from Hacker News

Netflix is the latest company to try bypassing Apple’s app store

by gbaygon on 8/23/18, 6:46 PM with 462 comments

• by madrox on 8/23/18, 10:37 PM

  I worked on an app that is in the same category as Netflix. A week before launch, Apple chose to reject us in spite of months of meetings and reviews with their app teams and assurances we were in-bounds since we were working with them for launch featuring.

  It came down to the fact we required an email address and password for IAP so you could bring your subscription to the web or other platforms. While everyone else in the category did this, they decided that policy was going to change and we were just going to be the first people to deal with it. Since having an email-based account was core to the architecture and the UX, I went through a week of refactor hell to make emails/passwords optional to meet our launch date.

  Since other apps still get to do this, it's clear the policy change message was BS. I've suspected a lot has had to do with Apple's ambitions in the streaming space and their desire to be in a position to offer bundling and other over the top services. They're already trying to control the UX with the TV app and are offering companies better rev share rates to do the integration work.

  It seems like Netflix is daring Apple to pull them from the store. If that's what's happening then I applaud them. I understand that Apple may think they're protecting the consumer by creating a walled garden, but as a developer whose livelihood is tied to their decisions, I'm tired of being jerked around.

• by dperfect on 8/23/18, 9:33 PM

  > They are being redirected to the mobile web version of the app and asked to enter payment details with Netflix directly.

  Sorry, but if Apple's policies are applied consistently (I know they often aren't), this won't fly.

  I have an app with a basic email/password sign-in screen (the app represents a small part of a larger web-based SaaS product). Apple has rejected my app for including anything in the app that even remotely hints to the service existing outside of the App Store. This includes a "Sign Up" button linked to the web signup, a "Learn More" button that links to the website, or even a "Support" button that has navigation that can lead to a signup or pricing page. After a long chat with someone from the App Store review team, I learned that you can't link to any page of a site that contains other links that can indirectly lead to a signup or pricing information. It's a pretty harsh policy.

  So my app was finally approved, but without any links to support documentation on my site. Congratulations, Apple - you win :)

• by peatmoss on 8/23/18, 7:21 PM

  I miss the idea that a platform, applications, and marketplace were not a vertical stack owned by one entity.

  As a consumer, I’d love to buy a phone, not a content distribution straight jacket.

• by menacingly on 8/23/18, 7:58 PM

  I do think the Apple/Google cut has been natural. The phone and successful app stores aren't accidents, they're endpoints in a long chain of work to focus consumer attention in a way that sells software.

  That said, these benefits have an expiration date. I don't think the app store cut has been a ripoff for its entire history, but if the temperature of the room has shifted toward hostility, it might be that they've spent the goodwill they earned with their innovation and now it's time for a more sustainable long term arrangement.

  We can find middle ground between "Apple did nothing for me" and "Apple deserves 30% of software sales for eternity"

• by orf on 8/23/18, 6:59 PM

  > Epic Games will be launching its hit game Fortnite for Android on its own website, and fans will only be able to download the game there, not on Google Play ... while the setting that blocks third-party installations can be disabled on Android phones.

  If they are talking about disabling it system wide vs disabling it for a single application, is this not pretty irresponsible? Lots of kids play Fortnite, saying "hey to play your favourite game just disable this security setting" to millions of them seems risky.

• by happywage on 8/24/18, 8:51 AM

  I have a startup which builds a web-based enterprise product. A year ago we launched a companion app that provides a fraction of the functionality of the desktop application, just enough to help our customers extract the key information they need when they're on the road.

  All of a sudden a few days Apple decides we have to implement in-app payments. I explained them that this is an enterprise product for an arcane industry and that our customers require quotations/invoices raised to their procurement department and would not pay several hundred to several thousand dollars through the app. They insist we have to implement in-app payments despite not helping our customers nor our business. We don't have automated billing at all, not even on our desktop product. The requested change means months of development for no value (at this point).

  No way to appeal. We can currently not update our app and if we don't implement in-app payments in an unspecified time our current version will be pulled too.

  Thanks, Apple.

