Apple backs down on in-app purchasing rules, allows lower prices for out-of-app purchases

123578

Comments

  • macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • joseph ljoseph l Posts: 197member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    Btw, where's the chanting about 70% of something is better than 100% of nothing?







    That is not the popular meme of Apple's style. The most popular meme is that they withhold basic features because they cannot yet figure out how to do them properly, and add stuff as they go along, as they are able to figure it out. Like cut and paste in the past, and 4G now.



    The common consensus is that Apple does NOT release a product at 70%, but instead, waits for their engineers to figure it out, even if it takes a couple of years.
  • jetzjetz Posts: 1,290member
    While I'm glad Apple backed down, the truth of the matter is that Apple should be allowed to charge what they want. Let them stick to their guns. And if they drive content from the App Store...well that might not be so good for those lovely iPad TV commercials.
  • macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    $189 million is only small when expressed as a relative number. In itself, it's a fair chunk of cash, far from any notion of a loss leader.



    Yes, but, it's small enough, in real terms, that if developers were allowed to simply cheat on the revenue sharing implicit in the developer agreement, they could quickly go $189 million into the red on it.
  • joseph ljoseph l Posts: 197member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    I highly doubt that Apple makes any kind of notable profit from the App Store any more than they do from the other iTunes stores.



    Bullshit. Apple makes outsized profits pretty much everywhere it decides to invest. That is the sole reason for their existence.



    Do you have any current basis whatsoever to justify your high degree of doubt? I heard years ago that iTunes or the App Store or one of the online profit centers had just about broken even. But that was a long time ago. If the profits did not increase over time, the smart folks at the world's most profitable company would have changed their procedures to fix the problem.



    Or maybe, I have more faith in Apple's ability to turn a buck than you do?
  • docno42docno42 Posts: 3,164member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fyngyrz View Post


    and Apple stops acting like a selfish child.



    Yes, how dare Apple try to share in the benefit of bringing customers to vendors like Amazon...



    If not for the iPad I wouldn't own one Kindle book or be thinking of getting a Kindle now. But your absolutely correct, Apple deserves no credit for that at all - their just being childish
  • docno42docno42 Posts: 3,164member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newagemac View Post


    Because higher prices is bad for consumers. Why would a consumer prefer that publishers jack up their prices? I don't see how you can say higher prices for consumers is a good thing unless you are a publisher.



    Why, pray tell, are you assuming the prices will automatically be higher?
  • tjwaltjwal Posts: 404member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Is convenience worth the extra 30%?

    If not, why is Apple charging it?



    This is a question for the market to decide, not me, not you, not Apple. In free markets, the customer decides the value.



    It's commonly understood in other markets that the more middlemen involved will raise consumer prices.



    This is one of the best moments a consumer can have: the ability to choose whether to pay the middleman or go directly to the vendor.



    Consumer choice is hardly a bad thing.



    Would someone pay $13 for a book through Itunes or exit an app and get if from Amazon for $10? It doesn't take a genius tp figure out what most people would choose.
  • docno42docno42 Posts: 3,164member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    If publishers attempt to recoup Apple's 30% with a higher price, customers will either accept it or not. But at least normal free-market pricing is now possible on the platform. Those who prefer capitalism applaud this move.



    I do. If publishers want to shoot themselves in the foot and treat poorly the free gift of new users that iOS brings them, I say let them look like the idiots they are.



    The hardest part of making a sale in publishing is finding a customer and then getting them to complete the transaction. If they are that hopped up over 30% that they are going to potentially raise a barrier for what otherwise would be a transaction so easy and thoughtless that most customers would do it on an impulse - let 'em!



    Thats why I doubt there will be that many publishers that end up pricing content through an iOS in-app purchase and their web sites differently. Especially for magazines and newspapers, the subscription prices is almost inconsequential. The eyeballs of the readers are what is important, not the subscription fees. As others pointed out, the brouhaha over price was a smokescreen for the real issue - access to subscriber data. That's the real gold, not the subscription price.



    Apple's calling the publishers bluff with this, not the other way around.



    Quote:

    More interesting is that this is not the first time that Apple has instigated a counter-productive policy and later woken up: Apple Blinks. Flash Tools Now Allowed

    http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/201...w-allowed.html



    LOL - read Apple's announcement when they "backtracked", as you put it - the biggest stipulation is that the apps created with porting tools or third party frameworks can't suck.



    Once again, Apple called the developers and the tool makers like Adobe out. "You want to use sub-optimal development environments? Knock yourself out. Just don't expect poorly crafted shovel-ware to make it into the store!".



