[HN Gopher] Apple execs describe a "unique arrangement" with Net... ___________________________________________________________________ Apple execs describe a "unique arrangement" with Netflix Author : osynavets Score : 446 points Date : 2021-10-04 16:25 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | echelon wrote: | 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.) | germinalphrase wrote: | You don't think the security/trust argument has any merit? | oauea wrote: | I trust my own judgement, thank you very much. I don't need | Big Daddy Apple making all my decisions for me. | | Also, that has absolutely nothing to do with banning third | party payment processors for IAPs. That is just criminal, or | well, it should be. | nemothekid wrote: | > _Also, that has absolutely nothing to do with banning | third party payment processors for IAPs. That is just | criminal, or well, it should be._ | | I find this sentiment interesting vs the juxtaposition that | Netflix wanted off of IAP because Apple makes it too easy | to cancel your subscription. | | I've always viewed the current tension over the App Store | not to be Apple vs. Users, but Apple vs. Scumbag Developers | tombert wrote: | Obviously not the OP, but figured I'll give my unsolicited | opinion anyway. | | I think there's "merit" to it, in that the logic holds: if we | restrict the apps in an app store to be selected by a trusted | entity then we can more likely trust the app. This computes, | I think it's reasonable enough logic, but we could extend | this further to something farcical too: I could make my phone | "unhackable" and "more secure" by throwing it into a wood | chipper. It would be impossible to hack, there's virtually no | chance of my personal details leaking because of it, but of | course I lose access to features of the phone (or in this | case the entire phone itself). A corporation (or any large | entity) will _always_ be able to justify a restriction as a | means of "increased security". Security vulnerabilities will | almost always come from being able to actually use a computer | _as a computer_. | | This wouldn't inherently be a problem if it weren't for the | fact that there are plenty of things things that are | perfectly legal, but Apple won't approve, presumably out of | fears of legal headaches, like video game console emulators. | | My "solution" to approximate something decent would be to do | something more or less akin to what macOS does. By default, | don't allow any sideloading and only allow things to be | installed via the App Store. If one would like to install | something outside of the app store, they must (on a per-app | basis) go into the security settings and allow things. This | would still give preferential treatment to the App Store, but | would allow people who know what they're doing to go around | this. | | NOTE: I'm aware of the self-signing AltStore thing, and it's | definitely a step in the right direction, if still a bigger | pain in the ass than it should be. | echelon wrote: | The device performs involuntary "CSAM" scans (where "CSAM" | means whatever any given nation's intelligence apparatus | doesn't like). If you don't believe it, just look to what | they've done to their customers in non-US regions. Or that | Mac phones home about what programs you run. | | App review is meant to enforce Apple's payment rules as much | as anything. They don't and can't catch everything. | | Strong sandboxing, granular permissions, and remote kill | switch (that can be disabled) can do effectively the same | job. It just won't earn Apple gobs of racketeering money. | shadowfiend wrote: | > The device performs involuntary "CSAM" scans | | It does not. | vineyardmike wrote: | > It does not. | | Yet. | raiyu wrote: | There is a definitely a benefit in terms of trust and | security, though not fool proof. | | However, when you force companies to only signup and accept | payment through your payment gateway instead of giving | customers the option, and then unequally applying rules and | colluding with other companies you start to get in trouble in | regards to monopolistic practices. | derefr wrote: | Nitpick: developers aren't required by Apple to restrict | payment to only go through the App Store / Apple Pay. | They're just required to take an equivalent App Store levy | out of whatever gross they're making, regardless of what | payment processor they use, and hand that levy to Apple. | | For example, there's no TOS requirement preventing Amazon | from having been selling Kindle books through its iOS | Kindle app this whole time, and charging those sales | through the user's Amazon payment processing as per usual. | The only TOS requirement is that they would have just had | to take 30% off the top of those sales for Apple. Amazon | doesn't want to do this (and perhaps would have negative | margins if they did), so instead they have decided to not | have any kind of store view in the iOS Kindle app, and | instead to just tell iOS Kindle users to go to the Amazon | website to shop for Kindle books. | summerlight wrote: | 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. | m463 wrote: | 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. | badmadrad wrote: | how about instead of "no more app stores" you and others with | your interest go make more app stores. more is better. if you | have a good product you will gain the leverage you need. | criddell wrote: | > (Please don't rehash the video game console argument.) | | Why not? | throwaway78981 wrote: | From February this year - Apple App store is home to multi- | million dollar scams. The method the guy used to find this is | so childish it's a wonder how Apple could have missed. Also | Apple employs some dark patterns if you wanna report scams. | | https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/8/22272849/apple-app-store-s... | haunter wrote: | >Rep. Johnson: Does Apple treat every app and every developer the | same? | | >Cook: "We treat every developer the same. We have open rules. | It's a rigorous process. Because we care about privacy and | quality, we do look at every app before