davidw

zeus423 said:

I can see a few problems with basing this on IP address tracking. My Netflix account allows me to watch on two devices at the same time. Let's say I'm watching from home but my wife wants to watch while she's at work (during lunch, of course). Or perhaps I go on vacation and want to watch Netflix while falling asleep on the beach? How about students who go to college and log in via their parents' account? They are in the same family and should be able to use the same account, but the IP addresses would be vastly different. Hopefully Netflix does some pretty thorough testing before rolling this out to the masses.

Right now, none of those are issues. 

For one, a Netflix account is for a household, not its family members. So any family member not living in your household is not entitled to use your account in their household. This is not like a family account for streaming music. So using an IP address would work here. 

Plus, as mentioned in another article about this, for now, this IP sharing crackdown only applies to TV boxes, Smart TV's and maybe smart Bluray players and game consoles. So far it doesn't apply too mobile devices like phones and tablets. So unless you and your wife travel with your flat screen TV, TV box, Bluray player or game console, it doesn't matter what IP address you're using if watching your Netflix account while traveling with a phone or tablet. So theoretically, a kid in college could log into their parents Netflix account with an iPad or iPhone and stream it to a TV with AirPlay, and not be affected. For now anyways.  (But I do remember a while back an issue with Netflix not supporting AirPlay unless they were given info about the TV that was being used. Maybe related?) 

One of the way Netflix can make this work is to monitor how often you're using a different iP address to log in with a TV, TV box, Blurry player or game console. If only occasionally, then its not a problem. As you might be just be visiting another household and want to watch a movie there, using your Netflix account. Just be sure to log out when you leave.

Though I do know a few friends that would bring their Apple TV to another friends home so they can use it there to rent a movie on iTunes or use an app to watch some sport game that they subscribe to. But they don't leave the Apple TV there when they leave and this way, they don't have to log into any of their accounts on someone else's TV.

I have purchased many used Bluray players and Wii game consoles from Goodwill, where when I get them home to test, they still had someone Netflix account on it and was able to log in once connected to my WiFi. Many people just don't remember that they have to make sure to log out of their Netflix (and others) account, before giving their Wii or BluRay player away. Devices like these remember your account log ins, so you don't have to log in every time.  

danvm said:

foad said:

danvm said:

Rayz2016 said:

Odd that games consoles care excluded. What’s the reasoning behind that?

Maybe becase consoles are not multipurpose devices, or because customers are not forced to use the app store to purchase games.  Also, what @foad posted could be a possibility.  Who knows...

You are forced to use Sony and Microsoft’s distribution methods for digital purchases though. So if you buy the digital versions of the Xbox or the PS5, you’re required to use their payment methods and you can’t build in an alternate payment flow. The initial versions of these bills were pushing for alternate App Stores and still had the carve out for game consoles. Heck - Epic’s suing to get an alternate App Store. They state it in their filings. The reason they keep calling it a “tax”, is because legislators and users have a very specific reaction to the word. They explicitly ignore what they get out of using the platforms. These companies have the expectation that Apple and Google should develop the APIs that they hook into for free. 

All this stuff is just a money/power grab. Let’s take Spotify. Where is their supposed harm? They are the biggest streaming service by a long shot - and still growing at a crazy clip. They have been able to buy up all these various companies and now are becoming a dominant player in the podcast market. Tencent/Epic are two of the largest games companies in the world. Epic steals content constantly that gets put into Fortnite and they fight tooth and nail to not pay the original content creators. I can keep going on, but this isn’t about “app fairness”. It’s about future dominance. 

The thing is that consoles don't force customers to digital purchases.  MS, Sony and Nintendo consoles still have support for physical media.  Maybe that is one of the reasons they were excluded.  From a developer POV, I think there is no difference between the iOS / Android digital store and a console digital store.  

And I agree with you, this is an issue of money and power, and not necessary app fairness.  

As far as I know, Fortnight players can not run down to the nearest Best Buy and buy a cool virtual outfit and fancy pick ax off their shelves. They are forced to use the stores in their game console for in-app purchases of virtual goods. And this bill only concerns in-app purchases. So it's a moot point that they can install games on disc, purchased at a retail store, anyway. 

