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 - Page 10

post #361 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

There's no problem with Apple charging for that service. The problem exists with forcing app developers to use that service even though they already have existing web stores and subscription models in place.

There you said it, they already have existing web stores and subscription models in place, which means they do not need an iOS app in order to exist and run their business. There are only two reasons for creating an iOS app...

1. Added value to existing customers - allow current customers to access their content on the iOS devices. Even with IAP in the app, these customers are aware of other methods to purchase content and if it's not a huge inconvenience to do so, would probably still continue to.

2. Get new customers - Take advantage of the platform's size to market your warez to new customers. These customers only discover your business because you made it available on Apple's platform. And while they may make a purchase through IAP, that may not always be the case. There's nothing that says they can't discover an alternative payment system, it's just that I can't link directly to one from within the app. I could still provide a link to product information or support that could eventually lead to my online store.
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 #362 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

They're using resources in that they have to be checked to be approved, have to be hosted, have to be hosted to be updated, etc. Apple doesn't get a cut on sales.

Nooooooo, my God, i don't know if you can't unddesrstand my poor English but no, we were not talking about Kindle or eBay App, but the transactions done with them, they're NOT using Apple resources when you buy an eBay item or a Kindle book, so they're not using the App Store.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

So you have no Apple products, yet feel qualifier to criticize them..

Do you want I show the list of iTunes App Store receipts I have?
post #363 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

Don't be shy ..... name one..... any one .... go ahead...

Fine.

Quote:
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.

Here you ignored the fact that Apple has removed the option for a developer to send the customer to their online store from within the app. In giving the customer the "choice" of using in app purchases, they removed the choice of clicking a link in the app to go to the website.

Quote:
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.

Here you ignored the fact that a companies current prices are based on their current costs. Requiring these companies to utilize Apples services which may cost more than their existing system impacts their bottom line, but Apple has given them no flexibility to change their prices based on delivery costs. So they ultimately just have to raise all their prices.

Quote:
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.

Fact: There was no billing cost incurred by Apple until Apple said you have to use our services if you wish to remain in the app store because they weren't using Apple's services.

Do I really need to go 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 #364 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Once again, we come back to the problem that Apple doesn't get money for free apps. I mentioned this many many posts ago. Should Apple really be getting 30% of subscription revenue for content they don't provide to help make up for the billions of free app downloads when they are merely processing the transaction for the subscription?

Look at it another way:
In iBooks, I believe Apple takes 30% of the total sale and 70% goes to the developer.

If Amazon had a similar deal, they'd get nothing on a sale through the app store, as 70% would go to the publisher and 30% would go to Apple.

On the other hand, if the publisher took a portion of Amazons revenue instead of the total sale, Amazon would get 21% of the total sale, 49% of the total sale would go to the publisher, and 30% would go to Apple. While Amazons hit may be acceptable in this scenario, I don't think the publisher would like this.

Either Amazon makes no money on an iOS sale, yet they must still supply the content, or the publisher makes a lot less from an Amazon iOS sale. Both scenarios make Kindle App uncompetitive on a iOS device. What incentive is there for them to stay on iOS? And what are the consequences of not being on iOS? Amazon is put between a rock and a hard place because of Apple flexing its muscle. Amazon is forced to find strike a better deal with publishers than Apple has, just to compete. If Apple didn't stand to gain from this with iBooks, I'd be a lot less worried about it, but as it stands this is anti-competitiveness at its finest.

Yes, if that publication came from the App Store. A store is a store.
Publishers pay subscription firms to get and maintain their sub base. They have companies package and ship those subs. Do you think they pay them? Of course they do. Apple will host any app that's downloaded from their store. They bill for the publisher, and now they've agreed to collect and give the publisher, should the subscriber agree, information they've been demanding. I see no problem with any of this.

