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

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 289 posts

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

#51

Post by summerlight »

germinalphrase wrote: post #4
echelon wrote: post #2

Steve Jobs and Tim Cook are the iPhone Al Capone. There's no technical reason software needs to be distributed this way. It's only greed. I hope this mounting evidence leads to a single verdict from the DOJ: "no more app stores" for common computing devices. (Please don't rehash the video game console argument.)

You don’t think the security/trust argument has any merit?

It has some merits, but not worth enough to justify 30% tax. Perhaps 10% would be acceptable. 5% can make a good case for Apple.

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

#52

Post by bduerst »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #25

The article says the Apple/Netflix agreement DID follow older rules, before current App Store rules?

It's about extending the agreement despite the rules being different now. It's also not good that they mention the Apple TV app in the same email, because it acknowledges they know they're competing with Netflix and it has bearing on their special treatment with a competitor.

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

#53

Post by Terretta »

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 genuinely surprising to me the proportion of customer hostile rhetoric on this topic.

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

#54

Post by m463 »

germinalphrase wrote: post #4
echelon wrote: post #2

Steve Jobs and Tim Cook are the iPhone Al Capone. There's no technical reason software needs to be distributed this way. It's only greed. I hope this mounting evidence leads to a single verdict from the DOJ: "no more app stores" for common computing devices. (Please don't rehash the video game console argument.)

You don’t think the security/trust argument has any merit?

lip service.

Trust and security don't mean much when apps have unfettered internet access. You cannot find who the app is contacting, how often and what is sent. You also have no ability to filter or block the contact. *

* there are minor hacks.

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

#55

Post by munificent »

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…

Better plan? How about we stop letting tech companies reach "monopoly scale"?

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

#56

Post by bikeshaving »

kristjansson wrote: post #44

Borrow a million dollars from the bank, you have a problem. Borrow a billion dollars from the bank, you and the bank have a problem. Why should it be a surprise that a partner in a stronger negotiating position negotiates a better deal than is offered at the door?

It’s amusing that this quote has inflated like most things today. Original quote was (“If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem.”)

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

#57

Post by only_as_i_fall »

vkou wrote: post #19
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…

Sure, but why limit this to tech companies? Let's also apply this to banks, landlords, governments, grocery chains, and employers in general. Why should I not get the best wages, negotiated employment agreement, interest rates, lease terms, and deal with the IRS on taxes that I really don't want to pay as my most successful peer? Banks bend over backwards for their VIP customers, why shouldn't they do the same for me…

Might be too broad. Especially as the scale gets smaller I think that non-quantitative aspects can reasonably affect who you want to do business with. For example, if I'm annoying and rude to my local mechanic and he starts charging me extra to deal with my bullshit I don't really see a problem with that.

There does start to be a problem however if he's the only mechanic in town or if he charges more or less based on race or some other protected class.

I think it's a very hard in general to find the balance on problems like this one, and I don't expect you can come up with a one size fits all rule.

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

#58

Post by vkou »

ashtonkem wrote: post #39
vkou wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but why limit this to tech companies? Let's also apply this to banks, landlords, governments, grocery chains, and employers in general. Why should I not get the best wages, negotiated employment agreement, interest rates, lease terms, and deal with the IRS on taxes that I really don't want to pay as my most successful peer? Banks bend over backwards for their VIP customers, why shouldn't they do the same for me…

You snark, but legally preventing banks from offering better rates to favored clients would probably be a good thing for society and the banks themselves. After all, plenty of charming and well liked clients have turned out to be terrible credit risks.

Favored clients in this case aren't slick guys in a suit, I'm talking about people who want the bank to manage billions of dollars for them, as compared to me and my shitty savings account that may or may not have any money in it.

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

#59

Post by throwaway78981 »

oauea wrote: post #13

It's been obvious for years that Apple gives absolutely no fucks about destroying small businesses with their inane review processes (which change on a whim and seem to depend on the mood of the reviewer) and fees. Of course larger corporations are exempt.

Not just destroy, destroy and steal too. Because why not.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/16/22676706/apple-watch-swip...

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

#60

Post by emsy »

The problem here are not the special deals, saurik commented he cut special deals in the Cydia store occasionally the last time this topic came up. The problem is that there is no alternative to Apple when it comes to publishing software and content on the iPhone and that makes these kind of deals unfair.
Post reply on HN