Another make no sense excuse from Sweeney, is that game console makers sell their hardware at a loss (or near loss) and make their money from the sale of games. So they are justified in charging a 30% commission, to make up for what little profit they get selling their game consoles. While a business like Apple that makes huge profit from selling their hardware, do not need to make money from developers that are using their platform. Thus Apple is being being greedy. This is BS. No one forces Microsoft or Sony or Nintendo to sell their hardware at a loss (or near loss). And even if they were to make a decent profit selling their hardware, game console makers would still charge a 30% commission because it's what most in the industry accepts as standard. Plus, the ..... give away the razor and sell the blades ...... has been proven to be a good business plan to make huge profits. And I haven't heard of Sweeney lowering the price of virtual goods with the in-app purchases in Fortnight, because of the huge profits he has made with that one game alone. 

gc_uk said:

davidw said:

I'm not saying the Fortnight player themselves looks like dorks. I'm saying that the avatar they are stuck with, when not paying for a cool outfit, looks like dorks. And that's to be expected, as Epic wants players to pay for cool looking outfits. If the free avatars looks cool to begin with, there would be less need for player to pay for cool looking outfits.

So you're STILL trying to insult Epic's customers?

davidw said:

Tell the third party retailers selling to Amazon customers in Amazon MarketPlace, that in the real world, they don't have to go through Amazon checkout payment method.

Is the only way you can defend your argument to make irrelevant or incorrect comparisons?  A third party retailer can also create their own website and sell to those same customers without using Amazon's checkout or paying any fees to Amazon.  A developer on the App Store cannot without paying fees to Apple.

davidw said:

paying through an iTunes account, the customer can fund their account with a CC (including American Express and Discover), Apple Pay, debit card, PayPal and gift cards paid for with cash. You think Epic is going to allow as many options? Plus iTunes gift cards can often be purchased at a discount. 

Why is this even relevant? Again, you don't seem to be able to defend your position without making irrelevant arguments.

davidw said:

This has nothing to do with a retailer having the right to use what payment method they want or giving the customers more choices as to how to pay. This is about Epic not wanting to pay Apple and Google a commission for access to iOS and Android platform customers. You don't hear Epic making the same demand on Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo platforms. Or Amazon MarketPlace sellers demanding to use other payment methods, other than Amazon checkout, so they can avoid paying Amazon a commission for accessing customers on Amazon's market platform. 

If this is nothing to do with payment methods, why do you mention payment methods above? You really should get your argument together before you start to repond. I will agree though, it isn't to do with payment methods, and it isn't about Epic paying commission on the relevant App Stores, it's about Epic not being allowed to use their own App Store on one platforms. And you don't hear Epic complaining about Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo because they CAN distribute their software through other means without paying fees to those companies for using their app store

davidw said:

If Epic were to lower the cost across all platforms based on the savings they get from not having to pay the 30% "tax" on iOS and Android platforms, then that would mean the Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo 30% "tax" would amount to less money for them, as Fortnight Bucks would cost less. Good for Fortnight players on all platforms, but Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are not going to be too happy with that. That's why Epic can not pass on their savings if they were to lower their overall cost by not having to pay the iOS and Android 30% "tax". They will keep the savings for themselves. Or Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will have to charge Epic more than a 30% "tax", for hosting Fortnight on their platforms, to make up for the loss of Fortnight players spending less to play.  
 

How do you know what Epic will do with the savings? I've already explained how Epic could reduce prices across all platforms.

A third party retailer can also create their own website and sell to those same customers without using Amazon's checkout or paying any fees to Amazon.  A developer on the App Store cannot without paying fees to Apple.

The whole point is that if the third party seller on the Amazon MarketPlace wants direct access to customers that shop at Amazon, they have to pay a commission and can only use Amazon check out. You're the one that said that clearly stated that in the real world, sellers can choose what payment method they want to use. Well, Amazon MarketPlace is in the real whole and sellers there can not use whatever payment system they want. You claiming that third party sellers in the Amazon MarketPlace can sell on their own website and use whatever payment system they want is totally irrelevant. They can not use whatever payment system they want when selling to consumers that shop on Amazon. I dare you to show me where Amazon allows third party sellers to pay for sales made in the Amazon MarketPlace, to checkout at their own website. It doesn't matter that third party sellers has access to Amazon shoppers outside of amazon MarketPlace.

