If you’re a Netflix customer you just log into the app. There’s no issue.

The debate is around people who are Apple customers but not Netflix customers, and who download the Netflix app through the App Store.

I don’t understand why I become the exclusive property of a specific corporation through the simple act of using a phone (which is something I am required to do in the modern day).

You buy a device knowing it's ecosystem is controlled by the manufacturer.

When I buy a PS5, I understand that Sony 100% controls what games are offered on it.

My phone. Is uh, my phone. I’m not my phone’s property. What crack are you smoking?

For a PS5, it’s quite a bit different. We all can agree that piracy got out of control back in the 90’s/00’s. This is the price we pay to have games. Our phones never had this problem.

I don’t think it’s that different really. Preventing piracy can be done using DRM, which can live side by side with unsigned code on the same device (as evidenced by eg Android running Widevine L1).

Somebody noted well in another thread that the main difference is that game consoles are often sold at or below cost, so a "software monopoly" on a given console platform can be seen as a way of "paying back the advance" on the console to the manufacturer/platform.

I don't think anybody would seriously argue that iPhones are a loss leader.

A Playstation is used for gaming. No one needs it to function in society. Smartphones are personal computers, sometimes the only such device people own. I have to use them to commmunicate with relatives and friends, manage my finances, use public transport, access health and government services.

    > through the simple act of using a phone 

Not just using it, but having paid for it.

and decided of paying Apple (for whatever reasons) and not any of the Android phones.

But you’re not required to go on the App Store and discover apps like Netflix. Presumably you do that because the corporation built a nice App Store ecosystem where you want to do such a thing.

Because you aren't their property. You just invented that straw man.

And the simple act of using a phone is you making a conscious decision to agree to accept the terms and conditions that come with buying any product. You are in no way forced to and by supporting alternatives you help to change the market for everyone.

Where can I read the terms and conditions for my shoes? My pants? What about my vase I bought? Objects don’t come with terms and conditions.

Your shoes and pants don't depend on Apple infrastructure and engineering resources to function. Your vase doesn't run software.

These phones are not inanimate objects; they are computers that run software that is distributed under terms and conditions, and depend on central services the access to which is governed by terms and conditions.

I understand the position that this is a Bad Thing. I'm typing this from a Linux machine for that reason. But the analogy here is problematic.

An iPhone doesn’t depend on Apple to function. It is only that way because Apple programmed it from the factory like that. There are zero laws that prevent me from taking it apart, running it over, tossing it off a bridge (well, maybe that last one because littering is usually illegal). There’s not even any laws preventing me from flashing the device with whatever code I want.

If you want to complain that a phone needs Apple infrastructure to function, you should check out the phones from the 80’s and 90’s. They were a lot bulkier but a phone doesn’t inherently need software and internet to function.

These are computers, with modems, that happen to fit in the palm of your hand. They aren’t specialized, by any stretch of an imagination. The iPad even has the exact same CPUs that are literally used in computers.

So, saying these things are somehow special is a little bit silly. The only thing special is the locked down code that came preinstalled that I sometimes regret agreeing to using. If I could go back in time, I’d disagree and then sue Apple for selling me a device I couldn’t use and make them allow me to install Linux.

Sadly, I need a phone more than I have money to waste.

> An iPhone doesn’t depend on Apple to function. It is only that way because Apple programmed it from the factory like that.

An iPhone doesn’t depend on Apple the same way a PlayStation 5 doesn’t depend on Sony. Most people buy the iPhone not just for the electronic components but for the entire ecosystem of apps and experiences, which are built on a foundation of Apple core APIs.

Even when Sony did support running Linux on the PS3, doing so was mutually exclusive with accessing Sony’s platform and playing games.

> They aren’t specialized, by any stretch of an imagination.

Specialization and vertical integration is what Apple is famous for. If these were not specialized, we should see similar devices on the market to satisfy all manner of customers similar to what we see with general purpose hardware. The reason general purpose hardware hasn’t produced a myriad of clones reminiscent of the early PC era is exactly because of how specialized and difficult these devices are to make.

> If I could go back in time, I’d disagree and then sue Apple for selling me a device I couldn’t use and make them allow me to install Linux.

I’m not asking this to be snarky; I’m genuinely curious: why do you want an iPhone then? Why not an Android phone that is far more permissive, or a PinePhone that is philosophically aligned with what it sounds like you want?

I guess I just don’t understand the mindset. I run Linux on hardware that is meant to run whatever I want. I run games on my Xbox, and don’t lose sleep over it. I use an iPhone because I need my communication device to “just work”, and no other general purpose hardware I’ve ever owned has achieved this.

Do I wish the iPhone was more flexible? Yeah, I really do. But I also understand why it’s not, and what that lack of flexibility provides me.

> An iPhone doesn’t depend on Apple the same way a PlayStation 5 doesn’t depend on Sony.

Your presumption here is that Sony is in the right. Who says they are? The original PS3 allowed installing Linux and they only removed it due to the maintenance burden -- almost nobody was using it except the US government.

Even still, you can upload your own OS to a PS5. There's no magic hardware stopping you. You can even replace parts ... or even just rip it out and make a handheld device like one guy did on youtube.

You can't do that with a modern iPhone. It will brick itself if you replace the screen.

> If these were not specialized, we should see similar devices on the market to satisfy all manner of customers similar to what we see with general purpose hardware

So, you're saying that Samsung doesn't sell cellphones? The hardware is so specialized that Apple is the only one who can make a cellphone? I find that extremely hard to believe that Apple hardware doesn't use electronic circuits, CPU's, and other modern technology. Are you asserting that iPhone's run on magic?

> I’m genuinely curious: why do you want an iPhone then?

I moved out of my home country and my parents have an iPhone. We literally own one just to use FaceTime with them because they don't understand whatsapp and they want to talk to my son.

Beyond that, I make apps, and I need a physical device to test things on.

> But I also understand why it’s not, and what that lack of flexibility provides me.

I don't understand why there is a lack of flexibility. I have a few custom tools I've built, and having to reinstall them every week makes it utterly pointless to use an iPhone. How is that a reasonable lack of flexibility?

I think an analogy could be made that you’re walking into a market hall because they promoted it. The stall owners will be paying to be part of that. It’s not that you’re property of the market hall, but you’re on their property and they will want to be paid.

Am I an Apple Customer because I own a Magic Trackpad? Are there fees or conditions that I should be rationally subject to because I made that purchasing decision?

This mentality of corporate fiefdom is new to me. Reminds me of another vertical monopoly over telecommunication products and services that fared poorly under US jurisdiction.

> This is not true at all

I think the trouble is that all of the above are true, but not universally true. The issue can be framed from multiple perspectives depending on which aspect of market dynamics are most impactful to a given app/service/situation.

Some developers build for the Apple ecosystem because the ecosystem is large and enticing and provides better opportunities than the alternatives.

Some developers are big enough that they don’t need the App Store to gain customers.

If a new app gains popularity primarily because of Apple, and eventually gets big enough that its origins are now immaterial to the ongoing success of the company, whose customers are they? There isn’t a clear answer to this question. Arguably both Apple’s and the app maker’s, and there’s an intrinsic codependency that can’t be easily separated.

I agree with your point about small devs. The question is: at what point does it become penalizing? Once the app reaches some threshold?

The hard thing about this conversation is that I can see the merits of Apple’s position while also agreeing that at times, the outcome feels “wrong”, i.e. an existing product with an existing customer base seems like it shouldn’t be so limited.

But is it possible to provide a platform that enables this kind of developer ecosystem and app diversity combined with a consistent user experience without the at-face-value “wrong” outcomes? I don’t know.

This gets even murkier when apps rely heavily on Apple services for data storage, syncing, security, etc. It seems very fair to charge for “we’ve solved a lot of hard problems for you”.

It’s an interesting situation that is often painted in terms that are far too simplistic.

> If a new app gains popularity primarily because of Apple, and eventually gets big enough that its origins are now immaterial to the ongoing success of the company, whose customers are they? There isn’t a clear answer to this question. Arguably both Apple’s and the app maker’s, and there’s an intrinsic codependency that can’t be easily separated.

