For what it is worth, Apple _does_ have this arrangement with at least one other company. It is however a partnership deal with extremely specific terms:
- The app must be a video subscription app (which can also provide purchases and rentals)
- You must support iOS, iPadOS, and tvOS versions of the app
- You must integrate into the Apple TV app and into Siri search and playback APIs
- You must allow the user to subscribe through Apple, which will result in a 15% cut of the subscription fee (in this case, Apple gets 15% of the cost of Amazon Prime)
- Additional purchases made against an apple-backed subscription must be in-app purchases, of which Apple gets a 15% cut (so renting a recent movie or subscribing to Showtime would result in a 15% revenue cut)
- (AFAICT) Purchases/subscriptions/rentals against an account with existing billing information are not subject to any Apple revenue share
- (AFAICT) Account management such as configuring or troubleshooting payment options for externally subscribed accounts must be outside of the app.
I imagine Amazon suspects that they have enough people who have already purchased prime that the in-app purchase usage won't be a significant revenue drain - and I imagine that Apple has a contract with terms specifically to prevent Amazon "pulling an Epic" should it turn out that their assumption of subscription percentages be wrong.
They already have apps for iOS. I can only assume this is about the 30% cut that Apple takes for in-app digital purchases. While it doesn't matter for Prime videos, it matters for Amazon Instant Video sales and Rentals. On iOS they can nudge users over to Safari to buy. No such option on Apple TV.
Apple also rewrote the rules to allow Amazon Prime users to buy video content in their app as long as the user has Prime and already has a CC on the account
> “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,” Apple said in a statement given to The Verge. “On qualifying premium video entertainment apps such as Prime Video, Atlice 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.”
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-vide...
Yes. If you buy in the app and consume in the app, Apple wants their 30%.
That's why you can watch videos in the amazon prime video app, but you can't rent or buy movies there. You need to rent or buy the video on Amazon.com, then you can watch on the amazon video app.
Maybe it's been grandfathered in? But isn't it already the status quo for Apple to selectively give favorable treatment to bigger operators? Prime Video's app previously disabled in-app buying, but at some point in the past year they made a deal with Apple:
> Apple and Amazon very, very quietly unveiled a monumental app deal this week, without fanfare or, sadly, much in the way of transparency. Out of nowhere, buttons to buy or rent movies appeared in the Amazon Prime Video app. It’s difficult to express how strange this is: for over a decade, Apple has stuck to the rule that all digital goods sold in iOS apps must use Apple’s payment methods, including Apple’s 30 percent cut.
You're right that anyone can make an app and that's separate from integration with system-wide search and the TV app, but when you make an app Apple has a bunch of restrictions over signup, the language you use around signup, and Apple gets a cut.
Over the years there has been drama between Netflix and Apple over it (and Spotify and Amazon Prime Video). I think it's mostly been resolved, but Apple wants apps to integrate more deeply but it sounds like it needs to convince these companies to do it one at a time.
A more recent change (April 2020) is that Amazon lets you buy/rent movies in their apps, and if you have billing info set up through Amazon it goes through that instead of Apple, presumably bypassing Apple's cut. If you don't, payment goes through Apple's system, probably at the reduced 15% cut.
Apple commented to 9to5mac that this is part of a "program for premium subscription video entertainment providers," and it has some strings attached - integration with the TV app, AirPlay 2, universal search and single sign-on integration.
From a business perspective I can see why they'd offer this, integration with the TV app and universal search means that users access content through that, so you're putting in extra work in order to mix your content in with everyone else's and give up the chance to upsell whatever else is on offer through your own app. When they first launched the new Apple TV system with its TV app, streaming providers didn't seem very keen on the idea of integrating. Cutting to 15% in exchange lets the providers keep more of their revenue, and lets Apple create the integrated experience that they want to offer.
"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."
How much more “partnering” can you have than Netflix being one of the first streaming apps on the iPad and the third Gen AppleTV - which didn’t have an App Store.
There isn’t quite the integration between Netflix and the TV app as there is with other providers only because Netflix didn’t want it. But if you search for a movie in the TV app and the movie is available from both Apple and Netflix, they will show you it’s available in Netflix instead of trying to get you to buy it.
Apple sells hardware. You can’t sell streaming hardware that doesn’t work well with Netflix.
I doubt Apple sees AppleTV+ by itself as a profit generator any more than Amazon sees Amazon Prime as a revenue provider. It just makes the bundle more attractive which gets more people into the ecosystem.
Apple and Amazon have all types of bundle deals/discounts if you buy other streaming services within their apps.
