Apple tax’ on its $853M in annual iOS revenue • Hacker News Board

Re: Netflix stops paying the ‘Apple tax’ on its $853M in annual iOS revenue

#331

Post by MattRix » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 2:38 PM UTC

ClassyJacket wrote: post #308

makecheck wrote: post #66

I find it hard to blame anyone for leaving any store when there has been almost nothing of value added in years and things are even regressing. That 30% should have gone a lot further; after 10 years, I can’t even use two different search-and-sort criteria at once to find new apps (and I refuse to sit there and scroll through offensively-bad lists of useless results, much less buy them). I am however not surprised by…

I think more to the point, the 30% cut for Apple isn't justified because the content isn't delivered via the App Store. 30% of in app purchases that are downloaded from the App Store is one thing, but 30% of Netflix fees is crazy when all Apple is doing is hosting the app itself. Apple isn't hosting Netflix's content, why should they get a cut of that?

The percentage has never really been for hosting, which would be worth a couple percent at most. It's been about access to the giant audience.

Re: Netflix stops paying the ‘Apple tax’ on its $853M in annual iOS revenue

#332

Post by al2o3cr » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 2:53 PM UTC

    meaning Apple was making around $700,000 by doing nothing
    other than allowing Netflix to offer subscriptions

Well, nothing else besides providing single-sign-on and payment processing. It's like whining "MasterCard doesn't do ANYTHING but collect interchange fees!"

Re: Netflix stops paying the ‘Apple tax’ on its $853M in annual iOS revenue

#333

Post by w1nt3rmu4e » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 2:54 PM UTC

ClassyJacket wrote: post #308

makecheck wrote: post #66

I find it hard to blame anyone for leaving any store when there has been almost nothing of value added in years and things are even regressing. That 30% should have gone a lot further; after 10 years, I can’t even use two different search-and-sort criteria at once to find new apps (and I refuse to sit there and scroll through offensively-bad lists of useless results, much less buy them). I am however not surprised by…

I think more to the point, the 30% cut for Apple isn't justified because the content isn't delivered via the App Store. 30% of in app purchases that are downloaded from the App Store is one thing, but 30% of Netflix fees is crazy when all Apple is doing is hosting the app itself. Apple isn't hosting Netflix's content, why should they get a cut of that?

That 30% is unjustifiable. Period. If we're talking cost, the cost of hosting software and payment processor fees are closer to 7-8%, 99% of which are on the payment side.

The cost of Apple's gatekeeping -- their review bureaucracy -- is entirely their own doing and benefits no one. Software can and should be sold directly. There is zero justification for a middleman with digital delivery.

They say it's for consumers which is absolute nonsense when you look at what makes it into the store. Most of it is garbage.

The effect on "real" developers is staggering: Discoverability is virtually non-existent, the review process is time wasting, opaque and capricious. There is constant downward pressure on pricing. Reviews have to be aggressively managed, either by begging users for positive reviews or buying them and risking a ban, since people tend to review when they're pissed off. And then, Apple takes 30% off the top for your trouble.

The 2 million apps (or whatever it is now) boast is laughable. Apart from the expected stuff (browsers, social networks, etc) there is a dearth of worthwhile software. Which is a shame given the capabilities of the platform and its overall utility.

I don't see the US regulating Apple (or any big tech) given the prestige and money coming into the country, so I'm sure status quo will remain. But Apple should really be forced to open up iOS as a platform. And I say that as someone opposed to government intervention.

I will say this, if they ever close macOS as a platform, I'm changing careers and throwing away all of my Apple products. Which would be a shame, since they really are the best in a number of areas.

It's simply a power and money grab. Anyone who says anything else is full of shit.

Re: Netflix stops paying the ‘Apple tax’ on its $853M in annual iOS revenue

#334

Post by Zach_the_Lizard » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 3:08 PM UTC

al2o3cr wrote: post #332

meaning Apple was making around $700,000 by doing nothing other than allowing Netflix to offer subscriptions Well, nothing else besides providing single-sign-on and payment processing. It's like whining "MasterCard doesn't do ANYTHING but collect interchange fees!"

MasterCard collects a lot less than Apple does. Apple is more like Braintree, adding value on top, but they (IMO) charge too much for what they provide.

It's too bad their lock in effectively prevents alternate means of distribution.

Re: Netflix stops paying the ‘Apple tax’ on its $853M in annual iOS revenue

#335

Post by dhimes » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 3:21 PM UTC

w1nt3rmu4e wrote: post #333

ClassyJacket wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think more to the point, the 30% cut for Apple isn't justified because the content isn't delivered via the App Store. 30% of in app purchases that are downloaded from the App Store is one thing, but 30% of Netflix fees is crazy when all Apple is doing is hosting the app itself. Apple isn't hosting Netflix's content, why should they get a cut of that?

That 30% is unjustifiable. Period. If we're talking cost, the cost of hosting software and payment processor fees are closer to 7-8%, 99% of which are on the payment side. The cost of Apple's gatekeeping -- their review bureaucracy -- is entirely their own doing and benefits no one. Software can and should be sold directly. There is zero justification for a middleman with digital delivery. They say it's for consumers…

30% is in the ballpark of a marketing budget. Back when there were only a few apps in the app store it made some sense because it was a marketing platform. Now, it's not. In fact it's quite the opposite.

