or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple unveils subscriptions for iOS App Store, bans links to out-of-app purchases
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #1 of 571
Thread Starter 
Apple on Tuesday unveiled its new App Store subscription service, allowing publishers of content-based applications for iOS devices -- like newspapers, magazines, video and music -- to offer recurring billing, but preventing them from including links to external websites to purchase content or subscriptions.

The digital billing service is the same one Apple recently launched with News Corp.'s The Daily earlier this month. At the time, Apple's iTunes chief Eddy Cue said that Apple would offer more details on its subscription service in the near future -- a promise delivered on Tuesday.

Subscriptions purchased from within the App Store will be sold using the same App Store billing system that has been used to buy billions of apps and In-App Purchases. Publishers set the price and length of subscription (weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, bi-yearly or yearly).

With one-click, customers pick the length of subscription and are automatically charged based on their chosen length of commitment (weekly, monthly, etc.). Customers can review and manage all of their subscriptions from their personal account page, including canceling the automatic renewal of a subscription.

Apple processes all payments through the new recurring billing option, keeping the same 30 percent share that it has for other In-App Purchases.

"Our philosophy is simple when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing," Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said. "All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app.

"We believe that this innovative subscription service will provide publishers with a brand new opportunity to expand digital access to their content onto the iPad, iPod touch and iPhone, delighting both new and existing subscribers."

Jobs' comments included in Tuesday's announcement are likely intended to calm some publishers who have indicated they feel "betrayed" by Apple's iOS application subscription service. Apple recently began enforcing a rule that applications offer the ability to purchase additional content from within that app, rather than solely through an external Web-based storefront.

Apple also revealed that publishers who use its subscription service in their app can also leverage other methods for acquiring digital subscribers outside of the app. For example, publishers can sell digital subscriptions on their websites, or can choose to provide free access to existing subscribers.

Since Apple is not involved in those transactions, there is no revenue sharing or exchange of customer information with Apple. Publishers must provide their own authentication process inside the app for subscribers that have signed up outside of the app.

However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a website, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.

Protecting customer privacy is a key feature of all App Store transactions, the company said. Customers purchasing a subscription through the App Store will be given the option of providing the publisher with their name, email address and zip code when they subscribe.

The use of personal information will be governed by the publishers privacy policy rather than Apple's. Publishers may seek additional information from App Store customers provided those customers are given a clear choice, and are informed that any additional information will be handled under the publishers privacy policy rather than Apple's.
post #2 of 571
*ominous music playing in the background*
"Vader, release him!"
post #3 of 571
Okay. For a change Apple is giving choices. Having an option not reveal personal info to publishers is good.
post #4 of 571
I just want to know what this means for the Kindle App.
post #5 of 571
It seems very fair.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #6 of 571
Well, this proves he's not ailing too much if he's able to contribute to the press release?!

William
iMac 21.5" Late 2012, iPad 3 (Works fine for films), iPhone 5 (6 on order)

Reply

William
iMac 21.5" Late 2012, iPad 3 (Works fine for films), iPhone 5 (6 on order)

Reply
post #7 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by akf2000 View Post

I just want to know what this means for the Kindle App.

I think it means either A) They resist the change, pull their app, and lose out on the hundreds of millions of iOS customers out there, or B) They change the app, allow to make purchases inside the app, give incentives to buying them outside the app, and know that they are still making a pretty good profit, even if Apple takes 30% of the pie.
post #8 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

It seems very fair.

Not. It would be fair if the cost to producer was the same (eg, prices 30% higher for in-app purchases).
Right now, a customer renewing his bill must go on the site or use Apple's system, in which case the producer loses 30%. Since this essentially means the producer is either selling at a loss on the in app sales OR increasing his overall prices, what do you think happens? Yes, right: price increase for the consumer.
Unfair.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #9 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdowell View Post

Well, this proves he's not ailing too much if he's able to contribute to the press release?!

Let's hope so!

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #10 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

It seems very fair.

I disagree. 30% for nothing more than processing the payment and passing the data? If the person purchased within the app, the iTunes UI/browser wasn't used. Apple didn't perform any marketing to get the attention of the subscriber since they purchased it in, not via the iTunes UI.

I was hoping an iPad could replace the stack of magazines on my table, but I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon. Since Apple won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site, all subscription prices are going to be pushed higher due to Apple's policies. Online subscriptions, if available at all, will probably cost more than the print copy mailed to my door.
post #11 of 571
This is great, if the publisher can sell a subscription directly on is site he doesnt have to pay Apple the 30%, but if a customer finds it on Apple App store, Apple gets his 30%.
I like the fact the customer is giving a choice to share is info with the subscriber.