And, yes, it does matter that Apple only get paid from a small percentage of developers, those with free apps. Why, because it's a benefit to us, their customers. And that's the most important reason.
post #365 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

There you said it, they already have existing web stores and subscription models in place, which means they do not need an iOS app in order to exist and run their business. There are only two reasons for creating an iOS app...

1. Added value to existing customers - allow current customers to access their content on the iOS devices. Even with IAP in the app, these customers are aware of other methods to purchase content and if it's not a huge inconvenience to do so, would probably still continue to.

2. Get new customers - Take advantage of the platform's size to market your warez to new customers. These customers only discover your business because you made it available on Apple's platform. And while they may make a purchase through IAP, that may not always be the case. There's nothing that says they can't discover an alternative payment system, it's just that I can't link directly to one from within the app. I could still provide a link to product information or support that could eventually lead to my online store.

They wouldn't get to that point because Apple requires the in app purchase feature to be implemented.
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 #366 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

What you are advocating for isn't choice, but the illusion of choice.

So, allowing a customer to purchase "in app" or "out of app" is only .... the illusion of choice ?.... are you sure you're not a politician .... or a contortionist ? You seem to be "talking out of both sides of your mouth" at the same time.
What ever you're smoking, I'd wish you would share.
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #367 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yes, if that publication came from the App Store. A store is a store.
Publishers pay subscription firms to get and maintain their sub base. They have companies package and ship those subs. Do you think they pay them? Of course they do. Apple will host any app that's downloaded from their store. They bill for the publisher, and now they've agreed to collect and give the publisher, should the subscriber agree, information they've been demanding. I see no problem with any of this.

And, yes, it does matter that Apple only get paid from a small percentage of developers, those with free apps. Why, because it's a benefit to us, their customers. And that's the most important reason.

My point was does Apple being generous (no charge for hosting free apps) in one area justify something that almost amounts to extortion in another (taking a 30% cut of subscription revenues just to facilitate a transaction)?

Apple should implement in-app subscriptions, but they shouldn't make them or in-app purchases a requirement for cross platform services.
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 #368 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

But Apple is not referring or sending any buyer.

You know, I really have to tell you something here. You don't seem to be understanding anything we're saying. You keep repeating the same untruths over and again.

Apple is SENDING customers to every company when a customer buys something in the App Store. Why is this such a hard concept for you? It's really very simple. Publisher puts sub in the app store. Customer subscribes. They now have customer they didn't have. That's Apple sending a customer to the publisher.

Otherwise, the publisher has to hire a subcontractor to do this for them. If you've ever received a subscription offer in the mail, that offer wasn't sent by the publisher, though it looks as though it's been. That's a company that specializes in this, doing that mailing for them.

When you get a letter telling you that your sub is about to expire, who does that? The publisher? No, it's the speciality company again. When you send your check in, or your credit card, who does that go to? Well, I hope that by now you know.

Apple is doing the same thing here, except they charge less.
post #369 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post


When you buy a Kindle book Amazon pays for EVERYTHING. They handle the credit card transaction, the download, the book rights, the DRM stuff.... Apple plays no part in it at all.


Folks keeps saying this except that if Apple plays no part in it then how did the content get on the device that Apple developed, manufactured, marketed, sold and delivered?

Apple sure as hell played a part in this chain of events. Amazon has the Kindle ecosystem and when the purchase occurs on that which they paid for then Apple gets no cut. The massive growth in Kindle sales was fueled in part by the success of the iPad. Great for Amazon while it lasted and because it was a benefit to Apple as well they let it ride. Apple appears to no longer believe turning a blind eye is mutually beneficial.

Quote:
Now Apple say they want 30% of the price of every Kindle book,

Not every kindle book...just those sold on the device they developed.

Quote:
the trouble with that is that it will leave Amazon with 0% profit, and so they will have no choice but to pull the Kindle app from iOS. When that happens, iOS will be massively wounded and I suspect will only recover when Apple, tail between it's legs, admits it was very, very wrong.

Not likely even if it turns out to be a mistake. Apple has a recourse: dropping their 30% down to a percentage that all publishers end up on iBooks. That isn't an outcome that Amazon or B&N wants as it is downward pressure on the highest percentage they can charge.
post #370 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

Nope, a far better analogy is that of a car.

Say you bought your car from Toyota. You paid Toyota and now you own the car. Aside from servicing this is the last you'll ever see of Toyota. When you go to fill your car with fuel, you pay the fuel company, not Toyota. This is exactly as it should be, as Toyota had nothing to do with making the fuel or supplying it.

When you buy a Kindle book Amazon pays for EVERYTHING. They handle the credit card transaction, the download, the book rights, the DRM stuff.... Apple plays no part in it at all.

Now Apple say they want 30% of the price of every Kindle book, the trouble with that is that it will leave Amazon with 0% profit, and so they will have no choice but to pull the Kindle app from iOS. When that happens, iOS will be massively wounded and I suspect will only recover when Apple, tail between it's legs, admits it was very, very wrong.

Excessive greed never ends well. Unless of course, you're an investment banker, but that's another story.

That's not entirely correct. If you want to use a car analogy, then Apple would own the roads you drove to get to the dealer to buy the car. This would be the platform on which your product can function. And by the way, every purchase made regarding automobiles; gas, tires, cars, etc., usually have a built-in tax that goes towards making sure the roads can be maintained and the environment clean.

Furthermore, Apple would not be massively wounded by the removal of one function that may affect a small portion of their user base. If Amazon were to remove the Kindle app, the user could simply buy a Kindle or start buying books from another book store. No one is mortally wounded here, just inconvenienced. Amazon would just continue as they always have.

On top of that, you don't know the terms of Amazon's reseller license.
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 #371 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

There's no problem with Apple charging for that service. The problem exists with forcing app developers to use that service even though they already have existing web stores and subscription models in place.

Well then, with all that available to them, they don't have to be in the App Store, and so what is this entire debate all about?
post #372 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You know, I really have to tell you something here. You don't seem to be understanding anything we're saying. You keep repeating the same untruths over and again.

Apple is SENDING customers to every company when a customer buys something in the App Store. Why is this such a hard concept for you? It's really very simple. Publisher puts sub in the app store. Customer subscribes. They now have customer they didn't have. That's Apple sending a customer to the publisher.

Otherwise, the publisher has to hire a subcontractor to do this for them. If you've ever received a subscription offer in the mail, that offer wasn't sent by the publisher, though it looks as though it's been. That's a company that specializes in this, doing that mailing for them.

When you get a letter telling you that your sub is about to expire, who does that? The publisher? No, it's the speciality company again. When you send your check in, or your credit card, who does that go to? Well, I hope that by now you know.

Apple is doing the same thing here, except they charge less.

You know, I think YOU don-t want to understand. Kindle books weeren't bought through the Apple store, Netflix subs weren't bought thought the App Store. It's not hard to understand if you want to understand.
post #373 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

So, allowing a customer to purchase "in app" or "out of app" is only .... the illusion of choice ?.... are you sure you're not a politician .... or a contortionist ? You seem to be "talking out of both sides of your mouth" at the same time.
What ever you're smoking, I'd wish you would share.

I'm just not smoking fanboyism, that's all. It's the illusion of choice because one of the choices is hidden. It's there, so Apple can say there's a choice (and fanboys will go on and on about it), but they don't want you to talk about it or even hint at it in the app.

Once a consumer is in the App, there's effectively one choice, and the developers only options are to include in app purchasing for a platform they already have established online payment systems for or don't provide an app at all.
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 #374 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

My God, Apple is FORCING to use the App Store for in app purchases. Amazon, Nertflix, Spotify weren't using Apple resources to sell they subscriptions or goods.

Another untruth! You're really piling them on, and you never even went to the web stores you talked about to see if what you said was true.

Is this all you're going to do here, tell people they're wrong and not provide any useful information? Because it's getting old real fast.

