The Evolution of Mobile App Distribution: A Path Forward for Apple and Big Tech

The current state of mobile app distribution is a complex issue, with various players vying for control and dominance in the market. At the forefront of this debate are Apple and its App Store, which has become the go-to platform for developers to release their apps. However, the restrictive nature of the App Store has led to criticism and pushback from developers, users, and even regulators.

One of the primary concerns is the lack of sideloading capabilities on iOS devices. Sideloading allows users to install apps directly onto their device without going through the App Store, which can provide a more seamless experience for certain types of apps. However, Apple's stance on this issue has been firm, citing security and privacy concerns as reasons why they do not support sideloading.

Another middle ground that has gained attention in recent years is progressive web apps (PWAs). PWAs allow websites to act like native apps, providing many of the same capabilities as traditional apps but with a lower barrier to entry. Google has been at the forefront of PWA development, and while Apple does not currently support it to the same extent, there may be opportunities for collaboration in the future.

The pushback on PWAs is that they are often seen as bloated and sluggish compared to native apps, which can provide a more seamless experience for users. However, proponents argue that PWAs are constantly evolving and improving, and that the benefits of having a platform-agnostic app distribution system far outweigh the drawbacks.

Despite the debate over PWA development, Apple's stance on sideloading remains a contentious issue. The company has been criticized for being too restrictive in its approach, which can limit user choice and creativity. Developers have expressed frustration with the App Store review process, citing lengthy review times and arbitrary rejection criteria.

However, not all of the blame lies with Apple. The larger issue at play is the commoditization of developers and the crushing of their livelihoods as a result of app store policies. This has led to a situation where many creators are forced to abandon traditional monetization models in favor of more experimental approaches.

One example that stands out is YouTube, which has taken a different approach to app distribution than Apple's App Store. By allowing creators to maintain control over their content and monetize it directly through sponsorships, YouTube has created a platform that prioritizes user choice and flexibility over revenue sharing with the platform itself.

Another platform worth noting is Nebula, which offers a streaming video platform where creators can produce and distribute their own content without worrying about app store policies or revenue sharing. This model allows for a level of creative freedom and autonomy that is not possible through traditional app distribution channels.

So, what does this all have to do with CuriosityStream? The answer lies in the intersection of education and technology. As the go-to source for documentaries on the internet, CuriosityStream has built a community around educational content and creators. By partnering with Nebula, CuriosityStream is able to offer its users access to high-quality educational content that is not beholden to traditional app store policies.

For a limited time, CuriosityStream is offering 26% off all annual plans, and by signing up through the link in the description, viewers can also receive a free Nebula subscription. This partnership represents a win-win for both platforms, allowing users to access high-quality educational content while creators maintain control over their work.

But what about Apple's stance on Xbox game streaming? Is this a new frontier in the war between Apple and big tech? In the next video, we'll dive deep into the world of Xbox game streaming and explore why it's an especially contentious issue.

