Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Technology

Apple Execs Discussed Not 'Leaving Money on the Table' When Setting Apple TV Subscription Fees (theverge.com) 42

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
In Apple and Epic's ongoing court battle over App Store fees, one of the key sticking points has been Apple's insistence on maintaining a 30 percent cut as a cornerstone of the storefront. But newly revealed Apple executive emails from the case show that the App Store rules that Apple flouts as essential to the fairness of the app economy were carefully negotiated into existence over time in a way that ensured Apple wasn't "leaving money on the table." From a report: The emails date back to a 2011 discussion, which included Apple software and services leader Eddy Cue, around how Apple would handle subscription video applications on the Apple TV -- an important conversation, given the rise in popularity of streaming services. And while the discussion doesn't offer much insight on Apple's existing 30 percent fee for the App Store, it does reveal how malleable those rules were when it came to maximizing profit. The company examined a variety of options, including a 40 percent one-time cut, a 30 percent one-time cut, a 30 percent ongoing fee, or more individualized deals with services like the NBA and MLB.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Execs Discussed Not 'Leaving Money on the Table' When Setting Apple TV Subscription Fees More

Apple Execs Discussed Not 'Leaving Money on the Table' When Setting Apple TV Subscription Fees

Comments Filter:

  • Apple thinks it's more than that, and they've the numbers to prove it.

  • Shocking! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bradac_55 ( 729235 ) on Tuesday January 26, 2021 @01:12PM (#60993794) Journal

    For profit company wanting to make a profit ... shocking I say!

    • Re:Shocking! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Angry Coward ( 6165972 ) on Tuesday January 26, 2021 @01:16PM (#60993812)
      Yeah I feel like the headline wants to make out like its something scandalous but i went against Slashdot tradition and actually rtfa and there's no dirt to be found, just people doing their jobs taking about how to run their business.

      • I'd say it depends on what you call dirt.

        The documents in TFA show that the claims that everyone in the app store are being charged the same are in fact not true.

        In my book, that counts as dirt. I suspect the judge will think so too... Although I doubt the judge will go "liar liar pants on fire".

        Getting caught in a lie in a court proceeding is NOT a good thing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's significant in the case because it undermines the argument that Apple is just covering costs plus a small margin.

        If most money went on running the app store then they could claim that any other store would face the same costs and not benefit the app developers as much as they claim. It would also help with the monopoly argument as they wouldn't be profiteering from it, and by capitalist logic that means competition is working.

        • "Cost and a small margin" is not what Apple states. What they say is "same rules for all". Remember years ago when the iTunes Music Store opened? Apple negotiated with the best lawyers of four of the biggest record companies, and they all got the same deal. And Apple told all the other record companies "you can get the same deal as the big four companies. Same contract for everyone, big or small. And we will _not_ negotiate with anyone

          And this article is about Apple discussing if they should go away fro

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Have your read the lawsuit?

            They want to open their own app store for iOS. They want to handle their own in app payments. And their argument is that Apple created an illegal monopoly.

            What you said doesn't address their arguments.

    • If you get hired for a job and your employer gives you a salary. Do you say to them, no I want less, because I love this company so much that I want to be sure my salary will not bring this company down.

      Apple is a big name, they don't need to cut prices to get exposure.
      Also Apple rarely gets into Price Wars with competitors in a race to the bottom. Normally as the other are lowering their prices, Apple will make a newer more Premium product and charge more for it. As the Race to the bottom usually creat

      • Yes, I do say "I want less, because I love this job so much that I want to be sure my salary will not bring you down".

        The reason why I say this is because in your analogy I am God, and I have monopoly on the entire supply chain for my job, and society has elected that persons in monopoly positions such as mine are expected not to derive certain benefits from that position.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

        If you get hired for a job and your employer gives you a salary. Do you say to them, no I want less, because I love this company so much that I want to be sure my salary will not bring this company down.

        There are actually examples of that happening in the real world. For instance, it's not uncommon for star athletes to take pay cuts or not ask for as much money as they could, in order for their team to go out and sign/resign another player that improves their chances of winning. You see this in sports that instituted team salary caps so that there is a ceiling on how much a team can spend on players.

        • Generally the sorts of salary concessions you describe are calculated by players' agents, who believe increased team success in the form of championships will increase the player's value as marketing agent. Because top level players usually earn more via endorsement deals than team salary, the idea is that their compensation from other sources will increase by more than their compensation from the team decreases.

          The better example is probably one of the many instances where trade unions have agreed to red

        • That's a pretty rare beast. Tom Brady is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that's been documented because

          1.) He wanted to get some new receivers in and they had to make room in the salary cap.
          2.) His wife makes x5 times what he makes.

          You'll never see a LeBron James type do it.

    • The shocking thing is that we treat something equivalent to robbery, usury and theft as "just a normal business thing".

      In a sane world, a SWAT team would break the doors of every profit maker, and throw them in prison for profiteering.

