> 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. The court found the 30% rate arbitrary but not objectionable: > Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional. This view is explicitly affirmed in the Epic v. "If not for IAP, we’d have to come up with another system to invoice developers. > 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. > Apple seems to maintain the expectation that they deserve 30% of revenue from massive corporations like Netflix, Amazon, etc.įrom Tim Cook's testimony in Epic v. I am surprised Netflix is honestly being as understanding on this issue as they seem to be. They already have the marketing power to force people to subscribe at their website. It is absolutely no surprise to me that Netflix would consider not allowing IAP subscriptions at all. 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.Īpple is wildly delusional on the value that they provide. Of course this is the "generous" 15% IAP cut, instead of the normal 30% which is even more atrocious.Īpple seems to maintain the expectation that they deserve 30% of revenue from massive corporations like Netflix, Amazon, etc. This isn't anywhere near the value that AWS provides, despite demanding a much higher premium. 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). 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.Īpple by comparison demands 15% which is 3.5x as much of a cut. So that means that AWS fees account for 4.3% of Netflix's revenue.ĪWS is streaming video, operating hundreds of edge location CDN locations, and everything else running on expensive server infrastructure. And I don’t think Apple learned that until, you know, a few decades later.įor comparison Netflix spends about $1.2 Billion dollars per year on AWS (Amazon Web Services). 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.Īnd I think if Apple could have had a little more of that in its DNA, it would have served it extremely well. 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. > 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 reading all the emails from Apple execs, Eddy Cue often seems to be the culprit. I love how Apple complains about testing IAP as not OK as in we deserve our 15%. Not to mention Netflix knew Apple were doing AppleTV+. 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. It is that Apple Execs has Zero understanding of how other business works especially with respect to Internet or Software Services. I think the most important issue from these email isn't the lack of Alternative App Store, IAP, or 70/30 split. Probably from Benedict Evans or somewhere else. I am pretty sure I read something similar before.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |