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 - Page 8

post #281 of 571
Apple CAN and SHOULD be flexing their marketing muscle here, milking every dollar they can from their customers. Anything less is just stupid and irresponsible to their shareholders. They can get away with it because the Apple brand allows them to get away with it. If there was a way for Apple to make you buy electricity from them to charge your product, they would and should be doing that, if you'll put up with it.

That said, this can't be good for consumers. Less choice and fewer options are never better for consumers.
post #282 of 571
Hmmm.... I have been thinking. This is bad for people like AMAZON. Now Amazon is either going to charge 30% more for books which is unacceptable or just stop supporting its Kindle app. I don't like Apple's attempt to grift.
post #283 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

New app store review guidelines]

Quote:
11.13 - Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions.

11.14 - Apps that link to external mechanisms for purchasing content to be used in the app, such as a “buy" button that goes to a web site to purchase a digital book, will be rejected

Hmmm... sucks for Amazon, unless of course the customer is anti-Apple and pro-Amazon. Any customer who wants to make sure Amazon gets the money will go buy it from the website then. Anyone who doesn't really care, will probably just choose IAP.

However, I'm still a little confused why people are up in arms about all of this? If I (or anyone else) were truly worried about Amazon, I can still buy it from Amazon's site, or my Kindle. Save a link in Mobile Safari, go to the website and purchase content there. Go back to the app and sync my account. Yes, it is not convenient as IAP, but still not exactly complicated either.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #284 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Subscriptions are recurring until you cancel them. While I have other options, is Apple really entitled to 30% of my subscription fee forever because I used the iPhone app to sign up for the service? The recurring subscription could still be going through iTunes even if I switched to an Android phone at some point, or used the service on my computer most of the time.

That was the point I was trying to make. I understand them charging that kind of money for iOS only subscriptions as that's the going rate for anything iOS, but they seem to be extending the policy to cross platform subscriptions and putting rules in place that make it extremely likely that customers will go through the App Store to activate those subscriptions. I have a major issue with that.

I won't argue that some people will just click in the App Store. Of course that will happen. But it doesn't have to, and that's an important point.

But then, there are other considerations as well. I was involved heavily in publishing through my company, as we did a lot of work for some of them, as well as from my advertising background.

This whole 30% thing is really annoying from the publishers side. If you're paying $5 at the magazine store for a copy, and you buy all of your issues there as many people actually do, you're paying $60 a year for your "subscription". If you actually get a sub, you may be paying $20 instead. Now what does that mean to the publisher? It means that they make more from the magazine store then from your sub. But it also means that you will be forced into getting a copy every month from the sub. No such guarantees from the mag store.

So, what about their costs? Well, it will cost a certain amount to mail those issues to you. Anywhere from $5 a year to almost $20 a year. It also costs to print them. In actuality, many publishers make nothing from their subs directly, or even lose money. Of course, there are other expenses from mag stores as well, such as truck delivery, returns, etc.

But it's the Ad dollars that keeps most magazines afloat, not sub pricing. So really, what they pay a company to handle their subs, as most do (very few do it themselves) also comes out of that sub price. The only advantage they get out of subs is a number they can give for guaranteed circulation, and that determines Ad pricing.

Therefor, this whole argument about Apple's 30% isn't as big a deal as some here think it is. If, and it's a big if, these publishers were successful at selling magazine subs directly electronically, something almost none do as yet, then they MIGHT have something to scream about when it comes to this. But almost none do, and fewer do so successfully. So there's really no way to compare what will happen here vs what's already happening, because nothing is happening now.

I do have Zinio, and I do subscribe to a couple of mags there. But it's not much to write about. It's ok, but not much more than the electronic galleys sent to the printer. Prices are sometimes VERY cheap. Much cheaper than a regular sub for paper. Two examples. One is Harpers Bazaar for $10 a year. Stereophile for $7.50 or so. These are well under the normal paper prices. So what is the argument with Apple then? If they charge the same as the paper sub, or even a couple of bucks less, including Apple's 30% cut, they would be still getting more than they get from Zinio.

This is a made up issue over pricing that doesn't really exist on a business level.
post #285 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

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.

Very, very doubtful. This might mean less profit per sale, but the end is that far more customers end up purchasing than would anyway. The same principle is at work on the Mac store; lots of developers are finding that, if they lower the individual price to the right place, their sales increase enormously, and thus, they make more money and more profit. Remember, their unit cost = 0. It's a digital copy. They have to split up what they make with the publisher, but they don't actually have to print, say, 10,000 copies, which can go unsold. They give Apple one copy, and the same split is on sale #1 and sale #1 million.

I've still got to bet that Apple's costs are just covered with their 30%. As the apps get more and more popular, their costs go up. How long until they have to expand their server farms? Profits for Apple are on hardware. They want the software to be as cheap as possible, while delivering large numbers of sales to the developers and publishers. Sells more iPods, iPhones and iPads. That's where the profit is.
post #286 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

The Sony reader has a bit of a different business model.
Sony launched it as a reader only. No content store. And no way of buying content on the device.

Consequently, it has always been able to load books from multiple vendors, because initially, Sony had no intention of selling content.

Now, Sony do have a bookstore. But amazingly, still no store on the device!

C.

Yes, that's true. Amazon deserves credit with coming up with that idea, at least for the first
popular book reader, though I THINK Franklin sold books directly for their readers ages ago, but I could be mistaken on that.

Sony's devices, though they've been out a long time, have never been popular, when it comes to lesser products or services, they usually try something that the "better" ones don't have to do. We can see that with Sprint and T-Mobile with their pricing and plans. We can see it with AT&T with their fear of losing too many iPhone customers.
post #287 of 571
What I'm hearing here is that investors are very worried, as they should be.

There is no way this model is going to survive anti-trust laws.
Apple is starting with 30% knowing full well it's just a number to begin negotiations with.
The anti-competitive policies of not allowing people to have a link to their website etc... are also just there as bargaining chips for the inevitable class action law suit.

The real question is - how desirable is an iDevice that has no content? Because as smart as some people here think they are with all their 'business smarts and clairvoyance'... they always leave out the human factor.

Remember that? The human factor... it's why the Macintosh went from 80% market share to 1.2% in less then a decade.

Make no mistake, Apple is repeating history. iPad will be less then 5% market share in 3 years. I guarantee it (if they stay on this course).

Nobody wants to be on a platform with no content.
post #288 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

New app store review guidelines:

Yes. But what that doesn't say, is that you can get that sub directly, and then, Apple gets nothing.
post #289 of 571
Sony had a book store before Amazon, they had it with the PRS-500
post #290 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomwi53092 View Post

Apple CAN and SHOULD be flexing their marketing muscle here, milking every dollar they can from their customers. Anything less is just stupid and irresponsible to their shareholders. They can get away with it because the Apple brand allows them to get away with it. If there was a way for Apple to make you buy electricity from them to charge your product, they would and should be doing that, if you'll put up with it.

That said, this can't be good for consumers. Less choice and fewer options are never better for consumers.

I don't quite understand this logic. Apple is not out to screw over their customers in what they're doing. They are in fact, trying to get a cut of what others are making from Apple's platform and customers. Apple supplies a market/platform to resellers and publishers, why shouldn't they get something from that? Especially if those others are taking advantage of the platforms size?

And sorry if you can't seem to understand that this is how it works everywhere already...

You don't think Amazon gets a cut of every Macintosh computer sold through Amazon's website?
You don't think Amazon gets a cut of every subscription to a newspaper sold through the Kindle?
Amazon allows "partner" stores on its website, you don't think they get cut of sales through that storefront? Of course they do. Amazon provides the platform for these sales to take place.

Just as Apple supplies the platform (iOS) for companies like Amazon to have a store front (app). Apple could go one step further and require all sales go through AIP, not just content. But they are only interest in content that will be accessed and "used" on iOS devices.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #291 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

What I'm hearing here is that investors are very worried, as they should be.

There is no way this model is going to survive anti-trust laws.
Apple is starting with 30% knowing full well it's just a number to begin negotiations with.
The anti-competitive policies of not allowing people to have a link to their website etc... are also just there as bargaining chips for the inevitable class action law suit.

The real question is - how desirable is an iDevice that has no content? Because as smart as some people here think they are with all their 'business smarts and clairvoyance'... they always leave out the human factor.

Remember that? The human factor... it's why the Macintosh went from 80% market share to 1.2% in less then a decade.

Make no mistake, Apple is repeating history. iPad will be less then 5% market share in 3 years. I guarantee it (if they stay on this course).

Nobody wants to be on a platform with no content.

Ah, nice to see you back with your usual negative quesstimates.
post #292 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.

I think it's simpler than that. It is significantly easier to find & subscribe to content on an iPad than using some publisher's own web service. The cost of producing content+profit gets evenly divided amongst all subscribers. Publishers can be reasonably be expected to gain more subscribers if their product is available. If ALL subscriptions are done through the app store they only need about 40% more people on a subscription to make more profit at the same price point than they were before. Given the success of the app store I don't think that is unachievable. Not to mention the savings on printing, distribution and selling direct to the consumer.
post #293 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yes. But what that doesn't say, is that you can get that sub directly, and then, Apple gets nothing.


Ah, but the reality is that they de facto force the in-app purchase making difficult to make it outside the app if using the iPhone or iPad.
post #294 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

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.

30% isn't too much for app creators; who actually create their products; why is it too much for distributors who are afterall just middlemen?

If 30% is indeed too much, then why don't they just walk away; design, manufacture, market, and service their own devices and systems that millions of paying customers would prefer over the ecosystem that Apple has spent billions creating???
post #295 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I won't argue that some people will just click in the App Store. Of course that will happen. But it doesn't have to, and that's an important point.

But then, there are other considerations as well. I was involved heavily in publishing through my company, as we did a lot of work for some of them, as well as from my advertising background.

This whole 30% thing is really annoying from the publishers side. If you're paying $5 at the magazine store for a copy, and you buy all of your issues there as many people actually do, you're paying $60 a year for your "subscription". If you actually get a sub, you may be paying $20 instead. Now what does that mean to the publisher? It means that they make more from the magazine store then from your sub. But it also means that you will be forced into getting a copy every month from the sub. No such guarantees from the mag store.

So, what about their costs? Well, it will cost a certain amount to mail those issues to you. Anywhere from $5 a year to almost $20 a year. It also costs to print them. In actuality, many publishers make nothing from their subs directly, or even lose money. Of course, there are other expenses from mag stores as well, such as truck delivery, returns, etc.

But it's the Ad dollars that keeps most magazines afloat, not sub pricing. So really, what they pay a company to handle their subs, as most do (very few do it themselves) also comes out of that sub price. The only advantage they get out of subs is a number they can give for guaranteed circulation, and that determines Ad pricing.

Therefor, this whole argument about Apple's 30% isn't as big a deal as some here think it is. If, and it's a big if, these publishers were successful at selling magazine subs directly electronically, something almost none do as yet, then they MIGHT have something to scream about when it comes to this. But almost none do, and fewer do so successfully. So there's really no way to compare what will happen here vs what's already happening, because nothing is happening now.

I do have Zinio, and I do subscribe to a couple of mags there. But it's not much to write about. It's ok, but not much more than the electronic galleys sent to the printer. Prices are sometimes VERY cheap. Much cheaper than a regular sub for paper. Two examples. One is Harpers Bazaar for $10 a year. Stereophile for $7.50 or so. These are well under the normal paper prices. So what is the argument with Apple then? If they charge the same as the paper sub, or even a couple of bucks less, including Apple's 30% cut, they would be still getting more than they get from Zinio.

This is a made up issue over pricing that doesn't really exist on a business level.

You're confusing most of these screamers by discussing facts. Stop it!
post #296 of 571
One other sub price issue. Forgot about, but which my wife just reminded me of as I mentioned this discussion. We've subscribed to Architectural Digest for 26 years. Last year we decided to stop. This is, for anyone who hasn't seen the mag, an expensive mag to do, print, and ship.

So what happened? They gave us a free subscription.

So much for costs, prices, and a 30% cut.

Any publisher who is annoyed about that isn't being so because it really means anything to them monetarily.
post #297 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Ah, but the reality is that they de facto force the in-app purchase making difficult to make it outside the app if using the iPhone or iPad.

Maybe so, but read my other two posts on sub pricing.
post #298 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Of course they should get 30% of each recurring payment, it's called a commission. The initial sale was made through Apple's sales channel. It doesn't matter that you move to another platform to view the content. Apple's not being unfair in this, they said if the subscription was made outside of Apple's platform, then publishers could offer access for free. Apple isn't forcing them to move the recurring payments to Apple's purchasing system. It is just saying when the initial subscription was made from Apple's devices. If a customer is truly concerned, they could cancel the Apple recurring subscription, and start it up again using some other payment method. Chances are, customers aren't going to care.

Apple should get a commission even though they are only getting it because they banned linking to external websites in apps? Apple is forcing them to use the app stores recurring payments if they wish to keep an iOS app. They aren't even allowed to mention that the subscription can be found elsewhere from within the app. On top of that, they are not allowed to offer the subscription elsewhere for less, even though they aren't paying Apple's 30% commission and can afford to lower the price. While consumers may not care about who gets the money they are spending, they will care when the prices of their subscription content increase to accommodate this change, and because of the price matching rule, even non iOS users will be affected. Apple is using its strong market position to monetize a market it previously didn't have access to.


Quote:
How is that? I subscribed to Netflix through their website, and I use my iPad to access and watch Netflix content. Apple will NEVER see any of that money. I don't understand how this forces me to subscribe through Apple at any point in the future?

I never said that it did.

Quote:
I could understand the complete meltdown people are having if Apple said, "The only way iOS users will EVER view your content, is if they cancel current subscriptions and resubscribe through AIP." But they aren't saying, and they're not requiring anything that isn't done elsewhere. Anytime a subscription is made through an agent of publisher, the agent gets a commission for as long as that subscription is active. For each recurring payment the agent will get a percentage. This is normal. It doesn't matter if the user switches from print to digital, from Android to iOS. That initial subscription only exists because of the agent.

30% isn't normal. If you read my posts, I've said that Apple probably does deserve some compensation for hosting the app. They just shouldn't be forcing this 30% subscription model on content providers wishing to have an iOS app. If you disagree, wait a couple months for the fallout.

PS: This applies to any purchase initiated through an app. For example a Kindle book. If Amazon stays on iOS (which is far from a given), they will probably want to raise prices to cover this 30% cut Apple's taking and they will convince the publishers to do so. Because Apple requires the iOS price to be the same or lower as anywhere else, the prices on Kindle.com will go up as well. Now Amazon requires that their prices be the lowest as well, so the publishers will increase the prices at Apple's iBook Store too (as well as B&N and others). No matter where you shop for eBooks, it's quite likely that prices your prices will go up. The loser here is the consumer, and the only winner is Apple. When companies throw their weight around like that, they do get noticed by certain authorities.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #299 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Yes there is a Kindle app store. And you can buy Kindle and Nooks ebooks without paying Apple a cut.. use the device store!

But you can't buy Apple products or use iBooks on your Kindle or Nook? Why not? How is this fair? Why are Amazon and B&N forcing me to buy books and use their apps on their devices. Oh, it's so awful for the consumer. Blah, blah, blah.
post #300 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Maybe so, but read my other two posts on sub pricing.

Well, but they are more about print subscriptions, not about Pandora, Netflix, Hulu subscriptions or one time purchases like books, music or video
post #301 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

I don't quite understand this logic. Apple is not out to screw over their customers in what they're doing. They are in fact, trying to get a cut of what others are making from Apple's platform and customers. Apple supplies a market/platform to resellers and publishers, why shouldn't they get something from that? Especially if those others are taking advantage of the platforms size?

