Wow, where did you get that? They did not. They only said that any subscription offer you offer outside the app must be also offered in the app. That is it. So if the offer is "pay for 10 months get 2 free" on their website, that offer must be offered in the app.
No, they did not yet say this. But how far is it from saying a subscription offer outside of iOS must be matched inside iOS to saying the same for whole apps? Not very far, just one press release away.
MS never stopped you from installing any app you wanted. This is not even remotely the same. IE came bundled, and they actively paid or provided incentives to not have other browsers preinstalled. Apple is talking about apps the individual chooses to put on their device. So, I ask again, what legal ground does the government have to get involved here? The closest would be anti-competitive, but that would only come into play if Apple said you can ONLY offer subscriptions through the app, which they are not.
As far as visiting a digital tv guide, how does that pertain to this topic?
anti-trust law says you can't use power in one market to muscle your way into another market. apple is using their market power in the mobile hardware/app store to exclude competitors in the e-book market
personally i think any government action will go no where like it did with Microsoft and technological advances will solve the problem in a few years. i remember in 2000 everyone was scared of microsoft. now with the mobile revolution they are just another tech company
No, they did not yet say this. But how far is it from saying a subscription offer outside of iOS must be matched inside iOS to saying the same for whole apps? Not very far, just one press release away.
It isn't the same at all. They are saying subscribing to the same content must be matched. Not "you can't have Angry Birds free on Android supported by ads and charge iOS users $0.99 for an ad free version"
Because Jobs said that in-app purchases must offer the "same deal," app developers won't be able to offer small discounts to entice people to make out-app purchases (and avoid paying 30% to Apple).
The fallout of this policy will likely determine what my next phone is. It was probably going to be the iPhone 5, but we'll see what happens.
after almost 2 years with the 3GS i was thinking about getting the cheapest android i could find that has access to the market. later this year AT&T should have OK ones for free with 2 year contract.
i like my 3GS but i don't seem to care as much about games as i thought i would 2 years ago. and i don't use the phone that much to make me too cheap to buy another one for $300.
i need another laptop and the iPad2 was on this year's shopping list. i thought about making a deal with my wife where i use the iPad for my commute and just get a cheapo android phone for myself. most of the popular apps are on both platforms and the iPad will do things that the android tablets won't so i won't lose anything
anti-trust law says you can't use power in one market to muscle your way into another market. apple is using their market power in the mobile hardware/app store to exclude competitors in the e-book market
Baloney. Apple's bookstore is excluded RIGHT NOW from the Kindle. Is Amazon being prosecuted for that? Answer: NO!
This is no different. Apple gets to set the rules for publishing on their device.
Doesn't this mean Amazon just has to remove in-app purchasing completely? They can still do it entirely via their website just as long as the app itself doesn't load the website. The Kindle app just becomes a way to view your already purchased Kindle books. Do Netflix and Hulu even allow you to purchase subscriptions from within the app? (I'm not in the US.)
the kindle is a single use device with a pre-paid bandwidth built into the price. it's like saying that comcast service is excluded from time warner cable boxes
idevices are the equivalent to general purpose computers since they can run applications. and the kindle app was fine the way it was for the last year or so until Apple decided to get into the ebook business
No, but Apple told Amazon that you cannot offer the same app for less on Android.
(At the moment this is only for content but extending this to apps is no-brainer.)
You forget the other important factor to make it an antitrust issue, monopolistic power. Apple does not have a monopoly on the mobile phone market, does not have a monopoly on smartphone market, does not have a monopoly on ebook publishing market, and does not have a monopoly on ebook reader market.
On the other hand, if Apple said to Sony, do what we ask on your ebook reader or we kick all your music out of iTune, then it would become an antitrust issue.
Man, I love Apple. But this seems like a bone head idea. What's keeping these giants (Kindle Store, Hulu) from pulling their apps altogether and only making them available on Android and Win 7 deices? Then, I, as a consumer, would have to choose where to go....and Android would be my first bet. This is where the "closed" system starts to effect the consumer. until now, hasn't bothered me...but if I lose functionality out of my phone because of this...so long, Apple. I'll take my business elsewhere.
anti-trust law says you can't use power in one market to muscle your way into another market. apple is using their market power in the mobile hardware/app store to exclude competitors in the e-book market
personally i think any government action will go no where like it did with Microsoft and technological advances will solve the problem in a few years. i remember in 2000 everyone was scared of microsoft. now with the mobile revolution they are just another tech company
Antitrust law only comes into play for companies with a MONOPOLY on the market. Apple's hardware, while popular, is hardly creating a monopoly in the mobile hardware/app store market. Heck, there are people predicting the demise of iOS ecosystem everday.
