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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.