Apple's App Store subscription rules spark anti-trust concerns as developers rage - Page 4

According to Apple's newly posted iOS Developer Program License Agreement, rentals are not affected.

As a developer, I don't know of any store in the world with a captive audience of a hundred million or so potential customers, that will automatically inform my users of any updates I make, pay me within a 30 days, vet my changes, give me all the tools and support to create my app, etc., for virtually peanuts.

And if I develop a publication app, Apple will host it for free and I can still spend tons of monies in marketing, advertising, accounting, supporting upgrading, etc., on my own, send new customers to the iTunes store and collect the whole price.

Somehow, I think I would make more money with less effort supplementing Apple's approach of taking a 30% commission for customers they find for me, not fighting against it.

I sincerely hope these services do leave or use the loophole pointed out above: price it all the same across the various distribution networks (Android Market, App Store, web store), and then offer customers a perpetual 43% discount (it's 30% of gross Apple is demanding, not net...that's actually a 43% price increase to compensate) if you buy the service anywhere but the App Store.

Barring that, I hope these services leave. Nothing will improve competition more than Apple shooting itself in the foot and compelling all these services to go to competing platforms. If they are really arrogant enough to think that their plaform will survive without any of these services, I am all for putting it to the test. After all, loyal Apple users insist that a controlled choice is good. So let's see how well iOS does when all content in the ecosystem is only distributed by Apple. It's the ultimate end-state of Apple's curation efforts.



I really can't see how Netflix or Skype or Time or Rhapsody can abide by this condition. Apple is now dictating their prices across all their distribution networks and insisting that the App Store be the cheapest while taking its 30% cut. That'd be disastrous for a business like Netflix which charges $8 a month. Either they drop iOS or they have to raise prices for everybody. So now Apple gets to tax Android and web users? Even worse, the policy basically bumps off any competing media distributor (Amazon, B&N, etc.), which given Apple's proclivities towards issues like censorship (er"curation") should be deeply disturbing to anybody.

I find it disturbing that Apple fans actually support this. Would anybody here have said the same thing if Microsoft had said that you were only allowed to buy software (approved by them of course) for your PC from a Microsoft store and then turned around and insisted that not only should they get a 30% cut of intial app sales but also a 30% cut of every subscription sold and every transaction made from the app? Ohand you've got to price the subscription the same, inside and outside the software. If Microsoft had done this, people would be screaming, "bloody murder." But people defend this move because, "Apple made the ecosystem." Gimme a break.

Should Apple get compensated for their efforts in maintaining the store? Sure. And if the $99 per year that they charge for the app is not enough, then I'm sure they can negotiate higher rates. A 30% cut of every transaction and every subscription, however, borders on extortion. Hell, that's more than double the sales tax in most countries.

Who says you have no advertising costs? Apple does very little promotion for you unless you are a real cool app or rack up some impressive download / purchase numbers and make one of the top 10/25/50 lists. The real successful apps have had to do their own marketing and promotions just like any other software product. Read up on Angry Birds on how they blasted the internet to get more sales. Big names like Amazon, Hulu and Netflix can ride on the million of customers they already have and the millions they are spending in marketing to get their app downloaded.

According to Apple's newly posted iOS developer's terms, rentals are not affected.

Rentals are not affected and publishers who direct customers to the iTunes store get 100% of their price.

Yeah. You're not allowed to link away. So in your scenario, you can't even link people to the web store. You just have to tell people to go to the store (can't direct them there). These apps will have to be pure content consumption tools....setting them at a distinct disadvantage to whatever competing service Apple offers itself. I don't even know why Amazon or Netflix would even bother. I think it's far better to pull out completely at this point and make a statement. For a company like Skype, they'd have to actually reduce features in their app. No more buying credits through the app. Skype and its customers suffer. Apple comes out ahead. Actually, I'm not even sure if Skype is allowed to even operate in iOS if they still sell credits elsewhere.....maybe they'll pull out too.