None of these companies have to be in the App Store. If they don't like the terms, they can leave. If they think they can live with them, they won't. Pretty simple.

People don't have to use Apple to get these services.
post #375 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

The problem in the case of Amazon or Sony is people are there for Amazon or Sony not necessarily for Apple.

What is that supposed to mean? The only reason people use the App Store is for those companies products? Seriously?
post #376 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Another untruth! You're really piling them on, and you never even went to the web stores you talked about to see if what you said was true..

No, another truth. Are they forced to implement in app purchasing if they want their app approved yes or not?

Ps, have you read the fictionwise epub links?
post #377 of 571
Welcome back web apps...

Can't Amazon, B&N, and others simply create a fancy HTML 5 web app that does essentially what their iOS developed app store apps does and bypass this new requirement?

Or is Apple going to start what you can buy in a browser too!!
post #378 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Think of how many people would never have even purchased Ipads had it not been for Amazon and Netflix and Hulu...

Not very many. You should be asking how many people wouldn't be using those companies if it weren't for the iPad. It would be at least as many.
post #379 of 571
Quote:
There's nothing that says they can't discover an alternative payment system, it's just that I can't link directly to one from within the app. I could still provide a link to product information or support that could eventually lead to my online store.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

They wouldn't get to that point because Apple requires the in app purchase feature to be implemented.

So now you're assuming that no one would find my online store just because I implemented IAP in my app? That's ridiculous.

All Apple is saying, is that I cannot directly link to my online store or make references to purchasing items outside of my app. It does not say that I cannot provide the user with a link to my website for support issues or ANYTHING else. Once the user is on my website, they could in fact discover my online store. The issue at hand is that I have not lead them there for the sole purpose of making a sale; thereby willfully cutting Apple out of the transaction.
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 #380 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well then, with all that available to them, they don't have to be in the App Store, and so what is this entire debate all about?

At the heart of the matter is the question of why should Netflix (or any other cross platform service) be forced to surrender 30% of their lifetime subscription revenue from a customer because they initially signed up for the service on their iPhone? If Apple gave Netflix the choice to implement in-app subscriptions or not, they'd be free to implement them if they felt they were beneficial.
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 #381 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Not very many. You should be asking how many people wouldn't be using those companies if it weren't for the iPad. It would be at least as many.

I don't agree with you on this one Mel. My iPad 2 purchase will be put on hold if Amazon, B&N, Netflix content goes bye-bye.
post #382 of 571
You know it's a little weird that no one has pointed out that this is a significant issue for amazon only if the iPad is the primary reading device for Kindle users. If 90% of kindle books readers read 90% of the time on the kindle device my assumption would be 90% of the time they'll buy their next book using the Kindle and not their iPad.

Apple then gets only a minuscule piece of the amazon pie.

On the other hand if the iPad is the primary book reader for a large segment of the kindle users then it's a huge deal. Of course, this means that Amazon really has been freeloading off of Apple's success and 30% seems pretty fair given Amazon hasn't offered Apple anything...not a cut of an app purchase, not a cut of a book sale, not a offer for reciprocal space in the kindle market. Nada. They didn't have to. Then again apple doesn't have to let them on their ecosystem either.
post #383 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

So now you're assuming that no one would find my online store just because I implemented IAP in my app? That's ridiculous.

All Apple is saying, is that I cannot directly link to my online store or make references to purchasing items outside of my app. It does not say that I cannot provide the user with a link to my website for support issues or ANYTHING else. Once the user is on my website, they could in fact discover my online store. The issue at hand is that I have not lead them there for the sole purpose of making a sale.

No one in the app would find the store unless they were aware of Apple's billing arrangement and didn't want to give Apple money.

Clicking "buy now" is much easier than searching for a support link.
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 #384 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

So, allowing a customer to purchase "in app" or "out of app" is only .... the illusion of choice ?.... are you sure you're not a politician .... or a contortionist ? You seem to be "talking out of both sides of your mouth" at the same time.
What ever you're smoking, I'd wish you would share.