    Instead of the argument being about Apple's flat out restriction on such tools, the discussion now turns to what really matters - the quality of apps produced. If you can create a quality app with such tools it shouldn't matter. But it still has to meet the same standards of all other apps.



    BTW - I do think the original ban was put in place because Apple wanted time to craft a policy that was fair, maintained the vision and high standards for App quality that Apple has, and was easy to understand. Adobe's announcement caught a number of people by surprise, and it probably caught Apple by surprise at first too. If you have never had to craft policy or policy memo's for a large organization, I can tell you from personal experience it's a non-trivial exercise. Writing something that is clear, concise and consistent takes time. If you have never had to do such a thing, it's easy to trivialize the amount of work required or have an overly simplistic view of "ooh, they backtracked" but I assure you that couldn't be further from the truth.



    It's just as laughable as those who insist that Apple was "forced" to release the SDK and apps - anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge of programming can look at the SDK and iOS and tell that the two were developed together from day one. Quality takes time - and Apple is one of the few companies that is willing to put off and not ship until it's right - even going so far as to dismiss the thought and then later address it. And that, really, shouldn't be a surprise - why talk up a feature you don't have now but will be adding later? It just confuses the marketplace - google the "osborne effect" if you really want to understand this instead of just making naive and flip assertions on the Internet.



    Quote:

    How many times does this have to happen before Apple simply stops making such blunders in the first place?



    The only blunders are your vapid conclusions
  • docno42docno42 Posts: 3,164member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    If I buy Angry Birds on my iPad, iPhone and Mac I want to be able to pick up the game and have my game play history match between devices.



    I'm pretty sure that exact point was touched on in the keynote when Steve was talking about Sync.
  • macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • docno42docno42 Posts: 3,164member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post


    Which costs? They pay the costs with their anual developer license.



    The $99 developer license?



    Just how cheap do you think bandwidth is?
  • docno42docno42 Posts: 3,164member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Can anyone spell "I see the world through the eyes of an abused 13 year old?"



    I wouldn't have had to if you handn't quoted his entire message.



    Thanks for nothing...
  • macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • docno42docno42 Posts: 3,164member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


    Y It was the OLD policy that would lead to higher prices because publishers would have to increase the price they charge to make up for the 30% Apple was taking



    So in your mind, the 30% that Apple was charging was 100% expense?



    Put another way, Apple brought absolutely no value for that 30%?



    No wonder American's are more in debt now than ever and our country is going bankrupt - people don't have the first clue about the real costs of doing business, nor real concepts of value
  • docno42docno42 Posts: 3,164member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post


    So you think Netflix is freeloading on the backs of honest developers?



    Netflix distributes apps?



    Quote:

    Do you think Amazon has to pay Microsoft or Google when a book is sold though thier mobile browsers?



    If Amazon could tap into your Microsoft or Google account history through the browsers on those platforms and allow users to seamlessly purchase an item with one click and without having to do anything else, and if Microsoft or Google were processing the transaction on the behalf of Amazon then yes - I absolutely think Microsoft and Google would be entitled a piece of that action.



    Because that's exactly what happens with an in-app purchase. Apple is providing seamless access as well as payment processing. That sounds suspiciously like a service. And not surprisingly, when someone provides a service for someone else, they tend to expect to get something for that.



    In otherwords, don't be an a$$ - ask questions that are based on comparisons that are similar enough to make sense



    Quote:

    If I buy a B&N book from my Macbook Air to read it on my iPhone or Android phone do I have to pay Apple or Google?



    See my previous response - the only thing being proven by your non-sesensical and unequal comparisons is your ignorance of the topic at hand.
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    "Cheating"? Have you read the article that this thread is about? Apple believes cheating isn't at all necessary, and allows customers to choose for themselves whether they want to pay a little more for convenience.



    Have you read the thread this thread is about? I'll have to assume you answer is one of a) "no", b) "yes, but I didn't understand what I read", or c) "maybe, but I'm a troll so it doesn't matter."



    (I think your answer to whether you read the article is on of the above options too.)
  • fireball1244fireball1244 Posts: 122member
    I'm glad Apple did the right thing. Losing the Amazon app would have been a bad thing for the iOS platform. Having access to Amazon's superior, and often less expensive, ebook library makes the iPad a better device for many users. I would have hated having to carry both an iPad and a Kindle around. Now I can use the best device and the best bookstore.
Sign In or Register to comment.