Legacy apps must comply with Apple's App Store subscription rules by June 30

1246713

Comments

  • neiltc13neiltc13 Posts: 182member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post


    Not many credit card companies deliver new customers and deliver the goods to your doorstep. They just process a sale that someone else has worked to achieve.



    Which is exactly what the application developer does when they produce an app for iOS. People don't want to make an in-app purchase because the application was approved by Apple, they want to make an in-app purchase because they have seen from the application itself that it is worthwhile.
  • kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member
    They really poisonous bit here is that Apple demand that the in-app purchase version must not be more expensive than what can be bought elsewhere. Amazon don't even make 30% profit on a Kindle book, so even if they gave Apple 100% of their take, it still wouldn't satisfy Apple's greed.



    There are only two outcomes here, either the Kindle app disappears from the app-store, which would pretty much kill the iPad dead. Or Amazon implement a two tier pricing structure, where when you buy a Kindle book from Amazon's web site it adds a special Apple tax (30%) to the price on purchase. I can't really see consumers liking that very much.



    Extreme greed like this is good for nobody, not even Apple, and I can see this horribly backfiring. Android tablets are going to be everywhere this year and stuff like this will make them an easy choice for most people.
  • fireball1244fireball1244 Posts: 122member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post


    I can see three outcomes to this ploy by Cupertino:



    One, everyone leaves the app store and customers are left angry and outraged - not at Apple, but at those companies for not being on their shiny new toys anymore. Customers lose, content creators and publishers lose, Apple wins.



    I don't think this is accurate. If there is a large scale migration of app developers who can't afford to pay Apple 30% on their sales to mobile customers (which, frankly, will be most content sellers, who rarely have that sort of markup on the goods they sell), then the relative value of the iOS platform as compared to platforms that do not have these restrictions, and which do still have Amazon and other vendors available, would tilt against Apple.



    Apple and some people on here want to pretend that the benefits of the iOS platform stem only from Apple and flow only outward, that folks like Amazon, Hulu and Netflix do nothing but gain from iOS. But they also *contribute* value to iOS by providing good software and content at reasonable prices. Having Amazon, Hulu and Netflix on the iPad makes the iPad a better product, which benefits Apple in the form of more sales.



    A viable software ecosystem depends on recognizing the mutual benefits accrued to both the platform builder and the software vendors. This new policy from Apple ignores this reality, and could harm the ecosystem.



    Is it worth it to Amazon to stay on iOS if every book sold through the required in-app store is taxed by Apple in a way that takes away all of Amazon's profit margin? To say nothing of Hulu or Netflix, whose streaming services have profit margins of less than 30%, as well?



    If Apple were to require in app purchase options with a cost that reflected the reality that *all* Apple was doing was managing the transaction -- say, 5%, then you'd hear no real murmurs of unrest about it. But to require payouts that meet or often exceed the margins that content sellers rely on for profitability? That's absurd.
  • battiato1981battiato1981 Posts: 208member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post


    ... 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.



    I challenge you to show me a system where a writer, author or publisher would get more than 70%, excepting from their own website. And of course, Apple is not taking away that ability in any way.



    In traditional publishing, there are far more hands out to get paid along the way. If they want to get their 100% they can invest in the advertising, though whatever media, to get the word out. That costs significant bucks by the way.
  • sheffsheff Posts: 1,407member
    The less content is available on app store, the less attractive platform becomes. Unlike iPod where apple had 90% share and could count on illegal songs to be on the iPod weather legal content is available on iTunes or not, for book, video and movies, if there is no content on iTunes, there is no easy way to put it there.



    Just saying apple should be careful in strong-arming the content providers.
  • robin huberrobin huber Posts: 2,740member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post


    The iPad and App store are only there to earn money for Apple. It is understandable. What I don't understand is how Apple can require companies to give them a cut of everything their company does.



    When I buy a car from Ford, they don't require every store I visit to give them 30% of all of my purchases just because I used the Ford to get to their store. It seems apps are the same way. The iPad or iPhone is the vehicle used to visit or buy apps. Those apps are like stores. They have things that people want. Why should those stores give Apple anything just because the person used an iPad or iPhone to get to that store? If Apple is storing the data that is being sold then I can understand them getting a cut. If the app vendor wants to send people elsewhere to buy things then it should be none of Apple's business if people purchase things outside of the Apple universe.



    I use a Mac Book and visit web sites. I purchase things from Amazon and other vendors. Apple doesn't get a cut of all of my purchases on those other web sites just because I used something they built.



    Flawed analogy. The brick and mortar store you drive to is the analog of the app store, not the car. Any dealership you buy your Ford from has the right to take some of the cost you pay Ford as their cut for running the store. You think dealers should sell cars as a public service because they didn't spend anything to make the car?
  • SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 24,925member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post


    Lawsuits in 3..2..1..