it goes on. We apply | these rules equally to everyone." | drdaeman wrote: | To be fair, from the third email it's clear they meant for | Netflix to be treated as everyone else (after they figured the | rules for the program they mention), eliminating this special | treatment. | | In my personal belief, Cook would've won more by admitting they | may have some exceptions, but actively try to get rid of those. | It's arguable of course, but it the email he justifies it by | end-user interests and he probably means it. That's just real- | world realities - that exceptions happen even with the | principled people, just because things are never white-and- | black. | | Instead, he told a lie how they're holier than the Pope. Even | if he believes in that and genuinely wants things to be that | way, he surely knew it's not the reality. | | And I just wonder why. I don't have any knowledge how things | work at those levels, but my very naive risk analysis is that | if there's any serious investigation there are significant | chances such lie would be uncovered, and legal and PR | consequences of that would be harsher than admittance, | especially with justifications. | [deleted] | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | What is the consequence of such a blatantly false testimony to | Congress? | comeonseriously wrote: | Absolutely nothing. | rudyfink wrote: | "Law? What do I care about the law. Ain't I got the power?" | (attributed to Cornelius Vanderbilt | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt) | | Your question made me think of that quote. There are | technical answers to you question (that lying under oath is a | crime), but the realist answer is, that unless | Congress/executive has the will to enforce consequences, very | little. | misnome wrote: | It's only blatantly false if you ignore the context that it | was spoken in of talking about basic App review and not IAP | commission. And plenty of wiggle room there, especially if | the "same process applied to everyone" includes the stage | "Have we negotiated a contract with them for an exception on | this" | | Not that I think that anything would happen if it were in the | IAP context. | mthoms wrote: | Err... even in that context, it's blatantly false. | | https://web.archive.org/web/20210712060426/https://www.tele | g... | hh3k0 wrote: | For your average Joe or the CEO of a trillion-dollar company? | tialaramex wrote: | In practice? None whatsoever. Even under oath. | | After all, Congress critters constantly lie or spout | nonsense, why should we ask more of those before them? | | In principle, it's a crime. But, nobody will do anything | about it, especially when it comes to a powerful white man. | [deleted] | Supermancho wrote: | Ironically, it's both common knowledge and trivially | verifiable. I'm not sure how this is a "debated" topic. | apendleton wrote: | Lying to Congress is a crime (distinct from perjury), but | it's unusual for anyone to be tried for/convicted of it | though. Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, is a (rare) recent | example. | hh3k0 wrote: | Cook was under oath, no? So as per my understanding, it is | perjury on top of lying to congress. I am, however, not a | lawyer. | qwytw wrote: | Also you didn't read what Cook actually said in the | preceding and following sentences. | apendleton wrote: | Right, lying to Congress is a crime regardless of whether | you're under oath, but if you're under oath and lie, it's | both. | i21QMgplhRJs2OL wrote: | It depends on who your friends are. Compare Clapper and | Flynn. | leeoniya wrote: | "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than | others." | smoldesu wrote: | "Privacy is a human right, but humanity has such a fickle | definition these days." | capableweb wrote: | > Apple CEO Tim Cook defended the company's App Store | commission structure in his sworn testimony before the House | Antitrust Subcommittee on Wednesday. | | > "We treat every developer the same. We have open and | transparent rules," Cook said, in his testimony. "It's a | rigorous process, because we care so deeply about privacy and | security and quality. We do look at every app before it goes | on," he added. | | Slightly different quote, added some context and here is a | source too: https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/29/apples-app-store- | commissio... | misnome wrote: | 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. | saagarjha wrote: | Which also has special-case rules (or lack of enforcement | thereof...) | lern_too_spel wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | monocasa wrote: | Isn't complying with IAP rules part of app review? | tshaddox wrote: | The amount of commission that Apple receives from an IAP | isn't something that's in the code for an app. It's not | something that could be part of the app review process. | It's an arrangement between Apple and the developer. | monocasa wrote: | The app review processes explicitly are testing the | backend components for compliance as well. | | The Fortnite app behind the lawsuit that we got these | docs from was explicitly taken down for failing app | review by not complying with IAP guidelines. | judge2020 wrote: | Presumably any video platform could apply for the "Video | Partner Program" mentioned in the email. | Ajedi32 wrote: | ...which that email says in the very same sentence is | different from the "unique arrangement" they have with | Netflix. | fiftyfifty wrote: | They're unique arrangement with Netflix predates their | Video Partner Program and probably some of their other app | store rules: | | Peter Stern: | | "Longer Version: I explained that these IAP tests are not | OK for Apple. Our commitment to developers and customers is | to run the world's best App Store, and when Netflix is | cycling in and out, they are undermining that. I also | explained that we run a principled App Store, and they have | a unique arrangement because it was struck before the | existing Video Partner Program came into effect..." | emsy wrote: | 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. | netcan wrote: | This