Your argument will be more relevant when iPhone has more than 70% marketshare.
Ok, now before we get all bent out of shape over this, let's consider the example of the Amazon App. It allows you to purchase things in-app, or you can go to the Amazon website and purchase there. However, the "in-app" option does not go through Apple, and as far as I know, Apple gets no cut. Does this meet the requirements? It seems to me that it does.
I don't read this as Apple requiring that the in-app purchase be an in-app purchase that goes through the app store and Apple gets a cut of. Just that the app has an interface to purchase things without leaving the app. Apple offers the in-app purchases for developers who don't have the resources to host their own servers to handle in-app purchases, but it isn't REQUIRED, is it? The Amazon app certainly doesn't use it.
Man, I love Apple. But this seems like a bone head idea. What's keeping these giants (Kindle Store, Hulu) from pulling their apps altogether and only making them available on Android and Win 7 deices? Then, I, as a consumer, would have to choose where to go....and Android would be my first bet. This is where the "closed" system starts to effect the consumer. until now, hasn't bothered me...but if I lose functionality out of my phone because of this...so long, Apple. I'll take my business elsewhere.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! Looking at the iPad alone, it hit 15 million devices nine months after it was released - and that was pushing them out the door as fast as they could be manufactured! They'll AT LEAST double that this year, maybe triple it. That makes 45 to 60 million potential customers for a market that's in its infancy.
And that doesn't count all the iPhones and iPod Touch's that are out there.
Oh, and regarding your threat to take your business elsewhere; as an old girlfriend of mine once said, don't let the door hit you in the behind on the way out....
Ok, now before we get all bent out of shape over this, let's consider the example of the Amazon App. It allows you to purchase things in-app, or you can go to the Amazon website and purchase there. However, the "in-app" option does not go through Apple, and as far as I know, Apple gets no cut. Does this meet the requirements? It seems to me that it does.
I don't read this as Apple requiring that the in-app purchase be an in-app purchase that goes through the app store and Apple gets a cut of. Just that the app has an interface to purchase things without leaving the app. Apple offers the in-app purchases for developers who don't have the resources to host their own servers to handle in-app purchases, but it isn't REQUIRED, is it? The Amazon app certainly doesn't use it.
Am I mistaken?
Yes, Apple is clearly referring to its own in-app purchasing/subscription service when they refer to inside the app:
"All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app."
Ok, now before we get all bent out of shape over this, let's consider the example of the Amazon App. It allows you to purchase things in-app, or you can go to the Amazon website and purchase there. However, the "in-app" option does not go through Apple, and as far as I know, Apple gets no cut. Does this meet the requirements? It seems to me that it does.
I don't read this as Apple requiring that the in-app purchase be an in-app purchase that goes through the app store and Apple gets a cut of. Just that the app has an interface to purchase things without leaving the app. Apple offers the in-app purchases for developers who don't have the resources to host their own servers to handle in-app purchases, but it isn't REQUIRED, is it? The Amazon app certainly doesn't use it.
Am I mistaken?
the kindle app sends you to safari and the amazon website. the app only downloads books you bought on amazon.com. there has never been any kind of in app purchase.
Ok, now before we get all bent out of shape over this, let's consider the example of the Amazon App. It allows you to purchase things in-app, or you can go to the Amazon website and purchase there. However, the "in-app" option does not go through Apple, and as far as I know, Apple gets no cut. Does this meet the requirements? It seems to me that it does.
I don't read this as Apple requiring that the in-app purchase be an in-app purchase that goes through the app store and Apple gets a cut of. Just that the app has an interface to purchase things without leaving the app. Apple offers the in-app purchases for developers who don't have the resources to host their own servers to handle in-app purchases, but it isn't REQUIRED, is it? The Amazon app certainly doesn't use it.
Am I mistaken?
According to the now-enforced rules, if you sell content or subscriptions that are delivered to an iOS device, you *must* use the Apple in-app purchase API, which gives Apple their 30% cut. You are still allowed to sell content and subscriptions outside the app, and you may still use your own authorization system as is the case today. Only now, Apple is requiring you make it available with their API as well.
