Why Amazon got out of the Apple App Store tax, and why other developers won’t Apple provided us with a statement about the change. You may have read it already, but there’s enough detail in the wording to give us a fuller picture of what’s really going on. (An Amazon spokesperson confirmed the change and some of the features without giving a formal comment.) Here’s Apple: Apple has an established program for premium subscription video entertainment providers to offer a variety of customer benefits — including integration with the Apple TV app, AirPlay 2 support, tvOS apps, universal search, Siri support and, where applicable, single or zero sign-on. On qualifying premium video entertainment apps such as Prime Video, Altice One and Canal+, customers have the option to buy or rent movies and TV shows using the payment method tied to their existing video subscription. There is quite a lot to unpack here. Firstly, I just want to point out that Apple calls this an “established program,” one that already applied to those smaller cable companies. But it was completely new news to me and also to longtime Apple reporter Mark Gurman, who definitely would have remembered such a thing! Anyway, you can suss out the outlines of the deal that was struck. Amazon gets buy buttons inside its app for current Prime Video subscribers, Apple gets Amazon’s complete and total participation in the Apple TV features it cares about the most. Instead of just being yet another icon in the home screen grid, Amazon’s services are now deeply integrated into the user experiences Apple wants to move everybody towards. Nilay Patel made this point quite strongly in today’s Vergecast podcast — give it a listen. Apple has long wanted to make the TV app the primary interface on the Apple TV box, but it needs more services to integrate into that UI. Apple also very much wants to get consumers to sign up for other channels like HBO or Cinemax through its Apple TV app. And that’s where the second Amazon concession comes in. Over at Daring Fireball, John Gruber did the work of punching the subscribe and pay buttons on all the possible permutations of subscribing to Amazon Prime Video in and out of Apple’s TV app. What he discovered is something that isn’t mentioned in Apple’s statement: if you’re not already a Prime Video subscriber, the sign-up flow in Amazon’s app ends up getting routed through Apple’s payment system. There are some hidden caveat words at the very end of the statement. I’ll just emphasize them here: “customers have the option to buy or rent movies and TV shows using the payment method tied to their existing video subscription.” Which means that Apple is getting a cut of the new subscriptions that start in Amazon’s app. Perhaps it’s the standard 30 percent in the first year, 15 percent after that. Perhaps it’s something better. Bottom line, new customers have their payments routed through Apple, existing Prime customers don’t. All of the above is why I’m comfortable saying that Amazon had leverage on Apple: Apple has clear incentives in the form of getting more participation in the Apple TV app and in getting a cut on the new subscribers it drives to Amazon. Amazon has the incentive of not paying more money to Apple. Most of all, you can tell it’s about leverage simply because the Amazon Kindle app hasn’t changed. You can’t buy a Kindle book directly in the Kindle app, nor is Amazon even allowed to link to or even hint at the possibility that it has a whole damn Kindle store on its website where you can make one-click purchases. Last but certainly not least, let us turn our attention to my favorite part of Apple’s statement, the one that defines what kind of companies are apparently able to get this sweetheart deal: “premium subscription video entertainment providers.” Last time I checked, Netflix is a “premium subscription video entertainment provider.” Also, last time I checked it had zero interest in giving up its own UI just to have its shows mixed in with everybody else’s in the Apple TV app. Actually, I haven’t technically checked — but Nick Statt is doing so with Netflix and a whole host of other companies as I write these words. Keep an eye out for his report. Take that phrase and add the word “games” to it and you’re pretty much describing Fortnite. Epic’s CEO Tim Sweeney has been incredibly outspoken about App Store taxes. He’s taken Fortnite off the Google Play Store and would dearly love to find a way to not have to give Apple a cut on iOS devices. Does he have a personal stake in that fight? Obviously. But he’s also one of a growing chorus of voices pushing back against the so-called “Apple Tax.” When the Amazon news hit, the very first thing I wrote in our Slack was “Tim Sweeney is going to lose his shit.” Sweeney did not, but he did post a “congratulations” tweet so thick with schadenfreude you could wedge a Fortnite pickaxe into it. Epic is not the only company pushing back against Apple’s App Store fees. Spotify has filed a formal antitrust complaint in the European Union. Apple’s pushback is that fewer than 0.5 percent of Spotify users are charged Apple’s 15-percent fee, but that argument disingenuously leaves out the fact that Spotify hasn’t offered a direct way to subscribe in its iOS app since 2016. I recently rewatched the House Judiciary’s July 2019 hearing on “Online platforms and entrepreneurship” on C-Span (how I choose to spend my self-isolation is my business). In it, Apple’s corporate law & chief compliance officer Kyle Andeer repeated the claim about Spotify. He also pointed out that 84 percent of apps in the App Store pay nothing to Apple because they’re free and that a decade ago, app developers were paying quite a bit more than 30% to retail stores for the physical distribution of their goods. (The relevant question from Rep Jamie Raskin starts about 90 minutes in.) All of these arguments are old hat. And though the Netflixes, Fortnites, and Spotifys of the world are surely vexed by Apple’s policies, I think that for many smaller developers the 30-percent fee is simply not at the top of their list of concerns. Higher priorities likely include prices being driven down, market dynamics being corrupted by free-to-play games, upgrades made difficult because of limited pricing models, review-bombing over subscription fees, and just making payroll. If there’s a moral and rhetorical force behind my opening line about smoke-filled rooms, it’s this: developing mobile apps is hard and succeeding is even harder, but at least you could tell yourself that even gigantic companies like Amazon have to deal with the same rules you do. The question is whether Apple needs to be held to a standard of fairness and transparency for the app ecosystem it fully controls on iOS or not. Because Apple has such strict control over what apps can appear on iOS, it bears a higher burden of responsibility to treat iOS developers fairly and consistently. Note I didn’t say “equally,” because it’s unrealistic to expect that a first-time dev could get the same accommodations as massive companies. But if the rule is you pay Apple a 30-percent cut of your app’s cost unless Apple really needs something from you to bolster its own subscription business, that’s neither fair nor consistent. I asked Apple if there was something other developers could do to qualify for a deal that’s similar to what Amazon now has. The company referred me to its original statement. |