You mean like Apple is freeloading off of Windows, the DOMINANT desktop OS on the planet?

If the iPod had stayed exclusive to Macs what are the chances we'd even be discussing Apple right now except in the past tense? How quickly would Apple start to tank if Microsoft could find some legal way to prevent Apple devices from working on the Windows platform?

The conceit that companies are leeches, parasites or freeloaders is just ridiculous. Apple benefits from having Netflix, Hulu, Kindle, etc. on the iOS platform. And in return, those companies benefit from being on the iOS platform. It's a symbiotic relationship. It's the apps that make iOS more attractive than other smartphone platforms. How many times has someone rattled off the 300K iOS apps vs the 135K Android apps (or whatever the exact numbers are now) as a reason for iOS's success?

As someone else said, I wonder if part of this is to get competing services off of the iOS platform. As has been repeated already, there's no way Kindle can support staying on iOS with Apple now set to take 100% of Amazon's cut of the sale price of every book. The same for all other e-reader book stores. Which leaves the iBookstore the only game in town, only now with a stronger position to negotiate with the content providers (after all, if they want to be on iOS they're only option will be Apple). With Netflix, Hulu, Rhapsdody and other audio/video content providers gone, options narrow back to the iTunes Store. If Apple is prepping a subscription music service, now would be a good time to get the competition off of iOS and then announce the new iTunes subscription service.

Does Netflix count as a rental or a subscription service? After all, it's a flat rate for x amount of movies. Sounds like a subscription to me.

You mean the way the Kindle and Nook currently have a 100% market share inside their platforms?

Newsflash: This is not about iOS! This is about the app store! They are two different things. I'm tired of people making comments like, "What if Microsoft charged for every application you loaded onto Windows?" Microsoft never had an app store, but if they had -- a source for applications that they built where users could purchase software with a single, easy to use interface -- then they would be perfectly within their right to charge a fee for it.

The app store is not the web! It's a curated storefront created and maintained by Apple, where they are allowing competitors access to Apple's customers. How many GM cars do you see being sold at Lexus dealerships?

And $99/year is more than double the cost of a meal at McDonald's, and has about as much to do with the fee to join the developer program as sales tax has to do with the 70/30 revenue split.

A 30% cut is, in reality, much less than developers "distribution costs" have traditionally been. For publishers of periodical content, despite some grumbling, this will end up working out just fine for them since most of their revenue comes from advertising anyway, and Apple gets 0% of that revenue. For "developers" like Amazon and Netflix, the whole thing is overblown. Since 100% of their sales will never come through in-app purchasing, and Apple is simply requiring that as an option, they won't be paying 30% of their total related revenue to Apple. Frankly, I'd be surprised if what they end up paying is even 5% of their total related revenue, probably much less.

If I have an app priced at $0.99 on straight sell, I would price it as $0.1/month for 12 months. Seems it might be even easier to hook someone, and I got more out of it. Plus I would have paid Apple less, if their subscription model is lower priced.

Of course, I would have to actually offer some content through the app to quality. But there's always something one could think up.

So a non-uniform pricing model is certainly open to gaming. The only way to avoid that would be to make non-uniform deal only available through individual negotiated deal with the app publisher. But that opens another can of worm in itself.

That's BS. I know there's this myth with Apple Fans that Android geeks don't pay for content. But it's not true. The only reason that paid content on Android Market isn't doing well is because Google has cocked up payment methods and has not made paid apps accessible in every country yet. When that changes (and that seems to be Google's big push right now), paid apps will take off in Android land too.

+1

If getting everybody to go to the web with HTML5 is Apple's goal, I will wholeheartedly back them. Somehow though, I seriously doubt that's their end game here.

I only bring up the $99 because people keep spouting off about apps being free. That's BS. They are most certainly not free. And I would never suggest that they should be. Ditto for the 70/30 split for app sales.

Now as to this subscription business.


