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

1235713

Comments

  • fireball1244fireball1244 Posts: 122member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Yeah, right.



    Since Amazon's contracts with book sellers prevent Amazon from raising its prices wholesale, and Apple's rules prevent Amazon from charging more for in-app book sales, and since Apple's new fees also require Amazon to fork over to Apple 30% of the sale price of any book sold, which is Amazon's entire margin on almost all ebooks, why would Amazon stay on the iOS platform?



    If you were Amazon, would you?



    And if you're like me and millions of other customers, who have large collections of Kindle books, and bought an iPad in part because it would be both a general purpose tablet and an excellent reader for our Kindle books, wouldn't that impact your next table choice?



    There is a large overlap between Kindle customers and Apple customers. We're getting screwed in this situation, because Apple's asking way too much (every penny of Amazon's margin for every book sold to an iOS device) here.



    If Apple's fee reflected the minor role Apple plays in the delivery, maintenance and preparation of content like Kindle books, where Apple is really only a merchant account vendor, this wouldn't be a problem. But Apple's fee is 10 times more than what a merchant account vendor charges.
  • john f.john f. Posts: 80member
    Is this only for publishers, or also for content distributors?



    The question is, does the uptake of subscribers via in-app outweigh the costs of 30 percent? Maybe publishers would like a higher take, but what if this in-app thing causse subscribers to surge? Looking at short term, might be actually good for companies if and when subsciptions take off.
  • fireball1244fireball1244 Posts: 122member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by John F. View Post


    Is this only for publishers, or also for content distributors?



    The question is, does the uptake of subscribers via in-app outweigh the costs of 30 percent? Maybe publishers would like a higher take, but what if this in-app thing causse subscribers to surge? Looking at short term, might be actually good for companies if and when subsciptions take off.



    If you're losing money or making no money on every transaction, because Apple's 30% is the entirety of your cut of the purchase price, with the rest going to a publisher or rightsholder, as is the case with almost all book and video content (where Hulu or Netflix's margin is actually substantially less than 30%), then you can never make money while paying Apple 30% of the purchase price, no matter how many customers you gain. In fact, if you are Netflix or Hulu, and your take is less than 30% of the monthly service charge, then you're going to rapidly lose more money for every new customer who signs up through Apple's in-app system.



    The fee is too damn high, and produces a situation where Apple profits, but its software partners lose their shirt. If it were in line with what other merchant fee charges, no one would have a reasonable beef.



    As it is, Apple's new rules could be fiscally devastating to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other vendors. As someone who uses those products on my iPad, that hurts me, and hurts the value of a device I gave Apple a lot of money for.



    Bad mojo all around. But it wouldn't have to be, if Apple simply charged a traditional merchant fee, or even a bit more, for in-app content purchases, as opposed to a fee that is 10 times the usual rate.
  • asdasdasdasd Posts: 4,266member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post


    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.



    The customer was sourced by Apple, my arse. It is no more sourced by Apple than I (the customer) am "sourced" by Windows when I am buying something on a Windows box from Apple, or sourced by goggle when I use Chrome to access the Amazon store.



    This is arse over tit. Software sells hardware - APple fans should know this as they pay a premium for the Industrial design and the Software on Mac Books.



    However software is not just the OS - all useful software on a device adds value and may have influenced the buyer to buy the hardware. To a large extent Amazon are subsidising Apple by being on the platform.



    This is nuts - a monopoly provider like Ballmer would never piss of Amazon even when they were at 98% ( developer developer developer) - but Jobs' arrogance knows no bounds.



    The iPad is going nowhere without third party content.
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    This is doing my head in. Apple are distributing no content in these cases. How often does that have to be pointed out?



    How often does it have to be pointed out to you that the App Store isn't a fee for services system?
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    I just wish the iPad was as great as everyone else seems to think it is. I have had one since day 1 and nearly every time I use it, I find myself wanting to do things that are not allowed or not possible. I can't believe that so many users are content with the iPad's limited functionality.
  • john f.john f. Posts: 80member
    Note that in the press release, Apple focusses on subscriptions, of videos, magazines, newspapers, audio. Apple does not mention books at all, because ebooks are purchased and not subscribed to. This is about weekly, monthly, etc. subscription services. Apple brings a new subscriber to the publisher, they take a cut. But people can also not give Apple a cut, and go directly to the publisher.



