Apple unveils subscriptions for iOS App Store, bans links to out-of-app purchases

12324252628

Comments

  • newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    They removed a choice from the developer and hid one from the customer. If the developer was able to choose whether or not they used in-app purchases, I'd have absolutely no qualms with this service.







    They are required to support in-app purchases if they wish to remain in the app store. I'm sorry I didn't spell "in the app store" out for you. Why are you talking about new developers? I was talking about existing ones. If you were renting and your landlord knocked on your door saying he was doubling your rent, damn right you'd be pissed, and it wouldn't be absurd to ask for a lower rate. After all you've paid your rent on time, every time for the last two years. Are you familiar with the term "bait and switch"? Apple hasn't gone that far, but the change certainly isn't nice to a lot of app developers and content providers who have been using Apple's system.







    I've repeatably said Apple deserves to be paid and they are paid by virtue of the $99 developer fee and 30% of paid apps as well as increased iOS device sales from these free apps. If Apple feels they aren't getting enough from free apps, they should do something about that, not charge 30% to process a subscription. For example, why do you think that subscription apps should be paying for all the free apps that make money using Google's AdMob ads? Aren't they getting a "free ride" too? What would Google say if Apple started asking for a 30% cut of AdMob revenue?



    Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon aren't even bypassing the app store. They are existing services. Yes, Apple would only get money if the user opened an account from within the app, but a lifetime 30% referral fee is a little much.



    Now you're just posting stupid ... not worthwhile even bothering to read you anymore ..... bye bye.
  • joindupjoindup Posts: 79member
    Aren't we forgetting that magazines and newspapers do not receive the same level of visibility as books do via iBooks. They currently either publish their own app (like The Australian newspaper) or they sit inside a virtual news shelf like the Zinio app. Wouldn't a magazine or newspaper publisher expect similar exposure in return for a 30% cut? There are no "Mags" or "News" buttons in iTunes and there are no Apple created iMags or iNews Apps. Shouldn't there be?
  • cmf2cmf2 Posts: 1,427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    Now you're just posting stupid ... not worthwhile even bothering to read you anymore ..... bye bye.



    No real loss, you never really added anything other than insults anyway.



    All I said was that I've had a change of heart on Web Apps. If they are considered a decent alternative (which I earlier argued they weren't), Apple can do whatever they want with the App Store and developers are free to leave it without leaving iOS. I may not agree with Apple's approach, but the option of Web Apps is there so I shouldn't have gotten as worked up about it. That said, I don't think HTML5 can accommodate any DRM on .h264 videos (correct me if I'm wrong on that) so I'm not sure if Netflix would even try a web app, but I also don't think DRM is necessary in the first place.



    As far as Apple TV goes, the importance of subscriptions is obvious. Any network wishing to put their content on Apple TV can simply release an app and charge a subscription fee for it. Do you know what that spells? Cable TV replacement, which means Apple TV would no longer suffer from the "another set top box syndrome" as it would be replacing the cable box. I just don't know what it would take to get the networks to buy into the idea.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,740member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    I don't believe they are happy and I just thought it was the most humorous (from my perspective) way to resolve it. I definitely don't expect you to share my sense of humor.



    If they are happy and no costs are ever passed onto me, and none of my favorite apps get blocked from the App Store, I guess I'd be happy with the changes. I just don't see that as a likely outcome. From my perspective, I think the most likely outcome is Apple quietly backing off on their terms. Perhaps allowing "reader" apps without in-app purchases, provided they don't mention or link to the website. If I'm wrong, you can call me on it. I have been pretty adamant that this is a raw deal and you reap what you sow. If I'm right, I'm not going to be linking old posts saying I was right, that's not why I'm here. I just like a good debate.



    I've said that I'm not happy about this either. But I can see the business reasons for why they want to do it, and there are now a bunch of other companies who are saying that not only can they live with it, but that its not a bad deal at all.



    I couldn't care less about what Rhapsody has to say, because they've been losing money since they started, and it's amazing they're still in business anyway.



