Netflix now features an external subscription button on iOS

AppleInsider

A new subscribe button will direct users away from the Netflix app and onto its website to set up new subscriptions.

Credit: David Balev/Unsplash

In March, Apple informed developers that it would allow "reader" apps to offer a link to an external website so users can create and manage accounts outside of the App Store.

Reader apps are defined as software that displays outside content on iOS, including previously purchased videos, music, magazines, newspapers, and books.

Now, Netflix has implemented the reader API into its own app. 9to5mac spotted a new subscribe button, which directs users to the Netflix website.

When tapped, the button warns that the transaction is no longer Apple's responsibility and that users will not be able to manage their subscriptions or request refunds through Apple.

The change allows Netflix to avoid paying a 30% commission fee for each subscription made through any app hosted on the App Store. However, Netflix removed the ability for users to subscribe within its app in 2018, despite Apple's attempts to convince Netflix to keep using in-app payments.

Generally, Apple bans outside links -- particularly to alternate payment platforms -- as part of its anti-steering policies on the App Store. Following an investigation from the Japanese Fair Trade Commission, Apple was forced to make a change to its in-app link policy to comply with new rules in Japan.

Although the change was Japan-focused, Apple said in September that the updated guidelines would apply worldwide.

Apple has been under fire for its anti-steering policies globally. For example, while it won a resounding victory in the Epic Games v. Apple legal battle, one of the few rulings made against Apple would ban the company's anti-steering policies. The Cupertino tech giant has appealed that ruling.

Read on AppleInsider

crowley

Excellent.  The situation of not being able to have a link to a website, or not being able to refer to a website has been an Apple faceplant into ridiculous user unfriendliness that has lasted all too long.

jimh2

How are they going to pay their fair share? No one rides for free. 

longfang

jimh2 said:

How are they going to pay their fair share? No one rides for free. 

Apple will get 1st option to buy Netflix at the conclusion of the streamer wars

entropys

longfang said:

jimh2 said:

How are they going to pay their fair share? No one rides for free. 

Apple will get 1st option to buy Netflix at the conclusion of the streamer wars

Indeed. Reminds we are yet to witness the franchise wars, which will leave Taco Bell as the only restaurant in existence. In the future, all restaurants will be Taco Bell.

edited July 2022

22july2013

Will Netflix charge less if you use their external site to pay? Even if they charged less, I doubt I would sacrifice my privacy for a few dollars less. Or will Netflix block us from paying through Apple?

9secondkox2

Ridiculous. Apple needs to charge a fair fee for that link in order to cover the costs of platform usage and access to Apple customers, App Store and data center maintenance, marketing, and associated utilities. 

As someone previously stated, Apple didn’t make the sacrifices to offer a free ride. 

Apple’s cut pays for the manpower and resources that enable the various platforms to be the successes they are. That money doesn’t grow on trees. 

As a rule, I never mess with apps that destroy my seamless experience by forcing their shenanigans and try to make me jump through hoops to use their services when I previously had such an easy time handling everything through one easy, integrated, nice to use system. 

The last app was a reader app. It was easy to make purchases and worked perfectly. Then one day, they decided to destroy my experience, force me out of that convenience, and shove me to their website which lost my paid for archives, and didn’t work well for new items. 

Never again. If you don’t use apples system, I don’t use your app. It’s like the late 90s is back to turn the internet into the Wild West again. 

edited July 2022

crowley

9secondkox2 said:

Ridiculous. Apple needs to charge a fair fee for that link in order to cover the costs of platform usage and access to Apple customers, App Store and data center maintenance, marketing, and associated utilities. 

As someone previously stated, Apple didn’t make the sacrifices to offer a free ride. 

Apple’s cut pays for the manpower and resources that enable the various platforms to be the successes they are. That money doesn’t grow on trees. 

As a rule, I never mess with apps that destroy my seamless experience by forcing their shenanigans and try to make me jump through hoops to use their services when I previously had such an easy time handling everything through one easy, integrated, nice to use system. 