    Lawsuits over what? Apps must conform or be destroyed. What's the problem?
  • asdasdasdasd Posts: 4,363member
    Haha I know what Amazon should do.



    Add 43% to all books on it's servers that are also on iBooks. Across the board. This is not in violation of Apple's laws so they would stay on the platform.



    If any publisher removes itself from iBooks, reduce the price on Amazon. Unless iBooks sales take off the publishers will see no sales.



    When nobody is left on iBooks, unilaterally redraw from the iPad. On that day produce the Android app.
  • SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 24,925member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quevar View Post


    Does anyone know which apps are affected? Based on this phrasing: "...or provide free access to existing subscribers", it sounds like magazines that offer an app that can download the magazine if you are already receiving the paper version are okay. For example, is the Economist affected? Would Skype be affected? I am pretty sure the The Daily is affected. Anyone know what actually is affected?



    Hmm... Skype. That is interesting... You don't really have a 'subscription' to Skype, as much as an account. Or is it really the same thing? Very good point.
  • SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 24,925member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post


    Even credit card companies only take about 3%.



    Not really the same thing at all. Think of Apple as a distributor, not a credit card company.
  • asdasdasdasd Posts: 4,363member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Not really the same thing at all. Think of Apple as a distributor, not a credit card company.



    This is doing my head in. Apple are distributing no content in these cases. How often does that have to be pointed out?
  • SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 24,925member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    If this backfires, Apple could really be shooting themselves in the foot.



    It will propel Apple explosively forward, not backward.
  • battiato1981battiato1981 Posts: 208member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fireball1244 View Post


    Is it worth it to Amazon to stay on iOS if every book sold through the required in-app store is taxed by Apple in a way that takes away all of Amazon's profit margin?



    What is the percentage that Amazon takes from an outside, independent Amazon Marketplace vendor accessed through their site? Anyone know?



    Can I install an iBook app on my Kindle and make iBook purchases on my Kindle with no money at all flowing to Amazon?



    ... well?
  • SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 24,925member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by madman74 View Post


    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.



    Yeah, right.
  • asdasdasdasd Posts: 4,363member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Yeah, right.



    Try make a coherent argument.
  • fireball1244fireball1244 Posts: 122member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Not really the same thing at all. Think of Apple as a distributor, not a credit card company.



    Apple's not the distributor if I buy a book through a Kindle app. Apple isn't storing the file, checking the file, serving the file, screening the file or sending out updates to the file. All they're doing is running the transaction and then passing all the work off to Amazon's servers. When it comes to in-app content purchases Apple is only a transaction service, not a distributor in any sense, and not an active participant in the process, as they are in the selling, storing, serving and updating of applications.



    Apple's relationship to an in-app content purchase is identical to a merchant server's relationship to a real world purchase in which someone uses a credit card, except Apple is charing 10 times as much.
  • fireball1244fireball1244 Posts: 122member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    Haha I know what Amazon should do.



    Add 43% to all books on it's servers that are also on iBooks. Across the board. This is not in violation of Apple's laws so they would stay on the platform.



    Amazon isn't allowed to do that by the contracts publishers use for ebooks, which set the retail prices for the books. Amazon cannot increase the price of a book at will like that.
  • nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,144member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    Haha I know what Amazon should do.



    Add 43% to all books on it's servers that are also on iBooks. Across the board. This is not in violation of Apple's laws so they would stay on the platform.



    If any publisher removes itself from iBooks, reduce the price on Amazon. Unless iBooks sales take off the publishers will see no sales.



    When nobody is left on iBooks, unilaterally redraw from the iPad. On that day produce the Android app.



    Publishers set the list price not Amazon.
  • asdasdasdasd Posts: 4,363member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPlaid View Post


    FWIW, I only stuff for my iPad through iTunes. If I have to buy media for an app through other means, I delete the app.



    Yah, so the iPad market is about to collapse to you and the other guy who does that.
  • battiato1981battiato1981 Posts: 208member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post


    Which is exactly what the application developer does when they produce an app for iOS. People don't want to make an in-app purchase because the application was approved by Apple, they want to make an in-app purchase because they have seen from the application itself that it is worthwhile.



    No ... you're talking about in-app purchases. From people who have already purchased an app from the iTunes store. That customer was sourced by Apple, and the developer, customer and Apple benefitted. And the process was quick and in most cases less costly than any other method of distribution known before. Now you're saying that once the developer has the customer in the app, that the relationship with Apple is over, but there is continued value to you from your customer. Apple is saying that if the customer comes to you through us, we continue to benefit as do you.



    I own a business, I know the value of a returning customer. Its golden, its worth a lot to you as a business. You could spend the money to advertise and drive people to your own site and do business there and get it all ... that costs money, time, and creative energy though, its not free.
Sign In or Register to comment.