And sorry if you can't seem to understand that this is how it works everywhere already...
(snip)

Indeed. I believe that's what I wrote. What were you reading??
post #302 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Believe it or not Amazon not only do their own hosting, they could, if allowed do their own IAP. Apple is demanding rent for being on the iPad.

And if you, asdasd, wanted to open your own book store on the Amazon web site.... Amazon would charge you:

A RENT of $ 39.99 per month
A referral fee (or COMMISSION) of 15% of the product price.
Plus a variable closing fee or a TAX of $1.35 per item.

Greedy fuckin' bastards!
http://www.amazonservices.com/conten...on-amazon.htm?


Quote:
It's also a monopolistic ploy, no way would they even contemplate this were they at 5% of the tablet market.

Yes I am sure that if Amazon only had twelve unique visitors per month, the fees above would be much lower.
post #303 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

And if you, asdasd, wanted to open your own book store on the Amazon web site.... Amazon would charge you:

A RENT of $ 39.99 per month
A referral fee (or COMMISSION) of 15% of the product price.
Plus a variable closing fee or a TAX of $1.35 per item.

Greedy fuckin' bastards!
http://www.amazonservices.com/conten...on-amazon.htm?




Yes I am sure that if Amazon only had twelve unique visitors per month, the fees above would be much lower.

But Amazon/B&N/Netflix/etc doesn't have any store on the App Store
post #304 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by akf2000 View Post

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

It means you'll have to type in www.amazon.com yourself to buy books from the Kindle Store. Oh, and the Kindle app will finally allow purchasing books. Other than that, nothing.
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #305 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

They dont host any content.

( is it worth replying to every moron, I wonder?)

Probably not, but for you, I'll make an exception.

Fact: If a customer would rather buy through Apple than a publisher's website ... it's likely because they find it easier, more trusting or a whole bunch of other reasons I don't even know about ..... but to be sure, no matter what the reason ... it's all part of the Apple ecosystem that they have been building for years and years..... and belonging to that ecosystem has a price .... for everyone. Like me, the publishers have the right to belong ... or not .... their choice.

All Apple is saying is ... if you're using our ecosystem to gain customers (mostly with a free app that Apple makes nothing on) then you have to give those same customers the opportunity to buy through the same store that you found them in .... at the same price as on your website. Totally fair, imo.

Fact: When buying anything, (content or subscriptions) through iTunes ... there is a "billing cost" to Apple. If one uses a credit card, other than iTunes gift cards, a fee is charged to apple, as the retailer.

If an iTunes "gift card" is used .... that same card had to be sold through one of the many 100s of retailers and a "fee" was paid to the retailer .... because you know nobody sells them for nothing.

Apple has a cost to bear with every purchase through the iTunes store and if a "content provider" does not want to pay to belong ..... then don't belong. It's just that simple.

Note: Apple is not automatically wrong when we don't understand ... but they are always wrong to a troll .... because the Trolls cannot stand success.

Newbee says:  Using a Mac "inspires" you, using all others just ... tires you.  

Reply

Newbee says:  Using a Mac "inspires" you, using all others just ... tires you.  

Reply
post #306 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

But Amazon/B&N/Netflix/etc doesn't have any store on the App Store

And, Apple's apps are not sold through Amazon, B&N, Netflix etc.

What's your point?
post #307 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

And if you, asdasd, wanted to open your own book store on the Amazon web site.... Amazon would charge you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

And, Apple's apps are not sold through Amazon, B&N, Netflix etc.

What's your point?

This point
post #308 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Incorrect analogy, Apple is not distributing anything.

They are distributing "access to content" through a billing system that they incur a cost to run.

Newbee says:  Using a Mac "inspires" you, using all others just ... tires you.  

Reply

Newbee says:  Using a Mac "inspires" you, using all others just ... tires you.  

Reply
post #309 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

Probably not, but for you, I'll make an exception.

Fact: If a customer would rather buy through Apple than a publisher's website ... it's likely because they find it easier, more trusting or a whole bunch of other reasons I don't even know about ..... but to be sure, no matter what the reason ... it's all part of the Apple ecosystem that they have been building for years and years..... and belonging to that ecosystem has a price .... for everyone. Like me, the publishers have the right to belong ... or not .... their choice.