The last app was a reader app. It was easy to make purchases and worked perfectly. Then one day, they decided to destroy my experience, force me out of that convenience, and shove me to their website which lost my paid for archives, and didn’t work well for new items. 

Never again. If you don’t use apples system, I don’t use your app. It’s like the late 90s is back to turn the internet into the Wild West again. 

Poor, hard up Apple.  They do us all a favour by selling iPhones and iPads at cost, how are they possibly supposed to make money if they can't take a cut of subscription content that they had no hand in making?

22july2013

crowley said:

9secondkox2 said:

Ridiculous. Apple needs to charge a fair fee for that link in order to cover the costs of platform usage and access to Apple customers, App Store and data center maintenance, marketing, and associated utilities. 

As someone previously stated, Apple didn’t make the sacrifices to offer a free ride. 

Apple’s cut pays for the manpower and resources that enable the various platforms to be the successes they are. That money doesn’t grow on trees. 

As a rule, I never mess with apps that destroy my seamless experience by forcing their shenanigans and try to make me jump through hoops to use their services when I previously had such an easy time handling everything through one easy, integrated, nice to use system. 

The last app was a reader app. It was easy to make purchases and worked perfectly. Then one day, they decided to destroy my experience, force me out of that convenience, and shove me to their website which lost my paid for archives, and didn’t work well for new items. 

Never again. If you don’t use apples system, I don’t use your app. It’s like the late 90s is back to turn the internet into the Wild West again. 

Poor, hard up Apple.  They do us all a favour by selling iPhones and iPads at cost, how are they possibly supposed to make money if they can't take a cut of subscription content that they had no hand in making?

So you wouldn't mind if Apple now stopped its ongoing work efforts to allow Siri to understand users who ask it by voice to start showing specific Netflix programs?

And you wouldn't mind if Apple selectively allowed Siri to only understand Netflix programming if the purchaser purchased Netflix through Apple's store?

bulk001

9secondkox2 said:

Ridiculous. Apple needs to charge a fair fee for that link in order to cover the costs of platform usage and access to Apple customers, App Store and data center maintenance, marketing, and associated utilities. 

As someone previously stated, Apple didn’t make the sacrifices to offer a free ride. 

Apple’s cut pays for the manpower and resources that enable the various platforms to be the successes they are. That money doesn’t grow on trees. 

As a rule, I never mess with apps that destroy my seamless experience by forcing their shenanigans and try to make me jump through hoops to use their services when I previously had such an easy time handling everything through one easy, integrated, nice to use system. 

The last app was a reader app. It was easy to make purchases and worked perfectly. Then one day, they decided to destroy my experience, force me out of that convenience, and shove me to their website which lost my paid for archives, and didn’t work well for new items. 

Never again. If you don’t use apples system, I don’t use your app. It’s like the late 90s is back to turn the internet into the Wild West again. 

That’s like saying Apple should pay Netflix for creating a streaming platform for iOS that their hardware users can access!

itguyinsd

22july2013 said:

crowley said:

9secondkox2 said:

Ridiculous. Apple needs to charge a fair fee for that link in order to cover the costs of platform usage and access to Apple customers, App Store and data center maintenance, marketing, and associated utilities. 

As someone previously stated, Apple didn’t make the sacrifices to offer a free ride. 

Apple’s cut pays for the manpower and resources that enable the various platforms to be the successes they are. That money doesn’t grow on trees. 

As a rule, I never mess with apps that destroy my seamless experience by forcing their shenanigans and try to make me jump through hoops to use their services when I previously had such an easy time handling everything through one easy, integrated, nice to use system. 

The last app was a reader app. It was easy to make purchases and worked perfectly. Then one day, they decided to destroy my experience, force me out of that convenience, and shove me to their website which lost my paid for archives, and didn’t work well for new items. 

Never again. If you don’t use apples system, I don’t use your app. It’s like the late 90s is back to turn the internet into the Wild West again. 

Poor, hard up Apple.  They do us all a favour by selling iPhones and iPads at cost, how are they possibly supposed to make money if they can't take a cut of subscription content that they had no hand in making?

So you wouldn't mind if Apple now stopped its ongoing work efforts to allow Siri to understand users who ask it by voice to start showing specific Netflix programs?