In the binary sense, yes, there are two options, an in app purchase and an out of app purchase. Overlay that with the requirement to use the in app purchase framework, and the removal of the option to link away to complete a purchase, and then force the content owner to charge the same price or better for using the in app purchase framewor, then you can (or should be able to) quite readily see that the choice is effectively an illusion.

And apple gets their 30%
post #385 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

Nope, a far better analogy is that of a car.

Say you bought your car from Toyota. You paid Toyota and now you own the car. Aside from servicing this is the last you'll ever see of Toyota. When you go to fill your car with fuel, you pay the fuel company, not Toyota. This is exactly as it should be, as Toyota had nothing to do with making the fuel or supplying it.

When you buy a Kindle book Amazon pays for EVERYTHING. They handle the credit card transaction, the download, the book rights, the DRM stuff.... Apple plays no part in it at all.

Now Apple say they want 30% of the price of every Kindle book, the trouble with that is that it will leave Amazon with 0% profit, and so they will have no choice but to pull the Kindle app from iOS. When that happens, iOS will be massively wounded and I suspect will only recover when Apple, tail between it's legs, admits it was very, very wrong.

Excessive greed never ends well. Unless of course, you're an investment banker, but that's another story.

No, it's not a good analogy. You can only take car analogies so far: perhaps you can speak about warranties. You would expect to see Toyota again in that case. But they'll say, sorry we no fix your car because you converted it to LPG and that violates the warranty.

What makes a "computer" different is that it is more than a sum of the parts. Yes, you own the physical hardware components, whatever you can weigh in your hand. You own the engine and the body.

But guess what, it doesn't matter how much you paid for your iPad, you don't own iOS and most software. You have a license for the use of the software on that iPad. The OS and the iStore platfrom belong to Apple, they are not selling it to you. The iTunes Store is not "on your iPad", you are accessing it from your iPad.

If you want to jailbreak your iPad and "do what you want" with it, then go ahead. But Apple doesn't have to support your breaking of the license agreement. Or, don't buy one.

And no, it's not 39% of every Kindle book. It's 30% of those sold through the in-app purchase mechanism. If Amazon wants those customers, and those customers want simple, one click purchase tied to their one iTunes account, and they don't want Amazon to know their details, then, yes, Apple gets 30%. Otherwise Amazon can sell Kindle books on Kindles. Is Sony going to sell Kindle books for Amazon? Is the Nook going to sell Kindle books for Amazon?

Amazon can leave, by all means. Would I buy a Kindle? No way. So, it will be Amazon that crawls back. They know they'll sell a bunch of books to the 160M iDevice users if they have a Kindle iApp on Apple's terms.
post #386 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

At the heart of the matter is the question of why should Netflix (or any other cross platform service) be forced to surrender 30% of their lifetime subscription revenue from a customer because they initially signed up for the service on their iPhone? If Apple gave Netflix the choice to implement in-app subscriptions or not, they'd be free to implement them if they felt they were beneficial.

Does Apple receive 30% of the monthly Netflix subscription cost or do they just get the initial subscription cost when you sign up?
post #387 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Nooooooo, my God, i don't know if you can't unddesrstand my poor English but no, we were not talking about Kindle or eBay App, but the transactions done with them, they're NOT using Apple resources when you buy an eBay item or a Kindle book, so they're not using the App Store.

I said they don't get a cut from those sales. What more do you expect? But Apple still has to pay for all the work they do in hosting the FREE app, for which they get nothing.

I suspect you think that's fair though.

Quote:
Do you want I show the list of iTunes App Store receipts I have?

Sure, because you really don't seem to know anything about any of this. You're unresponsive to certain questions, you don't seem to be familiar with any of the companies we're talking about, and you mention most things only after someone else has brought it up first.

