AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Legacy apps must comply with Apple's App Store subscription rules by June 30
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Legacy apps must comply with Apple's App Store subscription rules by June 30 - Page 7

post #241 of 257
2/16/11 at 4:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

Netflix' incentive is access to a hundred plus million customers willing to spend money?

Netflix has that through its website right now.
Reply
Reply
post #242 of 257
2/16/11 at 5:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by msuberly View Post

Netflix has that through its website right now.

Read the condition I posted at the top of the previous page. If Netflix offers any kind of purchasing or subscription to content, even if it's only through their website, they're also required to offer it through Apple's in-app purchasing method and at the same price.
Reply
Reply
post #243 of 257
2/16/11 at 5:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Put it in perspective: Amazon pays $0.00 to distribute their apps to millions of iOS customers, because the apps are marked as "free" in the App Store, per Apple's rules, which was originally to avoid penalizing companies which didn't make money off their apps. That's Apple being fair. But Amazon does make money off their app, just not directly. Apple is basically saying, you guys are taking advantage of us, and we get it. So it stops now.

If I'm not mistaken, Amazon paid $99 to get their app in the store. So stop with this free app distribution BS. App distribution on iOS is not free.
Reply
Reply
post #244 of 257
2/16/11 at 5:57am
As a frequent user of Amazon's kindle app on iOS I will be watching this closely. If this results in either:

1) Amazon withdrawing their app, or..
2) Amazon not being able to price their books competitively because of a 30% tax

.. then I will personally write a stiffly worded complaint to the EU Competition Commission asking them to investigate. The way it works now is perfectly fair. Amazon give their bookreader away for free and so do Apple. Amazon sell their books separately and so do Apple. They compete on book price, and that competition is fair. Apple gain from this arrangement too because the kindle app adds value to their platform without inflicting any extra overhead or expense on Apple's business.

For now I'm just going to wait and see. But I won't just sit on the sidelines and bitch about it passively if this turns out badly. I love Apple products, but the company still needs to play by the same fair competition rules everyone else is held to.
Reply
Reply
post #245 of 257
2/16/11 at 6:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke View Post

Read the condition I posted at the top of the previous page. If Netflix offers any kind of purchasing or subscription to content, even if it's only through their website, they're also required to offer it through Apple's in-app purchasing method and at the same price.

I'm thinking that Netflix will get around this by changing their model for their regular subscription to NOT include iOS devices (iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch). Then have a separate subscription to be able to use iOS devices. That subscription will be more in order to factor in the 30% cut they would have to give to Apple.

Either way the customer loses.
Reply
Reply
post #246 of 257
2/16/11 at 6:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by azentropy View Post

I'm thinking that Netflix will get around this by changing their model for their regular subscription to NOT include iOS devices (iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch). Then have a separate subscription to be able to use iOS devices. That subscription will be more in order to factor in the 30% cut they would have to give to Apple.

Either way the customer loses.

They can't get around it. As long as their app provide content which is available because the user subscribed it somewhere, anywhere, they have to include an in-app subscription option through apple, offer the same deal as what's available elsewhere or better. Their only alternative is to pull the app completely.

Well, another alternative is to offer a "better" deal exclusively for iOS users. I'm sure someone can come up a structure that seems better, but doesn't cost as much as 30%.

Either way, I don't think Netflix will pull the app, maybe just not promote it on iOS anymore. As much as 30% cut sound, each additional subscriber on iOS will still bring in profit for Netflix.
Reply
Reply
post #247 of 257
2/16/11 at 7:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I just take exception with the Apple heavy handed restrictions. In their effort to control the subscription revenue for other large corporate peers, they unintentionally write rules that affect all kinds of other diversified developers. For example I am writing an app that will be used by manufacturers sales representatives. The nature of the program is in violation of Apples regulations because they will be able to order services within the app which are billed to their account and become available within the app.

I'm sure Apple has no interest in what we want to do but in order to prevent larger corporations from leveraging a potential loop hole they kill our little niche as well.