    Amazon isn't known for playing fair, so they're feelings don't bother me either. B&N seems better in that regard. But feelings and business don't often go together. So they could be royally ticked off, and still work with it.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,740member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post






    What happened in July 2008? The iPhone 3G and the App Store. Even Steve Jobs gave a lot of credit to the App Store for the iPhones phenomenal growth. Of course Apple can survive without some high profile apps, but they are better off with them.



    Yes. It was the App Store, not two or three apps by themselves, no matter how popular they may have been. apple's own apps have always been among the most popular, but even if they were removed, it wouldn't change the numbers much.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,740member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    Naturally content will find its way back in time, but you will lose content in the short term (a couple months to a couple years) if anyone does leave. Streaming media alternatives to Netflix don't show up over night and even selling your product in iTunes may not reach the same customers.



    But that did happen a couple of times. Both times, the companies came back on their own, without Apple making any concessions.



    With the bookstore, we've still got one major publisher out. How long that continues is hard to tell, and it's pretty stupid of them anyway, because Amazon was giving them a worse deal than Apple is.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,740member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by joindup View Post


    Aren't we forgetting that magazines and newspapers do not receive the same level of visibility as books do via iBooks. They currently either publish their own app (like The Australian newspaper) or they sit inside a virtual news shelf like the Zinio app. Wouldn't a magazine or newspaper publisher expect similar exposure in return for a 30% cut? There are no "Mags" or "News" buttons in iTunes and there are no Apple created iMags or iNews Apps. Shouldn't there be?



    Sure, good question.



    Apple is continually working on their online stores. It's not easy to come up with something that works well with ever expanding content. But as they update iTunes, we get better organization(with some setbacks here and there) as time goes by. I would imagine that as we now have the subscription service, we'll see easier ways of accessing it.



    But right now, if you type magazine into the App Store, you come up with 2147 for the iPhone/Touch, and 1766 for the iPad. You can organize them by various types, times, etc.



    I would think that they would have a new category called magazines, with a sub category of subscriptions coming out at some point as well.



    They also have magazines featured the way they do with other apps. And don't forget that they are doing the payment system and the renewal system as well as the hosting of the downloads. The publisher does none of that.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,740member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    Now you're just posting stupid ... not worthwhile even bothering to read you anymore ..... bye bye.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    No real loss, you never really added anything other than insults anyway.



    Ok boys, shake and make up.
  • mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 1,559member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    Google says the market value of such a service is 10% and their service is even better because it is cross-platform (I do wish they kept subscriber information private though).



    No, they are not saying the market value is 10%. It says their flat rate fee is 10%. They'll make up the rest in other areas. Just as with Android, it's "free", but there is always a cost to such things. They just come later and sometimes unbeknownst to the user. Google's main source of revenue is advertising. Two of the most important factors of advertising are #1 distribution, and #2 consumer information. Offering the OS and other services for free means more MAY use it, that's #1. And by using it, the licensing terms dictate that Google has the right to track and gather your information and habits, that's #2.



    Everything Google does pushes its advertising platform into more areas. The entire reason for Google getting into the mobile OS business, was because it feared Microsoft would leverage its mobile platform to advance its new Bing! search service, which would directly cut into Google's main advertising platform; Google Search.







    Since you seem so caught up on this 30% fee and how greedy and unfair Apple is being... You do realize that before Apple introduced iBooks with its normal iOS payment cut of 70/30, Amazon's fee was 70% and even today, they still take up to 70%+ for some content?



    Amazon Raises Kindle Pay Rate
  • mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 1,559member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by clarker99 View Post


    Obviously, its better for Apple to have high profile Apps... But will netflix be ok without the App store? That's the real question...



    Of course Netflix will be fine, but if they decided to pull the app, it may anger a lot of people who may have finally decided to join Netflix because it was available on the AppStore.



    I don't think people understand how a service like Netflix will actually be affected by this. Apple cannot take any cut of Netflix's DVD subscription service. They can only take 30% from the streaming-only service. Simply because it's against the IAP terms to sell anything that does not directly affect the application. No real world material goods or services can be sold though IAP.



