Apple unveils subscriptions for iOS App Store, bans links to out-of-app purchases - Page 14

I don't believe they are happy and I just thought it was the most humorous (from my perspective) way to resolve it. I definitely don't expect you to share my sense of humor.

If they are happy and no costs are ever passed onto me, and none of my favorite apps get blocked from the App Store, I guess I'd be happy with the changes. I just don't see that as a likely outcome. From my perspective, I think the most likely outcome is Apple quietly backing off on their terms. Perhaps allowing "reader" apps without in-app purchases, provided they don't mention or link to the website. If I'm wrong, you can call me on it. I have been pretty adamant that this is a raw deal and you reap what you sow. If I'm right, I'm not going to be linking old posts saying I was right, that's not why I'm here. I just like a good debate.

Me too.

What I like about these discussions is that time itself is the referee. In a month or twelve we get to see who is right. (If anyone).


C.

What Apple 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. ....

(IMO, that's called a choice.)

They are not "required" to do anything. They, like all businessmen, look at each situation and decide, on their own, if it's beneficial to participate, or not. If they think it is .... then participate. If they don't think that it is .... then don't participate. ... simple. .... Just don't squawk about how Apple is "forcing" them to do anything , because they're not. This is how all businesses work. You do a cost/benefit analysis and then make a decision based on your findings.
It's just plain stupid to say ...."I want to participate in your store, but it's too expensive, so you have to lower your prices for me".

They wanted exposure to Apple's ecosystem (think 100 million IOS device owners) by way of a "free" app (that Apple hosts for nothing) and then take the customer out of the app so as to bypass paying Apple anything ..... are you going to tell me that Apple should stand by and fall for that .... come on, even you must see that idiocy to think that that's the "right business decision".

Only if you are going to say something somewhat intelligent.

What competing services? .... What "content" does Apple create? None ... they rely on content providers to see the value in choosing the Apple App Store. If the majority do ... Apple wins .... If the majority choose someone else ... Apple loses. .... What could be more fair?

And just what is your "business model" ..... one where your competitor wins, .. but you lose? ... Brilliant! .... Who do I make the cheque out to? ....

No, you can disagree, but senseless harping based on self-serving entering arguments and lack of willingness to even acknowledge the facts on the playing field don't show a willingness to debate. if you aren't willing to play fairly, you are trolling. If you play fairly and disagree everyone wins.

I did think it was humorous when my posts lined up. Simply a morning romp through the thread and amazingly there was only one interspersing post over the course of an hour. Is it my fault y'all took a break then? Multi quote wasn't appropriate anyway as I was addressing each post on it's own merits, I do use it when it makes sense and have already in this thread. So thakee Sai for your input, but I'll do it my way.

The multi-posting thing also seems to be giving you a fit because your Kindle response must be directed to someone else. Maybe you should take my tactic and reply to the appropriate poster rather than errantly stuff it all into one post and miss the mark. Dont'cha hate it when you become the example for avoiding your own advice?

As for broader topics such as what Amazon intends to do with Kindle, that's not the topic of this thread, so your points miss the mark when discussing iOS subscriptions anyway.

And you won't ... unless you have something worthwhile to sell. OTOH .... just ask "Pixelmator" what they think ..... http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...t_20_days.html
One million dollars in 20 days .... not too shabby.

They removed a choice from the developer and hid one from the customer. If the developer was able to choose whether or not they used in-app purchases, I'd have absolutely no qualms with this service.


They are required to support in-app purchases if they wish to remain in the app store. I'm sorry I didn't spell "in the app store" out for you. Why are you talking about new developers? I was talking about existing ones. If you were renting and your landlord knocked on your door saying he was doubling your rent, damn right you'd be pissed, and it wouldn't be absurd to ask for a lower rate. After all you've paid your rent on time, every time for the last two years. Are you familiar with the term "bait and switch"? Apple hasn't gone that far, but the change certainly isn't nice to a lot of app developers and content providers who have been using Apple's system.