      I mean imagine you doing the same to your boss. Openly.
      "Yeeah, my shareholder (family) demand a constant rise of profits, so I'm only gonna actually work 1 of those 8 hours today, and 2 hours of looking very skilled and busy, exclusively to manipulate you to give me more mony,

      • Ahhh yes, voluntary transactions are theft. I must have been absent that day in school. What mental gymnastics are required to twist a completely voluntary transaction between a consumer and a store or a store and a supplier into theft? Where's the threat of violence in this equation, because I see none. Only when you want to involve the state does that threat appear.

        • I have to run windows, because it is the dominant operating system in the industry, and, thanks in large part to microsoft's illegal (this is not in dispute; microsoft were convicted of illegal monopoly behaviour, so save your breath on that one) machinations, there is software that is written only to run on windows (does not run on Wine, etc.) that I am forced to use.

          So while there may not be the threat of actual violence, if I don't run windows, I lose my job, my career, my income, my house, etc.

          Your "vol

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nomadic ( 141991 )

        "In a sane world, a SWAT team would break the doors of every profit maker, and throw them in prison for profiteering.

        I mean imagine you doing the same to your boss. "

        I'm pretty sure if I did that to my boss, I might get fired but wouldn't have SWAT teams breaking down my door....

      • In a sane world, a SWAT team would break the doors of every profit maker, and throw them in prison for profiteering.

        That's not the "sane" world, bud. It's the communist world. What you suggest is so INsane, even the communists have abandoned the idea.

    • For profit company wanting to make a profit ... shocking I say!

      Next up in firehose - websites run ads to make money and want to serve as many as possible.

    • You have to put it in the Evil Eddie Cue filter to understand what is wrong with their strategy. Eddie will again get them slapped for monopolistic practices.

  • Apple doesn't make profit from services, [slashdot.org] according to some people.

    • Apple has been profiting off of services for a while. They are more supplemented by hardware sales. So they tend to not have as much advertising (Not 0 mind you, as they have their own advertising platform) revenue like Google or Facebook.

    • Apple does in fact make a profit, and thats not a bad thing. All currently successful companies are making a profit

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by marcle ( 1575627 )

        It's not about making a profit, of course every business needs to make a profit to stay in business. It's about maximizing that profit, gouging your customers for every penny you can get your greedy little hands on.

        • I agree. It is nothing like the government when they tell me I have to give them half of my income now but that isn't enough we need more and that won't be enough so they need more. "You're not paying your fair share!" That's nothing like gouging people for every cent you can get.
        • I've got great news for you... you can actually choose not to purchase a product from a company that doesn't personally benefit you. Gouging is a meaningless subjective term... there's no arbiter of what a price is other than what the consumer and seller voluntarily agree upon.

          These evil greedy companies have substantially increased the quality of life for billions of people, while ignorant basement dwellers cry about injustice and offer no actual benefit to society.

          • These evil greedy companies have substantially increased the quality of life for billions of people...

            That is definitely a matter of opinion.

  • Pay to play (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rtkluttz ( 244325 ) on Tuesday January 26, 2021 @01:15PM (#60993808) Homepage

    Closed ecosystems and walled gardens create pay to play schemes. People that support this crap are idiots.

    • Lack of Open Ecosystem and trusted open information doesn't really give us too many other options.

    • Is the world really that simple such that anyone who has different goals than you is an idiot? Is it really that difficult to imagine that some people value a walled garden and the benefits to them outweigh the cost?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by laird ( 2705 )

        Exactly. For many consumers, the goal is to have a nice organized place to get software that is high quality, and for then the App Store is ideal. For others, a 'wild west' full of options is what they want.

  • most people who should be saying "flout" write "flaunt" instead, but this is the first time I've seen flout inserted where flaunt should be.

    if Apple flouts its rules, it breaks the rules.

    if Apple flaunts its rules, it directs attention to them.

  • NBA and MLB can play hardball and say we want deals in line with what we get on other systems and we can just sell our own service.

    HBO and others can say you can let have people use there own login's (paid for by other places) or we will not be on there at all.

    PPV movies we want cuts in line with what they are on cable or you will not get our movies at all.

  • Especially what valuable work?

    Any idiot can host a website with download links.
    (Streaming also is just downloads with the implication of pointlessly forgetting where it was stored right after for insanity reasons, so the same.)

    The server and bandwidth costs are so small, they are almost negligible. And could he further reduced with P2P technology.
    Apaet from the obvious not transferring thinga several times, if that applies.
    Taking a fraction of a cent would be an acceptably salary.

    The rest is just stealing m

    • does that matter? They are the right to set their own price.
    • Host a website with some download links and it sounds like you'll be able to put Apple out of business.
    • Especially what valuable work? Ensuring some application compatibility with hardware. Trying to keep the worst of the pure Malware at bay except they do have Facebook so minus 1 on that. Not letting every idiot mining Bit Coin or wanting free computing power to get an app in the store so that your device can mine it for them.

  • I know it may come as a shock to some who would like to think that 'apple co' is a socially responsible company who's primary focus is the common good. They aren't. They are in it for the $$$ just as much as any other company. Slave labor from China. Not a problem. ( so long as we can sell it as a good thing). That is way unbridled capitalisms doesn't work. Capitalisms needs to be well regulated to ensure proper competition and protect the consumer and the common good. It is really useful, like urani

  • In other news, the sky is still blue, and the sun came up this morning.

Slashdot Top Deals

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Close