I wonder what the deal is with the fact that in the UK, everyone who uses the BBC iPlayer on any platform must now own a 'TV License' and pay £145 per year.
Until yesterday, you could use the app to watch things on catch-up. Now the 'levy/subscription/tax/license' is mandatory.
Is there a loophole they're using that I'm missing? eg: That they don't want to call it a 'subscription', even though that's exactly what is. (Well, more of a 'tax', but they hate calling it that too.)
What's the problem? You're still perfectly able to provide service to customers who've already got a subscription; you are only denied the ability to offer them an opportunity to
purchase that subscription from the app.
No problem. Just wanting to clarify how it relates.
So, since no one 'buys' a subscription 'through the app' then Apple can't demand a cut? Is that right?
I thought there was an issue if an app provided content which was only consumable through a paid subscription. Which the iPlayer now is. (Though you don't need to log in to view it, but you'll be breaking the law if you do and you haven't paid.)
Yes, subscriptions to content that can be access through an iOS app aren't required to go through Apple (so long as they are purchased outside of the app), in which case Apple won't take a cut.
Note that this is purely down to Apple allowing it — there's nothing stopping Apple from disallowing apps that do this, but to do so wouldn't be in Apple's interests.
Also, the TV licence is officially a tax. Not that that really changes anything. Apple could still chuck BBC iPlayer off the App Store if they really wanted to, but they'd be crazy to do so.
Until yesterday, you could use the app to watch things on catch-up. Now the 'levy/subscription/tax/license' is mandatory.
Is there a loophole they're using that I'm missing? eg: That they don't want to call it a 'subscription', even though that's exactly what is. (Well, more of a 'tax', but they hate calling it that too.)