"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: en- Well, you didn't hate me before.Sponsored by CuriosityStream with Nebula.Apple's App Store is under attack.They're being sued by Spotifyin the EU and Epic in the U.S.Some developers, bigand small, beyond saltyover a host of grapes,new and institutional,real and imagined gamers are pissedover the lack of Xbox streamingand regulators have themin their sites as well.Breaking out all the oldfavorites, monopoly abuse,anti-competitiveness, antitrust and they,well they don't operate with lasers,they operate with hammers, giantgotten DAMA wrong meal near like hammers.So what can Apple do or more to the point,what should Apple do?In this video I'm gonna go overwhat's most commonly being suggestedfrom sideloading and alternate App Stores,to cutting the 30% and offeran alternative payment optionsas well as the positives and negatives,the risks and rewards and howoften that could affect you.And I'm gonna do it, right now.Okay. So I'm going to breakthis down into three sections.Yeah, like Angela Wallace, except lesswith the YouTube drama andmore with the App Store drama.I'm also gonna cover as manyangles and points of viewsI possibly can, becauseI think in many casesnot everyone is consideringviews beyond their own,like how stressful the AppStore can be for developers,and online transactions ingeneral for mainstream customers.In this first section, I'mgonna talk about the famousor infamous, 30% cutthe one that Apple takesand it's gonna be the longest.So bear with me because it's important,and because it sets the stagefor alternate payment systemsin the second section, andsideloading in the third.And yet just go aheadand hit the subscribebutton and bell right now,because I'm gonna get way too involvedin all of this and forgetto remind you later.Cool, cool.So when Steve Jobs announcedthe App Store back in 2008he also announced, what'sknown as the agency model,see, in traditional wholesale modelswhich is common inbrick and mortar retail,The manufacturer sets aprice for the retailerand then the retailer setsa price for the customer.The typical wholesale model split is 45%for the manufacturer and 55%for the retailer, which alignswith the real world costs ofselling in the real world.It's what Walmart uses,Amazon best buy pretty muchevery retailer, physical goods.There's a manufacturer'ssuggested retail price. Sure.But the retailer has the final saythey can charge more, ifthere's increased demand,gougey even, or less even below cost,if they wanna have a sale or liquidate.With the agency model though,the retailer doesn't set theprice, the manufacturer does.The manufacturer decideswhat the regular price isand if and when theychoose to have a sale,what the sale price isand the retailer gets apercentage of that price.The typical agency modelflips a split around though,with 70% for the manufacturerand 30% for the retailer,which was supposed tobetter align with the costof selling in the digitalworld, rather than the real one.That's the modeland the percentage Appleuses for the App Store.It's the model Googleuses for the play store.And it's a model Microsoft,Sony and Nintendouse for the Xbox PlayStationand switch stores.And in the beginning, mostpeople thought it was great.It opened up development anddistribution to the massesand made apps go mainstream.It was a golden age and thepie was growing so fast.Very few people stopped and even caredto think about Apple getting a 30% slice,because 70% of somethingso much knew somethingwas worth way more than a hundred percentof very little or nothing.But then a couple of major things changed.First that original app market,it went from scarcity to abundance,high value to high volume,premium to freemium.We can blame Apple forcommoditizing their compliments,Google and Facebook formaking apps free as in data,venture capitalists forgrowth hacking user numbers,over revenue numbers, developersfor racing to the bottomand training customers to wait for sales,or users for simply not wantingto pay as much for an appas they would for, I don'tknow, a smores frappebut it wasn't any one of them.It was a confluence ofall of them and morewhat was happening to apps was the sameas what's happened to everyother form of digital content.It was losing all physicaland individual value,going from $10 for a singleCD or DVD to $10 a monthfor all you can streamon Spotify or Netflix.From a couple bucks of paper for newsto free on your Facebook or Google feed,what factories and big boxstores were to artisans,frameworks and App Stores,where to Indie devs?All the breaks were justtaken off access and scale.Second was in-app purchaseson one hand, big developersespecially big gamedevelopers learn early onthat while people weren'twilling to pay eventwo bucks for a digital game upfront,we'd shell out $20 a dayjust to flex better skins and our friends,or get our cars back on the track faster,basically