Apple execs describe a “unique arrangement” with Netflix (2018) • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple execs describe a “unique arrangement” with Netflix (2018)

#101

Post by a_large_rat00 » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 7:36 PM UTC

Terretta wrote: post #53

arthurofbabylon wrote: post #32

Of note, it appears that Netflix’s gripe wasn’t so much about the 70/30 split as colloquially observed, but that Apple’s IAP saw more “voluntary churn” than Netflix’s direct purchase. Am I reading that right? Would this churn discrepancy apply to other services besides Netflix (like developer tools, access to smaller content libraries, etc)? Finally, what did Apple do to address their “voluntary churn” problem?

In other words, Netflix is harder to cancel directly than through Apple's subscription UI. As is the case for virtually every dark pattern subscription (most of them) when not through Apple. This isn't a problem, it's a benefit -- from customer point of view. Apple makes a customer-friendly rather than seller friendly subscription UI, the reason I won't subscribe to things any more except through Apple. It's genuinel…

Apple is pretty dark-patterny about the subscriptions too. On Android the refund/uninstall button is right next to the open button in the Play store. You buy an app, don't like it, click a button and return it.

I just bought an iPad app the other day (my first), it didn't meet my needs, but I still can't figure out where to go to refund it. And Apple's subscriptions expire immediately if you cancel during a free trial, whereas the Google ones will still let you finish the term of your trial.

Apple's not really the good guy either. They're just the powerful ones.

Re: Apple execs describe a “unique arrangement” with Netflix (2018)

#102

Post by 8note » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 7:40 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #100

abvdasker wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a solved problem. Just do what most American cities do with other natural monopolies like utilities: use careful price controls to cap margins and slow rate increases. You don't need to invent some esoteric market-based solution, especially for a service where marginal costs are near zero and supply is almost infinite.

Absolutely not a solved problem. The utilities have no reason to innovate at that point. In my local municipality I have no way to choose renewable energy apart from building my own power plant on my roof. That’s a complete failure of these government granted monopolies.

What incentive does the app store have to innovate now?

Re: Apple execs describe a “unique arrangement” with Netflix (2018)

#103

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

abvdasker wrote: post #77

djyaz1200 wrote: post #12

Tech companies that reach monopoly scale (like Apple, Facebook, Amazon) should have to disclose all their agreements and honor a "Most Favored Nation" clause giving all companies the same pricing and access as the best negotiated agreement with any one company. This is the most reasonable way I can think of without breaking them up to prevent them picking winners and losers as new opportunities emerge. If you have a…

This is a solved problem. Just do what most American cities do with other natural monopolies like utilities: use careful price controls to cap margins and slow rate increases. You don't need to invent some esoteric market-based solution, especially for a service where marginal costs are near zero and supply is almost infinite.

My city recently forced every resident into an esoteric market-based solution for electricity (sold with a pack of lies about renewable energy and reduced rates) that required explicit opt-out to avoid and stay with the provider who actually generates power and services the people on its infrastructure.

Re: Apple execs describe a “unique arrangement” with Netflix (2018)

#104

Post by spywaregorilla » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #100

abvdasker wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a solved problem. Just do what most American cities do with other natural monopolies like utilities: use careful price controls to cap margins and slow rate increases. You don't need to invent some esoteric market-based solution, especially for a service where marginal costs are near zero and supply is almost infinite.

Absolutely not a solved problem. The utilities have no reason to innovate at that point. In my local municipality I have no way to choose renewable energy apart from building my own power plant on my roof. That’s a complete failure of these government granted monopolies.

There's no such thing as choosing renewable energy on a grid. Energy is fungible. If you get on one of those "choose green" schemes, you're just getting the same energy but also buying some credits from somewhere else.

Re: Apple execs describe a “unique arrangement” with Netflix (2018)

#105

Post by samstave » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

ric2b wrote: post #98

CPLX wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could also just put a tax of 100% on any revenue in excess of $10bn a year and nip this entire society-destroying problem in the bud.

Too easy to get around, as soon as company A starts making $11B they make a new company B that charges $1B for some random service, probably "consulting".

Thats actually what a lot of firms do, and what was really prominant in the Cannabis industry;

Cannabis companies couldnt do "real banking" do to federal shenanigans.