Agreeup to a point. I have an issue with Apple dictating the pricing outside of their little universe. But hey, these developers are grownup business people, they can decide if it makes sense for them to play with Apple.


Except, that Apple now dictates that you must offer a subscription model through the app and you must price it the same as elsewhere and you must pay Apple a 30% cut. In essence, Apple is hoping to redirect business from their other distribution networks to the App store and get a 30% from it. That's going to be a lot more than 5%.

Beyond that, I see this as purely anti-competitive. This is a dick move by Apple to basically eliminate competition before they get to go to the studios and networks and content creators and say to them, "There's only way to sell your content to our 160 million+ client base. That's through us." No more Netflix Watch Instantly or Hulu Plus or Kindle. From now on, all content runs through an Apple branded service (iTMS, iBookStore, etc.). If that's not abusing a dominant position in one field to create an unfair advantage in another, I don't know what is. Microsoft got its peepee slapped for a lot less than what Apple is attempting here.

This whole brouhaha is fascinating to watch, and as expected, playing out much like the iTMS situation. The music business was livid that Apple imposed a 30% split with music publishers and they threw a fit that Apple shouldn't be able to dictate the cost at $.99 a track. But Apple took a stand and created a billion dollar business, tweaking the formula after building the foundation. That didn't stop the music business from demonizing Apple, threatening to remove their catalogs, giving sweetheart deals to competitors, etc. But the checks from iTMS dwarfed every other distributor combined, so the music industry has had to tone down their objections and rhetoric. It turns out Apple knew what they were doing better than everyone including Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Amazon, et al.

I find striking similarities to this subscription policy and if I were betting on anyone, I'd put money on Apple. It's not to say that they're right or wrong, but they're drawing upon their past experiences (including a lot of hostility with these same publishers). But regardless of all the apoplectic responses on this forum, Apple has a goal in mind and will drag the publishing industry along. It may be traumatic and painful, but publishers who sign on will likely see a new source of revenue that may offset and even reverse their declines over the past few years. And if Apple's wrong, they will adjust their policies to help improve the ecosystem for both their customers and publishers.

The publishing industry is a complex beast, with fiefdoms that have been established long ago. They aren't used to having a powerful outsider like Apple come in and dictate their world to them. But money talks, and that's the key to how this plays out.

It doesn't matter. You can't use the new API to rent content directly through the iTunes store.

And as Apple has posted in their press release, "publishers can sell digital subscriptions on their web sites, or can choose to provide free access to existing subscribers. Since Apple is not involved in these transactions, there is no revenue sharing or exchange of customer information with Apple,"

I would suggest that it covers the likes of Netflix.

So you'd be okay with MS insisting that all software be purchased through a Windows Store and that MS take a 30% cut off every transaction in the Windows universe.

Wow.

MS must have the dumbest executives on the planet. Imagine the billions they could have made taxing iTMS sales at 30% alone.


Actually, they do sell used cars from competitors...but that aside....when your store is rather dominant, anti-trust issues do come into play. Especially when you try to knock off the competition. You may approve of such practices. Most consumers do not. We don't like being left with one choice. I sincerely hope this gets the attention of anti-trust authorities worldwide.

Like I said above in a post: The only working mobile platform on the planet.

How many times does that have to be said? There is NO competing platform except for Apple's... yet!

If the landscape changes, maybe Apple will reconsider.

However, as someone mentioned, maybe it is because Apple is trying to force their own offerings in the future. That data center is sitting just waiting for something to fill it and stream out of.

It comes down to the fact that every single store of any kind, has been "cocked-up" as you say. If... if... if.... yeah... I personally would LOVE to see someone besides Apple come out and actually do something about this.

Same as the hardware story: where are all those great iPad-killers? How many people use them? What's the market situation look like to get me as a consultant to advice my clients that they better get developing quick for the Android market... which BTW, is still "cocked-up" as we speak... as is their platform truth be told.

Geez!

Which is why there should be anti-trust implications.....