Regarding Kindle, imo users will have to buy books on the Amazon website to avoid paying 30% to Apple, but the Kindle app will have to provide a way to buy books "in-app" too at the same price and then a 30% cut will go to Apple.
post #12 of 571
So, the price has to be the same or lower through the App Store.

Yes, very fair, a 30% cut for prividing only the payment method.

Ups, I forgot this:

Quote:
In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.

You can't click on Kindle app to go to Amazon and purchase the book, the only way is through in app.
post #13 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by akf2000 View Post

I just want to know what this means for the Kindle App.

My take is that since Amazon is not a publisher nor do they sell subscriptions it shouldn't affect them at all.

But I could be wrong.
post #14 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

This is great, if the publisher can sell a subscription directly on is site he doesnt have to pay Apple the 30%, but if a customer finds it on Apple App store, Apple gets his 30%.
I like the fact the customer is giving a choice to share is info with the subscriber.

Regarding Kindle, imo users will have to buy books on the Amazon website to avoid paying 30% to Apple, but the Kindle app will have to provide a way to buy books "in-app" too at the same price and then a 30% cut will go to Apple.

There should be a big disclaimer "be warned that every time you buy using the in app system, the global price increases"

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #15 of 571
Of course this is entirely fair and reasonable and could have some downsides for consumers. It does have upsides though. 1) More apps will use in-app purchasing. (easier) 2) Can now use itunes account for all purchases through Apps. 3) Standards, control, and rules for personal security and personal information. It looks like user experience will go up, and possibly price. But that's always been Apple's business right? High user experience at a premium. I'm fine with this.
post #16 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

There should be a big disclaimer "be warned that every time you buy using the in app system, the global price increases"

How about a 30% rebate for people who use the out-app sub?
Increase price 30%, then have a 30% cut for Apple in app and a 30% rebate out-app XD

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #17 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

Okay. For a change Apple is giving choices. Having an option not reveal personal info to publishers is good.

this is pretty much what the entire "fight" has been about.

Many magazine publishers are really more in the business of buying and selling your personal information than they are the business of magazines. Most of the larger concerns have a different magazine offering for each demographic and see their business as keeping a sort of coral of consumers of various types for the purposes of marketing to them with each magazine defining the "type" of consumer. Since most magazines also contain more advertising than they do content, the true customer of the Magazine distributors is actually the advertisers who advertise in one type of magazine or another based on the demographic of that audience.

Magazines may be popular, but like Microsoft, the magazine distributors really work for the advertisers and not the people who buy them.

If Steve Jobs and Apple hadn't done this, what would have happened is a digital version of the same thing. Apple is actually on the side of the consumer, instead of being in bed with the middle man as most companies are.
post #18 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatunike View Post

Of course this is entirely fair and reasonable and could have some downsides for consumers

Fair a 30% cut only for processing payment? Fair making it almost the only way of purchasing on an iPhone or iPad? Really?
post #19 of 571
So does this mean 4.3 comes out today??
post #20 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I disagree. 30% for nothing more than processing the payment and passing the data? If the person purchased within the app, the iTunes UI/browser wasn't used. Apple didn't perform any marketing to get the attention of the subscriber since they purchased it in, not via the iTunes UI.

I was hoping an iPad could replace the stack of magazines on my table, but I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon. Since Apple won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site, all subscription prices are going to be pushed higher due to Apple's policies. Online subscriptions, if available at all, will probably cost more than the print copy mailed to my door.

The problem with this argument is the premise that the only value-added provided by apple is the payment processing. The value-added provided by apple is their 100 million+ users. Through the App store, you get access to a vast market that in most cases you didn't have access to before.

If you're like Amazon and already do have access to that market, then you can continue to sell to your users through your own store, so long as you don't undercut the price in the Apple store. I suspect that Amazon might go along with this, because it probably is more convenient for many of their customers to purchase Kindle books through Amazon rather than through in-app purchases (since Kindle books can be used across a variety of devices that someone might own). But for companies that do not already have access to this market, Apple is providing them with that access, and that's valuable.
post #21 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I disagree. 30% for nothing more than processing the payment and passing the data? If the person purchased within the app, the iTunes UI/browser wasn't used. Apple didn't perform any marketing to get the attention of the subscriber since they purchased it in, not via the iTunes UI.