I've repeatably said Apple deserves to be paid and they are paid by virtue of the $99 developer fee and 30% of paid apps as well as increased iOS device sales from these free apps. If Apple feels they aren't getting enough from free apps, they should do something about that, not charge 30% to process a subscription. For example, why do you think that subscription apps should be paying for all the free apps that make money using Google's AdMob ads? Aren't they getting a "free ride" too? What would Google say if Apple started asking for a 30% cut of AdMob revenue?

Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon aren't even bypassing the app store. They are existing services. Yes, Apple would only get money if the user opened an account from within the app, but a lifetime 30% referral fee is a little much.

Melgross, Melgross, Melgross, Melgross ....(the sound of one fanboy (me) cheering ) ....

Apple survived without Netflix, Hulu and books altogether. iTunes survived without the biggest selling band of all-time (The Beatles) and still are without Led Zep's catalog. If Netflix (etc.) go a different route Apple will be fine. They will continue to make money off the business's that know the iOS/App Store model works for them.

Also, the iPad/iPhone/iPod are so popular that customers will drive demand for Netflix, Amazon and Hulu to support iDevices. If they don't, iDevice users will find an alternative product to suite there needs (or Apple will supply their own).

I guess consumers (over time) could switch to another tablet device (Android/Win Mobile 7) but if I just spent $700 - $1000 on an iPad, i am gonna use it for a couple before I sink the same amount into another device... and who knows where we will be in 2years?

Yeah I should have kept the multiposting comments to myself. It was somewhat humorous.


These forums don't do nested quotes by default, but I'd expect that you should at least remember the context of your own quote. You were quoting someone who mentioned Amazon and the Kindle, saying they were right and the other guy was a troll. I said that example that you were praising wasn't that great.


This thread has a singular topic? Other people have said "but the Kindle has a SDK too" in some context related to this thread but I'm not allowed to respond to them? I worded my response in anticipation of future comments based on what I was saying so I didn't have to reply again. I guess it was unnecessary. Taken in the context of everything that's been said here, they fit, but if you haven't followed the thread too closely, perhaps not.

The problem is simply this ... and I'll use the analogy of a "brick and mortar store" to simplify it.

If a store, in a mall say, .... had one of the other store's owners come in and say:

You know, I've noticed that you seem to "attract a lot of customers" in your store. They must like what they see here..... so here's what I propose: Let me hang a sign in your store .... promoting my store, so I can take advantage of your fantastic customer volume ..... oh, and by the way, I want that, at no cost to me. Thanks!

I don't know about you, but if that happened to me ... I'd throw him out on his ass. ....

Apple survived without Netflix, Hulu and books altogether. iTunes survived without the biggest selling band of all-time (The Beatles) and still are without Led Zep's catalog. If Netflix (etc.) go a different route Apple will be fine. They will continue to make money off the business's that know the iOS/App Store model works for them.

Also, the iPad/iPhone/iPod are so popular that customers will drive demand for Netflix, Amazon and Hulu to support iDevices. If they don't, iDevice users will find an alternative product to suite there needs (or Apple will supply their own).

I guess consumers (over time) could switch to another tablet device (Android/Win Mobile 7) but if I just spent $700 - $1000 on an iPad, i am gonna use it for a couple before I sink the same amount into another device... and who knows where we will be in 2years?

I didn't directly respond to this point.

What I was suggesting that some services might leave, but the content certainly will not.
That's an important distinction.

If you own some content, you'd be nuts not to want it on the store. Because if it's not in there, you are losing cash.

C.

What happened in July 2008? The iPhone 3G and the App Store. Even Steve Jobs gave a lot of credit to the App Store for the iPhones phenomenal growth. Of course Apple can survive without some high profile apps, but they are better off with them.

