Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
IOS Businesses Software The Almighty Buck Entertainment

Netflix's New iTunes Billing Policy Will Curb a $256 Million Revenue Stream For Apple (venturebeat.com) 96

Early last year, Netflix allowed some iOS users in more than two dozen markets to bypass the iTunes payment method as part of an experiment. The streaming company is now incorporating the change globally, curbing a $256 million revenue stream for Apple. "According to new data compiled by Sensor Tower, Netflix grossed $853 million in 2018 on the iOS App Store," reports TechCrunch. "Based on that figure, Apple's take would have been around $256 million, the firm said." The new policy change allows Netflix to avoid paying the 15% levy that Apple charges on in-app subscriptions. From a report: "We no longer support iTunes as a method of payment for new members," a Netflix spokesperson told VentureBeat. Existing members, however, can continue to use iTunes as a method of payment, the spokesperson added.

The company did not share exactly when it rolled out the change globally, but a support representative VentureBeat spoke with pegged the timeframe as late last month. Additionally, the support rep added that customers who are rejoining Netflix using an iOS device, after having canceled payment for at least one month, also won't be able to use iTunes billing. The move, which will allow Netflix to keep all proceeds from its new paying iPhone and iPad customers, underscores the tension between developers and the marquee distributors of mobile apps -- Apple and Google.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netflix's New iTunes Billing Policy Will Curb a $256 Million Revenue Stream For Apple

Comments Filter:
  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday January 04, 2019 @05:30PM (#57906684)
    I'd rather that money to go to buying more content for me then to Apple for a minor convenience service. You could license a lot of shows/movies for that and/or make more.
  •   Since bypassing Apple for purchase of In-App services is against ToS; How long before Apple suspends the Netflix app in the iTunes store and disables existing installations on Apple customers' hardware with an error message indicating "This app is currently unavailable, because the creator, 'Netflix', is in breach of the Apple Developer Agreement" ?

    • by zlives ( 2009072 )

      around the same time they start charging amazon for 15% of all amazon sales...

    • Good luck with that, Apple. Disable Netflix on all those AppleTV devices.... go ahead..... see how much heat Netflix gets over it as opposed to how much heat Apple gets....

      I am guessing that Apple would basically be shooting themselves in the foot on that deal.

    • by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Friday January 04, 2019 @05:51PM (#57906824)

      It's not in breach of Apples TOS - what Netflix is doing is allowed and has been since day one, see Amazons Kindle app which does the same (can't buy books or take out a Prime subscription through it, but can consume paid for content via it).

    • Apple does not require all apps to go through the iTunes store. I have plenty of apps on my iPhone and not one goddam instance of iTunes anywhere.

    • It's not the same thing as if you're buying pants for your in-game character. Netflix is already a subscription service that exists outside of the Apple ecosystem. The Netflix app just lets you access that existing subscription.
    • Since bypassing Apple for purchase of In-App services is against ToS; How long before Apple suspends the Netflix app in the iTunes store and disables existing installations on Apple customers' hardware with an error message indicating "This app is currently unavailable, because the creator, 'Netflix', is in breach of the Apple Developer Agreement" ?

      Apple is already skating on thin ice WRT anti-trust scrutiny. Probably not in their best interests to push their luck to the max.

    • Itâ(TM)s NOT against the AppStore rules at all. The AppStore rules say: IF you purchase through the app, it must go through the AppStore. And Netflix cannot advertise other payment methods in the app. As long as users find the Netflix website without help through the app and pay there, this is absolutely within the rules.

      I have no idea what their app looks like, but I assume it starts with a page where you enter your Netflix username and password, and thatâ(TM)s fine. If thereâ(TM)s a butt
  • A 30% margin which is standard in all kinds of app stores, Steam, Google, Apple, Microsoft is highway robbery pure and simple. That is the root of the problem here.

    Even when Steam back in the day set this number, and all others followed it, it was high for what they provided. Steam was and still mostly is a monopoly so they can get away with it. Same for Apple and the others of course. However in this day and age these surcharges have no basis in reality anymore. A brick+mortar needs that 30% margin due to

    • They charged Netflix 15%, not 30%.
    • by ThosLives ( 686517 ) on Friday January 04, 2019 @06:18PM (#57906966) Journal

      You must really hate buying anything from a retail store then. Typical markup in a retail store is "50%" - which is phrased to be purposely misleading. Markup in retail is "the percent of the retail price which is the markup." So retail markup is to double the retailer's cost.

      30% originally was therefore a really good deal - a producer getting 70% of sale price rather than 50% is much better than putting stuff on a retail shelf.