instant and ego gratification,gamification, PSYOPs likecasinos, these goods, these skins,emotes, incubators, costumes, power-ups,they all had zero marginal costsliterally database entries,maybe the most pure profitlegal business ever imagined.And as the numbers increased,as the zeros behind them grew,some of the companies becameless and less eager to shareall that money with anyone else,for example, Epic with theplay store or App Store.On the other hand,aggregators began using theagency model themselves.They were bundling up audiobooks or eBooks or comic booksor licensing music or moviesand either keeping 30%themselves or paying per play.And that meant theycouldn't afford to then besuper aggregated up byApple in the App Store,who was essentially bundlingapps and keeping 30% as well.There was just no roomfor multiple aggregators,no way for Amazon and Appleto both keep the same 30%off the sale of the same Kindle book.And in all those cases,either because Indies were being squeezedaggregators were beingcaught in the middle,or game studios weregetting all the gluttonous,apples 30% cut becameincreasingly irksome,untenable or simply unpalatable to them.Apple, meanwhile wasworried that developerswould cut them out of the AppStore revenue cycle entirely,leave Apple stockhandling all the platformand fulfillment costs for,quote unquote free appsthat made a fortune off in-app purchases.Now that was alreadytrue for physical goodsWalmart or best buy or Amazon help.Domino's if you were aretailer selling a chairor speaker or hard copyof a book or pizza,you could use whatever account systemyou already had on theweb, but for digital goodsat least at first, freeapps had to stay free.You could show ads and a brieffailed attempt at ads aside,Apple didn't take any cut of the ad money,but you couldn't use IAPat all, then that changed.But if you offered IAP,you had to use Apple's IAPand associated payment system.You couldn't just haveApple fulfill your free app,while you kept all the moneythrough a web transaction.You couldn't even link toor mention web transactions.And that was fine if irksome perhapsselling their own pureprofit digital goods,but it was untenable foraggregators who were licensingor otherwise brokering theirdigital goods from others.And that's basically where we still are.Now today, things have evolved slightlyApple's revenue share for subscriptionsacquire through the App Store,drops from 30% to 15%after the first year.And there a class ofapps considered readers.What Apple says includes magazinesand newspapers, books, audio music, videoaccess to professionaldatabases, VoIP cloud storageand approved services likeclassroom management apps.Those don't have to offer IAPsthrough the App Store at all,but can instead show a login,so you can use your existing Netflixor Kindle account or whatever.It's not a great first oneexperience for customersfar from it, but thisis big business moneywe're talking about.Getting classificationas a reader app thoughseems arbitrary, as wesaw with the Hey email appearlier this year.Also, Amazon apparentlyused the prime video appas leverage to get Appleto allow Amazon accountsas a payment option.Now, Netflix gettingsubscriptions lowered to 15%and Amazon prime gettingtheir own accountsis normally just how business works.Big companies use big leverageand big dollars to get big deals.The problem is Apple hasover and over again stated,they treat all apps the same,that the smallest newest Indiedev has an equal opportunitysitting on the App Storeshelf next to the biggest,most established incumbents in the game.And a lot of Indie devsee that beautiful dream,juxtaposed against the harsh reality ofbig business as usual andit makes them apoplectic.So what can Apple do here?Well, when Steve Jobs originallyannounced the App Store,he said the 30% cut wasjust to cover the costsof running the App Store,That they'd be happy ifthey even broke even.That was when paid appsstill charged a premium,and free apps were actuallyfree as in hobbies,ads or front ends.Now, in the age of IAP and subscriptionsthe whole economy is changed.Some assume Apple is justdrowning in App Store profits,that they promised wallstreet they double services,revenue from 2016 to 2020.And most servicesrevenue is the App Store,and most of that is IAP games.And guess what?Apple managed to double that revenue,and do it a few months aheadof schedule go team money,but that's not entirely true.About eight 85% of apps are free as indon't pay Apple 30% already,nothing beyond the $99 annualdeveloper program chartof the revenue Applegets from the App Store,it's estimated 65% from games,but that revenue, the App Store revenue,represents only air quotes onlya third of Apple services revenue.Now some developers feelthat 30% is just fineor rather they believe it providessufficient value to justify the costs.It delivers customerswilling and eager to pay.And at 30% of that