...which, I'm sorry, is still complete BS. Not only has Apple become the world's most expensive POS system in the world, they have also effectively become a "partner" in almost every service that wants to do business on iOS. Greed know no bounds to a corporation, and it sickens me to own Apple products.
This is all the more reason why competition from Android, Windows Phone, RIM and WebOS is vitally important. Apple is exploiting their dominance for greed, and is taking an unnecessary chunk of revenue away from writers, authors and publishers. So long as there is a vital alternative market, content providers have a say against these policies.
Comments
...
when the original iphone was announced i thought it was overpriced crap. why would i pay $600 just to surf the internet outside?
Umm, pretty unfair argument. For the same reason people buy expensive cars to go from point A to point B.
Wow, where did you get that? They did not. They only said that any subscription offer you offer outside the app must be also offered in the app. That is it. So if the offer is "pay for 10 months get 2 free" on their website, that offer must be offered in the app.
No, they did not yet say this. But how far is it from saying a subscription offer outside of iOS must be matched inside iOS to saying the same for whole apps? Not very far, just one press release away.
MS never stopped you from installing any app you wanted. This is not even remotely the same. IE came bundled, and they actively paid or provided incentives to not have other browsers preinstalled. Apple is talking about apps the individual chooses to put on their device. So, I ask again, what legal ground does the government have to get involved here? The closest would be anti-competitive, but that would only come into play if Apple said you can ONLY offer subscriptions through the app, which they are not.
As far as visiting a digital tv guide, how does that pertain to this topic?
anti-trust law says you can't use power in one market to muscle your way into another market. apple is using their market power in the mobile hardware/app store to exclude competitors in the e-book market
personally i think any government action will go no where like it did with Microsoft and technological advances will solve the problem in a few years. i remember in 2000 everyone was scared of microsoft. now with the mobile revolution they are just another tech company
No, they did not yet say this. But how far is it from saying a subscription offer outside of iOS must be matched inside iOS to saying the same for whole apps? Not very far, just one press release away.
It isn't the same at all. They are saying subscribing to the same content must be matched. Not "you can't have Angry Birds free on Android supported by ads and charge iOS users $0.99 for an ad free version"
Not the same at all.
The fallout of this policy will likely determine what my next phone is. It was probably going to be the iPhone 5, but we'll see what happens.
after almost 2 years with the 3GS i was thinking about getting the cheapest android i could find that has access to the market. later this year AT&T should have OK ones for free with 2 year contract.
i like my 3GS but i don't seem to care as much about games as i thought i would 2 years ago. and i don't use the phone that much to make me too cheap to buy another one for $300.
i need another laptop and the iPad2 was on this year's shopping list. i thought about making a deal with my wife where i use the iPad for my commute and just get a cheapo android phone for myself. most of the popular apps are on both platforms and the iPad will do things that the android tablets won't so i won't lose anything
anti-trust law says you can't use power in one market to muscle your way into another market. apple is using their market power in the mobile hardware/app store to exclude competitors in the e-book market
Baloney. Apple's bookstore is excluded RIGHT NOW from the Kindle. Is Amazon being prosecuted for that? Answer: NO!
This is no different. Apple gets to set the rules for publishing on their device.
idevices are the equivalent to general purpose computers since they can run applications. and the kindle app was fine the way it was for the last year or so until Apple decided to get into the ebook business
No, but Apple told Amazon that you cannot offer the same app for less on Android.
(At the moment this is only for content but extending this to apps is no-brainer.)
You forget the other important factor to make it an antitrust issue, monopolistic power. Apple does not have a monopoly on the mobile phone market, does not have a monopoly on smartphone market, does not have a monopoly on ebook publishing market, and does not have a monopoly on ebook reader market.
On the other hand, if Apple said to Sony, do what we ask on your ebook reader or we kick all your music out of iTune, then it would become an antitrust issue.
As a matter of fact, all developers need to quit letting Jobs dictate like an emperor. If Apple doesn't like it, fine, we'll all leave.
See how well iOS does without applications.
anti-trust law says you can't use power in one market to muscle your way into another market. apple is using their market power in the mobile hardware/app store to exclude competitors in the e-book market
personally i think any government action will go no where like it did with Microsoft and technological advances will solve the problem in a few years. i remember in 2000 everyone was scared of microsoft. now with the mobile revolution they are just another tech company
Antitrust law only comes into play for companies with a MONOPOLY on the market. Apple's hardware, while popular, is hardly creating a monopoly in the mobile hardware/app store market. Heck, there are people predicting the demise of iOS ecosystem everday.