• by jefe_ on 8/23/18, 9:50 PM

  Accidentally subscribed to Youtube Red / Premium through the App Store. Got an e-mail a few months ago when Youtube shifted to Premium congratulating me that I was grandfathered into the old rate and features forever. I noticed their new rate of $11.99 seemed similar to what I was already paying. This is when I discovered Google had included a $3 surcharge to cover App store fees in the App store price (don't blame them). I looked into transferring and there is no way to transfer an App store subscription to Google without cancelling and starting fresh (thus losing grandfathering). Decided to stick with the App store to maintain grandfathering, but it's a bit ridiculous that Google wasn't allowed to nudge me to a browser to save $36 a year.

• by teekert on 8/24/18, 7:45 AM

  Dear Netflix, I want to use your services but you are the only app that I can't find in the play store of my not-rooted, fully Play store capable Lineage OS device. It's a pain. And why do I need the app? Because Chromecast is the only convenient way to start watching Netflix on a TV (for an Android user). Why won't you make a Kodi plugin?

  If you want to be independent, be serious about it, make it easy to find the latest apk on netflix.com/apk, instead of apkmirror. Make it easy for users who pay to enjoy your service the way they want to. Seems to me like Netflix themselves are the ones pushing Play and App store official routes on official, completely locked-in devices.

  I was on a app diet when I still had my first gen Moto G (with 8 GB of memory) and I found that almost everything I used apps for before had websites that were as functional as the app (or even more functional in the case of Facebook), minus all the obligatory tracking (if you choose so).

• by akshayB on 8/23/18, 7:26 PM

  Apps stores are work great if you are a small company and can get access to big audience for 30% cut. Apps stores essentially acts like middleman who does payment processing, can advertise and also provides fraud protection. But when you are already a big company like Netflix or Microsoft those benefits essentially just don't add up.

• by 75dvtwin on 8/23/18, 9:47 PM

  Could this be analogous to the 'Net neutrality' arguments?

  Only in this case Google and Apple are the 'bad guys' (the infrastructure providers, eg the ISP).

  While the so called 'Over-the-top' application/service providers (eg Netflix, Spotify, Epic games, etc) and their users are the victims ?

  I can see a small difference, where the ISPs did not have anything analogous to 'advertisement' benefit to their 'Over-the-top' application/service providers.

  But surely, the advertising help the stores provide -- is not worth continuous 30% (or even 15%) take ?

• by rconti on 8/23/18, 8:20 PM

  Can someone help explain how this works today? I'm a bit unclear. The Netflix app is, as far as I know, free. I use it, and I have a subscription paid for via their website. (well, okay, I've never really watched content on a phone or tablet, but I know it works).

  Is the problem that new users who sign up via the iOS app have to make an in-app payment for their subscription, thus triggering the 30% cut?

  I assume this also means Apple will reject any app that submits payment through the Netflix iOS app directly to Netflix, bypassing the normal iOS payments process.

  Why doesn't Netflix just not allow you to sign up via the app, forcing everyone to use a web browser (either on mobile or on desktop)?

  It seems like other app developers could do the same thing, allowing the app to sign in to your web account to view content. For example, the Remember The Milk todo list service. I believe I pay on the website, but they have a companion iOS app that allows me to sign in.

• by tusharsoni on 8/23/18, 7:18 PM

  Apple and Google should update their policies where they take a much smaller cut if the user got to the App Store page directly (via external link) or a direct search. They deserve the 30% cut if users find the app by browsing the store (which doesn't happen nearly as often).

• by MiddleEndian on 8/23/18, 7:00 PM

  Excellent, hopefully this trend continues on all platforms.

• by jobu on 8/23/18, 7:32 PM

  Didn't Apple change the rules about external accounts and subscriptions a couple years back? I thought you could create an app that required an external account (and external purchases) as long as there was no links to the external site from the app and no mention of subscription or external purchases within the app.

  Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, and a few others have been doing it this way for a while, so I'm surprised this is news.

• by tolmasky on 8/23/18, 7:47 PM

  Ultimately it’s of course their choice, but I truly believe that a “fee-less” App Store would be better for the party that so seldom gets mentioned: me, the consumer. I’m the one that’s ultimately paying the 30%, not the apps. I already paid 1000$ for this phone, if I spend money on Netflix I want that money going to making great tv shows, all of it, not 70% of it.