is naive, IMO. | | Even if the app store was run differently, say allowing a | competing way of installing apps, Apple still have plenty of | fungible power to make such deals. You might have ticked a box | to make it technically fair, for some definition of, but that | would probably be just cosmetic. IE, app store would still | represent most revenue and everyone is in the same position but | a few geeks. | | The "platform game" establishes market power, where buyers and | sellers need to go through you. They have no negotiating power, | and you can price to make deals that take all the "surplus | utility" off the table, in classic economic terms. | | So... reality isn't perfect and some players _are_ big enough | to negotiate. Netflix is that player here. They negotiate when | they have to, but try to keep it quite. | | When the market is this structured, this is how it works. | emsy wrote: | You said it's naive but didn't actually present a reasonable | alternative. | netcan wrote: | Sorry. Poor choice of words. | | Alternative to what? A law that says apple must allow | alternative App Stores? I'm ok with that, and it might be | useful to some people. I just don't think it will affect | the market much. | | The App Store "market" is not going to become a competitive | market with a quick fix like that. Any solution that does | make it a competitive market also tanks the business model. | 30% to deliver an app is many times what a competitive rate | would be. The competitive rate might be 0. We didn't have | app stores before app stores. | | Any kind of antitrust effort would need to start from the | understanding that this is not a competitive market. Apple | has all the power. A few app devs have the leverage to | negotiate and everyone else is a price taker. You could | "solve" it by regulating prices, enforcing a single price | or otherwise limiting apple's choices directly. Or... you | could leave it as is, which is (IMO) about the same as | ruling that they must allow side loading or alternative app | stores. | | Similarly, it will be very hard to limit fb from making | their app addictive, shrill or other such problems. Their | incentives are very strongly tied to these. | amelius wrote: | > The "platform game" establishes market power, where buyers | and sellers need to go through you. | | So we have to get a law against a "monopoly that arises after | you've bought a product". | vorpalhex wrote: | An alternative market would create pressure on Apple. If | Netflix tells the App store to go screw themselves and lists | on a different store, then the App Store gets that much less | traffic and either has to compete or lose out. | netcan wrote: | I don't think it does, beyond box ticking. You're not | likely to get enough competition to get competitive market | dynamics on iPhones. Sure, a highly motivated user might go | to alternative app stores. | | Netflix does not need to go to a different store. They're | influential enough to negotiate. Apple would cut them the | discount, like now, and they wouldn't. The other store will | not have enough users to make the reduced fees worth | ditching the app store. | | If there was enough competition, most of the app store | profits would dissipate. That's what competition does. | Users wouldn't pay 20-30%'extra to have apple's stamp, | prices would fall and the business model is gone. | | No little tickbox rule will make a competitive market in | app stores. These markets are structured by nature. That's | why platforms are so powerful. | kyle-rb wrote: | >Sure, a highly motivated user might go to alternative | app stores. | | Highly motivated users like kids who want to install | Fortnite on their phones? That would give an "iOS Epic | Store" a foot in the door, and while I'm not a huge fan | of Epic, I think that would at least introduce some | competition for Apple. | [deleted] | Jcowell wrote: | From a consumer point of view, this is terrible. | fbelzile wrote: | No, it increases choice and lowers costs for the | consumer. If you see switching app stores a "cost" | because it's less practical, you most likely would still | be able to use your store of choice, but you might need | to pay more. | | I don't see Netflix pulling out of the App Store if there | alternatives. Right now, this is the only thing they can | do to retaliate. | Osiris wrote: | That seems to undermine their "everyone is treated equally" | argument. | 8ytecoder wrote: | The same deal is available for everyone though. | | https://developer.apple.com/programs/video-partner/ | [deleted] | [deleted] | cma wrote: | This is an example of the "special friend" technique harmful | platforms make use of (slide 40): | | https://www.slideshare.net/danctheduck/gdc-2011-game-of-plat... | | "First you sign long-term contracts with certain influential | developers" | shmerl wrote: | Both Apple and MS are despicable. | actusual wrote: | For those unfamiliar with IAP as a term of art: IAP = In App | Purchases | redbell wrote: | Thanks! That saved me. I was trying to decipher this acronym | based on the context where it was mentioned with no luck. | [deleted] | ksec wrote: | I am pretty sure I read something similar before. Probably from | Benedict Evans or somewhere else. | | I think the most important issue from these email isn't the lack | of Alternative App Store, IAP, or 70/30 split. It is that Apple | Execs has _Zero_ understanding of how other business works | especially with respect to Internet or Software Services. They | continue to think Netflix as a physical product ( As they often | like to compare Physical Software distribution before App Store ) | that is being continuously sold with recurring revenue like | staples or other commodities. | | Not to mention Netflix _knew_ Apple were doing AppleTV+. Directly | competing with them. I love how Apple complains about testing IAP | as not OK as in we deserve our 15%. | | So Reed made the decision to stop IAP. And reading all the emails | from Apple execs, Eddy Cue often seems to be the culprit. | | Steve From D5 | | > _You know, because Woz and I started the company based on doing | the