or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › FTC looking into Apple subscription terms, while first publishers get on board
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FTC looking into Apple subscription terms, while first publishers get on board

post #1 of 153
Thread Starter 
US regulators are examining the terms of Apple's App Store subscriptions, a new report claims, even as early adopter publishers have signed on to the new service.

Regulator concerns

In a followup to an earlier report, The Wall Street Journal said the US Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission are looking into Apple's terms, though interest is at "a preliminary stage" and a formal investigation has yet to be launched, according to people familiar with the matter. Meanwhile, the European Commission said Thursday it was "carefully monitoring the situation."

Apple drew criticism earlier this week when it unveiled its iOS App Store subscription service, which will take a 30 percent share of revenue and requires that digital subscriptions for an iOS app sold outside of the app also be available for the same price or better through iTunes.

One developer called the announcement "a huge dick move" on Apple's part, while distributor Rhapsody called the terms "economically untenable." "The costs don't leave any room for a sensible business model," said Rhapsody president John Irwin.

At the time, legal experts chimed in, saying Apple could be subject to antitrust scrutiny, though the iPad maker would need to have a "dominant market position" for its actions to count as antitrust violations.

Representatives of the Justice Department and the FTC declined to comment. Since both agencies enforce federal antitrust laws, the two would have to decide who would take the lead in the event of an investigation, the report noted.

Eric Goldman, director of Santa Clara University's High Tech Law Institute, told the Journal that forbidding apps from linking to external sites "sounds like a pretty aggressive position. "It seems like that's purely in the interests of Apple trying to restrict people doing transactions they don't get a cut from."

The clauses in Apple's terms of service that require pricing on iTunes to match external sites, also known as "most favored nation" clauses, could draw investigator scrutiny. According to the report, the Justice Department recently sued a Michigan health-insurance company, alleging that the company used similar clauses to block competitors.

The day after Apple announced the details of its in-app subscriptions, Google revealed a competing service called "One Pass" that will take just 10 percent of revenue. The service also would allow publishers access to subscribers' personal data, while Apple's model lets users decide which personal information publishers can see.

Publisher adoption

Despite attracting a largely negative response from publishers and developers, Apple has managed to sign on several high-profile publishers to its subscription feature. Men's magazine Maxim will take advantage of the new feature, the Journal reports.

We understand that Maxim can be consumed in many different ways and on many different platforms and it is our job to serve our audience wherever and however they choose, said Ben Madden, Maxims chief revenue officer.

Elle, Nylon and Popular Science also revealed earlier this week that they will incorporate the new service into their apps. News Corporation negotiated exclusive access to the feature and will utilize it in its The Daily iPad periodical.

For an in-depth comparison of Apple's new subscription plan with those of Google and Amazon, see the AppleInsider feature:
Inside subscription content: Apple iPad vs Google One Pass vs Amazon Kindle
post #2 of 153
I don't think there's anything unfair about Apple's terms, EXCEPT for the part requiring that the iPad price be equal or better than prices in non-Apple outlets. It seems to cross the line into price fixing. I can see an argument that it is anti-competitive. (Wikipedia - Anti-Competitive Practices)
post #3 of 153
It's time for we the people to demand that government stop trying to regulate business. If the publishers choose to accept Apple's terms, that is their business. If they choose to reject or continue to negotiate. But there could be nothing worse than a bureaucrat in the government sticking his nose in to stuff he does not understand.

Why on earth do we the people permit government bureaucrats who do not have the cojones to start or operate a business to regulate anything.

Time to dump Obama and his regulators.
SkyKing
Reply
SkyKing
Reply
post #4 of 153
"We understand that Maxim can be consumed in many different ways"

There's a really tasteless joke in there somewhere, and I invite you to find it.
post #5 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky King View Post

It's time for we the people to demand that government stop trying to regulate business. If the publishers choose to accept Apple's terms, that is their business. If they choose to reject or continue to negotiate. But there could be nothing worse than a bureaucrat in the government sticking his nose in to stuff he does not understand.