I'm even beginning to wonder if you're an IBM plant, some version of Watson.
post #388 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post

Does Apple receive 30% of the monthly Netflix subscription cost or do they just get the initial subscription cost when you sign up?

As long as it auto-renewed through iTunes, they'd get 30% of every payment.
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 #389 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post

Welcome back web apps...

Can't Amazon, B&N, and others simply create a fancy HTML 5 web app that does essentially what their iOS developed app store apps does and bypass this new requirement?

Or is Apple going to start what you can buy in a browser too!!

Apple has always stated they support two platforms, one that is fully open, WebKit and one that is regulated, iOS.
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 #390 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

There's no problem with Apple charging for that service. The problem exists with forcing app developers to use that service even though they already have existing web stores and subscription models in place.

Baloney. because as you say they already have their own websites too where you can sign up for and/or buy their content/services. which web sites you can easily access via browser on the same iOS device that runs their app. and then you stream/download that "purchased outside" content via their app per usual. Apple did not prohibit that. so nobody is being "forced" to do business through Apple only. Apple just said the browser-buy price can't undercut the in-app price.

excluding all that un-affected iOS broswer-based business, for the remaining in-app business, this all boils down to two situations:

- the company is selling/renting/subscribing content that Apple ALSO offers via iTunes, iBooks, etc. so Apple will now get its cut from its competition too.

- the company is selling/renting/subscribing content that Apple does NOT offer via iTunes, iBooks, etc. so Apple will get its cut the same as if those add-on purchases were included in the price of the app itself. games do this a lot of course - a very low app price with lots of in-app paid extras. but the same trick could be used by anyone.

i have no problem with this business model. iOS is Apple's walled garden, and you gotta give Apple a piece of the action if you want to sell your flowers inside it. you can still sell them outside the gate too, keep al the money, and have people carry them inside for free instead.

the business question is whether 30% is more than many are willing to pay. for that charge you do get exposure to the biggest single installed base of digital shoppers (with higher than average incomes), the iOS platform, and you avoid all other transaction costs. so there is value gained in exchange.

all the big guys - Hulu, Amazon, Netflix - sign you up and sell you their stuff via the web first anyway. this will barely affect them now, tho it does discourage them from competiing directly with iTunes via apps in the future. Newspapers and magazines can do the same too. it's the smaller outfits that get most of their exposure via the App Store that depend most on in-app purchases now. well, they've always got Android and all its big spenders (sic). please don't anyone suggest Apple has some kind of monopoly (but the Euro regulators probably will anyway).

the marketplace will prove the ultimate test of this Apple "franchise fee." but as always, 70% of something is a whole lot more than 100% of nothing.
post #391 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

My point was does Apple being generous (no charge for hosting free apps) in one area justify something that almost amounts to extortion in another (taking a 30% cut of subscription revenues just to facilitate a transaction)?

Apple should implement in-app subscriptions, but they shouldn't make them or in-app purchases a requirement for cross platform services.

You know very well that 30% is no higher, and often lower than any other way the publisher can get this done for them. If they have to maintain their own site, there is heavy overhead there as well. And if a third party other than Apple doing it, they will charge just as much, or more. But you know that.

And of course Apple has to charge that. Why should subs be any different from any other app? How would other app producers feel if Apple charged less then they paid? That wouldn't be fair.

This way, everyone pays the same, for the same services. Nothing could be more fair than that.
post #392 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

At the heart of the matter is the question of why should Netflix (or any other cross platform service) be forced to surrender 30% of their lifetime subscription revenue from a customer because they initially signed up for the service on their iPhone? If Apple gave Netflix the choice to implement in-app subscriptions or not, they'd be free to implement them if they felt they were beneficial.

I find it weird that anyone would download the Netflix app before they got a sub.
post #393 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I said they don't get a cut from those sales. What more do you expect? But Apple still has to pay for all the work they do in hosting the FREE app, for which they get nothing.

I suspect you think that's fair though.