I agree with you in this, however. I think I see where Apple is coming from: they want to keep the rules as simple and universally enforced as possible, but when they apply this rule to something like in-app purchases too strictly they're creating a rule which is completely incompatible with some other business models, and in doing so, they run the risk of driving out businesses and diminishing the value of their devices to us, the consumers. An argument certainly can be made that this type of standardization, even in apps, can improve the user experience, but for me at least I don't believe that will be the sum result. I'll have to see how it plays out before I can be certain.

I personally believe that, in light of Apple's revenue and the platform's greatest revenue generating elements, they could be more flexible on this matter and allow a little more control to some of these content providers. Dealing with potential loopholes becomes a serious problem, though, and I can at least appreciate its complexity.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #248 of 257
2/16/11 at 7:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

The fallout of this policy will likely determine what my next phone is. It was probably going to be the iPhone 5, but we'll see what happens.

+1

Was seriously considering at iPad 2. And that decision was basically based on the fact that the app selection is so much better in the iOS ecosystem. But if this policy starts making services like Netflix jump ship, I'll have to consider going to an Android tablet. No point getting a tablet if all I can do is surf with it...and that too not being able to use Flash to watch video on the web.
Reply
Reply
post #249 of 257
2/16/11 at 7:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

No, if Apple cuts out all competition on their devices, there is nothing that prevents them from setting their own prices.

The competition will come from the tidal wave of devices that are on their way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

.The reseller's we're talking about had established customer bases LARGER than the iOS customer base before the iPhone came out (namely Amazon).

We need to define the term. The customer base for Amazon started off as book and magazine purchasers. Apple doesn't compete against those, and probably never will. The e-reader base has been swelled BY the iDevice presence, but here Apple has chosen to compete. In fact, both Amazon and B&N compete on both an e-reader program and an e-reader platform directly with Apple. The whole point of Apple's move appears to be an attempt to at least level the playing field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

They offered the app as an additional benefit for their customers, and a lot of people bought iPhone's because they could read their books on it, or they could watch netflix on it.

If that's all people bought it for, they could have payed a lot less for a Touch, Nook, or Kindle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

If apple prices them out of the market, apple's going to lose customers.

That's not the risk Apple is running. I've already said that, on a level playing field, Apple will be able to compete as an e-reader against the Kindle, the Nook, etcetera by cutting out the middle man. The risk Apple runs is that the content producers won't sell through iBooks when the Kindle and Nook apps are no longer supported.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

There are a ton of people who don't want all their content locked with itunes DRM. If I buy a book, I don't want to be forced to iOS devices in order to read it.

You won't be. You aren't now. Competition was, and will remain, alive and well.
Reply
Reply
post #250 of 257
2/16/11 at 8:37am
Are we sure that off-device, content distributors MUST add an option ON-device is what's being required? I suspect a bit of legalese maybe at play here that says you can't leave your app on the ios device to complete a purchase on the ios device (via safari or some similar mechanism) without giving apple it's due, but if you purchase off the ios device you can consume the content on the ios device?
Reply
Reply
post #251 of 257
2/16/11 at 8:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

If I'm not mistaken, Amazon paid $99 to get their app in the store. So stop with this free app distribution BS. App distribution on iOS is not free.

If you want to develope for Window, you'll probably end up paying hundreds if not thousands of dollars for Visual Studio, and more in MSDN subscription. Does that mean you then have some sort of right with anybody to carry your software?

You paid good money to buy your car, but why do you still need to pay a fee to DMV every year for your license plate and registration? Or conversely, you paid for the plate and registration, why do you still need to pay money to get the car?

When you get a loan, you already agreed to pay interest on it, why do you still need to pay all kinds of fees?

You already paid money to get your internet equipment, why do you still need to pay for an account with ISP?

You already bought your hunting rifle/fishing rod/etc., why do you still need to buy a license to actually use them every year?

