Here's the part where Apple argues that the iPad is part of the PC market, and thus represents < 1%. No antitrust.
Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
31–40 of 79 posts
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#32This 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…
> 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?
Yes.
> Is your only other choice then, within your app, to say, "please type this URL into your PC's web browser to subscribe..."?
You don't even have that choice. If you offer a subscription via the web, you must also offer the subscription, at the same price or better, through the app. They'll reject you if you don't. And they'll reject you if you even so much as hint that there's a way to subscribe outside the app that won't cost you 30% of your revenue.
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The problem is that YOU're going to end up paying an additional 30% of the price. Don't be fooled...those companies at the other end of the subscription will pass that 30% straight to you.....
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#34Fully 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.
It's not highway robbery. It's the cost of doing business on the App Store. You always have the option to serve your customers on their iOS devices over the web. If you want the convenience of the App Store and a native app, then 30% is the going rate.
And paying the bandits on the highway was the cost of doing business if you wanted to run your trade caravan through the forrest.
I love my Apple products. I'm in awe at what the company has accomplished over the last decade. That doesn't mean they can do no wrong and their decisions can't be questioned.
I'm not talking about the cost of doing business here. I'm talking about the cost of being a customer here and the potential cost I might be forced to take, even if I decide not to be a customer any longer. If Netflix raises its prices across the board so they can stay in the garden, then it doesn't matter whether I accept Apple's rules or not: the prices are raised across the board.
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#35Is it against the rules to offer a different service to iOS devices than you do to Android, Web and/or PC users? For example, maybe Netflix could make "Netflix Premium" available on iOS devices, and charge $12/mo instead of $9/mo, covering Apple's 30% cut.
I'm sure this has been considered, but I'm not seeing where exactly.
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 require…
I don't disagree. The question, I think, is whether or not regulatory agencies will force Apple to re-tool their terms. That will depend on whether or not Apple is found to have a dominant position in "the market". No one has defined "the market" yet though.
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#37Fully 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.
I was thinking about this myself, and I'm having fun imagining an ongoing argument at Google:
M: I just don't know. 10% seems high.
A: But it's a great service, and developers will pay for the convenience.
B: M's right, 5% would be a better rate; we're not planning to force people to use it and if it's too high they'll just go somewhere else. 5% might even be too high.
M: I'll think about it.
A: But you've been thinking about it for weeks! We can't release until we agree on a number. And I still...
[all are interrupted by video of Apple announcing their 30% policy with mandatory participation]
[pause as they pick their jaws up off the floor]
M: Ten. Go.
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The problem is Netflix can't offer their content to Apple customers at $13, and everyone else $10. Apple using their position to remove those options you say consumers have.
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#39Fully 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…
The problem I have with that argument, though, is that I already gave Apple $630 for my iPad, specifically because I can read Kindle books on it. I'd really like to be able to continue reading my Kindle books on it, and I really don't give a damn if Apple thinks they're somehow entitled to a cut of Amazon's sales for that.
Yes, Apple does bear the cost of maintaining the app store, but my sympathy for them on that point is rather limited considering that they're the ones who insist everything must go through the app store.
I can see both sides of the argument, but I still think Apple is being unreasonable. Really, I think this is the same as network neutrality -- just because Apple provides a platform doesn't mean they're entitled to a cut of every sale on it any more than it means Time Warner is entitled to a cut of Apple's sales every time I rent a movie through the iTunes store. Apple already got my money off the hardware (not to mention the other apps I've bought) and Time Warner's already getting my monthly subscription fees.
Now, if you want to argue that 30% is reasonable if Apple is doing the content hosting and other stuff, sure. 30% just to process a convenient payment? No fucking way.
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#40If we're going to believe this website, looks like Apple will let you keep $3 more per $100 than PayPal and $11.50 more than credit card processors, assuming a $1 subscription fee like The Daily's: http://feefighters.com/paypal-calculator Maybe regulators should probe those guys. (Credit to @schwa on this one: https://twitter.com/#!/schwa/status/38676753316708352 )
PayPal doesn't require you to offer them as a payment option though if you want to be installable on the tablet with ~75% market share though, so you can get a merchant account with a ~20% fee instead.