is worth much morethan a hundred percent of the alternate.In other words, theyhave no issue with it.Not from Apple, not fromX-Box, not from anyone.Epic famously, believesit's fine for game consoles,that typically sellhardware at lower no margin,and provide much better partner servicesfor big game studios likeEpic, but not for smartphoneswhich are typically soldat much higher margins,at least the ones madeby Apple and Samsungand offer far fewer partner opportunities.Other developers believethat 30% would be fine,if Apple actually delivered on their endwith higher quality frameworksthat are fairly availableto first and third party apps alike,better subscription and receipt handling,less opaque and capricious reviews,far fewer mistakes and far more responsiveand communicative developer relations.And still other developersthink Apple's not entitledto a dim dime more than whateverthe transaction fees are.A single digit like anypayment processor like PayPal.Customers typicallydon't care about the 30%,because they don't typically see itmight not even know about it.They do care that becauseof Apple's ongoing spatwith Netflix, and Kindleand other aggregatorsthat it's super not easyreally an inconvenience tosubscribe to new services,or buy a new content directlyon the iPhone or iPadand some who know and care legitwant developers to get a better deal.Others feel like if Apple lowered the 30%,the developer wouldn't passthe savings onto them anywayand just pocket the difference.So go right back to just not caringand still others feel likeApple isn't doing enoughstill letting scam appsand grow subscriptionschemes onto the store.Putting dumb ad boxes on top of stillmediocre search results,not forcing apps to update ifthey wanna stay on the storeand otherwise letting it becomemore of a commodity flea marketand less of the high end boutiqueApple has been promising.In other words, quantity, not quality.Apple feels like they're payingfor the operating systems.The frameworks that letany Indie developer takeon the biggest softwarehouse in the world.X code and all the tools,connect in the entire management systemall the hosting, delivery,including app thinningand bit code, taxes internationallyfrom the U.S. to Japan andback, which is apparentlyas complex as it soundsreview, providing a single storefront.Everyone knows to go topromotions on the storefor some but not all apps,and simple payment systems everyone trustsand that all of that costs moneyand provides value well worth the 30%and that developers who don't like itare just looking for a free rideand expecting platforms tobehave even more like charitiesand get upset when their scams get caughtand go running to social andthe press just to unfairlyillegitimately, smear them.Now, some believe that sinceApple doesn't actually makethat much pure profit from the App Store,dropping their cut from 30% to 15%wouldn't even hurttheir numbers that much.It just be slightly less than a littlelike maybe not significantly at all.Smaller developers havesuggested a progressive ratewhere the more you earn, the more you pay.Bigger developers of course the opposite,that the more you earnthe less you should pay,kept over a certain amount in fact.Others that it doesn't matterbecause whatever Apple dropsit to be at 20%, 15%, 10%,that just shows they'rewilling to drop it.And then developers willjust start bashing themall over again in a year or severaland demand it be dropped again, and again,until it reaches zero, orconversely Apple pays themfor the privilege of havingthe app on the platformlike cable networks, bidding for football.The pushback on that is,yeah the power dynamicis so vastly an Apple's favorthat a slippery slope justcan't exist because it's actually a wall.Personally I'm still debating betweentwo different takes on this.The first is keeping it at 30%but really delivering onthe promise of the App Storefor developers and customers alike.A real focus on eliminatingscam apps, outdated apps,websites, wrapped up as apps,even if it's only feasiblefor the top 100 apps in every category,the ones that have the most visibility.Also no derelict frameworks,no capricious rejections,no accidental terminations,just no BS, basicallyrather than treating developersas second class suppliers,treating them as first-class customersof App Store services,making developer setevery bit as much of a braggingpoint as customers' apps.The second is that Appleshould just suck it upand drop the rate to 15% foreverything across the board,not dropping for dropping sakeor even just for the optics,but to get the balanceback towards break even.Apple's platform obviouslyprovides tremendous valueto developers and apps obviouslyprovide tremendous valueto Apple's platform.So periodic adjustmentsto maintain that balanceis just in the best interest of everyone,especially customers, hit the like buttonif that makes you as happy as it makes me.Which one I