    So the only subscription service that Netflix CAN offer (and actually the only one they support on mobile devices) is the streaming-only service, which we would all guess is a tiny portion of their revenue. Because they cannot offer the DVD service through IAP they can in fact provide a link to their website to enable users to subscribe to those services. And if streaming happens to be a part of that service, there's nothing Apple can do. But, Netflix still HAS to make the streaming-only service available through IAP, because that's the service they are providing via the app.
  • cmf2cmf2 Posts: 1,427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post


    No, they are not saying the market value is 10%. It says their flat rate fee is 10%.



    Sorry I should have said that's how much they feel the service is worth.



    Quote:

    Since you seem so caught up on this 30% fee and how greedy and unfair Apple is being... You do realize that before Apple introduced iBooks with its normal iOS payment cut of 70/30, Amazon's fee was 70% and even today, they still take up to 70%+ for some content?



    Amazon Raises Kindle Pay Rate



    I never said 70/30 was a bad deal for eBooks or iPad only magazines. I said it was a bad deal for cross-platform services and your Amazon example includes them hosting the content something Apple isn't doing.
  • mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 1,559member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    I never said 70/30 was a bad deal for eBooks or iPad only magazines ... and your Amazon example includes them hosting the content something Apple isn't doing.



    iBooks is exactly the same as Kindle. Apple does host iBook content and handles transactions and still has a flat 30% fee.







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    I said it was a bad deal for cross-platform services



    Except it's not really a cross-platform service being provided here.



    Kindle is a platform in its own right. Kindle content cannot be read in another reader, such Apple's iBooks (DRM free content can be, probably). Amazon wants to take advantage of Apple's iOS platform to push its own Kindle platform. And they have been doing that without paying Apple anything.



    The bigger issue you're trying to argue is that Apple shouldn't charge Amazon as much as everyone else, because they are a reseller. That doesn't seem fair to publishers and authors who make their content available directly to Apple's platform through their own apps or via one of Apple's media stores.



    Apple is saying, they don't care what your business model is, or where the content originated from, if you want to provide content for iOS users, you must make it available in-app and you must pay a 30% fee. It is not Apple's problem or concern where that content originated from and at what cost. If Amazon wants to make money, they can either raise their own prices or take a larger chunk from the content providers. OR abandon their iOS app and stick to their own devices and any other devices they're on. Or try as hard as hell to persuade Kindle users to use the Kindle Store rather than purchasing content in-app.



    It is not Apple's responsibility or obligation to make sure Amazon makes a profit from its Kindle platform.
  • penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    They also have magazines featured the way they do with other apps. And don't forget that they are doing the payment system and the renewal system as well as the hosting of the downloads. The publisher does none of that.



    mel-



    For subscription content, the publisher is delivering the content. For instance, The Daily's content is pushed by NewsCorp servers. They sort of made a big deal of this indirectly during the launch by stating that they could push updates or even a new front page at any time during the day.



    Apple may well offer to provide distribution to smaller players in which case I think they deserve a higher cut.
  • penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post


    No, they are not saying the market value is 10%. It says their flat rate fee is 10%. They'll make up the rest in other areas. Just as with Android, it's "free", but there is always a cost to such things. They just come later and sometimes unbeknownst to the user. Google's main source of revenue is advertising. Two of the most important factors of advertising are #1 distribution, and #2 consumer information. Offering the OS and other services for free means more MAY use it, that's #1. And by using it, the licensing terms dictate that Google has the right to track and gather your information and habits, that's #2.



    One way is which Google will inflate their take is by forcing customers and publishers to use Google Checkout. For a small publisher, this could add an additional 2.9% plus 30 cents per transaction.
  • hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by penchanted View Post


    One way is which Google will inflate their take is by forcing customers and publishers to use Google Checkout. For a small publisher, this could add an additional 2.9% plus 30 cents per transaction.



    mjtomlins link above a few posts lists Google's Google Editions book store planned pass through to publishers as 63%, or 45% if there was a referral via a Google partner. At those rates Apples mere 30% looks pretty good, competitively superior even.