The whole point is that if developers want to access to Apple platform to sell to iDevice owners, they have to pay Apple a commission. Just like how if third party sellers want to use Amazon MarketPlace platform to sell to Amazon shoppers, they have to pay a Amazon a commission and a fee. And both must use the payment system of those platforms. It really doesn't matter that there is no other way to sell to Apple customers for iDevices. That doesn't not give iOS developers the right to demand that they should be allow to process their own sales using whatever method they want. The commission is paying for access to the users of those platforms. Platforms that the developers and third party sellers do not own, didn't create, don't maintain and are not monopolies. No way that sellers on the Amazon MarketPlace should get to use Amazon platform, to make money and paying Amazon nothing for attracting consumers to shop at Amazon. And the same for developers on iOS. 

Why is this even relevant? Again, you don't seem to be able to defend your position without making irrelevant arguments.

It's relevant because iTunes allow the customers to choose how they want to pay. iTunes is not just only one way for a customer to pay. By accepting iTunes payment system, developers are allowing their customers to pay with CC, PayPal, cash, debit and gift cards. Those are choices that Apple would like their users to have when purchasing from their app stores. It has work for nearly 20 years with the Apple Music store. It's Apple's platform, Apple's rules.    

And you don't hear Epic complaining about Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo because they CAN distribute their software through other means without paying fees to those companies for using their app store.

But Epic CAN NOT distribute their software into any of the game console platforms, without paying Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo a fee. Even if they sell their software on a disc. That is an irrelevant issue. The issue is that if Epic sells their software through a game console store, they still have to pay a 30% commission and use the store payment system. The fact that they don't have to use a game console store to get their software onto to a game console has absolutely nothing to do with having to pay Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo their 30% commission for sales made in their stores. Nothing what so ever. Plus there is no way to "distribute" in-app purchases, other than using the game consoles owner stores and paying the 30%. You don't see Epic trying to avoid the 30% for that, on an X-Box or PlayStation. 

Now, there might very well be reasons why iOS developers should be allowed to use their own payment system but just because iOS developers can only use iTunes going through the Apple App Store and there is no other way for them to get their software into an iDevice other than though the Apple App Store, are not going to be any of them. Those are irrelevant issues as far as why iOS developers should be allowed to use their own payment system.

No where have you shown where developers or sellers using someones else platform to make money selling their products, have the right to use whatever payment system they want or not pay a commission for doing so. You only pointed out where they can use whatever payment system they want and not pay a fee or commission, when not selling through someone else's platform. Now the platform owner might allow for it and maybe not charge a commission or fee, but it is not a right that sellers and developers have when using someone else's platform to make money. And I have no idea why being able to distribute their software other than by an app store, has anything to do with them having the right to use whatever payment system they want, when selling their products on someone else's platform. One has nothing to do with the other.

How do you know what Epic will do with the savings? I've already explained how Epic could reduce prices across all platforms.

And I already explained why Epic can not reduce prices across all platforms. iOS is just a fraction of where Epic make their money from games and with in-app purchases. Game consoles accounts for 70% of all game players. Only 20% play games on mobile devices. The ONLY way Epic is going to be able to reduce prices across all platforms with any savings from not paying a commission (of less of one), is to not have to pay the 30% commission to Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. And as I explained, they will have to reduce prices across all platforms if they reduced the price for iOS game players. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have the same rule as Apple and Google, when it comes to software that the purchasers can access across all or other platforms ...... that the developer can not reduce the price on one platform or their own platform and not reduce it on the others where the purchasers has access to it. It's the reason why Epic do not sell cheaper Fortnight Bucks on their own website, where they don't have to pay the 30% 'tax". And the reason why subscriptions to  Netflix, Microsoft 365, Spotify, Apple Music, publishers with e-Books, news, magazines, etc., cost the same on all platforms, even if one pays for it on a website. I do not get a discount for paying for my Netflix subscription with automatic CC charges every month, even though Netflix do not have to pay the 30% when I do this.  

BTW- Sorry for the format I used to reply. I still can't figure out how you (and some others here) did it, the way you did. 

crowley said:

dewme said:

"the tech giants would be forced to allow them in their digital storefronts"

That's some very scary Big Brother massively intrusive sh**. Would Walmart, Target, Kroger, etc., allow the government to force them to stock certain products on their shelves even if the retailer did not want to carry such products? 

Probably, yes.  I wouldn't be altogether surprised if some stores are obliged to sell some products that are unprofitable but socially beneficial as a condition of trading in some parts of the world.  It's won't be particularly onerous, these stores are very profitable.

If it's forcing the stocking of a dumb shooting game that teenagers play, that's still not particularly scary, it's just a bit pathetic that lawmakers think this is worthwhile.