Naturally content will find its way back in time, but you will lose content in the short term (a couple months to a couple years) if anyone does leave. Streaming media alternatives to Netflix don't show up over night and even selling your product in iTunes may not reach the same customers.

Obviously, its better for Apple to have high profile Apps... But will netflix be ok without the App store? That's the real question...

Netflix would much rather be on the App store than not, but they'd be fine off of it. It's not like the service was born on the App Store. New Android phones are going to start having Netflix too (yeah I didn't realize they didn't have it yet either) so they could just trade one hat for another. We'll see what happens.

PS: If established companies can't survive without Apple, it would just show that Apple's actions require closer scrutiny because of the amount of influence they exert on the industry... I don't think you want to go down that line of thought.

I think the last earnings release, Netflix said PS3, Xbox and Wii were the popular devices. The ipad was pretty low on their list. Not surprising that watching something on that tiny screen isn't too popular.

Lost in all my negativity for forced in app subscriptions is the fact that I like the idea of in app subscriptions a lot, especially on the Apple TV once it gets apps (hello easy to purchase À la carte TV channels). I just don't like them being forced on everyone.

Edit: Now that I think about it more. I think this move is definitely focussed on Apple TV. Subscriptions will play as central on Apple TV a role as apps have for the iPhone, so naturally they'll want a consistent user experience and want to make subscribing to new stations (apps) easy. I earlier said this move was stupid and short sighted, but perhaps it's just a little miscalculated. I still don't think 30% is the magic number (unless they start supplying the subscription content themselves), nor do I appreciate their approach to the matter, but I can definitely see why they'd want to force in-app subscriptions on everyone in anticipation of an Apple TV with apps. I still think Apple's going to be some push back and Apple will likely need to revise the terms. I know I probably wouldn't be posting if Apple was pushing a 10% model on everyone, or if they allowed reader apps, provided they didn't link to their store.

Other thoughts: No iOS 5, Apple TV 2 or iPhone 5 until after June 30th for obvious reasons.

Edit #2: On second thought, you guys are probably right that Web Apps are a good enough alternative. I can't really complain if there is an option to be on iOS without being on the App Store and it's a good enough alternative. Devs will either agree to the terms or they won't. They'll work it out one way or another, and one way may be to lower Apples cut. I still think it's a douchebag move, but there are other options available, and there are a lot of upsides for the consumer, so I should just let it rest. Hopefully Apple brings iTunes sales out of iOS and iTunes as well so we don't have to subscribe to the same service twice.

Apple started selling the iPhone in 22 countries .... Not just 4.

Not according to wikipedia:

The iPhone went on sale in the United States on June 29, 2007, at 6:00 pm local time, while hundreds of customers lined up outside the stores nationwide.[7] The original iPhone was made available in the UK, France, and Germany in November 2007, and Ireland and Austria in the spring of 2008.
On July 11, 2008, Apple released the iPhone 3G in twenty-two countries, including the original six.[8

Now you're just posting stupid ... not worthwhile even bothering to read you anymore ..... bye bye.

Aren't we forgetting that magazines and newspapers do not receive the same level of visibility as books do via iBooks. They currently either publish their own app (like The Australian newspaper) or they sit inside a virtual news shelf like the Zinio app. Wouldn't a magazine or newspaper publisher expect similar exposure in return for a 30% cut? There are no "Mags" or "News" buttons in iTunes and there are no Apple created iMags or iNews Apps. Shouldn't there be?

No real loss, you never really added anything other than insults anyway.

All I said was that I've had a change of heart on Web Apps. If they are considered a decent alternative (which I earlier argued they weren't), Apple can do whatever they want with the App Store and developers are free to leave it without leaving iOS. I may not agree with Apple's approach, but the option of Web Apps is there so I shouldn't have gotten as worked up about it. That said, I don't think HTML5 can accommodate any DRM on .h264 videos (correct me if I'm wrong on that) so I'm not sure if Netflix would even try a web app, but I also don't think DRM is necessary in the first place.