It was a mutual deal. Netflix chose not to. Other streaming providers choose not to have in app purchases at all and still integrate. Either way it’s the provider’s choice.
> Apple on Wednesday confirmed the existence of a program for streaming video providers that allows those platforms to bypass its standard 30 percent App Store fee when selling individual purchases, like movie downloads and TV show rentals. The program first became public earlier today when Amazon updated its Prime Video iOS and Apple TV apps to allow in-app purchases for the first time. It is not clear how long the program has existed, but there are at least two other providers, Altice One and Canal+, currently participating, Apple confirmed.
I think you're thinking of it backwards. Amazon Prime video working on iOS and AppleTV is in Apple's interest because it means however many prime members will use those devices. Apple's content strategy is purely about selling hardware. Apple's not getting into the content business like Amazon and Netflix are (both of them are producing original programming... all Apple's done in that regard is the iTunes music festival in London which seems to be more PR event and technology test than anything else.)
This is why Apple worked with Netflix, HBO, etc to get apps on the Apple TV even before the TVOS was ready.
The new AppleTV has an App Store. Does this mean Amazon can't or won't create an app for Prime Video for the AppleTV? (Can't or won't, either answer would be telling.)
Video rentals are already covered by an agreement that existed prior to the change in the Amazon app. The article you posted even mentions that Canal+ and other video services were already using this which is an option where you can allow purchases tied to an existing subscription payment method if you also allow for those purchases in the iTunes Store and integration into the Apple TV app.
You weren't the person that I responded to so, frankly, I don't care what you're referring to.
Additionally, movie rentals are already covered by a prior agreement. The article you mention even says that Canal+ and other video services were already using this which is an option where you can allow purchases tied to an existing subscription payment method if you also allow for those purchases in the iTunes Store and integration into the Apple TV app.
There was no special deal for Amazon and trying to present it that way, is, imo, disingenuous. How can it be a special deal for Amazon if it existed prior to Amazon's app changes and other platforms were already making use of it?
I think they're fine with sharing their platform with as many other services as want to be on there -- and that play by their rules. I think there are two clues to Apple's approach:
1. They're clearly evolving their offering towards purchasing -- notably, they just killed TV show rentals. Why stop offering rentals of TV shows, as unpopular as they may be? This was a major selling point of the ATV last year. It seems like they're laying the foundation for their fall announcement, but they had to do this a little early because the fall season starts soon. I presume that the announcement will be that they're leaving everything but purchases and movie rentals to the world of ATV apps. Movie rental I think they are still trying to evolve against the studio's feet-dragging. But TV shows are essential to an app store, so the new deal will be: You want to watch a TV show? Buy it or get the app. No confusing in-between option. Apple hates in-between options.
2. Their subscription policy. I think they definitely wanted to pick something that worked for the Apple TV as well. The brouhaha over those rules has subsided for now. But it's a lot harder to tell people to go buy or subscribe to something over the web when they're just sitting in front of an Apple TV. That's way more friction. You might as well tell them to call an 800 number. I think that's something that makes an Apple TV app store viable -- you almost have to have that rule, whereas it seemed kind of excessive on traditional iOS devices.
And yes, they want you to buy movies and music only from Apple, but on iOS they have no problem with people using Pandora or Netflix or HBO apps which they get no money for. Because they're services, just like Netflix and the sports channels you mention. But on AppleTV, there will probably be more takers for the 30% split and Apple may go with a subscription-only model (i.e. no one-time-purchase apps at all). This is presuming they only allow video-based apps (wot, no Angry Birds?!?) that you could just call "channels". That is, very similar to the existing ATV apps.
In fact, I think a secondary reason that Apple even created the new Netflix app, new YouTube app and sports apps is to work out and test the AppleTV's API and design. I presume they'll still be around in a new-look ATV in the same way that the YouTube app is still on every iOS device -- Apple doesn't like to lose control. They're just going to be the founding members of a club of thousands.
Apple wouldn't force Amazon in a 30% rev share deal. They don't with HBO and Showtime. And if Apple tried that, then Amazon would be in the right to block Apple TV sales.
Apple never banned “Amazon Prime”. Apple wanted Amazon Prime from day one. Why wouldn’t Apple want Amazon Prime on Apple TV’s when it already existed on iOS devices ?
I imagine Amazon suspects that they have enough people who have already purchased prime that the in-app purchase usage won't be a significant revenue drain - and I imagine that Apple has a contract with terms specifically to prevent Amazon "pulling an Epic" should it turn out that their assumption of subscription percentages be wrong.
reply