And you wouldn't mind if Apple selectively allowed Siri to only understand Netflix programming if the purchaser purchased Netflix through Apple's store?

So under your logic, Apple should get a cut of literally everything it does on your iPhone, iPad or Mac despite the fact that the functionality comes with the operating system that YOU paid for when you bought their greatly overpriced device?

Should Apple get a cut of YOUR profits on your stocks that you have displayed on the home page widgets?  Where does it end?  

Telling Siri to play something on Netflix doesn't cost Apple anything more than if you don't ask Siri anything.  But if you want to approach the slippery slope of Apple getting a cut of everything you do with 3rd party apps on YOUR device, then say goodbye to almost everything we use and love.

To answer your question, I've never asked Siri to do anything but answer questions or give directions or send a message while driving.  I'm not so lazy that I can't launch Netflix and play what I want myself.

edited July 2022

foregoneconclusion

crowley said:

Excellent.  The situation of not being able to have a link to a website, or not being able to refer to a website has been an Apple faceplant into ridiculous user unfriendliness that has lasted all too long.

Every app in the App Store lists the name of the developer and every iPhone provides access to the internet. That's how users of apps like Netflix, Spotify and Amazon Kindle were able to successfully purchase things online instead of in the App Store without ever needing a link. Yes, it's less convenient than clinking a link but it's also not much of a barrier to consumers judging by how successful Netflix, Spotify and Amazon were with removing purchases from the App Store many years ago. 

crowley

foregoneconclusion said:

crowley said:

Excellent.  The situation of not being able to have a link to a website, or not being able to refer to a website has been an Apple faceplant into ridiculous user unfriendliness that has lasted all too long.

Every app in the App Store lists the name of the developer and every iPhone provides access to the internet. That's how users of apps like Netflix, Spotify and Amazon Kindle were able to successfully purchase things online instead of in the App Store without ever needing a link. Yes, it's less convenient than clinking a link but it's also not much of a barrier to consumers judging by how successful Netflix, Spotify and Amazon were with removing purchases from the App Store many years ago. 

It may not be much of a barrier, but it's definitely user unfriendly and inconvenient, which makes it all the more ridiculous that Apple have been so obstinate about it, pissing off developers and customers for no significant advantage.

dangdave

Didn’t anyone read the article before they commented? Netflix has not allowed new in app (iTunes) subscriptions since 2018. 

davidw

ITGUYINSD said:

22july2013 said:

crowley said:

9secondkox2 said:

Ridiculous. Apple needs to charge a fair fee for that link in order to cover the costs of platform usage and access to Apple customers, App Store and data center maintenance, marketing, and associated utilities. 

As someone previously stated, Apple didn’t make the sacrifices to offer a free ride. 

Apple’s cut pays for the manpower and resources that enable the various platforms to be the successes they are. That money doesn’t grow on trees. 

As a rule, I never mess with apps that destroy my seamless experience by forcing their shenanigans and try to make me jump through hoops to use their services when I previously had such an easy time handling everything through one easy, integrated, nice to use system. 

The last app was a reader app. It was easy to make purchases and worked perfectly. Then one day, they decided to destroy my experience, force me out of that convenience, and shove me to their website which lost my paid for archives, and didn’t work well for new items. 

Never again. If you don’t use apples system, I don’t use your app. It’s like the late 90s is back to turn the internet into the Wild West again. 

Poor, hard up Apple.  They do us all a favour by selling iPhones and iPads at cost, how are they possibly supposed to make money if they can't take a cut of subscription content that they had no hand in making?

So you wouldn't mind if Apple now stopped its ongoing work efforts to allow Siri to understand users who ask it by voice to start showing specific Netflix programs?

And you wouldn't mind if Apple selectively allowed Siri to only understand Netflix programming if the purchaser purchased Netflix through Apple's store?

So under your logic, Apple should get a cut of literally everything it does on your iPhone, iPad or Mac despite the fact that the functionality comes with the operating system that YOU paid for when you bought their greatly overpriced device?