And if the landscape changes (and I hope it does), this problem will sort itself out pretty quickly. There is no way Apple would have even contemplated something like this if the market was truly competitive.

And there's hope:

http://venturebeat.com/2011/02/16/pa...ndroid-market/
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...acing_ios.html

So hopefully, if anti-trust threats don't work, I hope the competitive threat can keep Apple in place.


I think so too. Once they kick Netflix and Hulu Plus off, they'll have lots of negotiating power with Hollywood....something they can't have as long as there are competing services.

Microsoft doesn't make the hardware, so it's not the same situation. OEMs never put a store together, in part because in the early days of PCs there was no delivery method they could use. You had to go to a physical store or purchase something by mail. It's a completely different model, but even today there's nothing to stop Dell or HP from putting an app store on their branded PCs.

Whether anyone would use them is an entirely different matter.


Used cars return zero revenue to that manufacturer, so that's a bogus point. It's not like new GM cars are being sold at Lexus dealers with GM making the money from the sale. That's a more accurate comparison to the app store.

I'm actually not a fan of this move, but not for the reasons most people are giving (like the idiotic comparison to "if MS did this...").

Again, is the iBookstore available on the Kindle or the Nook? Why is it okay that they're not, but when Apple opens up it's products to competitors it's somehow now a world-ending event that they want to charge their competitors for the privilege of access.

The fact that Rupert Murdoch is okay with this model says he probably understands it better than most others who are commenting on it.

Oh check this out:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...pples_ire.html

This and so many 1000's more available soon on Android... because it's free and open. Oh wait, there is no in-app purchases within Android, because their marketplace is still "cocked-up".

How convenient.

Even though prices have to be the same in and outside the app, you can still have different pricing for iOS services.

Hulu, Pandora, Netflix, etc., can all do the following (as I read the rules).
-Subscription price for access on the web, android, etc., but EXCLUSING iOS apps = $7
-Subscription price for access by any means, INCLUDING iOS apps = $10 (this price applies if the subscription is purchased in app or not, as required by the rules).

I bet this is what happens. Consumers get it in the shorts in the short term, if they want to use iOS apps. Apple makes more $$. Eventually, Apple offers viable competing services at a lower price (since they aren't paying the extra fee), and takes over market share.

You can't do this, however, for eBooks. Apple has declared holy war on Kindle. Again, in the short term at least, consumers get it in the shorts. Because iBooks selection sucks. BUT, in the mid-term, the lack of a Kindle app will cause publishers to contract with Apple, thus improving the selection on iBooks.

This has been done before with Music. Name a killer app for purchasing music (not a subcription but a per-song purchase)? Its iTunes. No other competitor can compete with Apple on its own device for Music. Give it a couple of years and the same thing will be true for books and subscription services. Apple isn't content on hardware money. They want media money too. And they want to kill there competition (Netrlix, Hulu, Amazon, etc.) If you believe otherwise you are kidding yourself.

Yes, you understand something wrong. Everything you wrote is correct, but you are neglecting the part that so many people conveniently overlook. The part where Apple dictates what Amazon charges for the book on their own web site. That, in my opinion, is Apple overstepping its bounds.

Amazon may sell the book to Apple for $7 and Apple sells it to you for $10. (Yes, I know that's now quite how it works, but it's still accurate). But if Amazon wants to sell you the book directly, they can't sell it to you for $7 or $8. Apple forces them to sell it to you for $10. Sure, Amazon gets to see the extra $3, but where do you think that extra $3 comes from? It comes from you! How can you possibly like that?

Google just announced their service, 10% instead of 30%. They give consumer information to the publisher. Apple does not.

Now - where's that monopoly everyone is talking about?

Argue that 30% is high, fine. But please provide some reasons. Don't just scream "antitrust!!" - you need to show the monopoly. Show how consumers are being hurt BECAUSE of a monopoly.

Please do tell why. Because no other company can figure out how to do what Apple does? Please. Get the government involved because MS, Sony, Netflix, Google... and a number of Multi-billion dollar companies, can't program or plan their way out of a paper bag?