whole banana, we weren't so good at partnering with people. | And, you know, acatually, the funny thing is, Microsoft's one of | the few companies we were able to partner with that actually | worked for both companies. And we weren't so good at that, where | Bill and Microsoft were really good at it because they didn't | make the whole thing in the early days and they learned how to | partner with people really well._ | | _And I think if Apple could have had a little more of that in | its DNA, it would have served it extremely well. And I don't | think Apple learned that until, you know, a few decades later._ | jacurtis wrote: | For comparison Netflix spends about $1.2 Billion dollars per | year on AWS (Amazon Web Services). Their total revenue last | year was 27.5B. So that means that AWS fees account for 4.3% of | Netflix's revenue. | | AWS is streaming video, operating hundreds of edge location CDN | locations, and everything else running on expensive server | infrastructure. AWS has real serious costs with offering that | service, to the point that Netflix has yet to determine that it | is better to build it themselves. | | Apple by comparison demands 15% which is 3.5x as much of a cut. | Apple provides credit card processing, and approval into the | App Store (plus according to a comment in this email, it sounds | like they keep Netflix in the App Store promotion rotation as | "free" ad-space). This isn't anywhere near the value that AWS | provides, despite demanding a much higher premium. Of course | this is the "generous" 15% IAP cut, instead of the normal 30% | which is even more atrocious. | | Apple seems to maintain the expectation that they deserve 30% | of revenue from massive corporations like Netflix, Amazon, | etc.. Even the "generous" 15% fee is quite atrocious, | especially considering the fact that Apple provides next to no | value for Netflix, if anything they are a pain in their side or | a necessary evil for Netflix. | | Apple is wildly delusional on the value that they provide. It | is absolutely no surprise to me that Netflix would consider not | allowing IAP subscriptions at all. They already have the | marketing power to force people to subscribe at their website. | I am surprised Netflix is honestly being as understanding on | this issue as they seem to be. | spiffytech wrote: | > Apple seems to maintain the expectation that they deserve | 30% of revenue from massive corporations like Netflix, | Amazon, etc. | | That's _exactly_ what Apple believes. | | From Tim Cook's testimony in Epic v. Apple, from Ars | Technica: | | > The in-app-purchasing (IAP) system itself, Cook said, is | simply the most efficient way of collecting a 15 to 30 | percent commission on each in-app sale. "If not for IAP, we'd | have to come up with another system to invoice developers. It | would be a mess." | | This view is explicitly affirmed in the Epic v. Apple | verdict[1]: | | > Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission | or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional. | | The court found the 30% rate arbitrary but not | objectionable[2]: | | > Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific | rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the | record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to | some compensation for use of its intellectual property. | | Personally, I don't approve of Apple feeling entitled to a | cut of commerce that doesn't hit their app store, but the | court's take (before appeals) is that it's perfectly legal. | | [0]: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/ceo-tim-cook- | faces-po... | | [1]: Page 67, | https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631/apple- | epic-j... | | [2]: Page 150 | bredren wrote: | Is it reasonable to suggest AWS's primitives and even | finished cloud products for video delivery are largely | commodities? | | Wheras, there is no such thing as the other App Store? | | IIRC, Apple customers spend more and don't quote me on this, | but are more influential in the spending of others. If that's | true, then I think this comment under-represents the utility | of operating in the App Store. | | It doesn't necessarily mean that it should command the 15% | tax, but it isn't "no value" either. | garblegarble wrote: | >AWS is streaming video, operating hundreds of edge location | CDN locations, and everything else running on expensive | server infrastructure. AWS has real serious costs with | offering that service, to the point that Netflix has yet to | determine that it is better to build it themselves. | | Somewhat off the core topic, but netflix run their own CDN (I | also don't see any evidence for that 1.2 billion AWS bill | figure, can you provide a link? Their latest SEC filing | doesn't separate cloud service costs from the running of | their Open Connect CDN) | SSLy wrote: | Obiously they've meant IX PoP's or stuff inside ISP | networks. | PoignardAzur wrote: | I'm not sure Netflix Open Connect counts as a CDN? They | might still use distributed servers from AWS. | garblegarble wrote: | Netflix themselves classify it as a content delivery | network, and that seems pretty fair - how else would you | classify a network they have built to optimise content | delivery, by way of peering agreements and physical kit | they deliver to ISPs on demand? | | They do use AWS for a lot of their internal compute and | packaging, but it wouldn't be cost-effective to use AWS | for content delivery, even with a deep discount to the | highway robbery standard AWS egress prices. | redis_mlc wrote: | > AWS is streaming video, operating hundreds of edge location | CDN locations, and everything else running on expensive | server infrastructure. AWS has real serious costs with | offering that service, to the point that Netflix has yet to | determine that it is better to build it themselves. | | Not sure if you made some typos, but ... | | Netflix does not stream from AWS, and never has. It used to | use outsourced CDNs, has now its own CDN. | | This seems to be a long-running misunderstanding on HN. | Anybody who knows AWS' egress costs knows