• by sxp62000 on 8/23/18, 7:27 PM

  I'd like to see some sort of a breakdown of how Apple uses the 30% to improve the app store. Even if they were spending 15% of that cut on improving iTunes Connect etc. it would've shown.

• by 99052882514569 on 8/23/18, 7:54 PM

  IMO The European Commission Versus Android[1] from Stratechery is required reading if you want to understand the app store battles of 2018.

  [1] https://stratechery.com/2018/the-european-commission-versus-...

• by sambroner on 8/23/18, 7:31 PM

  There's two arguments: Apple/Google developed the device, support the platform, built the api, maintain the infrastructure, and market the experience.

  The other is that app developers have a symbiotic, probably synergistic relationship with the phone makers. Apps are a huge part of the draw of a good platform.

  My take is that until we decide that a given platform is a monopoly, we let the platforms fight for a larger market share by attracting high quality apps using this "tax" as leverage (better dev experience, larger market share, superior hardware are other tactics). Microsoft tried (and failed) to improve their platform by offering developers a larger share of the take away and hoping they'd improve the ecosystem.

  My hope is the market gets more competitive so that app makers get a larger share of the profit.

• by cletus on 8/23/18, 11:43 PM

  In the frontier days of app stores, a lot of the policies made way more sense. 30% cut but you don't need to engage a payment processor and it makes it way easier for the consumer to pay? Sure! App approval required so people don't download malware? That's good for consumers, which is also good for the ecosystem. Apple is much better at this than Google is too as we've seen more misbehaving Android apps than iOS (eg crypto mining in the background).

  But Apple (and Google, IMHO to a lesser extent) are starting to use their gatekeeper positions for their own advantage. And these markets are getting so huge and the potential damage to other companies so large that they're just inviting government action, probably by the EU first but I can also see the US getting to the point of taking antitrust action.

  It's clear Apple has streaming and original content ambitions. They also have iTunes of course. If they're not careful they're going to trigger intervention when they arbitrarily start applying rules to Hulu and Amazon Prime Video that don't apply to others.

  There are already some pretty silly contortions for these policies. Take Amazon. You can purchase items through the iOS app... except for anything digital like, say, Kindle books. But you can buy Kindle books elsewhere and then load them on the iOS Kindle app using your email and password. As others have noted, other companies haven't gotten these exceptions.

  This is also why I think it's a huge mistake for Apple to get into the original content game. Their other businesses are so huge that original content will never be able to compete on a revenue basis. Yet they risk their own platform by favouring their own content. Government action could be ruinous for them. When Apple competes on their own platform against third parties it undermines faith in that platform and (IMHO) its long term health (even viability).

  I don't know what the alternative is though. It's not letting anyone install anything as much as tech-savvy purists may think so. That's actually not what consumers want or need. Is it allowing competition in App stores? Maybe. There isn't just one domain registrar and just one root-level CA.

• by chacham15 on 8/23/18, 7:47 PM

  To everyone saying that Apple/Google maintain the hardware/infra for Apps and so deserve a cut, I think the question here is about being forced into it. Imagine if Microsoft did the same with Windows; people would be outraged.

• by chrischen on 8/23/18, 10:03 PM

  The reason why Apple charges 30%—and is justifiable in doing so—is because the App store itself is a marketing platform.

  If a user discovers the Netflix app, signs up, they are essentially discovering Netflix through the App store.

  If a user discovers Netflix elsewhere, they can be pointed to download the app for extended utility.

  In the latter case, it doesn't violate Apple's 30% revenue cut policy. But if they want to target people who discover Netflix from the App store platform, then they would have to pay.

• by camhart on 8/24/18, 2:43 AM

  Netflix has been doing this for a while. For the longest time you simply couldn't sign up unless you went to the website.

• by c487bd62 on 8/23/18, 7:34 PM

  Does this means that any app distributed outside the store doesn't get access to closed features like Google Cloud Messaging? If so that's another reason to support sideloading since right now using MicroG seems like a pain in the ass (if you, like me, need a lot of problematic apps)

• by ezoe on 8/25/18, 6:33 AM

  I say everyone involving in this are wrong.

