European publishers feel 'betrayed' by Apple's iOS app subscriptions - Page 3

Originally Posted by kotatsu

Someone needs to take Apple to task about this, as it's simply theft and a blatant abuse of a near monopoly. Why the heck should apple get 30% from someone else's content? When you go and fill up your car with fuel the service station doesn't have to pay Toyota a penny.

Frankly it's absurd and Apple have stepped way, way over the line here. This is the type of behaviour which can turn consumers very quickly indeed, and from looking at the reports and videos of Honeycomb, that Xoom tablet is looking very nice indeed.

Originally Posted by asdasd

Seriously, any developer developing for iOS publishing, hoping to use their own mechanism has now stopped and will turn to Android.

And rightly and understandably so.

Originally Posted by asdasd

Seriously, any developer developing for iOS publishing, hoping to use their own mechanism has now stopped and will turn to Android.

And rightly and understandably so.

Originally Posted by enjourni

Can't we all just get along?

Users want magazines on ipad, magazine publishers want it, apple wants it. So what is the big problem with this? And why does the rate have to be fixed at 30% for such services? Apple's going to get HUGE re-occuring income from app subscriptions, why can't they relax their rates so they don't scare off the content providers? Seems really short sighted to me.

Originally Posted by Quevar

I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.

Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.

Originally Posted by Jack Mac

Apple needs to remember that success can be very short lived. Although I am an avid Apple fan and have ben for 25 years I think that a class action suit against Apple sometimes redirects it in the correct direction. Anybody listening?

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

No one is forcing anything on anyone. They can walk. They can pull their apps. They can go to Android.

The whining and moaning over this hyped-up Sony story is simply uninformed nonsense. Apple is asking no more of these folks than every developer with an app on the App Store with a paid app is subject to, and every piece of music, movie and TV show sold through iTunes is subject to. For publishers to be treated differently would invite a lot of potential problems for Apple. If Apple was being consistent and treated everyone the same way as these publishers are demandingApple would have to forego its 30% for everything. That is simply silly.

Originally Posted by kotatsu

Someone needs to take Apple to task about this, as it's simply theft and a blatant abuse of a near monopoly. Why the heck should apple get 30% from someone else's content? When you go and fill up your car with fuel the service station doesn't have to pay Toyota a penny.

Frankly it's absurd and Apple have stepped way, way over the line here. This is the type of behaviour which can turn consumers very quickly indeed, and from looking at the reports and videos of Honeycomb, that Xoom tablet is looking very nice indeed.

Originally Posted by Wurm5150

I'm sure they'll all run off to embrace Android..

Apple needs to stop pissing people off and be consistent with their rules and not just change it or enforce, reinforce things whenever they feel like it or whenever they get around it.

Android is taking off because Apple allowed it to (not intentionally) by being inconsistent with rules, pissing people off with our way or the highway attitude.

Let's face it iOS devices are popular because of contents. If content providers start getting turned off by Apple's attitude and stop supporting iOS, then...

Apple need content providers as much as content providers need Apple. The difference that could trouble Apple is that they're not only game in town. Say all you want about Android but fact is it's all over. No I don't own an Android device but I would hate it if I have to own one because it'll be the only choice.

Originally Posted by kotatsu

Someone needs to take Apple to task about this, as it's simply theft and a blatant abuse of a near monopoly. Why the heck should apple get 30% from someone else's content? When you go and fill up your car with fuel the service station doesn't have to pay Toyota a penny.

Frankly it's absurd and Apple have stepped way, way over the line here. This is the type of behaviour which can turn consumers very quickly indeed, and from looking at the reports and videos of Honeycomb, that Xoom tablet is looking very nice indeed.

Originally Posted by asdasd

That is what we, as yet, dont know. Nobody working in the industry knows. Can we have two buy buttons with two different prices ( itself a UI monstrosity). I would say no because that would be pointless to Apple, as nobody would pay for the premium.

However, Apple has not clarified.

Originally Posted by asdasd

Apple has no overheads. I say that as someone who technically knows what is going on.

Originally Posted by Quevar

I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.

Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.

Apple needs to tread on this carefully as they could boycot the iPad and have a pretty nasty ad campaign against Apple for their restrictive app policy. In general, I agree with their app policy, but this is one case where I think they have gone too far and are on the verge of making the publishing world very angry with them.

Originally Posted by asdasd

No its not. Publishers can no more afford 30% of their margins to publish their content ( which in most cases they have to pay for) than Apple could afford to be on Windows if the iTunes transaction had to pay Microsoft 30%.

This becomes loss making very quickly. At the moment, no publisher will be on the app store if these rules apply at the 30%. Sony was banned for not using iTunes in-app purchasing, it refused to comply with the new rules because of the draconian cost. It wasnt banned outright ( as far as we know).