There is a clear answer, as you yourself just said: they're customers of both Apple (by virtue of having bought their hardware) and the app developer (by virtue of having bought their software). Those are distinct, separate relationships the customer has with two different companies. Apple doesn't own those customers now and for all time just because they originally found the service through Apple's app store! That's ridiculous.

I phrased that poorly. My point was that it isn’t clear if there’s a point at which the balance of the relationship shifts such that what was once reasonable (paying fees to Apple for access to their customers, among other things) is no longer reasonable.

In the Netflix scenario, it’s clear that Apple wasn’t the primary source of customer acquisition. The scenario where an unknown app grows and gets big based on Apple’s network effect highlights the complexity of the situation.

> Apple doesn't own those customers now and for all time just because they originally found the service through Apple's app store!

I’m not saying that Apple owns those customers. The pertinent question is what is or is not reasonable for them to charge and/or what restrictions are reasonable. The benefits of publishing in the App Store extend beyond just customer reach, and also involve Apple making good on the promises they've made to their customers (With few exceptions, I personally won't spend money on apps that use their own subscription mechanism, because I have no interest in cancellation hell). In addition to this, the vig covers access to platform capabilities and services that are arguably just as important as access to customers.

I don't think we need to decide precisely what dollar amount is reasonable for Apple to charge for the use of their app store; that's something Apple and the app developers can negotiate between themselves. The problem is that Apple is currently allowed to use their software in a way that effectively does give them ownership of your customers, and they're able to use that ownership as leverage in any negotiations. Apple can say "pay up, otherwise our customers won't be allowed to access your service anymore, even if they want to, and regardless of what app store they use to purchase your services". If Apple couldn't do that then the negotiations would be more fair.

To be clear, I'm not a fan of Apple's vice grip here. But I also don't think I agree with this:

> in a way that effectively does give them ownership of your customers

Netflix and its users may find it annoying that anything related to subscriptions has to be danced around (I certainly do), but I don't think it's quite right to classify Apple's rules around directing users to subscription management features on the Netflix side as "ownership" of those customers.

The restriction feels onerous, yes, but is something other than ownership. They are wielding the value of their marketplace as leverage, and it's this power that is (rightfully) under scrutiny.

They're not just wielding the value of their marketplace though. If that was all it was, then Netflix could threaten to distribute their application to Apple customers through a different marketplace as part of their negotiations. But users aren't allowed to install applications without going through Apple's marketplace. Apple does, in some limited sense, "own" those customers. That's the issue.

The DMA tried to fix this, but failed because Apple just shifted to charging per install even for applications that don't use Apple's marketplace. And if you don't want to play by those rules, Apple won't sign your app and iPhones will refuse to allow your customers to install it. There's no alternative, other than to abandon your iPhone-using customers entirely.

I'm trying to understand your point. Netflix already distributes its app via the App Store and pays no fees for users who subscribe directly with Netflix. I was a Netflix customer before I was an Apple customer, and have never touched Netflix billing from my Apple device. Netflix pays no money to Apple for my subscription.

They pay money for customers who originate from the Apple in-app sales funnel. Netflix could choose to continue requiring all subscriptions to be handled externally, but I understand why they don't.

> There's no alternative, other than to abandon your iPhone-using customers entirely.

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely an alternative (to paying 30% of subscription fees), and it's what these companies are already doing. It's just an alternative that many people dislike, which is why the DMA exists. At issue is also a question of whether the DMA actually makes sense, which was the central point of my pondering in the GP comment.

I think we might be arguing orthogonal points.

> I think we might be arguing orthogonal points.

Correct. You seem entirely concerned with the specifics of what rules Apple chooses to enforce and whether those rules allow developers alternatives to paying 30% of their revenue to Apple.

But I'm not talking about an alternative to paying the fee, I'm talking about an alternative to having to follow Apple's arbitrary rules period. What if I decide I don't like the terms Apple is offering, and that I just want to sell a piece of software directly to an iOS user and cut Apple completely out of the process? Right now, I can't; Apple will simply refuse to sign the application and iOS devices will refuse to allow my customers to install it on their devices, and there's no alternative to that. I either comply with all of Apple's demands (however reasonable or unreasonable they might be), or I can't sell working software to my customers.

My original intent was just to explore the complexity of the situation.