    So maybe Amazon and the like are not targeted? But if so, this does not explain why Sony was rejected. Maybe Sony also offered newspaper subscription or magazine subsciptions besides seperate book titiles in app? So maybe as long Amazon doesn't offer newspapers or magazines, Amazon is safe?
  • battiato1981battiato1981 Posts: 200member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fireball1244 View Post


    Bad mojo all around. But it wouldn't have to be, if Apple simply charged a traditional merchant fee, or even a bit more, for in-app content purchases, as opposed to a fee that is 10 times the usual rate.



    How about if Apple charged the same fee that Amazon charges independent bookstores in their Marketplace program for sales of books found through the Amazon website. These same bookstores sometime have their own sites and/or list through ABE. What's the cut for Amazon in that case, just the cost of processing the payment? ... somehow, I doubt that.
  • asdasdasdasd Posts: 4,266member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fireball1244 View Post


    Since Amazon's contracts with book sellers prevent Amazon from raising its prices wholesale, and Apple's rules prevent Amazon from charging more for in-app book sales, and since Apple's new fees also require Amazon to fork over to Apple 30% of the sale price of any book sold, which is Amazon's entire margin on almost all ebooks, why would Amazon stay on the iOS platform?



    If you were Amazon, would you?



    And if you're like me and millions of other customers, who have large collections of Kindle books, and bought an iPad in part because it would be both a general purpose tablet and an excellent reader for our Kindle books, wouldn't that impact your next table choice?

    .



    Great Post. Seriously the company has gone nuts. They are systematically reducing the value of their platform the year after the Android onslaught against the phone, and the year of the onslaught against the Tablet.



    Surely the hardware people in Apple think this is nuts.
  • madman74madman74 Posts: 2member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    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....



    My statement amounts to this. Apple got to those numbers by creating a platform that everyone wanted to be a part of and that consumers had almost limitless choices in regards to software and apps. Sure, Android is open, but it has never been able to make waves on Apple in regards to software and quality....



    HOWEVER, this might do it. To think that developers HAVE to comply with Apple's new rules is a misnomer....they don't even have to submit. they can take their app off the iphone all together. With Android's growing market and Windows 7 still a decent developing platform (even though it doesn't have near the foot hold as the other two), I wouldn't be surprised to see netflix, Hulu, Amazon.com give the ol' "screw you" to apple. Now, how much does the value of those 100 of millions of Apple iOs products drop when suddenly the other companies run adds showing that you "can truly get anything and everything you want on our platform".



    I just think Apple is making a mistake. I want Hulu. I want Netflix. I like all my Kindle books because iBook selection sucks. Take those away, and there's no need for me to have one of the most popular handsets in the world.

    Oh...and my backside...it's sore, but...hey...at least I can read my Kindle books on another device.
  • battiato1981battiato1981 Posts: 200member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post




    This is nuts - a monopoly provider like Ballmer would never piss of Amazon even when they were at 98% ( developer developer developer) - but Jobs' arrogance knows no bounds.



    The iPad is going nowhere without third party content.





    OK, I don't happen to own a Kindle, but can Apple get their iBook app on there and sell their titles to Kindle owners with no cut to Amazon once someone is in the app?



    Just curious, like I said, don't own one. That would be telling though.





    edit: Just using the Amazon Marketplace as an overall analogy, I realize that this is less about books and all about subs. Publishers selling magazine make the lions share of their money with ads, of course.
  • john f.john f. Posts: 80member
    I'm not sure if the info going around is correct. The Apple press release certainly focusses only on subscriptions, of videos, magazines, newspapers, audio, and does not mention books at all. Really, is Amazon affected by this? Amazon sells seperate titles, not subscriptions.
  • al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    but apple can't grow as fast selling hardware and they can't price the iphone and ipad any more than current prices so the MBA's said to find ways to increase revenue per unit in other ways
  • al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kingsmuse View Post


    If Kindle, Hulu, & Netflix all dumped the app store in protest Apple would change this policy faster than it was implemented.



    That would push me to Android for a mobile OS.



    and maybe Pandora



    mine just updated and i noticed it doesn't say anything about top in app purchases for pandora plus
  • porchlandporchland Posts: 478member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tbsteph View Post


    I find the "newly" enforced "rule" to be nothing more than a money grab by AAPL. Vendors such as Netflix and Amazon have helped to build the App Store ecosystem that has pushed the sale of Apple products. Now that the Store has gained widespread popularity, Apple wants a bigger bite of the income. This enforced "change" does virtually nothing for the customer except to either increase prices or the availability of existing and new apps.



    What percentage of each iBooks sale on Kindle does Amazon keep? Yeah, I didn't think so.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by madman74 View Post


    I just think Apple is making a mistake. I want Hulu. I want Netflix. I like all my Kindle books because iBook selection sucks. Take those away, and there's no need for me to have one of the most popular handsets in the world.