When Steve Jobs was asked about the exorbitant fee when the app store was born, he said it wasn't an issue because people were going to be using web apps instead anyway. And that's exactly what we should have done.

Re: Netflix stops paying the ‘Apple tax’ on its $853M in annual iOS revenue

#336

Post by NicoJuicy » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 3:25 PM UTC

lance76 wrote: post #178

stcredzero wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to blame anyone for leaving any store when there has been almost nothing of value added in years and things are even regressing. That 30% should have gone a lot further It's not really a market if the seller thinks there's no alternatives, and the buyer has no choice but to put up with anything. Works the other way around, too.

This misses the point. It is not equal. I choose Apple's store for one Very Big Reason over almost all other third-party services: I trust them with my financial details. I don't have to 'beg' to later cancel my subscription. I don't have to worry about my credit card being stolen. I don't have to worry about a bunch of sophomoric engineers breaking their own website and creating grief for me. I am in control with Ap…

What is privacy is just their marketing selling point.

Apple did try ads and they failed. So they changed their business to something they can handle. Something even required by law through GDPR.

The most obvious prove was that Apple had insufficiently implemented GDPR according to a consumer organisation on the EU, a month after implementation. Where they surveyed all tech companies.

They love GDPR because they think it would hurt their competitors though

Re: Netflix stops paying the ‘Apple tax’ on its $853M in annual iOS revenue

#337

Post by dhimes » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 3:25 PM UTC

lance76 wrote: post #178

stcredzero wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to blame anyone for leaving any store when there has been almost nothing of value added in years and things are even regressing. That 30% should have gone a lot further It's not really a market if the seller thinks there's no alternatives, and the buyer has no choice but to put up with anything. Works the other way around, too.

This misses the point. It is not equal. I choose Apple's store for one Very Big Reason over almost all other third-party services: I trust them with my financial details. I don't have to 'beg' to later cancel my subscription. I don't have to worry about my credit card being stolen. I don't have to worry about a bunch of sophomoric engineers breaking their own website and creating grief for me. I am in control with Ap…

What is this "Stripe Madness" to which you refer?

Re: Netflix stops paying the ‘Apple tax’ on its $853M in annual iOS revenue

#338

Post by habith » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 3:34 PM UTC

w1nt3rmu4e wrote: post #333

ClassyJacket wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think more to the point, the 30% cut for Apple isn't justified because the content isn't delivered via the App Store. 30% of in app purchases that are downloaded from the App Store is one thing, but 30% of Netflix fees is crazy when all Apple is doing is hosting the app itself. Apple isn't hosting Netflix's content, why should they get a cut of that?

That 30% is unjustifiable. Period. If we're talking cost, the cost of hosting software and payment processor fees are closer to 7-8%, 99% of which are on the payment side. The cost of Apple's gatekeeping -- their review bureaucracy -- is entirely their own doing and benefits no one. Software can and should be sold directly. There is zero justification for a middleman with digital delivery. They say it's for consumers…

> The cost of Apple's gatekeeping -- their review bureaucracy -- is entirely their own doing and benefits no one.

That was actually the reason I ditched my Android and switched to an iPhone a few years back. After writing an app for both platforms and seeing how terrifyingly easy it was to get on the Play store ($25 and 4 hours after uploading the apk) vs Apple's more rigorous review process which took close to a month, checked out our company's DUNS number and _actually_ tested/used the app.

Also the cluster hell that is the forced Android permission system and how intrusive the most basic ones are vs. Apple's opt-in "Read contacts? (Yes/No)" while using the app are why I'd never go back.

Re: Netflix stops paying the ‘Apple tax’ on its $853M in annual iOS revenue

#339

Post by habith » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 3:50 PM UTC

dhimes wrote: post #337

lance76 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This misses the point. It is not equal. I choose Apple's store for one Very Big Reason over almost all other third-party services: I trust them with my financial details. I don't have to 'beg' to later cancel my subscription. I don't have to worry about my credit card being stolen. I don't have to worry about a bunch of sophomoric engineers breaking their own website and creating grief for me. I am in control with Ap…

What is this "Stripe Madness" to which you refer?

According to Google Stripe was posted on HN 130 times in the last month. I'm guessing for someone who uses HN daily this might skew their world view to assume that Stripe is everywhere.

Re: Netflix stops paying the ‘Apple tax’ on its $853M in annual iOS revenue

#340

Post by Vinnl » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 3:52 PM UTC

etse wrote: post #232

lance76 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This misses the point. It is not equal. I choose Apple's store for one Very Big Reason over almost all other third-party services: I trust them with my financial details. I don't have to 'beg' to later cancel my subscription. I don't have to worry about my credit card being stolen. I don't have to worry about a bunch of sophomoric engineers breaking their own website and creating grief for me. I am in control with Ap…

Am I the only one who is convinced Apple is focused on privacy because its cloud tech is really far behind Google and privacy was a path largely ignored in a data driven world? Don’t get me wrong—I like that they pursue the privacy angle but if the company’s strengths allowed them to compete with modern web/ads services companies, I think they would not have focused on privacy as much.

Most of Google's competitors would do well to focus on privacy, because that is one area in which Google will most likely not be able to outdo them. Google is likely to be better at machine learning or most other technical qualities of whatever products you're competing in. It still is, however, a data analytics company - that's where its main strength is, and that's what pays the bills. It will therefore be almost a guarantee that it will be worse in the privacy department than a competitor for whom that is not the case, so that's what they should capitalise on.