People clearly want to cut them out of the process, but this requires justification just as much as Apple's current stance. The question is: why should they be forced to do what you want, vs. you being forced to comply with what they want?

I'm sympathetic to issues related to their dominant market position and recognize that there are multiple ways to run a platform. I'm also not saying that I prefer Apple's policies. But ultimately the products that Apple produces are a result of the way they run their business, and at issue is whether or not they should be allowed to execute on their business model, and if not, the basis for why they shouldn't.

> I'm talking about an alternative to having to follow Apple's arbitrary rules

While I certainly understand why people don't like these rules, they are not arbitrary. There is every indication that the rules are carefully calculated to benefit Apple, and in many cases, their customers. After spending some time in the Android ecosystem, I personally prefer the high bar required for apps to get published. I prefer the unified subscription experience mediated by Apple that allows me to see and manage what I'm paying for in one place. As a developer, I also understand why other developers find these rules frustrating. The bubble we're in is uniquely positioned to feel both sides of the issue.

eBay and Amazon also impose rules on sales, and they take large cuts of seller profits in exchange for the privilege of selling in their marketplaces. The same goes for your local shopping mall, and even some towns/municipalities etc. Your local shopping mall has rules and regulations about the kinds of stores that can sell their goods and services, and charges money for the privilege of selling what they do allow. You might dislike a limitation that prevents you from opening <disallowed shop>, but that doesn't make the rule arbitrary.

> I either comply with all of Apple's demands (however reasonable or unreasonable they might be), or I can't sell working software to my customers.

This could be said of almost every market and community in existence. And the trouble is that this is both a bug and a feature, depending on your perspective. The distinction between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" currently seems to be based on personal preference, the nature of an app, or the stage of a company.

Bringing this full circle, my early point was that what seems completely reasonable for a developer launching a brand new app targeting Apple's highly lucrative customer base may not seem reasonable at all when bigger players with existing customers (like Netflix, Spotify, etc) get involved. And it's the simultaneous reasonableness/unreasonableness that makes this a far more complicated issue than many people are willing to acknowledge.

> People clearly want to cut them out of the process, but this requires justification just as much as Apple's current stance.

Why should I need to justify my right to sell software to my customers without interference from an unrelated third party? Just because Apple has the technical ability to hold my customers hostage, that doesn't mean they have a right to.

> why should they be forced to do what you want, vs. you being forced to comply with what they want

Neither of these need to happen. Apple should not be forced to do anything other than to stop blocking their competitors from the market. And Apple's competitors should not be forced to comply with what Apple wants either unless Apple can entice them by offering something valuable in exchange, beyond a mob-style protection racket. (Nice application you have there. It would be a shame if someone were to block your customers from running it.)

> I personally prefer the high bar required for apps to get published.

Then buy your apps exclusively from Apple's app store. Nobody's forcing you to leave Apple's walled garden, Apple's just not allowed to be the only game in town anymore.

> eBay and Amazon also impose rules on sales

I can sell my product without going through eBay and Amazon. I can't sell my iOS app if Apple installs code on my customer's devices that blocks it from running.

>> I either comply with all of Apple's demands (however reasonable or unreasonable they might be), or I can't sell working software to my customers.

> This could be said of almost every market and community in existence.

What? No. What other market exists where one single company is able to act as a governing body, dictating the rules which their competitors must follow in order to be allowed to exist?

> The distinction between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" currently seems to be based on personal preference, the nature of an app, or the stage of a company.

Right, which is why different companies should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they consider Apple's terms reasonable, rather than Apple being able to essentially hold them at gunpoint and make any demands they want.

It is absolutely true. Apple doesn't take a cut from any of your examples EXCEPT if they make that payment through the app on their phone. If they redirect you to a website to subscribe, apple sees nothing. If your customers use the rails that apple has greased up FOR YOU then they take a cut.

I would agree with you if the app could redirect you to a website to subscribe, but that's explicitly against the rules and not currently possible. This wouldn't be an issue at all if a redirect is allowed, or even a sentence saying "please subscribe on our website". Both are currently banned and this banned is strictly enforced.

> If they redirect you to a website to subscribe, apple sees nothing.

In fact, they see 27% [1], and that's very new – it used to be impossible before.

[1] https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...