Yes. We're all still waiting since like 4 years now. They've only just recently been able to create phones that on a par with the iPhone. Will it take that long for the tablets too? If it does, Apple can really laugh all the way to the bank. IMO: 30% is perfect at the moment... for everyone! Not just little devs... but the big boys too.


[/QUOTE]

Seriously, I do think Apple wants NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon et al. to be available on their devices. And actually, I doubt any of them are going to pull their Apps either.... because... see #1 above.

If Apple gets some more deals and becomes any bigger, some of them may just have to close up shop anyway... other than Amazon.

BTW: if Apple is tanking (sorry, "doomed") over this news... why is the stock going up?

You're right, Apple's higher charge could be passed to the consumer. Or the publisher might eat it - you don't actually know the answer. But the real point is that there IS competition. So all this talk of antitrust is a waste of time.

Google just announced they will share subscriber information with publishers and charge less. Apple won't share the information. There's actual value in that, Apple considers it when they set their price. Not sure what all the confusion is about.

Yes that applies to the Netflix website. However, we are talking about the apps. To come into compliance, the Netflix app has to offer in-app subscriptions at the same price as the website. So if the iOS app is the first Netflix service a customer uses, Apple gets 30% of the subscription fees for the lifetime of that subscription. That's quite the referral fee.

shadash,


The operative term there is "... get their crap together ..." Microsoft has been licensing the technology for Mobile phones for years, long before Apple even entered the market. Nokia is the mobile phone manufacturing giant for years... RIM was the smartphone King... So, why did they not think of doing what Apple did? When did Bill Gates showed us the MS tablet that he claimed would revolutionize computing?


Why did they not think to create their own equivalent of an iOS ecosystem? And, didn't MS have its music subscription at one point, but closed it? Naptser, etc. -- all subscription business ideas... and they too closed.


There are also digital technologies, that were supposed to do for the mass media long before Apple entered the market. Amazon had the eReader and ties with the book industry and electronic mass media long before the iPad came to light? It was so dominant in electronic publishing, it threatened to strong arm books and mass media publishers the moment the iPad came to light?

Didn't every Apple detractor claim that the closed system of Apple supposed to crumble once the "open system" business competition can get their act together. In fact, if you follow those tracking mobile phone sales, the Android phones eclipsed Apple in the US market, at an astronomical pace. Worldwide, Apple mobile products account for less that 5% of the market.

Every Apple detractor and competitor (Android makers, RIM, HP, Nokia, Microsoft) that their "announced" tablet products are far superior to that of the iPad.

Great for developers and publishers... they will have choices (and they should).

So why is the closed Apple ecosystem, which has been predicted and doomed to fail, suddenly become the monopolist? The iPad killers have come in 2010, and more are coming this year, they say. So, if Apple is so bad, why not just boycott the Apple ecosystem altogether and focus their attention to building Apps for all those iPad killers? (Sony claims it may not need the Apple iTunes at all).

The could have pitted Amazon behemoth in electronic publishing to counter the "unfair" practices of the newer and closed Apple ecosystem. So, why are they pinning their hopes on a closed Apple ecosystem that they claim they do not like and unfair... and just collaborate with others -- Google (and Android makers), Amazon, Microsoft, Nokia to get their act together?

It would be a collaborative effort of the giants in mobile computing, and the giants in music, and the giants in publishing and mass media.... against a single entity that has nothing but a closed ecosystem.

Surely, as you predict, Apple is doomed to repeat its history in the 1990s and will eventually fail? And open systems will triumph?

So, what's all the fuss about a company that has not only been eclipsed in the US market and have only less 5% of the world market?

Maybe, just maybe, these third parties have seen what Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Nokia, RIM, etc. are capable of.

You pin your hopes on Google. To refresh your memory, Google has embarked on its ambitious plan to digitize information -- with Google Books -- to offer to a new world to everyone? Did you read all those cries from publishers of unfair practices?