I was hoping an iPad could replace the stack of magazines on my table, but I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon. Since Apple won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site, all subscription prices are going to be pushed higher due to Apple's policies. Online subscriptions, if available at all, will probably cost more than the print copy mailed to my door.

Your logic is crazy. You say prices will be higher on the iPad because Apple "won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site". That's your argument?

As for the 30% commission, how is it fair for Apple to charge 30% to the developers of Angry Birds, but not publishers. I'm a former newspaper and magazine publisher, and even I don't see the logic of expecting Apple to go commission-free for us publishers. We publishers get charged for distribution by newsstand distributors, we pay the USPS, we pay our printers, we pay our subscription telemarketing firms, hell, we pay everybody! . . . 30% is a bargain compared to all the other charges we face.

Magazine and newspaper publishers are lucky, damn lucky to make a 10 to 20 percent return on our products -- most don't. The 30% charge, on a price we set, seems reasonable to me. It's better than what Amazon is offering me: they will give me 30%, but they get to set the price.
post #22 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

If the person purchased within the app, the iTunes UI/browser wasn't used. Apple didn't perform any marketing to get the attention of the subscriber since they purchased it in, not via the iTunes UI.
:

Regarding in-app purchase, keep in mind a publisher could always make an HTML5 website and don’t use the app store at all, but they want to use the app store because of the huge visibility it gives them.

The simple fact of being in the App stores is promoting the app to millions of users who would otherwise never find it directly on the internet. This is where the policy is fair, if the publisher can get new clients by itself, then it doesn’t have to pay the 30% cut.
post #23 of 571
This all started when Apple rejected Sony's e-reader app for iOS, saying that they were going to enforce the in-app purchase requirement. So let's assume this will apply to Amazon, too. Amazon already has a 70/30 split with the publishers. If Apple is taking the other 30%, Amazon gets zero. This effectively kills the Kindle app (and others).

And what about Skype? This sounds like since you can buy Skype credits outside the store, they must offer them inside the store at the same price so Apple can get 30%.

This doesn't look good at all.
post #24 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by aduzik View Post

And what about Skype? This sounds like since you can buy Skype credits outside the store, they must offer them inside the store at the same price so Apple can get 30%.

This doesn't look good at all.

And Audible content.
post #25 of 571
hmm it's that me or nobody taking care of that sentence :

Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said. "All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app.

Steve Jobs is back??
post #26 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

Regarding in-app purchase, keep in mind a publisher could always make an HTML5 website and dont use the app store at all, but they want to use the app store because of the huge visibility it gives them.

The simple fact of being in the App stores is promoting the app to millions of users who would otherwise never find it directly on the internet. This is where the policy is fair, if the publisher can get new clients by itself, then it doesnt have to pay the 30% cut.

Can you explain me how can I read a Kindle book while conmuting and there is no connection? Perhaps one of the reasons of an app is offline content.
post #27 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

So, the price has to be the same or lower through the App Store.

Yes, very fair, a 30% cut for prividing only the payment method.

Ups, I forgot this:

You can't click on Kindle app to go to Amazon and purchase the book, the only way is through in app.

But is this not exactly what Amazon does? I dare say they are not creating content and then selling it. The are buying it at wholesale prices, marking it up and selling it to make a buck. Why shouldn't Apple be able to do the same thing? Why is it evil for Apple to do this but OK for Amazon? Amazon is bummed because a site that they paid nothing to sell before now says "hey if you are going to use us to facilitate the sale we want our share". Maybe you feel that is not fair but artists/writers/musicians have said the same thing about getting their product sold for a long time. You can either use the service or not. It is left as a choice - but don't give away an app as a vehicle to generate sales for yourself and expect someone else to tote the line for you.
post #28 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

This is great, if the publisher can sell a subscription directly on is site he doesnt have to pay Apple the 30%, but if a customer finds it on Apple App store, Apple gets his 30%.
I like the fact the customer is giving a choice to share is info with the subscriber.

Regarding Kindle, imo users will have to buy books on the Amazon website to avoid paying 30% to Apple, but the Kindle app will have to provide a way to buy books "in-app" too at the same price and then a 30% cut will go to Apple.

For the original discovery and purchase, sure. But in-app we are usually talking about renewals. What does Apple do to earn 30% of a renewing customer's subscription? Almost nothing!

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatunike View Post

Of course this is entirely fair and reasonable and could have some downsides for consumers. It does have upsides though. 1) More apps will use in-app purchasing. (easier) 2) Can now use itunes account for all purchases through Apps. 3) Standards, control, and rules for personal security and personal information. It looks like user experience will go up, and possibly price. But that's always been Apple's business right? High user experience at a premium. I'm fine with this.