land on thoughis gonna depend onthese next two sections.Okay, so section two. let'stalk alternate payment system.Some people who want alternatetransaction systems say,Apple can simply pay for platformsand tools and fulfillmentout of the $99 feeevery full-on developer,including developers of freeapps get charged every yearto be part of Apple's developer program.Maybe even charge a little more for thatif they absolutely haveto, to just break evenbut then they should be forced to competefor the transaction fees based on merit,on providing a betterservice for developersand experience forcustomers then the PayPal'sof the world ever could or would.People who don't wantalternative transaction systemsargue that the higher programfees, unfairly burdened smallside hustle, or just curious developersand a big part of what madethe App Store revolutionaryis the single trusted payment system.That because no one ever hasto worry about how to payor whether they have an account or notwith any other serviceor whether they can trust any old service,they're more likely to pay,but that's exactly why the App Storedespite being on fewer devicesin the Google play store,typically generates morerevenue for developers.And that by opening upthe other payment options,we risk more people being scammedwhich could have a chilling effecton the whole app economy,basically sneezing in the soup.Of course, we just went overthat Apple already allowsalternate paymentsystems for retailer appsthat sell physical goods.Again in the Amazon or bestbuy or Walmart or Domino's app,you don't pay with your App Store accountyou pay with your Amazonor best buy or Walmartor Domino's account or yourcredit card or whatever.And if there was gonna be anyconfusion or chilling effect,we'd have already seen it.And I mean, some people probablydo get frustrated or scaredand close the pizza app andpick up the phone instead,but not enough to causeany real chilling effectnot writ large also becausemost people probablyalready know and trust Amazon and best buyand Walmart and Domino'sand PayPal for that matter.And that may not be trueif any old random appcould just push you outto any old random webpageto take or scam a payment.Still others have suggestedApple do something closerto kin to what Googledoes on the play store.And that is allowalternate payment systemsfor apps that have contentthat can be consumedoutside the app, notgames starring Tim Epic,Google mandates playonly payments for thatsame as Apple, but for Netflix,Spotify, Kindle Comixologyall the reader apps thatare basically the exact typeof content aggregating app Imentioned in the first section,let those apps sell thatcontent through Appleand or through theirexisting account system.Apple could even offer or requirethat those apps use Apple payat least in the markets that have it.It may cause more scrutiny,but also engender more trust.And the cost would basicallybe at transaction level,which is at the absolutelowest end being bandied about,either way a single payment systemis only one part of the App Store model,not the whole model kit.So it's tough to tease out which one part,if any could actuallybreak the whole thing,but sure by all means, becareful what you wish forbecause you just might get it.On the other hand,alternate payment systemscould effectivelyeliminate the hey problem.The base camp web basedfront end app Apple gotall DHH bombed about earlier this year.Also the Facebook online eventsproblem where a developerwants to wave theircontent aggregation cutfor a good cause, but alsonot have to foot the billto Apple for their appaggregation but likewise,the online classes problemsas COVID-19 keeps most of usout of the classrooms maybeeven the Spotify problembecause Apple would nolonger be giving themselvesan unfair monetaryadvantage as platform ownerde facto exempt from their own 30% cut.In other words, it wouldsolve so many of the problems,maybe not X-Box game streaming,but I covered that in depthin a previous video,link in the description.So why not games as well, franklybecause that's where allthe money is for everyone,Apple, Google, Microsoft, Sony,Nintendo, valve, everyone,65% of the 15% paying Apple that 30%.And that's a terrible reason.And some would argue free to play gamesare a terrible businesslike tobacco or Facebook.I have no answer forthat, at least not yetbut let me know what youthink in the comments.Part three sideloading finally,which means getting and installing appsoutside the App Store,mostly from the web, mostly.Now when Apple created the iPhoneand when Steve Jobsannounced the App Storeit was clear, a hundredpercent crystal clear.They were using a console modellike a video gamemachine, but for all appsthey already had a generalpurpose computer with the Macand that made it way moreopen for enthusiasticbut more intimidating for the mainstream.The iPhone was meant tobe the other way aroundmore restrictive for enthusiastsbut