As far as Apple TV goes, the importance of subscriptions is obvious. Any network wishing to put their content on Apple TV can simply release an app and charge a subscription fee for it. Do you know what that spells? Cable TV replacement, which means Apple TV would no longer suffer from the "another set top box syndrome" as it would be replacing the cable box. I just don't know what it would take to get the networks to buy into the idea.

I've said that I'm not happy about this either. But I can see the business reasons for why they want to do it, and there are now a bunch of other companies who are saying that not only can they live with it, but that its not a bad deal at all.

I couldn't care less about what Rhapsody has to say, because they've been losing money since they started, and it's amazing they're still in business anyway.

Amazon isn't known for playing fair, so they're feelings don't bother me either. B&N seems better in that regard. But feelings and business don't often go together. So they could be royally ticked off, and still work with it.

Yes. It was the App Store, not two or three apps by themselves, no matter how popular they may have been. apple's own apps have always been among the most popular, but even if they were removed, it wouldn't change the numbers much.

But that did happen a couple of times. Both times, the companies came back on their own, without Apple making any concessions.

With the bookstore, we've still got one major publisher out. How long that continues is hard to tell, and it's pretty stupid of them anyway, because Amazon was giving them a worse deal than Apple is.

Sure, good question.

Apple is continually working on their online stores. It's not easy to come up with something that works well with ever expanding content. But as they update iTunes, we get better organization(with some setbacks here and there) as time goes by. I would imagine that as we now have the subscription service, we'll see easier ways of accessing it.

But right now, if you type magazine into the App Store, you come up with 2147 for the iPhone/Touch, and 1766 for the iPad. You can organize them by various types, times, etc.

I would think that they would have a new category called magazines, with a sub category of subscriptions coming out at some point as well.

They also have magazines featured the way they do with other apps. And don't forget that they are doing the payment system and the renewal system as well as the hosting of the downloads. The publisher does none of that.

Ok boys, shake and make up.

No, they are not saying the market value is 10%. It says their flat rate fee is 10%. They'll make up the rest in other areas. Just as with Android, it's "free", but there is always a cost to such things. They just come later and sometimes unbeknownst to the user. Google's main source of revenue is advertising. Two of the most important factors of advertising are #1 distribution, and #2 consumer information. Offering the OS and other services for free means more MAY use it, that's #1. And by using it, the licensing terms dictate that Google has the right to track and gather your information and habits, that's #2.

Everything Google does pushes its advertising platform into more areas. The entire reason for Google getting into the mobile OS business, was because it feared Microsoft would leverage its mobile platform to advance its new Bing! search service, which would directly cut into Google's main advertising platform; Google Search.



Since you seem so caught up on this 30% fee and how greedy and unfair Apple is being... You do realize that before Apple introduced iBooks with its normal iOS payment cut of 70/30, Amazon's fee was 70% and even today, they still take up to 70%+ for some content?

Amazon Raises Kindle Pay Rate

Of course Netflix will be fine, but if they decided to pull the app, it may anger a lot of people who may have finally decided to join Netflix because it was available on the AppStore.

I don't think people understand how a service like Netflix will actually be affected by this. Apple cannot take any cut of Netflix's DVD subscription service. They can only take 30% from the streaming-only service. Simply because it's against the IAP terms to sell anything that does not directly affect the application. No real world material goods or services can be sold though IAP.

So the only subscription service that Netflix CAN offer (and actually the only one they support on mobile devices) is the streaming-only service, which we would all guess is a tiny portion of their revenue. Because they cannot offer the DVD service through IAP they can in fact provide a link to their website to enable users to subscribe to those services. And if streaming happens to be a part of that service, there's nothing Apple can do. But, Netflix still HAS to make the streaming-only service available through IAP, because that's the service they are providing via the app.

Sorry I should have said that's how much they feel the service is worth.