You already bought your house, why do you still need to pay property tax on it?
Reply
Reply
post #252 of 257
2/16/11 at 9:25am
deleted
"Surely it is possible to love Apple products and still respect what others have achieved?" - Stelligent
Reply
"Surely it is possible to love Apple products and still respect what others have achieved?" - Stelligent
Reply
post #253 of 257
2/16/11 at 10:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Flawed analogy. The brick and mortar store you drive to is the analog of the app store, not the car. Any dealership you buy your Ford from has the right to take some of the cost you pay Ford as their cut for running the store. You think dealers should sell cars as a public service because they didn't spend anything to make the car?

The iDevice is the vehicle that takes you to the store, just like a Ford can take you to a store. The app by the vendor (someone who sells things like stores do) is like a store. If I bought an app it belongs to me. Anything that goes on between me and that vendor are between me and that vendor. If that vendor wants to direct me, using a link, to a web site outside of the Apple Universe then why should Apple demand a cut of the business between me and that vendor?

I can understand Apple requiring Apps to conform to specific programming guidelines so that the Apps perform properly on the iDevice. Beyond that Apple should just enjoy the profit they get from the sale of the app on its own.
Reply
Reply
post #254 of 257
2/16/11 at 12:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

The iDevice is the vehicle that takes you to the store, just like a Ford can take you to a store. The app by the vendor (someone who sells things like stores do) is like a store. If I bought an app it belongs to me. Anything that goes on between me and that vendor are between me and that vendor. If that vendor wants to direct me, using a link, to a web site outside of the Apple Universe then why should Apple demand a cut of the business between me and that vendor?

I can understand Apple requiring Apps to conform to specific programming guidelines so that the Apps perform properly on the iDevice. Beyond that Apple should just enjoy the profit they get from the sale of the app on its own.

As long as we're staying in the car theme here,

iDevice is your car
App store is your dealership service center
Apps are the items and services available through that service center
in-app purchases are 3rd party programs and services you get for your car through the service center

If you buy your oil, wiper, parts outside of the service center, they get no cut
if you sign up for services with 3rd party by yourself, e.g. install your own satellite radio in the car and sign up for a contract, without involvement of service center, they get no cut.

However, if you buy oil, wiper, othe parts, or get your service done at the service center, they should and they do get a cut.
If you have your service center install the satellite radio, or sign up for a contract at your service center, they should and do get a cut.
Reply
Reply
post #255 of 257
2/16/11 at 8:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

They can't get around it. As long as their app provide content which is available because the user subscribed it somewhere, anywhere, they have to include an in-app subscription option through apple, offer the same deal as what's available elsewhere or better. Their only alternative is to pull the app completely.

Well, another alternative is to offer a "better" deal exclusively for iOS users. I'm sure someone can come up a structure that seems better, but doesn't cost as much as 30%.

Either way, I don't think Netflix will pull the app, maybe just not promote it on iOS anymore. As much as 30% cut sound, each additional subscriber on iOS will still bring in profit for Netflix.

It's interesting that this does not appear to affect Netflix on aTV2 (the app is delivered with the device).

I still think Apple has not thought through all the implications of their subscription revenue-share model.
Reply
Reply
post #256 of 257
2/17/11 at 6:12am
My brother just sold me a PDF book, an mp4 video, and a MP3 music file for 10 cents.

Since iTunes and Ibooks allow me to read these files without making them available via In-App-Purchase, they are in violation of Apples Terms and Conditions.

I assume Apple will remove these apps as soon as possible.
Reply
Reply
post #257 of 257
2/17/11 at 6:40am
Border's Books is Saved!

Announcing Borders Books new in-store subscription pricing model, which will save the company. From now all, all periodicals that offer subscriptions either online or by telephone must include a subscription card in their print editions. If readers subscribe using this subscription card, which must include a subscription offer as good or better than the offers available elsewhere, then Borders receives 30% of the subscription revenue.

"All we're saying is that when a customer comes to a magazine from Borders, when we provide that customer, we receive 30% of the subscription fee. If the customer subscribes through another means, then the magazine receives 100%. When Borders brings a customer to the magazine, we deserve 30% of that revenue," said Jim Borders, CEO.

Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs said the deal sounded "fair" to him.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Legacy apps must comply with Apple's App Store subscription rules by June 30
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Legacy apps must comply with Apple's App Store subscription rules by June 30