  What Netflix trying to achieve can be perfectly done by ordinary web browser. I don't know about their "app" but I bet it's just a wrapper of web browser.

  The whole app ecosystem is crap. It must be abolished ASAP.

• by nkkollaw on 8/24/18, 9:15 AM

  What's wrong with telling people to go to their website?

  They apps seems like a thin wrapper around a web app, couldn't they just have people use the web app? If you add a link to the home screen, it's almost identical.

  Not idea, but better than losing 30% of your revenue...

• by makecheck on 8/23/18, 8:24 PM

  It made me so mad to see Tim Cook on stage with a gazillion dollar check, as if any significant amount of that money actually benefited developers or content owners compared to what a sensible market would have allowed.

  Heck, for a year or so it almost would have been lying to claim to be paying developers (plural) when a single developer like Supercell was raking in so much.

  Let’s be honest: there’s a giant check from people blowing money on games that they shouldn’t (gems, etc. to fuel addictions), and a large check for a very short list of apps constantly in the top 10 due to app store positive feedback loops. The remaining $4.52 of all payments to anyone is split 145,622 ways to the 98.9% of developers trying to survive.

  And let’s not forget, Apple’s store platform feels like it was once one person’s side project and is now 5% of a different person’s time. It doesn’t feel like they’ve cut any checks to make this a good marketplace.

• by twodayslate on 8/23/18, 8:44 PM

  Just 30% when purchased through the app store. Sounds like a simple solution.

• by ihuman on 8/23/18, 7:05 PM

  Doesn't this violate the App Store guidelines?

  > Section 3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services:

  > Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired elsewhere, including consumable items in multi-platform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.

  To me, it sounds like Netflix is, "directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase." I'm not saying they should or shouldn't break the rules, I'm just saying that they are.

• by perseusprime11 on 8/24/18, 1:42 AM

  How is this different from Walmart taking a commission for putting your products on their shelf? Why does Apple get so much slack? 30% seems reasonable for giving access to its shelf.

• by bogomipz on 8/23/18, 10:38 PM

  Can someone say is the 30% just for the initial payment? For example has my credit card details does Apple still get 30% of the monthly payment on a recurring basis?

• by iamgopal on 8/24/18, 11:19 AM

  The future is, where mobile is new TV, and you sbuscribe to your favorite content provider via Apple TV app. i.e. creator -> apple -> consumer.

• by michaelmrose on 8/23/18, 8:55 PM

  Can we just establish a list of app stores by registration and a fee to pay for vetting by independent experts and force apple to include at first run a choice of stores to enable kind of like forcing MS to include other browsers in the EU. With the understanding of course that they don't exclude users who pick alternative stores from the official apps/store.

  Then if we don't want to deal with their bullshit we can just have an iphone shipped from the EU and enjoy a device we actually own.

• by tempodox on 8/24/18, 8:26 AM

  The app store is such a horrible experience, I'm glad for every single app that circumvents it.

• by anfilt on 8/23/18, 10:42 PM

  Makes me think of what band-camp has done with their app.

• by jscalo on 8/24/18, 5:44 PM

  “Do as we say, not as we let others do.” — Apple

• by bepotts on 8/23/18, 7:11 PM

  Apple and Google not only created the device and funded the R & D for the features, but also created the APIs, the tools, the infrastructure, and attracted the (hundreds of millions of) users. The 30% cut they ask of developers is more than reasonable.

  Want to bypass that cut? Build a web app and make it play well on mobile. If you want to run it on Android and iOS devices, then I don't really see how anyone can say "Apple and Google are taking too much of my cut".

  Disagree with it sure, but don't act as if they're some thugs stealing from companies.

• by thiswillis on 8/24/18, 1:47 PM

  The App store is vehicle for censorship.

• by z3t4 on 8/23/18, 7:18 PM

  The platform fee should be treated as a platform tax, just add it to the price, then user can choose to install via platform store and pay the extra or side load it and pay normal. Or is there something in the publisher agreement that prevents this ?