I never said 70/30 was a bad deal for eBooks or iPad only magazines. I said it was a bad deal for cross-platform services and your Amazon example includes them hosting the content something Apple isn't doing.

iBooks is exactly the same as Kindle. Apple does host iBook content and handles transactions and still has a flat 30% fee.




Except it's not really a cross-platform service being provided here.

Kindle is a platform in its own right. Kindle content cannot be read in another reader, such Apple's iBooks (DRM free content can be, probably). Amazon wants to take advantage of Apple's iOS platform to push its own Kindle platform. And they have been doing that without paying Apple anything.

The bigger issue you're trying to argue is that Apple shouldn't charge Amazon as much as everyone else, because they are a reseller. That doesn't seem fair to publishers and authors who make their content available directly to Apple's platform through their own apps or via one of Apple's media stores.

Apple is saying, they don't care what your business model is, or where the content originated from, if you want to provide content for iOS users, you must make it available in-app and you must pay a 30% fee. It is not Apple's problem or concern where that content originated from and at what cost. If Amazon wants to make money, they can either raise their own prices or take a larger chunk from the content providers. OR abandon their iOS app and stick to their own devices and any other devices they're on. Or try as hard as hell to persuade Kindle users to use the Kindle Store rather than purchasing content in-app.

It is not Apple's responsibility or obligation to make sure Amazon makes a profit from its Kindle platform.

mel-

For subscription content, the publisher is delivering the content. For instance, The Daily's content is pushed by NewsCorp servers. They sort of made a big deal of this indirectly during the launch by stating that they could push updates or even a new front page at any time during the day.

Apple may well offer to provide distribution to smaller players in which case I think they deserve a higher cut.

One way is which Google will inflate their take is by forcing customers and publishers to use Google Checkout. For a small publisher, this could add an additional 2.9% plus 30 cents per transaction.

mjtomlins link above a few posts lists Google's Google Editions book store planned pass through to publishers as 63%, or 45% if there was a referral via a Google partner. At those rates Apples mere 30% looks pretty good, competitively superior even.

Interesting how Apple takes the heat for beating the competitions prices, but for the last 8 months Amazon and Google got a free pass on some pretty nasty publisher gouging.

As far as I know, the mag comes from Apple's store. They may push updates during the day from their own servers though.

When you have an update notice from the store it's from Apple. Otherwise, it might be from the publisher, or not.

Suddenly, my old PC laptop looks attractive again. Because I do not need to ask uncle Steve if it is OK to read my Kindle books there. Or I might start to look for alternative tablets.

What galls me, is that I have bought an iPad under false pretenses. Stupid as I am, I bought the iPad as a laptop replacement. I knew about the App store, and that I could not install executable code outside the App store. But never in my wildest dreams did I imagine uncle Steve wanted to restrict access to content (Kindle eBooks and whatever).

Please, do not give me the crap about a choice to use the App store or not. Apple's terms are unacceptable to content providers, where the iPad is just one device among many.

What you all have to realize, is that the iPad is not a laptop replacement. Instead, it is a closed environment for a captive audience, where uncle Steve decides what (and what not) you should read, and what you shall pay. Competition (Amazon and others) are banned in practice, because Steve's terms are unacceptable.

What you say makes sense .... intuitively.

But in practice that intuition is wrong.

The iOS market has cause a huge amount of new software and new content to become available.

In just a year, a gigantic catalog of new software and new services has become available. In that same period, what has changed in PC land?

I can see that people object to this kind of monetization on a political basis.
But no one is suffering from a lack of choice.

C.

Your post is factually incorrect and uninformed, then thoroughly biased against what is actually going on and the frosting on the cake is "do not give me the crap about a choice to use the App store or not." Well, that's true, you can or not.

Sideloading content is fully allowed meaning you don't need to pejoratively ask Uncle Steve anything. It is quite obvious you had no intention of actually participating in a real discussion. Troll. Go Away.