more approachable for the mainstream.And if the word console irks you there,if you are irked by it,feel free to use applianceor just managed computing environment.That part is just inarguable.The argument comes on whether or not nowsome 10 years and a billion users later,it should stay that way.And some would argue that it simply can't,that our phones have become soimportant to so many people.The primary computingplatform of our generationthat is simply has to be opened upand become a general computing platformthat apps need to run on it as openlyand accessibly and freely as any PC,others, that it absolutely should not.That it's become so importantholds so much more private dataknow so much more aboutus than any PC ever didthat it has to protect our privacy,including and especiallyagainst the extra legalactions of our own governments.And to do that, it has tostate every bit is managed,every bit is locked down either way.If Apple was gonna open upsideloading, how would that work?On Android, you tap your waythrough a bunch of warnings,grant a bunch of permissions,then tap on your APK,the Android package kit or app filedownload and install away.On the Mac with whatApple calls gatekeeper,you go into security andprivacy settings, authenticate,click on allow apps downloaded from,and then choose App Storeand identified developers.Or if you're all livefree and download harduse terminal to expose the third optionany app from anywhere.This means that developerscan choose to have their appsin the store with all thecentralization, visibility, trustin any and all AppStore exclusive featuresbut also all the sandboxingpayment conditionsand review processes that come with it,or they can try and doeverything themselves directlyfrom their websites withfar, far fewer restrictions,but a far, far greater cutof their per unit profits.Or they can do both have an App Storeand a non App Store version,which is either the bestjust most confusing of both worlds.People in favor of sideloadingare quick to point outthat it would mean any appApple doesn't want on the storefor anyone reason like console emulators,could just be madeavailable via sideloading.When China ban VPN appsor if the U.S. bansTikTok or WeChat, they couldstill be made availablevia sideloading, at leastclient site, great firewallscan still block any and all server calls.Mostly though, if Apple insistedon keeping their cut at 30%and not allow analternate payment methods,developers could still chooseto fulfill the apps themselvesand keep all the profit via sideloading.People who hate the idea of sideloading,are just as quick to pointout that it would allow pornand gambling in any matterof dark web front endsonto their kids' phones.Also piracy, not justfor emulator binary'sbut for cracked appsand tormented content.And through all of that, itwould open the iPhone and iPadup to malware, spyware and adwareat a hitherto undreamt of scale.And yes, I really did justsay hitherto undreamt up.The Mac though, hadsideloading for decadesbefore the advent of the Mac App Store,but it was also a tinylow-profile unprofitable targetfor malware back then, now not so much.And we're seeing similar tensionsbetween Apple trynnaplace iOS like protectionson West Traditionally beena completely open computing systemand malware other attacks just escalate.And every time a big game is not availableon a certain store in a certain country,we see malware late in versionsof it spreading as fastas any safe mirrors,or spyware from nation statesmeant to be used on their own citizens,journalists, and dissidents.And some like Epic don't think sideloadingby itself is even acceptable,because of how fewpeople even know about itand how scary it seemsto mainstream customersthe actual customers that they want.That's why, what Epic actuallywants is alternate storesand the official stores,because they still wantthat initial convenienceand trust and exposurebut then to just take over or from there,so that they're no longerpaying Apple or Google 30%,but having other developers pay them,much as other developersdo on the PC versionof the Epic games store today.That way they can be mastersof their own destinies.And Yeah, keepers of just all the monies.Others argue that this will just makegetting apps more complex.As people will have to figureout which store has which app,and set up and rememberaccounts for each storeand it'll force themto use stores which isdownright terrible experiencesjust to get games they wantlike Fortnite one middle groundwould be gatekeeper for iOS.In other words, sideloading butrestricted to notarized appsor apps that have developeraccounts still signedand certified as trusted byApple, basically how the Mac is,but without the criminalcommander just opens it upto everything, it wouldn'tstop every bad app,or bit of malware fromgetting on this system.Cat and mouse games bydefinition have fully functionalgenius level cats