All Apple is saying is ... if you're using our ecosystem to gain customers (mostly with a free app that Apple makes nothing on) then you have to give those same customers the opportunity to buy through the same store that you found them in .... at the same price as on your website. Totally fair, imo.

Fact: When buying anything, (content or subscriptions) through iTunes ... there is a "billing cost" to Apple. If one uses a credit card, other than iTunes gift cards, a fee is charged to apple, as the retailer.

If an iTunes "gift card" is used .... that same card had to be sold through one of the many 100s of retailers and a "fee" was paid to the retailer .... because you know nobody sells them for nothing.

Apple has a cost to bear with every purchase through the iTunes store and if a "content provider" does not want to pay to belong ..... then don't belong. It's just that simple.

Note: Apple is not automatically wrong when we don't understand ... but they are always wrong to a troll .... because the Trolls cannot stand success.

Fact: You're guilty of common sense and basic logic! And I hate you for that!
post #310 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

They are distributing "access to content" through a billing system that they incur a cost to run.

No, they are FORCED to "accesss to content" through a billing system
post #311 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by peteo View Post

True, but the problem is they have to also offer the subscription @ the same price in the app so apple gets it cut. and you cant link to the out of app store inside of the app.
So 1) there is no instinctive for the user to purchase outside of the app. 2)Who knows if they will even know the can buy a subscription out side of the app.

Im all for apple getting something but 30% of subscriptions is ridiculous. maybe they should have required apps that have subscriptions have to be a paid apps.

Gee, if the user doesn't want to use out of app purchase, or doesn't even know how to purchase out of app, doesn't that prove the entire point for Apple that it was Apple that brought in this particular customer?
post #312 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

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.

A lot of employees directly generate revenue for their companies. So shouldn't the companies, in addition to paying wages, also distribute these employees all a share of profits?

Well some companies do (for their better negotiated employees, at least) but that's not how it works most of the time.

I like how the crowds are weeping for studios/music labels/publishers over Apple promoting them and giving them new business while their own efforts fall apart, and charging them a fee for doing this, while at the same time applauding Google for glutting the web with ads, taking all the ad revenue, and then leaving publishers slashed and burned in its wake.

What percent of publishers' profits is Google taking, for essentially nothing more than life support that doesn't benefit them in the long term and which they can't turned down either, lest they virtually disappear from the web.

Up is down! Black is white! Google does no evil, but Apple is pure eeeevil!
post #313 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by allmypeople View Post

Fact: You're guilty of common sense and basic logic! And I hate you for that!

He's actually guilty of ignoring certain realities and simplifying others, but whatever.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #314 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

It means you'll have to type in www.amazon.com yourself to buy books from the Kindle Store. Oh, and the Kindle app will finally allow purchasing books. Other than that, nothing.

If I were Amazon I would make IAP painfully tedious so that people would find it less tedious to do it on the website
post #315 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

It means you'll have to type in www.amazon.com yourself to buy books from the Kindle Store. Oh, and the Kindle app will finally allow purchasing books. Other than that, nothing.

And higher prices both in the app and online (and at competing eBook stores too, thanks to the agreements in place) unless you think Amazon is going to eat the 30% commission without passing it on.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #316 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

What I'm hearing here is that investors are very worried, as they should be.

There is no way this model is going to survive anti-trust laws.
Apple is starting with 30% knowing full well it's just a number to begin negotiations with.
The anti-competitive policies of not allowing people to have a link to their website etc... are also just there as bargaining chips for the inevitable class action law suit.

There aren't any issues regarding anti-trust or anti-cometitive laws here... Apple clearly defines what is and isn't allowed when a developer agrees to the terms in the developer's license. Apple never portrayed iOS as an open platform for anyone to do anything they wanted. Apple has always held the right to reject an app for any reason.

The only chance you have at ever winning such a case would be to prove that Apple willfully and purposely hurt another company due to its actions or somehow prevented consumers from making a choice and forced them to purchase Apple's products.