better. | jiveturkey wrote: | > Apple is wildly delusional on the value that they provide. | | I haven't studied it, so I'm speaking out of turn, but I'm | thinking that it's cheap for smaller players and expensive | for larger ones, and not as a smooth function. NFLX is well | past the knee in the curve I guess. | | If you buy that, then it's unfair to say Apple is delusional | about their value add. On average it's probably fair within | reason. | clusterfish wrote: | > They continue to think Netflix as a physical product ( As | they often like to compare Physical Software distribution | before App Store ) | | Framing the relationship this way gives Apple more power and | control, so that's what they're doing, no surprise. They're too | smart to be merely misunderstanding such things. | croshan wrote: | I love that quote. To get where you want to be, it may be | helpful to build the skills you want, before you need them. | | At this point, an organization like Apple is too cemented to | easily change. I think you can't learn _everything_ on the job, | because some things you'll learn too late. Now, it's more than | "a few decades later," and have they really learned how to | partner? | 5faulker wrote: | If they do some major restructuring that is. | jobu wrote: | That's interesting. As a developer I've often felt outright | hostility coming from Apple developer relations, and maybe it's | this lack of a partnership mentality. They generally treat end | users really well, but it's like they see external developers | as some sort of parasite feeding on their products. In my | experience it's difficult to get actual technical help unless | you personally know someone internal to Apple. | tornato7 wrote: | From Apple's perspective, developers are either creating | competing products or products that Apple will eventually | compete with. Either way they would rather not help. | asdff wrote: | My tinfoil hat theory is they allow the jailbreaking scene | to persist instead of shoring up holes within a second of | each jailbreak's release because they poach tweak ideas. | When looking at the overlap between popular early jailbreak | tweaks and features that were added to iOS over the years, | this really doesn't seem farfetched. | mhh__ wrote: | Don't forget products they just ban | pornel wrote: | And the arrogance and entitlement they've shown during Epic | trial. Apple really believes that their OS and Store are | godsend to developers, and this makes developers forever | indebted to Apple for the 30% cut of everything happening | through it. | | I have to use mediocre Xcode, limited OS APIs, fight | signing, sandboxing, lack of Vulcan, and capricious review. | I need to keep rewriting churning APIs with "No Overview | Available" instead of documentation. I'd rather not use any | of this, but Apple keeps users hostage, because browser | engines that would embarrass Safari are banned. | musicale wrote: | If you're lucky you can get a WWDC lab session. | | However, I suspect Apple developer relations has largely | turned into a broadcast/funnel system since 1:1 support | doesn't scale well to millions of developers. | gowld wrote: | Woz never seemed bad at teamwork. "Whole banana" was the | results of jobs obession with dictatorial control, not the | cause of it. Woz tried to add expansion ports to the Apple | computer, but Jobs refused. Jobs seems to be throwing Woz under | the bus (as usual) to deflect from his own flaws. | musicale wrote: | > Woz tried to add expansion ports to the Apple computer | | Like the expansion slots in the [Apple II, Apple ///, Mac II, | IIgs, Power Mac, Mac Pro, etc.] or the [SCSI, ADB, USB, | FireWire, PC/Express/SD card, Thunderbolt, etc.] expansion | ports on various Apple computers? | fsckboy wrote: | yes. Here's wikipedia on the Apple II: | | "During the design stage, Jobs argued that the Apple II | should have two expansion slots, while Wozniak wanted | eight. After a heated argument, during which Wozniak | threatened that Jobs should "go get himself another | computer", they decided to go with eight slots." | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak | tablespoon wrote: | What does IAP stand for in this context? | jjtheblunt wrote: | in-app purchase, i believe | 8ytecoder wrote: | In-App Purchase | jw1224 wrote: | I wonder why Netflix don't want their content to be searchable in | Apple's TV app: | | > "Since TV App is not going to happen right now, there's nothing | else to get from Netflix at this time" | | The TV App is actually pretty great -- one of the few parts of | the Apple ecosystem where the garden walls are very low. | | I can search for a TV show or film, and even when the iTunes | Store has it available, TV still suggests I watch it for free | (effectively) on Amazon Prime, or any other streaming services I | have set up. | | It's a little surprising Apple seem happy to forego the revenue | themselves -- but great for users like me. | | For whatever reason, Netflix is the only major streaming provider | who don't integrate with the TV App -- which is a shame. | drexlspivey wrote: | Netflix doesn't want their content to show up in apple TV | search because they don't want to give access to their user's | data to Apple. It's a terrible anti-consumer decision and | frankly it was one of the last straws that led me back to | piracy after many years. All I wanted was a universal search | for content instead of having to go into each provider's app. | | I am now using Plex/Sonarr/Radarr and it works flawlessly, a | much better ecosystem with open APIs and tons of integrations | with tvdb/discord/trakt/opensubtitles etc. Netflix had a good | thing going on for a while but they managed to screw it up. | FireBeyond wrote: | Apple, refusing to share their user data with others: "Great. | Pro privacy. Pro user." | | Netflix, refusing to share their user data with Apple: | "Terrible. Anti-consumer. Last straw." | 8ytecoder wrote: | It's not sharing. It's just making it searchable - aka the | catalog and link back. The second feature is the ability to | continue/resume from the Home Screen. That requires sharing | playback information. However, there's no indication that | Apple mines this information. On the other hand, it's | extremely useful to me as a user. This is the primary | reason I don't use Netflix much these days and I have a | premium subscription. It's so easy for me to reach to HBO | Max or Hulu than Netflix. | tornato7 wrote: | I think it's more than that - if users are finding shows | through the Apple TV search then Apple is able to promote | their own shows and services in that search functionality. | Netflix wants people to use their app so they can push their | own content and features. | | Similar to why Amazon doesn't like it when you Google for | products and end up at Amazon, they would rather you just | visit amazon.com and search from there so they can show you | ads. | i_like_apis wrote: | With the flood of medium quality content coming from Netflix in | the past few years I'm almost happy with it not showing up. | tsuujin wrote: | Since picking up an Apple TV, my Netflix consumption is down to | zero. Everything else is right there in the main UI, and it | provides zero incentive for me to open their app. | | At least from my perspective, Netflix really dropped the ball | on this decision. | jjtheblunt wrote: | The article says the Apple/Netflix agreement DID follow older | rules, before current App Store rules? | bduerst wrote: | 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. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | I just wish the damn AppleTV apps worked better together. | | I use AppleTV for all my viewing (which isn't really that much), | and one thing that _really_ annoys me, is the crap quality of the | apps; even marqee-brand apps. | | I'm constantly having to reboot the unit to get out of "lockups." | | Wouldn't be surprised if a big reason that Netflix and Apple | don't play well with each other, is that they can't code it (as | opposed to nefarious motives -Hanlon's Razor). | asdff wrote: | I have the same issues on xbox with an order of magnitude more | powerful hardware. Don't think its apples fault. When you think | about it these companies don't have any incentive not to offer | crapware software, since they compete with eachother on | catalogue rather than ux which is 'good enough.' | mikestew wrote: | The Netflix app is especially bad about this. At least on my | prior-gen 4K ATV, do a search in the Netflix app and you'll | never get out of the search menu. _Menu_ button does nothing, | select one of the items in search does nothing because as soon | as you _Menu_ out of it, you 're back to the unescapable search | screen. The only way out is to kill the Netflix app. (This | might have been fixed, haven't watched anything on Netflix in a | while. Definitely repro'ed a month ago.) | | And, BTW, you might not need to reboot to escape a lockup. I | don't have an ATV on and accessible, but I'm pretty sure you | double-tap the TV/Home button that brings up an Alt-Tab-like | view of your running apps. Swipe or arrow left or right to the | problem app, swipe up to kill it. It's what I do with the | Netflix app way too often, like when I used the search | functionality. :-) | zerohp wrote: | I've never rebooted my AppleTV aside from updates. Double click | the home button on the remote and swipe up to kill an app. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | Thanks for the tip! | | Yeah, apps hang all the time. They don't crash, _per se_ , | but you can't break out of the screen they are presenting. | kristjansson wrote: | 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? | bikeshaving wrote: | 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.") | throwawy8233qo wrote: | I know HBO Inc had the same 15% deal, at least back in 2018. I | was on an email chain where some HBO execs mentioned this, and it | was a revelation. As a vendor of iOS apps we hinted to other | customers that the 30% cut is negotiable for providers strategic | to Apple, without giving away HBO's deal. | mikeryan wrote: | The Video Partner Program which takes 15% went into effect in | 2016. | djyaz1200 wrote: | 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 I'd be glad | to hear it. | CPLX wrote: | 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. | spywaregorilla wrote: | 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. | jacurtis wrote: | While I would definitely entertain extreme tax tiers at high | revenue limits (like $10B/yr), it is important to note that | there is value in Apple making money. | | There are a lot of jobs created between the $10B and $1T | levels. And as citizens of Apple's home nation, it greatly | benefits us that those high-quality jobs are available. | | A 100% tax (or even 80%) tax would discourage a lot of | products from existing. Apple would probably move down to | simply offering just phones and apps only and removing | everything else. I know that sounds good in theory, but there | are indirect benefits for these other services that they | offer, in addition to jobs. It also bolster's California's | economy all the way down to bodegas, bars, restaurants, and | hobby shops. | | So an alternative tax like 60% on revenues above $50B that | can not be deducted against might be a more reasonable | alternative. | moreira wrote: | That -sounds- simple, but it isn't, and in reality any | company would easily bypass that by simply creating other | companies to take some of the revenue. They already do that | to avoid international taxes. As an example, the US charges | tax on all income coming to a US company so companies have | entities in countries like Ireland and Luxembourg to keep | that money out of the US government's reach. | | So Apple might have $100B stuck in Ireland, unable to bring | it to the US, but it doesn't matter, that money still counts | for their shareholders. | | And it's the same thing here. If you try to tax $10B they'll | just have 100 companies all making $9.9B/yr, in a variety of | different countries, completely separate from each other, and | you're back where you started. | | And while this would be extremely complicated/expensive for | them to