Your argument will be more relevant when iPhone has more than 70% marketshare.
I don't read this as Apple requiring that the in-app purchase be an in-app purchase that goes through the app store and Apple gets a cut of. Just that the app has an interface to purchase things without leaving the app. Apple offers the in-app purchases for developers who don't have the resources to host their own servers to handle in-app purchases, but it isn't REQUIRED, is it? The Amazon app certainly doesn't use it.
Am I mistaken?
Man, I love Apple. But this seems like a bone head idea. What's keeping these giants (Kindle Store, Hulu) from pulling their apps altogether and only making them available on Android and Win 7 deices? Then, I, as a consumer, would have to choose where to go....and Android would be my first bet. This is where the "closed" system starts to effect the consumer. until now, hasn't bothered me...but if I lose functionality out of my phone because of this...so long, Apple. I'll take my business elsewhere.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! Looking at the iPad alone, it hit 15 million devices nine months after it was released - and that was pushing them out the door as fast as they could be manufactured! They'll AT LEAST double that this year, maybe triple it. That makes 45 to 60 million potential customers for a market that's in its infancy.
And that doesn't count all the iPhones and iPod Touch's that are out there.
Oh, and regarding your threat to take your business elsewhere; as an old girlfriend of mine once said, don't let the door hit you in the behind on the way out....
Ok, now before we get all bent out of shape over this, let's consider the example of the Amazon App. It allows you to purchase things in-app, or you can go to the Amazon website and purchase there. However, the "in-app" option does not go through Apple, and as far as I know, Apple gets no cut. Does this meet the requirements? It seems to me that it does.
I don't read this as Apple requiring that the in-app purchase be an in-app purchase that goes through the app store and Apple gets a cut of. Just that the app has an interface to purchase things without leaving the app. Apple offers the in-app purchases for developers who don't have the resources to host their own servers to handle in-app purchases, but it isn't REQUIRED, is it? The Amazon app certainly doesn't use it.
Am I mistaken?
Yes, Apple is clearly referring to its own in-app purchasing/subscription service when they refer to inside the app:
"All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app."
Ok, now before we get all bent out of shape over this, let's consider the example of the Amazon App. It allows you to purchase things in-app, or you can go to the Amazon website and purchase there. However, the "in-app" option does not go through Apple, and as far as I know, Apple gets no cut. Does this meet the requirements? It seems to me that it does.
I don't read this as Apple requiring that the in-app purchase be an in-app purchase that goes through the app store and Apple gets a cut of. Just that the app has an interface to purchase things without leaving the app. Apple offers the in-app purchases for developers who don't have the resources to host their own servers to handle in-app purchases, but it isn't REQUIRED, is it? The Amazon app certainly doesn't use it.
Am I mistaken?
the kindle app sends you to safari and the amazon website. the app only downloads books you bought on amazon.com. there has never been any kind of in app purchase.
Ok, now before we get all bent out of shape over this, let's consider the example of the Amazon App. It allows you to purchase things in-app, or you can go to the Amazon website and purchase there. However, the "in-app" option does not go through Apple, and as far as I know, Apple gets no cut. Does this meet the requirements? It seems to me that it does.
I don't read this as Apple requiring that the in-app purchase be an in-app purchase that goes through the app store and Apple gets a cut of. Just that the app has an interface to purchase things without leaving the app. Apple offers the in-app purchases for developers who don't have the resources to host their own servers to handle in-app purchases, but it isn't REQUIRED, is it? The Amazon app certainly doesn't use it.
Am I mistaken?
According to the now-enforced rules, if you sell content or subscriptions that are delivered to an iOS device, you *must* use the Apple in-app purchase API, which gives Apple their 30% cut. You are still allowed to sell content and subscriptions outside the app, and you may still use your own authorization system as is the case today. Only now, Apple is requiring you make it available with their API as well.
...which, I'm sorry, is still complete BS. Not only has Apple become the world's most expensive POS system in the world, they have also effectively become a "partner" in almost every service that wants to do business on iOS. Greed know no bounds to a corporation, and it sickens me to own Apple products.
This is all the more reason why competition from Android, Windows Phone, RIM and WebOS is vitally important. Apple is exploiting their dominance for greed, and is taking an unnecessary chunk of revenue away from writers, authors and publishers. So long as there is a vital alternative market, content providers have a say against these policies.