Why on earth do we the people permit government bureaucrats who do not have the cojones to start or operate a business to regulate anything.

Time to dump Obama and his regulators.

post #6 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky King View Post

It's time for we the people to demand that government stop trying to regulate business. If the publishers choose to accept Apple's terms, that is their business. If they choose to reject or continue to negotiate. But there could be nothing worse than a bureaucrat in the government sticking his nose in to stuff he does not understand.

Why on earth do we the people permit government bureaucrats who do not have the cojones to start or operate a business to regulate anything.

Time to dump Obama and his regulators.

Nailed it.
post #7 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Snitch View Post

"We understand that Maxim can be consumed in many different ways"

There's a really tasteless joke in there somewhere, and I invite you to find it.

I consume Maxim in the bathroom..
post #8 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky King View Post

It's time for we the people to demand that government stop trying to regulate business. If the publishers choose to accept Apple's terms, that is their business. If they choose to reject or continue to negotiate. But there could be nothing worse than a bureaucrat in the government sticking his nose in to stuff he does not understand.

Why on earth do we the people permit government bureaucrats who do not have the cojones to start or operate a business to regulate anything.

Time to dump Obama and his regulators.

How will a different President AND THE SAME regulators change anything?

Governments may come and go but the bureaucracies that administer for them carry on regardless.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #9 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky King View Post

It's time for we the people to demand that government stop trying to regulate business. If the publishers choose to accept Apple's terms, that is their business. If they choose to reject or continue to negotiate. But there could be nothing worse than a bureaucrat in the government sticking his nose in to stuff he does not understand.

Why on earth do we the people permit government bureaucrats who do not have the cojones to start or operate a business to regulate anything.

Time to dump Obama and his regulators.

The racism displayed in this post is remarkable. I'm disappointed that Apple Insider would allow such rightwing filth to be posted on their website.
post #10 of 153
Umm....there's no mention of a race in that post, so how is it racism?
post #11 of 153
What would make this business intractable to a "government bureaucrat"? In fact, they'd better understand it, for the salaries and benefits we taxpayers pay them.

Anybody have a link to Apple's original terms for iOS developers? I read here on AI that the restrictions Apple is starting to impose have always existed. In which case it's hard for me to believe representatives of any sizable business venture didn't see this coming.
post #12 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeysbistro View Post

I don't think there's anything unfair about Apple's terms, EXCEPT for the part requiring that the iPad price be equal or better than prices in non-Apple outlets. It seems to cross the line into price fixing. I can see an argument that it is anti-competitive. (Wikipedia - Anti-Competitive Practices)

Amazon has the same requirement for their third party sellers, no cheaper elsewhere. Some categories of goods their commission is near 30%.

Also Amazon third party sellers have complained of hitting a hot selling item and Amazon then selling it and undercutting them, Amazon gets all the analytics from their sellers so have a good idea what to stock. Apple clearly won't be doing that and put more effort in to curating the marketplace.
post #13 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeysbistro View Post

I don't think there's anything unfair about Apple's terms, EXCEPT for the part requiring that the iPad price be equal or better than prices in non-Apple outlets. It seems to cross the line into price fixing. I can see an argument that it is anti-competitive. (Wikipedia - Anti-Competitive Practices)

Linking to a wikipedia article doesn't make you wise. Go google around for some lawsuits around similar policy from Visa and Mastercard and the what will probably be, to you anyway, surprising outcomes.

Just because a company or companies do something that seems illegal to you doesn't mean it particularly is.
post #14 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacVicta View Post

The racism displayed in this post is remarkable.

Nice ad Hominem attack. The only racism being displayed is by those who try to trot it out where it doesn't exist

Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson would be so proud...
post #15 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeysbistro View Post

I don't think there's anything unfair about Apple's terms, EXCEPT for the part requiring that the iPad price be equal or better than prices in non-Apple outlets. It seems to cross the line into price fixing. I can see an argument that it is anti-competitive. (Wikipedia - Anti-Competitive Practices)

It is kinda a backwards sort of price fixing... Instead of a vender telling a store what to charge, the store is telling the vendor what to charge...