It might be easier, but they are being forced to use it and your subscription costs, whether you get it in app or or the publisher's web site, just increased by 30% because of Apple.

Do you really believe Apple is doing this for user experience reasons? No, it's a purely out of greed. If the it was truly about a better experience worth the 30% premium, let the customer decide. And let the publisher set their own prices on their own web site.

Imagine if Best Buy told Apple they couldn't sell computers from the Apple Store for less than Best Buy sells them after they've applied whatever profit margin Best Buy wanted. Obviously they can't because they don't have the leverage. But Apple does have the leverage and they are using that leverage to dictate to someone what price they can sell their own product for outside of Apple's sales channel.

Apple is looking more and more like MS, as far as business practices go. Their products are better then MS, but their business practices are getting just as bad. In all sincerity, this is the most disturbing, greedy, anti-consumer action I have ever seen Apple take.
post #29 of 571
People should remember that publishers are not making money off of selling magazines. They make money off of the advertising in the magazine. An obvious point that seems to escape some of the comments here. Giving apple 30% of the sale of a $10-15 subscription pales in comparison to the money to be made by greatly increasing their circulation, thus their advertising rates. How many people own ipads and how many will buy in the future? There alone is a hugh base of people in which the publishers are getting to access. The publishers might spend at least 30% or more advertising their product elsewhere. If you look at the big picture the price might actually decrease due to an increase in sales, especially considering there is no printing costs which would be greater than the transaction costs. And lastly, giving a company a percentage of a sale is hardly news, just an idea usually is not talking about in the general media.
post #30 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

But is this not exactly what Amazon does? .

No, the difference is that Amazon/Sony/Apple (with iBooks) is hosting the content, in the in app case, Apple only precesses the payment, the hosting is still done by the provider.
post #31 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by TalkingNewMedia View Post

Your logic is crazy. You say prices will be higher on the iPad because Apple "won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site". That's your argument?

He's damn right.
You make it sound like it's stupid, but just think. Whatever the cost to produce the thing, factor in a profit, that's C+P. Add Apple's cut, that's C+P+A, with A= 30% of C+P.
Still following?
Price can't be higher on the app store per the Apple rule aforementionned, which means inapp = C+P+A < O, with O the outside price.
By pure mathematics, O is now higher than it was earlier.
And since the reseller is NOT going to sell at a loss, and it's highly doubtful P<A with A, remember, equal to 30% of the whole price, you get (C+P+A+O)/2 > original price.

Prices, hence are higher on the iPad because Apple "won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site", Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #32 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Can you explain me how can I read a Kindle book while conmuting and there is no connection? Perhaps one of the reasons of an app is offline content.

And I am pretty sure a save book option could be made since the app offlinepages can do it with a webpage. but regarding books you could always buy a book on the website and avoid the 30% cut.
post #33 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

He's damn right.
You make it sound like it's stupid, but just think. Whatever the cost to produce the thing, factor in a profit, that's C+P. Add Apple's cut, that's C+P+A, with A= 30% of C+P.
Still following?
Price can't be higher on the app store per the Apple rule aforementionned, which means inapp = C+P+A < O, with O the outside price.
By pure mathematics, O is now higher than it was earlier.
And since the reseller is NOT going to sell at a loss, and it's highly doubtful P<A with A, remember, equal to 30% of the whole price, you get (C+P+A+O)/2 > original price.

Prices, hence are higher on the iPad because Apple "won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site", Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Thanks, that made it clear.
post #34 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

Regarding in-app purchase, keep in mind a publisher could always make an HTML5 website and don’t use the app store at all, but they want to use the app store because of the huge visibility it gives them.

The simple fact of being in the App stores is promoting the app to millions of users who would otherwise never find it directly on the internet. This is where the policy is fair, if the publisher can get new clients by itself, then it doesn’t have to pay the 30% cut.

I don't think any here is saying Apple shouldn't be compensated. But some of us are saying 30% is too high a cut for Apple. Dictating the price the publisher charges on their own web site, and preventing the publisher from marketing their own web site in their own application, is, I believe, an abuse of Apple's position. It's bad for the customer because your prices will go up and there will be less content available due to Apple's greedy policy. If in-app purchase is that much better, the customer will be willing to pay a higher price to get it in App. Apple has taken away the choice.