If Apple thinks it's not fair to host an app for free, they can charge for hosting and bandwith costs, but why is fair to charge for sometimes they aren't providing?


Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I
Sure, because you really don't seem to know anything about any of this. You're unresponsive to certain questions, you don't seem to be familiar with any of the companies we're talking about, and you mention most things only after someone else has brought it up first.

I'm even beginning to wonder if you're an IBM plant, some version of Watson.

Where do you want i send the iMac, Macbook, iPhone, Mac Mini receipts?
post #394 of 571
Gizmodo actually offers some pretty good coverage of this, including this bit:

Quote:
Rhapsody says straight up: "an Apple-imposed arrangement that requires us to pay 30 percent of our revenue to Apple, in addition to content fees that we pay to the music labels, publishers and artists, is economically untenable."
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 #395 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

You know, I think YOU don-t want to understand. Kindle books weeren't bought through the Apple store, Netflix subs weren't bought thought the App Store. It's not hard to understand if you want to understand.

I understand well. I also see, that as usual, you don't respond to a whole post, but just one small part of it, as though the rest will just go away. But it's here forever.
post #396 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

As long as it auto-renewed through iTunes, they'd get 30% of every payment.

How would you auto-renew through iTunes? Is Apple requiring all in-app purchases to be made via iTunes accounts too?
post #397 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You know very well that 30% is no higher, and often lower than any other way the publisher can get this done for them. If they have to maintain their own site, there is heavy overhead there as well. And if a third party other than Apple doing it, they will charge just as much, or more. But you know that.

And of course Apple has to charge that. Why should subs be any different from any other app? How would other app producers feel if Apple charged less then they paid? That wouldn't be fair.

This way, everyone pays the same, for the same services. Nothing could be more fair than that.

If they already have to maintain their own site for other platforms, why should they also have to have the in-app purchasing arrangement with Apple?
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 #398 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

No, another truth. Are they forced to implement in app purchasing if they want their app approved yes or not?

Ps, have you read the fictionwise epub links?

Only if they have out of app purchasing as well. We're not arguing that. We're arguing the results of what it means.
post #399 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

At the heart of the matter is the question of why should Netflix (or any other cross platform service) be forced to surrender 30% of their lifetime subscription revenue from a customer because they initially signed up for the service on their iPhone? If Apple gave Netflix the choice to implement in-app subscriptions or not, they'd be free to implement them if they felt they were beneficial.

Because there's a possibility that the customer never would've signed up in the first place if they hadn't done so through the Netflix iOS app. So they would be out of that 70% until the customer stumbled across it some other way.

But the opposite is true, Apple is providing Netflix with a free platform for existing customers to view content. They will NEVER see a single cent from those customers and will continue to host Netflix's app for free as well.

And are you kidding me? Do you really think Netflix would volunteer to implement IAP, if they didn't have to? This is the heart of the problem as it is now. All these companies are making money off Apple's platform and not one is offering Apple anything in return, not even charging for the app, so Apple could make some money from them. Instead they're abusing Apple's policy of not charging for free apps and charging users for content elsewhere.
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 #400 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

At the heart of the matter is the question of why should Netflix (or any other cross platform service) be forced to surrender 30% of their lifetime subscription revenue from a customer because they initially signed up for the service on their iPhone? If Apple gave Netflix the choice to implement in-app subscriptions or not, they'd be free to implement them if they felt they were beneficial.

We'll just have to see what happens. We're arguing this all day, but we really don't know exactly how this will pan out. I don't agree with everything Apple has done here, but for the most part, it does look pretty good for publishers, much better than we thought it would.

With Netflix continually lowering their prices, apparently there's a lot of rubber there. It all comes down to whether these companies think they will do better in the App Store or not. We can't decide that for them.

But no matter what, it's Apple's store, and all stores make their own rules. This is a new convention, selling within an app. Apple is trying to see how this will work out for them. It's not written in stone. Apple has made changes to its rules before, and they will do so again.
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