and mice,with notarization though,if a mouse slips through,the cat still hasa giant red mouse button itcan hit even after the factand not a real mouse, don'tworry, a malware mouse codewhatever it's just to say, relax about it.It also won't stop governmentsfrom trying to pressure Appleinto withholding notarizationfrom apps they don't like,which is legit the only reasonI'm not all in on gatekeeperas the best of all compromised solutions.Another middle ground isprogressive web apps. PWA.That means websites thatact like native appsand have many if not all of thecapabilities of native apps,but with maybe just maybe lessability to attack this systemthan truly native sideloaded apps.Apple currently it doesn't supportanywhere nearly the amountof PWA tech that Google does,citing some of the samesecurity and privacy concernsMozilla does, but there may besome functional middle groundthere as well.Like a next-generationversion of Steve jobs isinfamous initial suite solution.Back when the iPhone teamjust didn't have timeto make an App Store for version oneand to hold people overwhile they raced to makeone for version two.And since then the alternateapp distribution modelApple's talked about,anytime, anyone from Playboyto Congress has come callingabout App Store policy.Web 2.0, HTML five, nowprogressive web apps.The pushback on this isthat, like the futurehigh-performance webapps are always comingbut never quite arrivingthat they're bloated andsluggish, less capableand yet more resource trading,basically that everyonehates what electron appsdo on laptops and don'twant anything like them.Any browser instances at all,anywhere near the batterieson their iPhones or iPadsalso, even with WebGL ora hypothetical web metal,they wouldn't solve for Fortnite,TikTOK or VPN apps at all.But realistically, noneof this solves everything.Apple apps being grantedhigher levels of trustto permissions and private frameworks,developer app simply don't getand maybe shouldn't get.The lack of trials ordemos or upgrade pricingor that no developer shouldever have to deal withany unreasonable fearor anxiety over any appthey invest everything insimply being rejectedfor unexpected reasons.I'd even argue that none ofthis is the actual problem.The one I mentioned at the beginningthat apps are going mainstream the wayevery other type of content hasand developers, app creatorsare being commoditizedand crushed the way every othertype of content creator is.But I'll cover that in thenext video, in this series.So seriously hit thesubscribe button and bell,so you don't miss out.What sideloading may be anespecially gatekeeper sideloadingdoes solve for is the biggestbluntest most mass drivingstormbreaker of a meteorhammer facing Appleand big tech collectively,but largely tech illiterate regulatorsthat currently have them in their sites.And it's what's probablykeeping YouTube specifically,out of their sites.Because YouTube takes a 45%cut of ad revenue from creatorsbut also lets us have ourown sponsors in our videos.Come on, you have tosee that coming right.Nebula is a streaming video platform,I'm building along with myeducation (mumbles) friends,like Legal Eagle, LindsayEllis, Thomas Frank, MariannaEliod Doll, and so many more.It's a place where wedon't need to worry aboutthe monetization or thetyranny of click-through rates,watch time or the algorithm or ads.Basically, YouTube isa version of app reviewand you can find all of my videos there,completely ad-free.Also Nebula originals like working titles,where we break down the intro sequencesfrom some of our favorite shows.I just did Buffy the Vampire Slayerand collaborate in ways thatwouldn't work on YouTube.Like I was just in half asinteresting as big brick originaland a recent episode of Alex Goes Bananas.So what does this all haveto do with curiosity stream?Well, as the go-to sourcefor the best documentarieson the internet, they justlove educational contentand educational creators.And we worked out a dealwhere if you sign upfor CuriosityStream withthe link in the description,not only will you get CuriosityStream,you'll also get a nebuloussubscription for free.And for a limited timeCuriositytream is offering 26% offall their annual plans.And 26% off is by contract,the best deal you'll find anywhere.So click the link in the description,and get both CuriosityStreamand Nebula for 26% off,or you can just go tocuriositystream.com/Reneritchie.It's a great way to support this channel,and educational content directlyfor just 1479 per year, per year.Just click on the link in the description,or go to curiositystream.com/Reneritchie,and clicking on the linkreally helps out the channel,for a ton more on Apple versus Epic.And why I think Appleis particularly wrongabout Xbox game streaming clickon this playlist right here.I go deep on what's happening, whyand what can be done about all of it.Seriously, just click theplaylist and see you next video.\n"