Unprofitable for whom? Here we might have the government forcing Business A to stock on their shelves, at no charge, products for Business B, that will make a profit from selling their products on Business A shelves.

There is a difference between Business A charging a fee to Business B, for stocking their products and Business A getting a commission to do the same. With a fee, only Business A is guarantee to make a profit. But with a commission, both Business A and B stands to profit. Providing Business B price their products accordingly and Business A cover their cost of stocking Business B products with the commission. Business A do not dictate how much Business B charges for their products on their shelves.  

And both Apple and Google do stock products that are unprofitable for them. 75% of the apps in their app stores are free. Even though the developer of those apps might be  making money from having a free app in the Apple App and/or Google Play stores. Plus Apple and Google not only provides free apps for government Covid19 tracking, they helped with its development. 

When the US government broke up the ATT monopoly and then forced ATT to share their long distance lines with other companies that wants to enter the long distance provider business, like Sprint and MCI, ATT was still able to charge for the use of their long distance lines. The government ddi not force ATT to provide free services for the other telecommunication companies that were making money using ATT long distance lines.

Here we have a State government wanting to force Apple and Google to provide free access to the platforms they built and maintain, because a few crybaby developers don't want to share the profits they make from using their platforms.   

crowley said:

gc_uk said:

The alternative would be for Epic to sell their game currency at a flat fee across all platforms and ADD a transaction fee based on the platform the user is purchasing from, but all the platforms would HATE that because Epic would be forcing pricing transparency and the end users would see clearly how much the platform is taking for every one of their sales.

I believe Apple has, or at least had, a rule saying that content purchases could not be offered at a cheaper price outside of the Apple Store.  Which is another thing that developers have complained about, as it forces them to raise prices across the board to accommodate Apple's 30% take (or else potentially take a loss on IAP sales).

I believe that rule only applies to digital goods that are accessible to the purchasers on all or any other platforms. All platforms owners have the same rule, under the same circumstances. And since nearly all the major platforms charges the same 30% "tax", the cost of these software should already reflect that and no single platform can be singled out as a reason to raise its price, due to a 30% "tax". 

This is what the rule essentially does. It prevents developers from selling their software that runs on all or other platforms, at a cheaper price on their own website, because they are saving on the 30% "tax" that they would have to pay, if purchased from the other platforms. 

For example, a person with a Netflix subscription can access their same Netflix account from an Android device, an iDevice, an X-Box, a PlayStation, a computer, a TV box, etc.. It doesn't matter what platform the subscriber uses to pay for their subscription. So all the platforms have this same rule, to prevent Netflix from lowering the cost of their subscription when paying for it on their own web site, while the purchaser can still watch Netflix with the free app on the the other platforms. Thus Netflix can  avoid the 30% "tax" on all the other platforms. That's why developers like Epic don't like it.  And this is why Epic can not deliver any promised of lower cost to iOS game players, if they were to win. 

Think about this. Spotify main beef with Apple is that Apple makes 30% more profit from the AM subscribers paying for their AM subsciption in iOS, than Spotify does with their subscribers paying for their Spotify subscription in iOS. Apple is Spotify main competitor. Spotify is claiming Apple is violating anti-trust and should not be allowed to have apps that competes with other similar apps in their App Store. This is basically nonsense, as Apple do not charge less for AM than Spotify charges for their comparable music streaming service. Apple is not competing with Spotify with the cost advantage they have with iOS AM subscribers. It's not an anti-trust case if a business makes more profit when selling the same or similar product, at the same price, than a competitor. Otherwise businesses that own their own property would be in violation of anti-trust because they make more profit selling the same product, at the same price, than a business that must pay rent.

Spotify would royally be pissed off if Apple were to charge 30% less for AM on iOS. Thus making about the same profit as Spotify on iOS. Then Spotify would actually have a better anti-trust case against Apple. But if Apple were to do this, Apple would also have to lower their subscription cost by 30% on all the platforms, where AM is available. Apple as a developer must abide by the same rule set by all the platforms, that a developer can not offer a cheaper price for the same software, on their own or any other platform.  

This rule also prevents Epic from raising the cost to Fortnight players on Android just because they're not making nearly as much profit from Fortnight on Android, as they are from Fortnight on iOS. Even though there are more Fortnight players on Android. And Epic pays the same 30% "tax" on both platforms.