Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Okay, but perhaps you could explain why you believe that. Personally, I have no reason to believe any particular thing. All I do know is that companies are constantly trying to wedge each other, and I have no doubt that a lot of maneuvering is going on between these companies, which leads me to take what they say publicly with a good dose of skepticism.
Apple, as we know, has a history of making decisions that only come apparent after someone applies for inclusion into the App Store. They give no reasons for denying approval in cases that don't involve bugs, programs not doing what they're supposed to do, etc. That's why some developers are so upset. Apple won't let them know why their apps haven't been approved. Look back at Google Voice, I think the name is. Apple kept it sitting for months, and never allowed it without ever saying why. This has been true for numbers of apps.
It's true that this doesn't happen very often when compared to the total number of apps, but it happens enough. What I've noticed it that the number of new apps appearing has slowed down considerably, along with the news that developers are giving Android more attention.
While I always expect to see spin on both sides of a disagreement. You may notice that it's Apple that hasn't made any public statement concerning this. If it were simple, there would be no reason for them not to, as they have made statements in the past when they felt there was a misunderstanding. So why not now?
I think they are so confident that they are the only ones publishers can go to, that they're trying to take any advantage they can get from that supposed fact. I also think that it's a big mistake. iOS is no longer the only game in town, and a number of publishers have already said that.
With information that some Android phone customers are using more online data than iOS users, we're seeing that perhaps things may be in for a change. Apple has to see this, but perhaps they can't.
I wonder what Apple would do if these publishers do what the WSJ has done, which is to say; get a sub from the web site, and then give the app sub in the App Store away for free, and just require the user to input their user name and password from the web site into the app to activate it. That's what I do now.
If Apple drives publishers away from charging directly in the apps store somehow, they might try that, and get nothing. If they don't allow that, then the publishers will leave the platform, at great loss to the users of iOS devices, and possibly loss of business in sales of devices to Apple over time.
Apple has to tell them what they can do, and what they can't do before they spend money on developing something. It just seems as though Apple is leaving things too ambiguous.