You may not know these but Google, Yahoo, Huffington, and other information consolidators have even into electronic publishing for years -- using the copyrighted materials of mainstream media as their main sources.

All the revenues from resulting go to Google, Yahoo, Huffington, and those who made big in information consolidation. Huffington just sold for US $350 million, a news consolidation empire that was built on the works of mass media and bloggers. Would Ariana Huffington give 70% of that windfall to the mass media and all those bloggers, and keep 30% for herself? I did not hear much outcry from all the loudmouths in the unfairness of it all.


If you are so sure of the fate of Apple, why not just let them learn their lesson then? Or, maybe you are one of the detractors who predict that Apple is doomed to fail, but then in the back of your mind, it might be the David that faced Goliath?

Apple Ecosystems

And this, my friends, is why Google will beat Apple in the tablet market just as they have in the smartphone market. Pissed off content providers are going to leave in droves to go to a place where they don't get bilked out of their well-deserved money.

I'm a huge Apple fan, but things like this just make me shake my head and wonder what the hell the people at One Infinite Loop are thinking.

Re: Google's One Pass

Not surprised.

And regardless of iOS, Android or anything MS comes up with, I'll bet that none of the publishers will get back what they invest.

Back-track: yes... Android's publishers will. They'll get your data to do anything they damn well please to do with it. Expect spam and carpet-bombing advertising to your Gmail account, your home, your cell... everything. Have fun

They have 6 months to transfer their hard work over to meet the store's standards.
Why did they spend their money and time building apps in the first place? Oh, to get on the Apple gravy Train!



No, this would be like Microsoft saying that in order to be on the Zune Store, you have to have any outside purchase or subscription that is out there, be available through them as well. They are free to do that and devs/publishers are free to say no.

But I'm sure that people like you don't understand what a great deal the App store is for devs/publishers... or understand much at all.



Yep, Microsoft ABUSED their dominant position.
The market is not Apps on iOS, the market is digital content distribution.
Apple is not taking 30% of all sales of ebooks etc. They are taking 30% of purchases through their distribution channel. Devs/Publishers are free to have their own distribution, but they have to allow Apple to have the same deal if they want to leverage Apple's distribution as well.
Microsoft could do anything they want with their ecosystem (save the blatant anti-trust abuse of the 90's). But they would have to take the consequences along with their position. Windows isn't as valuable as iOS for some.



Of course! Just like taxing any company raises prices. Tax Exxon-Mobile? Gas goes up.
If it gets too high, people will not buy anymore. That's how the markets work (in theory!).



If you are a dev/publisher and you absolutely need Apple's store, you need to pay the price. Otherwise, come up with your own way to reach 100 million plus people that actually pay for content.

deleted

@Apple Eco-systems: well said!

@guch20: you don't get it. Now go back and read Apple Eco-systems post. I believe I can hear Apple now in a famous Hollywood voice: "Frankly my Dear... I don't give a damn."

I've been a part of the internet-age now since 1994. I've seen payment and subscription systems come and go by the dozens, including micro-payment systems specifically for publishers. Easy stuff too to program for.

However... not one... I repeat not 1 system has made the publishers any respectable ROI money. Even their websites are because "they must have a web-presence", and many do not make enough to cover even those costs. Maybe "RupDoch" knows something, or has a plan... but I still do not see even his bravado and bluster being able to make a return on a dedicated News App.

How right you are. Although, HTML5 means more than video... basically HTML, CSS3, and native browser coding for touch. Naturally: NO FLASH! Thank "G"!!!

Nice line studiomusic :

There's a reason why FOX, Wall Street, etc. are doing well and willing to port their intellectual property under the terms of Apple.

The Daily has the advantage of being the first subscription model in the iOS system. i like the format, more a magazine (daily) than a newspaper. Not sure how receptive iOS users will be to the subscription fee, but I think it is reasonable compared to the single edition charges by publishers.