I am wondering if Apple will allow all-you-can-eat subscriptions outside of the new in-app subscriptions. It seems that Apple is targeting subscriptions where you purchase content permanently instead of just rent access to content. If Apple makes this distinction then Netflix would be fine.

Personally I think 30% is fine, but I think Apple should offer more infrastructure. It is good for the consumer too because they know they will always be able to download their content again from Apple's datacenter. If Apple hosts the data then it also removes all of the printing and distribution costs that the publisher would have otherwise incurred and provides some exposure to their product. Essentially I think it should work just like the iTunes store does. I think the App Store in-app purchase got it wrong. For some reason in-app works differently then everything else. I originally though it was an interm thing until they released something more sophisticated... but it has been awhile.

It feels like the motivation for this is to eventually control access to the content. That would enable Apple to seamlessly offer some of this content in the cloud so it all doesn't need to live on the device.

Ultimately this licensing would lock out resellers of digital content from Apple devices because they don't have the margins to play with and they may have two conflicting licenses on how the content is to be used–-one from the publishers and one from the App Store. I think for digital content stores are becoming dinosaurs anyway. Why do you need a store when the product can travel the speed of light across the Internet? Stores mainly just solve a logistical problem. Publishers will just sell direct.
post #16 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky King View Post

Time to dump Obama and his regulators.

I'm at least as opposed to Obama's policies as you appear to be, but I have to say that you're wrong on this one. (I also note, with some irony, that as I write this, there's an article up on AI about Steve Jobs having met with Obama, implying that if anything, Apple could get treated with kid gloves because Steve is an Obama supporter.)

Preventing the use of fraud (scams, confidence schemes, contracts signed with no intention of following through) and force (protection rackets, anti-trust/anti-competitive misbehavior) in the marketplace is one of the legitimate and basic functions of government. I would have been extremely annoyed if the FTC and/or Justice Department was not at least giving these policies the once over; and that has absolutely nothing to do with who is in office.
post #17 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacVicta View Post

The racism displayed in this post is remarkable. I'm disappointed that Apple Insider would allow such rightwing filth to be posted on their website.

Racism? I cant stand people who pull that card unnecessarily. How lame.
post #18 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky King View Post

It's time for we the people to demand that government stop trying to regulate business. If the publishers choose to accept Apple's terms, that is their business. If they choose to reject or continue to negotiate. But there could be nothing worse than a bureaucrat in the government sticking his nose in to stuff he does not understand.

Why on earth do we the people permit government bureaucrats who do not have the cojones to start or operate a business to regulate anything.

Time to dump Obama and his regulators.

Are you serious? What country or example do you recommend that doesn't have rules and regs that is your utopia? Do you have any idea what life was like(or is like) before theses mean ol regulators came along? Grow up.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #19 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Linking to a wikipedia article doesn't make you wise. Go google around for some lawsuits around similar policy from Visa and Mastercard and the what will probably be, to you anyway, surprising outcomes.

Just because a company or companies do something that seems illegal to you doesn't mean it particularly is.

Well DocNo42 we could have had an interesting discussion as to why you think the price fixing argument won't stick. But apparently you'd rather just make veiled passive/aggressive insults at me.
post #20 of 153
I'm an Apple fanboy but I have to hope the regulators hammer Apple hard over this one. It won't be long before regulators in the EU launch an investigation either.
post #21 of 153
I think Apple fans would be more keen on government intervention if Windows were doing something like this.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #22 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

What would make this business intractable to a "government bureaucrat"? In fact, they'd better understand it, for the salaries and benefits we taxpayers pay them.

Anybody have a link to Apple's original terms for iOS developers? I read here on AI that the restrictions Apple is starting to impose have always existed. In which case it's hard for me to believe representatives of any sizable business venture didn't see this coming.