    Interesting how Apple takes the heat for beating the competitions prices, but for the last 8 months Amazon and Google got a free pass on some pretty nasty publisher gouging.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,740member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by penchanted View Post


    mel-



    For subscription content, the publisher is delivering the content. For instance, The Daily's content is pushed by NewsCorp servers. They sort of made a big deal of this indirectly during the launch by stating that they could push updates or even a new front page at any time during the day.



    Apple may well offer to provide distribution to smaller players in which case I think they deserve a higher cut.



    As far as I know, the mag comes from Apple's store. They may push updates during the day from their own servers though.



    When you have an update notice from the store it's from Apple. Otherwise, it might be from the publisher, or not.
  • nilsonilso Posts: 5member
    Suddenly, my old PC laptop looks attractive again. Because I do not need to ask uncle Steve if it is OK to read my Kindle books there. Or I might start to look for alternative tablets.



    What galls me, is that I have bought an iPad under false pretenses. Stupid as I am, I bought the iPad as a laptop replacement. I knew about the App store, and that I could not install executable code outside the App store. But never in my wildest dreams did I imagine uncle Steve wanted to restrict access to content (Kindle eBooks and whatever).



    Please, do not give me the crap about a choice to use the App store or not. Apple's terms are unacceptable to content providers, where the iPad is just one device among many.



    What you all have to realize, is that the iPad is not a laptop replacement. Instead, it is a closed environment for a captive audience, where uncle Steve decides what (and what not) you should read, and what you shall pay. Competition (Amazon and others) are banned in practice, because Steve's terms are unacceptable.
  • carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NilsO View Post


    Suddenly, my old PC laptop looks attractive again. Because I do not need to ask uncle Steve if it is OK to read my Kindle books there. Or I might start to look for alternative tablets.



    What you say makes sense .... intuitively.



    But in practice that intuition is wrong.



    The iOS market has cause a huge amount of new software and new content to become available.



    In just a year, a gigantic catalog of new software and new services has become available. In that same period, what has changed in PC land?



    I can see that people object to this kind of monetization on a political basis.

    But no one is suffering from a lack of choice.



    C.
  • hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NilsO View Post


    Suddenly, my old PC laptop looks attractive again. Because I do not need to ask uncle Steve if it is OK to read my Kindle books there. Or I might start to look for alternative tablets.



    What galls me, is that I have bought an iPad under false pretenses. Stupid as I am, I bought the iPad as a laptop replacement. I knew about the App store, and that I could not install executable code outside the App store. But never in my wildest dreams did I imagine uncle Steve wanted to restrict access to content (Kindle eBooks and whatever).



    Please, do not give me the crap about a choice to use the App store or not. Apple's terms are unacceptable to content providers, where the iPad is just one device among many.



    What you all have to realize, is that the iPad is not a laptop replacement. Instead, it is a closed environment for a captive audience, where uncle Steve decides what (and what not) you should read, and what you shall pay. Competition (Amazon and others) are banned in practice, because Steve's terms are unacceptable.



    Your post is factually incorrect and uninformed, then thoroughly biased against what is actually going on and the frosting on the cake is "do not give me the crap about a choice to use the App store or not." Well, that's true, you can or not.



    Sideloading content is fully allowed meaning you don't need to pejoratively ask Uncle Steve anything. It is quite obvious you had no intention of actually participating in a real discussion. Troll. Go Away.
  • nilsonilso Posts: 5member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Your post is factually incorrect and uninformed, then thoroughly biased against what is actually going on and the frosting on the cake is "do not give me the crap about a choice to use the App store or not." Well, that's true, you can or not.



    Sideloading content is fully allowed meaning you don't need to pejoratively ask Uncle Steve anything. It is quite obvious you had no intention of actually participating in a real discussion. Troll. Go Away.



    I had absolutely no intention of being a troll. My observations are factual and to the point. You obviously are brainwashed or thoroughly misinformed.
Sign In or Register to comment.