Quote:
The real question is - how desirable is an iDevice that has no content? Because as smart as some people here think they are with all their 'business smarts and clairvoyance'... they always leave out the human factor. ... Nobody wants to be on a platform with no content.

Well this was the exact reason Apple created the iTunes Music Store in the first place. There wasn't any content for the Mac. Everything was Windows only back then. The store took off, not through any anti-competitive actions by Apple, but because Apple designed and created a product (iPod) that most people wanted. And people bought the iPod not because it had the largest music store, but because people wanted an iPod. While you're right that people want content, there are other factors as the iPod originally proved. The iTunes Music Store started with 200,000 songs. As people bought iPod's the store grew.

Today Apple has the largest digital media store on the internet, because they sold so many iPods. And as back then, it is still made available to users of its platforms only. Nothing has changed other than people's attitude towards it.


Quote:
Remember that? The human factor... it's why the Macintosh went from 80% market share to 1.2% in less then a decade.

The Mac never had an 80% market share, at most, in its history, it hit 10% back in the late 80's, early 90's. And it had nothing to do with "human factor" it had a lot to do with the "IT factor". A time when most computers were bought by corporations, not consumers. Most corporations went with whatever was "IBM compatible". This included DOS based systems that could run Windows 3.x.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #317 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

This point

Ah, we have a Zen master in our midst!
post #318 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I won't argue that some people will just click in the App Store. Of course that will happen. But it doesn't have to, and that's an important point.

But then, there are other considerations as well. I was involved heavily in publishing through my company, as we did a lot of work for some of them, as well as from my advertising background.
(snip)
This is a made up issue over pricing that doesn't really exist on a business level.

This applies equally to novels as well as magazines. Ad revenue doesn't support them, nor does it support services like Netflix.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #319 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post



30% isn't normal. If you read my posts, I've said that Apple probably does deserve some compensation for hosting the app. They just shouldn't be forcing this 30% subscription model on content providers wishing to have an iOS app. If you disagree, wait a couple months for the fallout.

PS: This applies to any purchase initiated through an app. For example a Kindle book. If Amazon stays on iOS (which is far from a given), they will probably want to raise prices to cover this 30% cut Apple's taking and they will convince the publishers to do so. Because Apple requires the iOS price to be the same or lower as anywhere else, the prices on Kindle.com will go up as well. Now Amazon requires that their prices be the lowest as well, so the publishers will increase the prices at Apple's iBook Store too (as well as B&N and others). No matter where you shop for eBooks, it's quite likely that prices your prices will go up. The loser here is the consumer, and the only winner is Apple. When companies throw their weight around like that, they do get noticed by certain authorities.

Ok, let's talk about that 30%. Apple does what every business would love to do. That is, make money on every product and service. That's the way it's supposed to be. Publishers wish they could do that. But it's not in their business model. It never was once magazines came out. And even further back, even books carried many Ads in the back pages, because the book price couldn't keep the company afloat.

But what is Apple actually getting here? 30%? Well, sort of. They've had 10 billion downloads since the App Store first opened. But while two thirds of the apps are paid apps, only 20 tp 25% are bought, rather than downloaded for free. So Apple gets 30% of 20 to 25% of the downloads, or about 6 to 7.5% on average. That's not much! If we look t all the free updates and upgrades they have to host, the percentage drops to under a percent per download.

So while 30% sounds high, it really isn't when everything is considered. And magazine stores get more than 30%.

Out of that Apple insists on running the store at a small profit. If what some here want, they might run it at a loss. I don't see why they should have to do that.
post #320 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Well, but they are more about print subscriptions, not about Pandora, Netflix, Hulu subscriptions or one time purchases like books, music or video

We'll have to see about how this works out. Apple isn't stopping outside subs at all. They said that. You're free to continue doing that. The only real difference for subscribers is that if they choose to auto up their sub through iTunes, Apple will take their cut. You're free to do it the way you have from the site of the company, just not through a link in the app.

Annoying, yes? But a major problem, not really.

I still say we have to await responses from Amazon and B&N to know how they are affected, and what they plan to do. Until then, it's just guessing.
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