Amazon will pull in June, or March when the rule is enforced for everybody.

Of course I bet the 30% will drop and the people who argued that it was a good thing will forget they argued it was a good thing, just as they forget they argued that Apple wouldnt be doing what Sony said they were doing all of two days ago.

But if the 30% is not removed, or reduced to a tiny figure, not one thing - except the Daily and iBooks - will be published on the iPad.

Originally Posted by asdasd

right. And given that the Kindle app, and the Sony app can go outside the App Store, the argument that these apps need the app store to "host" something is clearly mystical. Is it not.

Obviously with the new rules they will have to go through the app store, but not because Apple stores any content but because they are forced to.

Alright. AI is crazy. I am out of these threads. If Apple pursues these policies it dies a deserved death. I hope not, because I like the hardware and the OS.

Keep the religion going.

Originally Posted by Elian Gonzalez

Isn't a lot of this about the security of the platform, though? I mean, isn't iOS a new jewel in the crown formerly occupied solely by the Mac OS? Casting a wider net, isn't a lof Apple's approach ultimately geared on the user experience?

In other words, one can grow to "trust" the iOS platform as a secure, stable environment for creating and selling apps and other content, without worrying that there's all sorts of backdoor shenanigans going on. This would suggest a broader plan, if you will, for what iOS should become, but it appears most folks have an idée fixe that this all about Apple's horrible intentions, closed this and that, etc.

Originally Posted by penchanted

The bolded bit above explains why it is unlikely that Apple will be charging anywhere near what uninformed people are whining about. I believe that Apple will be quite content to collect the payment processing fee plus a few percent for in-ap purchases of subscription material.

Originally Posted by penchanted

The "new rules" only insist on an in-app option if your app already has an out-of-app option. You make it sound like the latter option is removed.

Originally Posted by penchanted

Publishers do, in fact, afford more than 30% when they sell through B&M locations and they can probably afford 30% in digital distribution. The issue here is not the publisher but other retailers selling in the App Store - they cannot afford to hand their full cut to Apple.

You seem to have a hazy crystal ball. First, you say Amazon will pull out and then you go on to state the more likely option: Apple charges a reduced cut for certain types of products. But you knew that and just chose to sensationalize the issue instead.

Originally Posted by ezduzit

while your hitchhiking on the road, don't expect me to stop and pick you up and also give you a free ride.

Originally Posted by Doctor Chas

So Apple should distribute the content for free? Let's examine that shockingly ignorant statement for a moment: newspaper and magazine vendors get a cut of the cover price for stocking the item and selling it through their store. Apple get similar - where's the difference?

Frankly, the inability of people to apply a little critical thinking is depressing. I am also amazed when someone pontificates about what presently amounts to vapourware (Honeycomb/Xoom) and then claims that a paper specification is somehow an indication of a better product. Let's wait until we can put the iPad and Xoom side by side and we'll soon see which is the better product.

Originally Posted by Quevar

I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.

Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.

Apple needs to tread on this carefully as they could boycot the iPad and have a pretty nasty ad campaign against Apple for their restrictive app policy. In general, I agree with their app policy, but this is one case where I think they have gone too far and are on the verge of making the publishing world very angry with them.

Originally Posted by asdasd

yeah, God forbid that Sony offer you content on your own machine.

Originally Posted by penchanted

This sums up why, for many, people would rather pay through iTunes rather than than handing their credit card information to each individual publisher.

Originally Posted by mikeysbistro

I have a lot of aging aunts, uncles & grandparents who are just happily using their iPad without any need to have the nephews and nieces on call for tech support. It's wonderful.

But I do notice they totally get hung up when it comes to purchasing newspapers and magazines. Then the questions start, and of course each separate magazine/newspaper needs a different set of logins/passwords etc. and now we're dealing with credit cards and a whole lot of other sticky personal issues. Not to mention the awkward waits for downloading wireless content, when the "sync and go" method has become a "standard operating procedure".

So I have to side on Apple on this one. One of the things that really makes the iPad work is the consistent USER EXPERIENCE of downloading and managing your media through iTunes. As long as Apple is just enforcing the OPTION/CHOICE to use iTunes for purchases and downloads I applaud them. That very nice user experience is a big part of what makes the iPad and Apple successful.

So while I personally am willing to do out-of-app purchases to save money on Amazon, there are a lot of people who are are more than willing to pay the extra money for the "easier" service of using iTunes. I don't see anyone losing in this scenario, it's a pure capitalist system working beautifully.

Originally Posted by tjw

Luckily with honeycomb getting rave reviews from today's preview there is going to be another viable option very soon.

Why is it that as android is getting better and better, apple is getting more and more draconian?

