Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 79 posts

Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan

#11

Post by r00fus »

bradleyland wrote: post #5
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #2

Fully recognizing that Apple's 30% is highway robbery, isn't Google's "only 10%" still fairly outrageous? This seems like more a 5% feature, since the app providers still have to provide all their own infrastructure to actually support the subscription.

This isn't a "processing" fee. This is a new kind of fee. It's a "platform access" fee. Apple sees value in the fact that they've cultivated a mass of users who are more than willing to repeatedly spend small amounts of money on content. I don't think that point can be overstated. iOS users buy a ton of content, and anyone with content to push wants access to them. Hence, the standard rules of supply and demand apply…

This platform-markup (30%) will affect other players because in order to show any of your content on iOS, you must not just mark up your price, but Apple demands price matching with other markets... that's the uncompetetive part, as that will just raise prices for everyone, unless all those subscription services and content providers ditch iOS en-masse (unlikely).

If Apple were to relinquish their price-match requirement (unlikely) or allow apps that had no external store references (more likely), they would not cause such an upheaval in pricing.

Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan

#12

Post by necubi »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #2

Fully recognizing that Apple's 30% is highway robbery, isn't Google's "only 10%" still fairly outrageous? This seems like more a 5% feature, since the app providers still have to provide all their own infrastructure to actually support the subscription.

The difference is, Apple's 30% is a requirement to do business on their platform. Apple can charge whatever they want because there is no competition--you're not allowed to use other providers. Your only option is to leave iOS, which isn't really an option for a lot of companies.

Google isn't mandating anything; if a company finds 10% to be reasonable for the services provided, they can make use of it. Otherwise they can do it themselves, or use another provider.

Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan

#13

Post by georgieporgie »

This would mean customers who want to sign up for a Netflix Inc video account may have just two choices: They could do so through the Netflix website, in which case Netflix would keep the full fee, or they could subscribe through the applications in their iPhone or iPad which would cost Netflix 30 percent of its fees.

I haven't written an app, and I'm not entirely familiar with all the terms that have come up recently about Apple. Do I understand correctly that, merely by initiating the subscription from within an app running on iOS, that Apple is becomes entitled to 30% for all deliveries made on said subscription?

Is your only other choice then, within your app, to say, "please type this URL into your PC's web browser to subscribe..."?

Is the actual content delivery mechanism any different between the two cases?

Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan

#14

Post by benologist »

georgieporgie wrote: post #13

This would mean customers who want to sign up for a Netflix Inc video account may have just two choices: They could do so through the Netflix website, in which case Netflix would keep the full fee, or they could subscribe through the applications in their iPhone or iPad which would cost Netflix 30 percent of its fees. I haven't written an app, and I'm not entirely familiar with all the terms that have come up recentl…

From what I understand I think you're right, with the added bonus of being forced to offer the subscription in the app if it's available outside of it.

Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan

#15

Post by benologist »

danilocampos wrote: post #9
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #2

Fully recognizing that Apple's 30% is highway robbery, isn't Google's "only 10%" still fairly outrageous? This seems like more a 5% feature, since the app providers still have to provide all their own infrastructure to actually support the subscription.

> the app providers still have to provide all their own infrastructure Like the credit card processing, the hardware manufacturing facilities in China, the software libraries, the industrial designers... Apple has made it absurdly convenient to consume rich content. They have built fucking science fiction . 30% to get delivered to someone anywhere , any time is a bargain. You're paying to be part of the gut wrenching…

Except Apple didn't build Netflix any more than HP, Dell or LG did, all of whom provide devices you can use for Netflix.

Why doesn't Firefox get to charge 30%? A big chunk of people probably get to Netflix via it.

Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan

#16

Post by [deleted] »

georgieporgie wrote: post #13

This would mean customers who want to sign up for a Netflix Inc video account may have just two choices: They could do so through the Netflix website, in which case Netflix would keep the full fee, or they could subscribe through the applications in their iPhone or iPad which would cost Netflix 30 percent of its fees. I haven't written an app, and I'm not entirely familiar with all the terms that have come up recentl…

[deleted]

Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan

#17

Post by danilocampos »

benologist wrote: post #15
danilocampos wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the app providers still have to provide all their own infrastructure Like the credit card processing, the hardware manufacturing facilities in China, the software libraries, the industrial designers... Apple has made it absurdly convenient to consume rich content. They have built fucking science fiction . 30% to get delivered to someone anywhere , any time is a bargain. You're paying to be part of the gut wrenching…

Except Apple didn't build Netflix any more than HP, Dell or LG did, all of whom provide devices you can use for Netflix. Why doesn't Firefox get to charge 30%? A big chunk of people probably get to Netflix via it.

So we'll let the market decide which approach provides better value and a better user experience. Sounds like we've all got options, so what's the problem?

Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan

#18

Post by protomyth »

I actually wouldn't be opposed to it if (big if) they hosted the content and allowed apps with subscription/content to not have any in-app purchase at all (no Apple / no flip to Safari) to avoid the 30%. This would let Netflix, last.fm, etc do their thing and Amazon to do its thing. Everyone already knows to buy books on Amazon, so no great loss not having something in-app.

Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan

#19

Post by Kylekramer »

danilocampos wrote: post #9
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #2

Fully recognizing that Apple's 30% is highway robbery, isn't Google's "only 10%" still fairly outrageous? This seems like more a 5% feature, since the app providers still have to provide all their own infrastructure to actually support the subscription.

> the app providers still have to provide all their own infrastructure Like the credit card processing, the hardware manufacturing facilities in China, the software libraries, the industrial designers... Apple has made it absurdly convenient to consume rich content. They have built fucking science fiction . 30% to get delivered to someone anywhere , any time is a bargain. You're paying to be part of the gut wrenching…

Is that hard? I mean, yes, it took tons of manhours and billions of dollars, but the "fucking science fiction" they made is pretty much par for the course these days. You can say it is a "superior user experience" and stuff like that, but c'mon. That is how tech advances. If I wanted, it would be quite trivial to get something delivered to someone anywhere without anything made by Apple.

I'd amazed by how much people support one of the richest companies in the world get richer off the backs of others. After all, it isn't like they are hurting for money.

Post reply on HN