Eventually, it is the content that will decide whether the Daily wil make it. More than likely, if the other publishers hesitate because of their complaints about the unfairness of Apple's terms, iOS users may become comfortable with the Daily.

Myself, I do not see the logic of paying for the same information, if the web version would be available in the same mobile device, for free.


To repeat myself, using your logic, shouldn't books and publishers, and developers be making more effort to go with the sure winner, Google? Or, even Amazon, their long term partner?


Yes, indeed. To "quote" Steve Balmer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U

And, didn't many pundits, tech bloggers, company executive (who have tried it before), just last year (and some even much later) that the iPad is nothing but a large iPod touch, and at the same time were so sure that the iPad killers, that have come, and more coming will doom the iPad, just the Android doomed the iPhone?



We all have stake in the free dissemination of information, especially news on a daily basis. And, I hope the news and media companies get their act together, be it with Apple or whatever ecosystem they choose. I do not read Google, Yahoo or Huffington by choice because I think they are among the reasons why the news and media have been in great decline -- they profit almost exclusively on the work of others without sharing the profit with the original creators. The irony of it all is that not too many here or anywhere have ever complained about the unfairness of the essence of information consolidation site.

Having stated the above, I used to be a print subscriber of New York Times, for years, and quite a few magazines. But, their prices have gone up. And, they are giving away their web for free (with advertisements of course, just like the print version). With the convenience of having access to the web, the choice was easy.

I hope ecosystems like those of Apple, Amazon, Google, or some other new business model would find a way to monetize the efforts of publishers and their journalists and staff -- to replace the untenable free web sites. When that comes, and the price is decent, I would not mind paying again.



That's why I find all this talk about monopoly and unfairness rather odd. Everyone, who thinks so can do it on their own, and they have choices. Apple is in the business to make profit not solely to save the dying business of everyone, else.

I myself would not mind paying Apple that 30% if I get a 70%, rather than nothing from such a potentially huge market. More so because Apple's terms does not ban me from exploring other modes of monetizing my creation.

What people forget is that when you jump into a system that has great promise, you pay the toll to have a piece of the pie.. not dictate the terms of your entry.

Apple Ecosystems

I think what's at issue here is Apple trying to price control external markets, it's something they try to do already with their hardware but now they are applying that to software. I think where the antitrust stuff comes in is in that Apple could restrict you from selling your own magazine app in order to push you towards their own subscription service app, but have they done this yet?

It's my impression that anyone who doesn't want to use Apple's subscription service can create their own app and just handle the financials outside Apple. You'd verify via a login to the app but when time to pay comes you would have to actually login their website or pay by mail, you couldn't just have a link to renew right in the app.

Now I could see Apple coming along & banning such apps based on duplication of functionality, but then I think they definitely would get sued. I still don't know that they would loose though, it'd be bad business practice but not necessarily illegal. Honestly I think Apple just doesn't see how bad some of this stuff makes them look, in the past when similar issues have arisen they are usually pretty quick to change policy or clarify terms. That's my impression anyway and I think they aren't backing down from the publishers because this is one area the publishers are trying to bully Apple into doing things their way. They aren't used to companies being big enough that they actually have to compromise, they may not even know what that word means.

deleted

Dislike of Flash has nothing to do with desire to see Adobe lose money. If Adobe can design flash in such a way as to NOT causing my laptop's fan to kick in almost immediately for the most trivial items, or allowing errors in flash to crash my web browser, I wouldn't have much against it. I think that's probably the general feeling of everyone who dislikes flash.

deleted

For things like Hulu and Netflix, which are streaming, that is a good point. Couldn't they create a web app? Of course, an actual app might be a little easier to use.

But for newspapers and magazines, my personal preference is that these are downloaded files, not online streaming. If I'm on a plane, in the subway, or elsewhere without online access, I expect my newspapers and magazines to still be available. Including all of my back issues which I subscribed to (and which I frequently refer back to with my paper copies today). That said, I don't know that the current subscription model is. Is your content available offline within the app?