Originally Posted by asdasd

Seriously, any developer developing for iOS publishing, hoping to use their own mechanism has now stopped and will turn to Android.

And rightly and understandably so.

Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot

BTW: who the hell is ben and who do we care if you've had him for 25 yrs.?

Originally Posted by Blah64

All the venting on both sides is ridiculous. It's surprising very few of the commenters here really understand what this is about. Quoting a couple bright people below.

Yes, Apple wants to be compensated for setting things up and facilitating the virtually frictionless ecosystem that the app store has become. We can all argue about an appropriate rate for that privilege, but there is something else you guys seem to be missing. APPLE IS STICKING TO THEIR GUNS AND NOT ALLOWING PUBLISHERS TO FORCIBLY EXTRACT APPLE'S CUSTOMERS' PERSONAL INFORMATION.

The publishers have been pressing to get that data for a long time, and Apple (thankfully) is not allowing them to require users to give up that info. Good for them.

if some of you (cough *asdasd*) were even half rational you would take note that Apple is NOT, REPEAT NOT requiring publishers to take down their out-of-app store. They are only requiring that there is a way to also purchase in-iTunes. Why? In addition to the scenarios quoted below, consider this situation:

Publisher wants customer demographics and personal information (because it's valuable). Apple says "no" (good for them, that's my data to divulge or not). Publisher is clever and figures out that they can give away a minimal "reader app" on the iTunes store, taking advantage of the full iTunes/iPhone/iTouch ecosystem -- but the app has no content. To get the content, the customer must sign up directly with the publisher, giving them exactly what they wanted in the first place, higher margins and personal data.

Not only does this destroy the simplicity of a single account, it potentially forces users to give up their personal information to every single publisher of merit that wants to sell their content on iOS devices. I think this has as much to do with Apple's policy as lost revenue. If lost revenue were the only concern, they could push for only in-app purchasing, rather than allowing both.

Think carefully about this before replying with some knee-jerk response.

Originally Posted by asdasd

I am generally dealing with people here who think this is a good thing. The 30%, I mean. I am arguing that Amazon will pull out at that cost.

You are being more level headed. However I just found out, as I posted, that The Daily has a 30% charge.

Originally Posted by asdasd

What is unknown yet is whether the latter option is removed or not.

The fact that this is unknown is itself an example of Apple's arrogance. Most peple dont know. The App Store testers are not responding.

The cost for using Apple's credit card facilities is 30%. Can an app

1) have two buttons with differential pricing. With Apple in-app being higher.
2) have two buttons with the same pricing ( one to launch the external website).
3) Have one button with Apple's tax added. The user can find his own way to the website.


1) Makes no sense for Apple.
2) Is bad UI, and people would use the one which stayed in the App.
3) Will make the iPad uneconomic for most publishers.

Originally Posted by kotatsu

Someone needs to take Apple to task about this, as it's simply theft and a blatant abuse of a near monopoly. Why the heck should apple get 30% from someone else's content? When you go and fill up your car with fuel the service station doesn't have to pay Toyota a penny.

Frankly it's absurd and Apple have stepped way, way over the line here. This is the type of behaviour which can turn consumers very quickly indeed, and from looking at the reports and videos of Honeycomb, that Xoom tablet is looking very nice indeed.

Originally Posted by enjourni

And why does the rate have to be fixed at 30% for such services?

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Consumers are not stupid.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

They are not forced to do anything.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

If they choose to buy a book via Sony's website (because it is not available via the App Store), they are willingly giving up their personal data. If they don't wish to divulge their personal data, they won't buy it that way, and it simply means that neither Sony nor Apple will get that dollar. Apple does not need to big brother them into protecting them from themselves.

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

A subscriber can't purchase digital content through a paper publication, because there would be no way of verifying that customer if they don't actually have an iTunes account. What's the paper going to do, give out coupons?

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

They don't get 30% as some kind of "tribute," they get 30% because that's pretty much the cost of them hosting your app on their servers and them paying all the credit card fees, etc. etc.

This is where irresponsible "blog" journalism falls down. Fools read stupid comments in Engadget stories (or anywhere else), about Apple "taking their cut," and they just believe it.

How hard is this to understand? If you sell something in someones else's brick and mortar store you get the benefit of them managing the money, counting the sales, dealing with the credit card people etc. and save yourself the cost of renting your own store, paying for the heat and lights, etc. etc. It's only fair that the store should get paid for these things, and it's the same everywhere, no matter whether it's a virtual store or a regular old-fashioned one.

Business has operated this way since forever, why do all these fools think it's something new that only Apple is doing?

30% IS THE SAME COST OF DOING BUSINESS THAT ALMOST EVERY OTHER ORGANISATION WOULD TAKE FROM YOU.