Hacker News Reader

Comment by rtpg | Hacker News Reader

Apple offers the same kinds of deals (see Netflix discussions) though there the rationales are different, which leads to sweatier "Apple has to offer deals because their value add is so bad, and having alternative app stores would help"-style arguments... I don't really know of a good legal argument there.

View on HN

From 2018:

> Netflix stops offering in-app subscriptions for new and returning customers on iOS

https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/28/18159373/netflix-in-app-...

Apple allows companies that have a free app used to access subscription content to sell the subscriptions on their own website without giving Apple a cut.

Netflix used to allow you to pay though Apple to reduce the sales friction of needing to set up billing through the Netflix website, but they stopped letting users pay through Apple years ago.

Maybe they stopped new subscriptions, but I'm still paying for Netflix through Apple.

Is Apple's deal with Netflix anticompetitive though?

Google is paying hardware manufacturers to use their search and for exclusivity with their store. Both of those are more or less explicitly to keep out competition.

Apple cut a deal with Netflix but what competition does it squash?

These are just different issues.

I agree the issues are different! I do believe there’s a subtle argument to be made about how Apple can use its customer base to “pick winners” (combo of huge user base + App Store being the only entry point), on top of things like offering sweetheart deals to certain apps. Meta being allowed to get away with so much “against the App Store rules” stuff is legit IMO.

Anticompetitive behavior can be downstream of stuff like this, even if Apple isn’t actively quashing something but merely making it way easier for certain places to absorb the costs (especially if the deal was only offered to Netflix but not to other platforms).

Its not a ironclad argument by any means but its something

It squashes competition with Netflix

But Apple didn’t decide that only Netflix could be on their platform. And they didn’t take money to cause problems for other streaming video services.

That’s what Google did according to the verdict. They paid money to stop competitors.

In fact Apple negotiated that deal to keep Netflix on the platform because Netflix wasn’t happy paying 30% (surprise). It’s not good that they’re playing favorites secretly, but it’s not the same thing

Did other streaming services get the same deal?

That doesn't matter. Businesses aren't required to make the same deals with everyone.

But if one service gets a better deal than it's competitors then it's market impediment.

And Apple had previously explicitly stated in its defense that everyone got the same deal.

>Is Apple's deal with Netflix anticompetitive though?

Towards other streaming services?

Yes.

Giving preferential treatment to one customer at the expense of other customers is not anticompetitive behavior as defined by any law I'm aware of.

The law doesn't say you have to give everybody the same deal just because it's "unfair" to others.

The monopoly/antitrust/etc. laws are about misusing a position of power for your own benefit at the expense of competitors. Apple doesn't have to be "fair" to Netflix vs Max vs Disney Plus.

Plus, Netflix isn’t even Apple’s customer. It’s actually kinda the other way around: Apple’s customers are what Netflix wants access to, as a source of potential Netflix customers.

When you’re a marketplace, especially a big one, both the people buying in your store and the people selling in your store start to look like customers, both paying you for access to the other. For the sellers is obviously more implicit, but still often explicit like grocery stores getting paid to put specific products on aisle end caps and such.

The whole 30% fee is premised on providing services to app makers for money.

But Apple stated all got the same deal and had to pay the same.

But they lied.

Considering Apple has its own streaming service, this may in fact be the opposite of monopolistic.

It’s very likely they have special deals too.

Without saying too much, I have personally witnessed such a deal at company with a measly 2-3 million app downloads. We had a physical product in the Apple Store that was doing very well. Our sales guy somehow negotiated lower IAP fees in exchange for higher cut or exclusivity of our retail product. Everything is negotiable if you have leverage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com