    As I read Apple's announcement, the new in-app purchase rules will not affect you at all with regard to Hulu, Netflix, or Kindle. If you use Hulu, it's free. If you use Hulu Plus, you're already paying for it. It you use Netflix, you're already paying for it. If you use Kindle, you have already paid for all the books you have and would be able to buy future Kindle books as an in-app purchase through Apple or from Amazon. So what's the problem?
  • tjwaltjwal Posts: 404member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    How often does it have to be pointed out to you that the App Store isn't a fee for services system?



    It's irrelevant. Content providers will go where they profit the most. It's hard to imagine that someone else can't offer a fee for service that is less than Apples 30%. Apple is incenting content providers to go else where and giving an opening for competitors. Apple may be the place to go right now, but overcharging is never a sustainable business practice.
  • al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Porchland View Post


    What percentage of each iBooks sale on Kindle does Amazon keep?



    Yeah, I didn't think so.



    the kindle can't even import an ibook since the format is different



    and yes, how dare people buy idevices where apple has always said we only make money on the hardware and the app store is a value add, and don't buy from apple's new ibook store or itunes.
  • wigginwiggin Posts: 2,054member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post


    Why? They are far from breaking any law. They are not saying that you CAN NOT have any other means to offer subscriptions, just that, in addition, they must offer an in app purchase.



    But Apple is dictating what price (or the lowest price) the publisher can charge on their own web site to sell their own content. That's the part that will get them in trouble. Maybe not with the regulators, but with the publishers. The overall net effect will be that it will take longer for subscriptions to be available on iOS devices and they will be more expensive than they would be otherswise. So the customers are the big loser in all of this.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    Put it in perspective: Amazon pays $0.00 to distribute their apps to millions of iOS customers, because the apps are marked as "free" in the App Store, per Apple's rules, which was originally to avoid penalizing companies which didn't make money off their apps. That's Apple being fair. But Amazon does make money off their app, just not directly. Apple is basically saying, you guys are taking advantage of us, and we get it. So it stops now.



    Yes, Apple should get a cut. But 30% is too high.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xsu View Post


    Antitrust issue comes in only if Apple restrict partner's interaction with a 3rd party, not how Apple interact with its partner/customer/supplier.



    As noted above, Apple IS restricting the publishsers actions by dictating pricing guidelines for the publisher's own web site. Imagine if when Apple was struggling CompUSA came along and told Apple they couldn't sell their own products directly to customers for a lower price than CompUSA sold the products for after adding on a hefty profit margin. After all, CompUSA helps get Mac into customer's hands so they should be able to dictate such terms to Apple, right?



    Apple is clearly taking advantage of their position to go for a money grab? Illegal? Probably not. But I think it will be detrimental to the platform. It will give Android and MS a leg up if they can offer cheaper subscriptions because of Apple's 30% "tax" on content.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post


    MS never stopped you from installing any app you wanted. This is not even remotely the same.



    Tell that to the PC manufacturers. They were MS's real customers, not the end users. MS dicatated a lot of conditions to allow a PC maker to include Windows on their hardware. That also got them in trouble with the regulators.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by poke View Post


    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.



    No, the content must be available for in-app purchasing under all conditions. Even if there is no link in the app, if the content is sold on the providers web site, it must also be sold on iTunes.
  • camroidv27camroidv27 Posts: 523member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    but apple can't grow as fast selling hardware and they can't price the iphone and ipad any more than current prices so the MBA's said to find ways to increase revenue per unit in other ways



    Yes, because we all know just how much Apple is hurting financially.



    Nothing wrong with them doing what they can to make the most money possible. However, this seems to be a bit much on their part. But, I won't tell them no. I just won't buy something else from them, and encourage others who are outraged to do the same.
  • wigginwiggin Posts: 2,054member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maltz View Post


    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 part you are missing is Apple dictating pricing guidelines for sales on the provider's own web site. If Apple thinks in-app purchases are so much better, then users should be willing to pay extra for it. But I'm pretty sure if you could save 30% on the price of your content, you go through a few more clicks to get it from the providers own web site. But Apple won't allow that.



    If you think your content is worth $7 and that's what you want to make for selling it, you price it at $10 on iTunes, so that you still have $7 after Apple takes it's 30%. But then if you also want to sell it from your own web site, Apple REQUIRES that you sell it for $10, even if you only want to charge your direct customers $7 or $8.



    So that $7 purchase now costs you $10. Do that math, that's a 43% mark-up in price! And who is paying that? YOU!



    How is this in any way a good thing for consumers?
Sign In or Register to comment.