      The market is currently in another price discovery stage, where companies are now able to put in place their own infrastructure or be able to support lower rates than 30%. Trying to vilify companies offering storefronts for using value pricing (which is what every sales organization ever does if they want to stay profitable) is disingenuous.

      • by bsolar ( 1176767 ) on Friday January 04, 2019 @06:44PM (#57907080)

        The reason retail stores have such high markups is because they also have pretty high costs. You cannot compare them to a digital store, where costs are much lower. A retail shop with 50% markup might barely survive, where a digital store would swim in money...

        This is especially true for an application like Netflix, where the actual content is not hosted by Apple, only the application is. The Apple Store merely provides the download for the application plus updates and manages payment transactions: these costs are marginal at best and not nearly enough to justify a 30% cut the first year, nor the 15% cut subsequent years.

        • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          You cannot compare them to a digital store, where costs are much lower. A retail shop with 50% markup might barely survive, where a digital store would swim in money...

          OK. given the iTunes store is around 50% apps that are free, tell me how Apple swims in money taking 30% of $0.

          OK, now tell me how Apple swims in money taking 30% of a 99 cent app, which is around the majority of paid apps. (Or music, for example). That's around 29 cents for Apple, 70 cents for the developer or music label.

          Of that 29 cents th

          • by bsolar ( 1176767 )

            Most "free" apps still earn revenue through ads or in-app purchases which obviously generate revenue for Apple too.

            You cannot compare the payment transaction fees you pay at a retail store with Apple's: they are very likely to have special deals e.g. for massive amounts of small transactions and other discounts.

            Not to mention that if you use Apple Pay the bank has actually to pay Apple back a percentage for the transaction...

      • There is a huge difference between a storefront selling something and what Apple is doing. A physical storefront has to pay for shipping the getting the goods to the storefront as well as the physical store and the people to work at the store. Also, with a physical storefront, you generally have the choice of dozens of stores.
        Lastly, manufacturers can sell directly to consumers, set up their own stores, etc.... Basically storefronts might double the price but they are providing a lot of value to the cust

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by ThosLives ( 686517 )

          I'll give you unknown actual value to the customer and no competing storefronts, but not zero overhead (servers and managing payment isn't free by a long shot).

          But the 30% / 15% or whatever Apple or Steam or whoever charges the publisher isn't based on their cost, or even the value to the customer - it's based on the value to the person wanting to sell. That's what value pricing means.

          If I was a content creator 5 years ago and my choices were to hire a place to press media and stock shelves, roll my own sa

        • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

          There's also a huge difference between a storefront selling physical goods, and someone selling virtual goods. Selling virtual goods always has almost no overhead.

      • This isn't a markup, it's a middleman fee skimmed off the top. The two things are very different. 30% markup means Netflix gets 30% more than something cost them; a 30% fee means Netflix loses 30% of the subscription fee. Netflix presumably set their standard subscription rate to a price that enabled their business to sustain modest growth; 30% deducted from it could result in losses instead. How would your household work if you suddenly started not receiving 30% of your gross income?
      • You must really hate buying anything from a retail store then. Typical markup in a retail store is "50%" - which is phrased to be purposely misleading. Markup in retail is "the percent of the retail price which is the markup." So retail markup is to double the retailer's cost.

        Retail stores have physical inventory to maintain. They need to pay people to stock shelves, man cash registers and manage supply chain. Comparing electronic copying of bits and bytes to retail stores is ridiculous.

        At least I can go to most retail stores and buy the same shit. With these electronic distribution monopolies you have no choice. If you want something there is often only one place you can get it.

        The market is currently in another price discovery stage, where companies are now able to put in place their own infrastructure or be able to support lower rates than 30%. Trying to vilify companies offering storefronts for using value pricing (which is what every sales organization ever does if they want to stay profitable) is disingenuous.

        Comparing retail with app stores is disingenuous.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Man, rough times are in store for Apple ahead.

    Netflix shutting down any form of collaboration (not that Apple added any value for what Netflix paid them)
    Qualcomm blocking their sales in Europe
    Chinese demand down due to their prices being too high and increased competition
    Netflix kicking them to the curb
    And a class action suit stating that the walled garden they put up for the App Store is harming consumers that reached the Supreme Court: https://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-app-store-under-fire-in-supreme-c

    • Qualcomm isnâ(TM)t shutting down Apple sales in Europe. In Germany it is very easy to get a preliminary injunction which Qualcomm did - the price is that Qualcomm had to put $1.5bn into escrow to pay Appleâ(TM)s damages when this preliminary injunction finally fails. Apple cannot sell their cheaper phones in Apple Stores in Germany, but can continue selling in other stores, and Qualcomm quite likely will have to pay any damages caused to Apple through this.

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Working...