Should Apple get a cut of YOUR profits on your stocks that you have displayed on the home page widgets?  Where does it end?  

Telling Siri to play something on Netflix doesn't cost Apple anything more than if you don't ask Siri anything.  But if you want to approach the slippery slope of Apple getting a cut of everything you do with 3rd party apps on YOUR device, then say goodbye to almost everything we use and love.

To answer your question, I've never asked Siri to do anything but answer questions or give directions or send a message while driving.  I'm not so lazy that I can't launch Netflix and play what I want myself.

Enough of this "your iPhone ... my iPhone" BS. Developers are not making money using "your iPhone". They are making money using Apple IP. It's not "your iOS", you did not pay to own iOS when you bought "your iPhone". You got a free license to use iOS (and all future upgrades available for that iPhone) on "your iPhone". Even if you bought a used iPhone or got one for free, that iPhone comes with a free license to use what ever version iOS it can run. If you don't want to use iOS on "your iPhone", you are free to install what ever OS you want on "your iPhone" and have the developers develop apps for whatever OS is on "your iPhone" and neither you or the developers, will have to pay Apple a cent. 

Plus Apple charges a commission. If the developer don't make money with their apps, they don't have to pay Apple a cent. How much are YOU paying Apple to have a Netflix, Disney, HBO, Fornite, Google Map, Spotify or  any of the millions of free apps in the Apple App Store on "your iPhone"?  But if developers are making money with their free apps, paid apps and apps with IAP that they have in the Apple App Store, apps that depends on iOS, Apple deserve to get a commission from the developer.  

This is what Apple and Google will do when they are required to allow developers to supply a link to their own payment system outside the app. The article here is referring to allowing publishers of "reader" apps, to supply a link so their subscribers can manage their account. This does not apply to paid apps or IAP. 

https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/apple-app-store-netflix-spotify-web-accounts-1235219399/

for paid apps and apps with IAP, this is what Apple and Google will have waiting for them. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/30/apple-opens-up-third-party-app-payments-in-korea-will-take-26percent-cut-.html


By placing a link in their iOS or Android app, to process payment on their own payment system, developers are still using Apple or Google IP and this entitle them to collect a commission. And Apple and Google will have a general idea of how many customers are using the developers payment system because of the link. Developers are better off informing their customers without using any of Apple or Google IP, like with email.

If a customer log on to a developer website by opening a browser on their own and making a payment or with auto payment on a CC, neither Apple or Google will collect a commission and neither care to. However, if a customer uses a supplied link in a developer app to get to the developer own payment system, Apple and Google will get their commission. But the developers will get a 4% discount and only have to pay a 26% commission. What a bargain for Apple and Google. It's ridiculous that they didn't do this along time ago. But for Apple at least, there is still their desire to to make purchasing an app or making an IAP, as safe as possible for their iOS customers.  

 

davidw

crowley said:

9secondkox2 said:

Ridiculous. Apple needs to charge a fair fee for that link in order to cover the costs of platform usage and access to Apple customers, App Store and data center maintenance, marketing, and associated utilities. 

As someone previously stated, Apple didn’t make the sacrifices to offer a free ride. 

Apple’s cut pays for the manpower and resources that enable the various platforms to be the successes they are. That money doesn’t grow on trees. 

As a rule, I never mess with apps that destroy my seamless experience by forcing their shenanigans and try to make me jump through hoops to use their services when I previously had such an easy time handling everything through one easy, integrated, nice to use system. 

The last app was a reader app. It was easy to make purchases and worked perfectly. Then one day, they decided to destroy my experience, force me out of that convenience, and shove me to their website which lost my paid for archives, and didn’t work well for new items. 

Never again. If you don’t use apples system, I don’t use your app. It’s like the late 90s is back to turn the internet into the Wild West again. 

Poor, hard up Apple.  They do us all a favour by selling iPhones and iPads at cost, how are they possibly supposed to make money if they can't take a cut of subscription content that they had no hand in making?