So instead why dispensaries would do, is make another LLC who buys the building and all the building permits that are municipally regulated - then as the municipality zoned and approved locations and projects for dispensaries and distribution licenses (which had a multitude of their own specific restrictions)

They would then rent the facilities for ridiculous rental amounts which the rental company would legally be able to put into any regular bank - then make loans to the cannabis companies and dispensaries for whatever operating expenses were needed.

This got really ugly when Med Men, based out of LA, was made really public because of douchebaggery happening in the company revealing how they had been gaming their own investors etc...

Re: Apple execs describe a “unique arrangement” with Netflix (2018)

#106

Post by lern_too_spel » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #41

misnome wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have missed out the crucial piece on context from that source, in that it's talking explicitly about app review and not IAP commission.

Which also has special-case rules (or lack of enforcement thereof…)

This is glaringly evident at the very least in the way Apple and Google (don't) apply app store review to their own apps, so I don't understand why you're being downvoted.

Re: Apple execs describe a “unique arrangement” with Netflix (2018)

#107

Post by enjo » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #100

abvdasker wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a solved problem. Just do what most American cities do with other natural monopolies like utilities: use careful price controls to cap margins and slow rate increases. You don't need to invent some esoteric market-based solution, especially for a service where marginal costs are near zero and supply is almost infinite.

Absolutely not a solved problem. The utilities have no reason to innovate at that point. In my local municipality I have no way to choose renewable energy apart from building my own power plant on my roof. That’s a complete failure of these government granted monopolies.

The regulating bodies of those utilities work hard to create incentives for them to innovate. I spent four years of my career working on energy programs with major utilities around the country in which they tried to incentive reductions in energy usage.

Which is a curious statement: why would a electrical utility want people to use less electricity?

The reason is because the regulatory agencies created incentives within the regulatory framework to encourage them to do it. Basically the regulators start with an outcome, bake that outcome into how utilities get paid, and then let the utility innovate to figure out how to do it. This led to meaningful reduction in energy usage across many markets.

Re: Apple execs describe a “unique arrangement” with Netflix (2018)

#108

Post by EastOfTruth » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 7:46 PM UTC

bigthymer wrote: post #78

EastOfTruth wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talking about monopolies, why does Facebook and HN have network issues at the same time.

Maybe people visit other sites when the ones they would have used go down? I don't know for sure but it is a plausible explanation for me.

makes sense but at the same time it surprises me

Re: Apple execs describe a “unique arrangement” with Netflix (2018)

#109

Post by spywaregorilla » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #62

djyaz1200 wrote: post #12

Tech companies that reach monopoly scale (like Apple, Facebook, Amazon) should have to disclose all their agreements and honor a "Most Favored Nation" clause giving all companies the same pricing and access as the best negotiated agreement with any one company. This is the most reasonable way I can think of without breaking them up to prevent them picking winners and losers as new opportunities emerge. If you have a…

We could also just put a tax of 100% on any revenue in excess of $10bn a year and nip this entire society-destroying problem in the bud.

So what happens to the company spending 10.5bn to earn 11 bn? They just get a net loss of 0.5 bn?

edit: Or lets pick a real example and see how that works out. ArcelorMittal is a major steel provider. They sold $53B last year. They had a tough year though, so their final net loss was actually about half a billion.

Under your proposal, they would have lost 43 billion dollars. Uh oh, you just collapsed the steel industry.

Re: Apple execs describe a “unique arrangement” with Netflix (2018)

#110

Post by liquidify » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 7:48 PM UTC

abvdasker wrote: post #77

djyaz1200 wrote: post #12

Tech companies that reach monopoly scale (like Apple, Facebook, Amazon) should have to disclose all their agreements and honor a "Most Favored Nation" clause giving all companies the same pricing and access as the best negotiated agreement with any one company. This is the most reasonable way I can think of without breaking them up to prevent them picking winners and losers as new opportunities emerge. If you have a…

This is a solved problem. Just do what most American cities do with other natural monopolies like utilities: use careful price controls to cap margins and slow rate increases. You don't need to invent some esoteric market-based solution, especially for a service where marginal costs are near zero and supply is almost infinite.

It is not a 'solved problem'. Price controls are not easy for anyone to manage. Companies can easily find ways around them in many cases.

Enabling companies to categorize themselves as 'platforms' or otherwise and then stipulating both benefits and requirements based on those labels makes a lot of sense comparatively. The general problem though is that the government isn't typically using regulations to improve freedom and competition. The government looks at regulation as a way to extract money, so solutions that encourage competition on a level playing field through market forces (like OP's) aren't given fair consideration.