Previous controversial policies Apple had were at least someone based in a technical or performance factor (ie, restricting Flash). This is purely about greed. Not saying Apple is doing anything illegal. But I do think it's bad for the customer and the platform in general.
post #35 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by TalkingNewMedia View Post

Your logic is crazy. You say prices will be higher on the iPad because Apple "won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site". That's your argument?

As for the 30% commission, how is it fair for Apple to charge 30% to the developers of Angry Birds, but not publishers. I'm a former newspaper and magazine publisher, and even I don't see the logic of expecting Apple to go commission-free for us publishers. We publishers get charged for distribution by newsstand distributors, we pay the USPS, we pay our printers, we pay our subscription telemarketing firms, hell, we pay everybody! . . . 30% is a bargain compared to all the other charges we face.

Magazine and newspaper publishers are lucky, damn lucky to make a 10 to 20 percent return on our products -- most don't. The 30% charge, on a price we set, seems reasonable to me. It's better than what Amazon is offering me: they will give me 30%, but they get to set the price.

Once in a while AI gets a comment from someone who actually has real knowledge of the topic at hand. A know-it-well rather than a know-it-all like the rest of us.

My take is this whole brouhaha over the 30% is just a dance that Apple and the publishers have to go through as part of the negotiation process. Neither party really knows how much room the other has for price flexibility because it's a new way of doing business. In the end if 30% is really too high that the subscribers will walk away then Apple will offer secret discounts on a case-to-case basis. But we will never know how much a publisher is really paying Apple.
post #36 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Once in a while AI gets a comment from someone who actually has real knowledge of the topic at hand. A know-it-well rather than a know-it-all like the rest of us..

He knows a lot of publishing but he doesn't know that Apple doesn't distribute content from other publishers like Amazon, Sony, Kobo, Audible, etc. They all distribute the content
post #37 of 571
This seems a bit unfair. A lot of people buy an iPhone because of the apps. If Apple wants to take 30% from publishers shouldn't they also give 30% of the iPhone price to the people that made the apps which attracted the customer to buy the phone?

I still don't see how Apple is acting in any other way then a payment gateway in which case 5% would be more reasonable, not a publishers entire profit margin. I think we'll see people make the loss in the hope to make the money on other devices in the future or just have the button in a non obvious place.
post #38 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I don't think any here is saying Apple shouldn't be compensated. But some of us are saying 30% is too high a cut for Apple.

Yes I agree with you on that one, for in app purchase, 30% is to much indeed. For selling a new app 30% is fair , but once you in-app, there is no more "Apple visiblity" factor to justify such a large cut.
post #39 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

For the original discovery and purchase, sure. But in-app we are usually talking about renewals. What does Apple do to earn 30% of a renewing customer's subscription?...

It might be easier, but they are being forced to use it and your subscription costs, whether you get it in app or or the publisher's web site, just increased by 30% because of Apple....

...Imagine if Best Buy told Apple they couldn't sell computers from the Apple Store for less than Best Buy sells them after they've applied whatever profit margin Best Buy wanted. Obviously they can't because they don't have the leverage. But Apple does have the leverage and they are using that leverage to dictate to someone what price they can sell their own product for outside of Apple's sales channel.

Apple is looking more and more like MS, as far as business practices go. Their products are better then MS, but their business practices are getting just as bad. In all sincerity, this is the most disturbing, greedy, anti-consumer action I have ever seen Apple take.

So if I go to the theatre its OK for them to sell me a ticket and make a nice profit. But now that I want to buy concessions, use vending machines, etc. they shouldn't be able to make any profit on that? (BTW: I am NOT defending theatre prices which are way out of line IMHO!)

Your example about Best Buy is ridiculous. Why would a retail establishment ever be able to control the price the manufacturer/supplier sells at. Apple does in fact turn it 'round the other way though and require retailers to sell at the same price (with a very slight margin as an inducement).

I think some of this has to do with US Fed Regs about selling the exact same product at two different prices (e.g. the Performa line vrs Macintoshes was Apple Computer's solution to this problem back in the day). Don't remember all the details but - I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong; everyone here is always so king about that.
post #40 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Fair a 30% cut only for processing payment? Fair making it almost the only way of purchasing on an iPhone or iPad? Really?

I disagree with apple's move there. I think it's bad for the consumer. a 30% cut for a credit card payment. I know they have to maintain their app store but the app store already gets a 30% cut. Why should it get a 30% cut for running a payment through too? I wonder how amazon feels about this. Maybe they can shed some light.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple unveils subscriptions for iOS App Store, bans links to out-of-app purchases
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple unveils subscriptions for iOS App Store, bans links to out-of-app purchases