manage, it'd be profitable because the alternative is | to get a 100% tax on those profits. | | Taxes aren't easy. And calling a company that sells phones a | "society-destroying problem" is a bit hyperbolic, don't you | think? | CPLX wrote: | There's nothing simple about it. It would require pages of | statute as well as regulatory guidance, and some of the | most wealthy and capable forces in our modern world would | be arrayed against it trying to avoid and evade the rules. | | None of those things make the proposal impossible however. | | It would be a dismal society indeed if we unilaterally | surrendered to every instance of centralized malevolent | power without a fight. | smallerfish wrote: | It's an interesting thought experiment at least. What would | the hidden incentives of something like that be? | | For example, if a company wanted to keep growing, it would | have to split organically into separate corporate entities. | What would stop them establishing "favored" relationships | with each other? Say for example Facebook splits out | "Zuckerburg data centers inc" - what's to stop them pricing | themselves above market to avoid taking on other customers, | and then giving FB a hefty discount? You could mandate that | there be no board overlap, but shareholders would probably | receive a split. | amelius wrote: | If Zuckerberg data centers wants to keep growing, then at | some point they will have to find external customers. | CPLX wrote: | You'd need to actually draft a law rather than write it on | a napkin and there would be armies of very well paid | lawyers trying to avoid it, but that's common to any | attempt to break up concentrated power. | | In that context it wouldn't be all that hard. You'd need to | figure out some definitions for common ownership, joint | enterprise, and so on. A lot of those laws and definitions | already exist. It's only really in the last few decades | that we've abandoned antitrust law but we have successfully | done things like this in the past. | ameister14 wrote: | When have we capped the potential revenue of companies | successfully in the past? I've never heard of it | newsbinator wrote: | Why not $9bn a year? | EastOfTruth wrote: | You got to start the discussion somewhere.... For me, I t | think that it should be related to the number of employees. | loktarogar wrote: | A cap on employees would probably be a negative thing, | but a cap on revenue per employee would incentivise | hiring people | EastOfTruth wrote: | that's the solution | EastOfTruth wrote: | Talking about monopolies, why does Facebook and HN have | network issues at the same time. | bigthymer wrote: | 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. | EastOfTruth wrote: | makes sense but at the same time it surprises me | ric2b wrote: | 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". | samstave wrote: | 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... | vkou wrote: | 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? | | My neighbours didn't get a rent increase this month because my | landlord likes them, why should I have to negotiate for getting | the same thing? | | Bill on my team got a 30% bonus this year, I also want a 30% | bonus... And would love to see this sort of thing codified in | law. | ashtonkem wrote: | 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. | vkou wrote: | 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. | FormerBandmate wrote: | Credit scores are a very good thing. Someone who pays their | bills on time shouldn't have to pay the same rate as | someone who always skips the bill, and without them, every | loan would have 10% interest at least, even for mortgages | jen20 wrote: | The concept is fine. The implementation is garbage (in | the US), and insufficiently transparent. | djyaz1200 wrote: | Having this requirement when dealing with tech monopolies is | uniquely helpful because in some cases there is no | alternative. We can always rent, shop or bank other places. | I'd argue where there isn't a thriving marketplace of choice | monopolies should have to have the same rules with all their | partners. | trowapplea12132 wrote: | You can always use other software as well. The only reason | HN believe Apple to be a monopoly is because the product | they purchased does what it was advertised to do - security | through chain of trust via an good-but-imperfect | organization. It's only a legal monopoly if the courts say | so, and the judge in Epic v Apple defined the market in a | way that actually made sense - they aren't a monopoly on | mobile game purchases, but they did took anticompetitive | actions in that market to stifle competition. | | > I'd argue where there isn't a thriving marketplace of | choice monopolies should have to have the same rules with | all their partners. | | They can't have a monopoly on iPhones because the iPhone | isn't a market - it's a device where the App Store is the | killer feature. There are other products you can buy that | compete with the iPhone and its app store. | [deleted] | djyaz1200 wrote: | Apple as of years ago was capturing over 90% of all the | margin in smartphones | (https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/23/apple-captures- | record-91-per...). I'd argue that represents a monopoly | in paid smartphones. Our option as users is either buy a | phone from Apple or accept what is essentially a free | service from Google (you have to buy the hardware)... who | are giving that away to solidify their search monopoly. | This to me doesn't represent a thriving marketplace of | user choice. | Dracophoenix wrote: | 90% of global smartphone profits does not mean 90% of | devices in the market. It's been demonstrated for years | that iPhone users are much more likely to pay for apps. | It's possible to be extremely profitable and not have a | monopoly on the market because the iPhone isn't just an | appliance but a Veblen good as well. | zopa wrote: | It does however mean Apple has significant market power. | Almost by definition: in a very counterfactual perfectly | competitive smartphone market, everyone sells at cost and | there aren't any profits. Reducing it to monopoly vs. | not-a-monopoly is drawing too bright a line. | | And I don't really think iPhones are a Veblen good | exactly. Targeted at higher-income buyers? Yes. Valued as | much for design as aesthetics? Absolutely. But pretty | sure a $500 iPhone would outsell an otherwise-identical | $800 iPhone, nevertheless. | [deleted] | passivate wrote: | "but why limit.. " assumes we do things in an absolute | manner. But we don't. All rules and regulations are arbitrary | to an extent. We have different rules depending on the | situation, the entity, etc. We get to pick and choose the | rules that we think will benefit society the most. | oauea wrote: | Any of those a monopoly? | notyourwork wrote: | Technically or reasonably speaking? | only_as_i_fall wrote: | 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. | munificent wrote: | Better plan? How about we stop letting tech companies reach | "monopoly scale"? | liquidify wrote: | The market is globally competitive. How would expect tech | companies to compete if you have policies that continuously | place them at a disadvantage against global competitors. | | Tariffs don't solve these problems either. OP's suggestion is | pretty decent idea relative to playing wack a mole with price | fixing while trying to make sure your country's corps can | compete on the global market. | modo_mario wrote: | >How would expect tech companies to compete if you have | policies that continuously place them at a disadvantage | against global competitors. | | We can look at a map of most popular messaging apps per | country in the light of todays downtime and see that they | don't or they compete with themselves. | | It also shows the only places where competition can grow to | a scale where it can even hope to start competing and | survive is where there's first a protectionist policy in | place favoring domestic players. | georgeecollins wrote: | I agree, but there may be certain things like electric power | grids, sewer systems, messaging systems, high bandwidth ISPs, | where it may not make a lot of sense to have two (or not two | in a particular geographic location). In that sense you may | need some regulation. | abvdasker wrote: | 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. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | 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. | Scoundreller wrote: | Which city? | liquidify wrote: | 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. | jdhzzz wrote: | Make them a (common | carrier)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier] just | like was done for WAN access in the USA. Hahahahahaha. | kortilla wrote: | 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. | 8note wrote: | What incentive does the app store have to innovate now? | spywaregorilla wrote: | 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. | enjo wrote: | 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. | verdagon wrote: | I'd love to hear more, what kinds of incentives? Is it | something like, "if you get X efficiency, you get N more | dollars"? | tehjoker wrote: | It's not something that should be a choice. The government | should move as much power to renewable as fast as possible | and you should just keep getting power. This idea of | "choice" for a commodity based on how it was produced not | based on any features is crazy and will never work. | oauea wrote: | 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. | throwaway78981 wrote: | Not just destroy, destroy and steal too. Because why not. | | https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/16/22676706/apple-watch-swip... | arthurofbabylon wrote: | 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? | shkkmo wrote: | There were a number of issues. My understanding is that Netflix | was not paying 30% but rather was paying 15% due to their | special agreement with Apple. According to the emails, it was | Apple's refusal to go below 15% that triggered Netflix to begin | testing not allowing payment via IAP. The "voluntary churn", | "promotion coordination" and "revenue sharing" offers are from | Apple trying to sweeten the pot to keep Netlfix from dumping | IAP completely. | Terretta wrote: | 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. | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: | Netflix is very easy to cancel, though? There's a big honking | "cancel membership" button on the top level account settings | page. It's actually more prominent than other entries on the | page. | | http://imgur.com/a/09XZ9jb | | Also very easy to change your plan level up or down. | caylus wrote: | Yeah, I would guess that the important difference is that | Apple emails a receipt for all subscriptions every month, | making it much less likely that someone forgets about their | subscription when they no longer regularly use it. | yibg wrote: | It's way easier to cancel Netflix via Netflix than the App | Store though. | a_large_rat00 wrote: | 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. | jumhyn wrote: | > 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. | | Amusingly, this is only the case for Apple's first-party | subscriptions. Third-party IAP subscriptions for which you | are in the free trial when you cancel will continue to | provide "access" until the trial period concludes. | ramshanker wrote: | I am of the opinion that the whole "Reader apps" concept itself | was brought in to selectively please big and important players. | The ones whose absence would diminish the value of iPhone. Indie | developer's can't be expected to get same treatment. | kmeisthax wrote: | Luke LaFreniere has publicly stated that App Review basically | refused to even entertain a Floatplane "reader app" for months, | until they were able to appeal to someone who actually | understood Apple's rules. They were getting absolutely | nonsensical rejections that either didn't make sense or didn't | account for the whole "reader app" thing. | Ambroisie wrote: | What's a "reader app"? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-10-04 23:00 UTC)