Poor, hard up Elton John. He can do us all a favor by not charging for tickets to his "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" farewell concerts. Most of the songs he sings are songs than most fans have already purchased. And he will no doubt  make a ton more money selling CD's, DVD's and BluRays of the concerts. And I bet he's still getting a ton of royalties from all the artists that sold covers of his songs. This after making a ton of money from the original version that he sang. 

And just exactly why should all the iPhone and iPad purchasers that are not into games, subsidize the likes of hard core gamers playing games on iOS using a free app and developers like Epic making a ton of money with IAP from a free app?   

No hand in making? Just exactly how is a publisher suppose to make their subscription content available to customers using iOS, without using Apple SDK for iOS? When you figure that out, please let us know.

I'm sure Walmart had no hand in making the contents of an Xbox game disc. But you really think Walmart shouldn't get a "cut" of the sale price, when they sell an Xbox game disc in their stores? You think Microsoft should demand Walmart to sell Xboxes without marking it up, because they had no hand in making an Xbox, plus Walmart makes a ton of money selling other products in their stores?  

edited July 2022

appleuseryeah

The geniuses wanting everything free won’t like communism when they finally get it, but by then it will be too late. 

crowley

davidw said:

crowley said:

9secondkox2 said:

Ridiculous. Apple needs to charge a fair fee for that link in order to cover the costs of platform usage and access to Apple customers, App Store and data center maintenance, marketing, and associated utilities. 

As someone previously stated, Apple didn’t make the sacrifices to offer a free ride. 

Apple’s cut pays for the manpower and resources that enable the various platforms to be the successes they are. That money doesn’t grow on trees. 

As a rule, I never mess with apps that destroy my seamless experience by forcing their shenanigans and try to make me jump through hoops to use their services when I previously had such an easy time handling everything through one easy, integrated, nice to use system. 

The last app was a reader app. It was easy to make purchases and worked perfectly. Then one day, they decided to destroy my experience, force me out of that convenience, and shove me to their website which lost my paid for archives, and didn’t work well for new items. 

Never again. If you don’t use apples system, I don’t use your app. It’s like the late 90s is back to turn the internet into the Wild West again. 

Poor, hard up Apple.  They do us all a favour by selling iPhones and iPads at cost, how are they possibly supposed to make money if they can't take a cut of subscription content that they had no hand in making?

Poor, hard up Elton John. He can do us all a favor by not charging for tickets to his "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" farewell concerts. Most of the songs he sings are songs than most fans have already purchased. And he will no doubt  make a ton more money selling CD's, DVD's and BluRays of the concerts. And I bet he's still getting a ton of royalties from all the artists that sold covers of his songs. This after making a ton of money from the original version that he sang. 

Don't see anything even approaching a decent or appropriate analogy there.   Whatever you have against Elton John, I don't care.

davidw said:

And just exactly why should all the iPhone and iPad purchasers that are not into games, subsidize the likes of hard core gamers playing games on iOS using a free app and developers like Epic making a ton of money with IAP from a free app?   

Come off it.  There are a huge number of apps that are free and functional, use web content and do not have in app purchases.  You don't get to make an emotive subsidy argument just because you can insert Epic as your boogeyman.  Apple chose to have a low developer membership fee, free tools and free apps.

davidw said:

No hand in making? Just exactly how is a publisher suppose to make their subscription content available to customers using iOS, without using Apple SDK for iOS? When you figure that out, please let us know.

Apple had no hand in making the content.  I was very clear.  Access to and use of the iOS SDK is free and store listings are covered by the developer fee.

davidw said:

I'm sure Walmart had no hand in making the contents of an Xbox game disc. But you really think Walmart shouldn't get a "cut" of the sale price, when they sell an Xbox game disc in their stores? You think Microsoft should demand Walmart to sell Xboxes without marking it up, because they had no hand in making an Xbox, plus Walmart makes a ton of money selling other products in their stores?  

Another obviously dogshit comparison.  Walmart sell Xboxes, but they don't charge a commission on everything that a customer buys on the Xbox Game Store using that Xbox.  Nor have they ever blocked Microsoft from advertising on the console that Xbox games can be bought in the Xbox Games Store using the web.  

Ugh, I hate myself for getting that tortured, but you will insist on making terrible analogies.