You heard wrong. The provisions - which by the way have been exhaustively poured over in these threads - said nothing about similar prices, and merely said that in app purchasing within the app should use Apple's IAP - not their own. It said nothing about linking outside the app, which is why Kindle launched on the iPad within days of it's release. They've added new bits subsequently.

Apple's new ads: we will add restrictions as we see fit during your development process, wiping out any sunk costs, so why not go develop for Android instead.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #23 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky King View Post

It's time for we the people to demand that government stop trying to regulate business. If the publishers choose to accept Apple's terms, that is their business. If they choose to reject or continue to negotiate. But there could be nothing worse than a bureaucrat in the government sticking his nose in to stuff he does not understand.

Why on earth do we the people permit government bureaucrats who do not have the cojones to start or operate a business to regulate anything.

Time to dump Obama and his regulators.

Wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Read some history.
post #24 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky King View Post

Why on earth do we the people permit government bureaucrats who do not have the cojones to start or operate a business to regulate anything.

Time to dump Obama and his regulators.

Think of that the next time you take your Verizon phone abroad and it doesn't work. Regulation, especially in the wireless industry, is a terrible, terrible thing.
post #25 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeysbistro View Post

I don't think there's anything unfair about Apple's terms, EXCEPT for the part requiring that the iPad price be equal or better than prices in non-Apple outlets. It seems to cross the line into price fixing. I can see an argument that it is anti-competitive. (Wikipedia - Anti-Competitive Practices)

That's not price fixing. That's making sure your users aren't getting screwed - it is well within Apple's rights to make sure of that. It is not anti-competitive in any legal sense. Apple is not forcing them to do anything beyond Apple's own platform; play fair or get off their playground.

Amazon used to take 70% plus download fees, and they set a price of no more than 9.99. Publishers got < $3. And to get your content on the Kindle you HAD to go through Amazon. So I'm a little bewildered as to why some people think Apple's 30% is outrageous?
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 #26 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

You heard wrong. The provisions - which by the way have been exhaustively poured over in these threads - said nothing about similar prices, and merely said that in app purchasing within the app should use Apple's IAP - not their own. It said nothing about linking outside the app, which is why Kindle launched on the iPad within days of it's release. They've added new bits subsequently.

Apple's new ads: we will add restrictions as we see fit during your development process, wiping out any sunk costs, so why not go develop for Android instead.

No they didn't. All they added was "Subscriptions".

The rules ALWAYS stated that any purchased content, features or services that are in app, need to go through Apple's IAP system. And that only content, features or services that are in app could be sold through IAP - no real world goods or services could be sold.

The difference between then and now is that Apple has to enforce that rule due to subscriptions.

Again, Amazon used to take +70% of all content sold and subscriptions. And it was the only way publishers and authors could get their content sold on the Kindle.
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 #27 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

No they didn't. All they added was "Subscriptions".

The rules ALWAYS stated that any purchased content, features or services that are in app, need to go through Apple's IAP system. And that only content, features or services that are in app could be sold through IAP - no real world goods or services could be sold.

The difference between then and now is that Apple now Apple has to enforce that rule due to subscriptions.

Again, Amazon used to take +70% of all content sold and subscriptions. And it was the only way publishers and authors could get their content sold on the Kindle.

Yes they changed the terms. Sony was rejected for doing what Kindle already does - linking outside the app.

As for Amazons 70% that's an argument of whataboutary ( and I doubt the stats anyway). But it is not relevant to this discussion. Amazon provides a server, hosts the content, distributes the content, and pays for the rights.

Apple does none of this. Kindle doesn't owe them a penny.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #28 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeysbistro View Post

I don't think there's anything unfair about Apple's terms, EXCEPT for the part requiring that the iPad price be equal or better than prices in non-Apple outlets. It seems to cross the line into price fixing. I can see an argument that it is anti-competitive. (Wikipedia - Anti-Competitive Practices)

BINGO! We have a winner in post #1!

The banning links to outside content is not great either but probably acceptable depending on how strict they are in their definitions and enforcement. The price fixing is across the line in a big way. If the iTunes store with single click is so much better that it is worth a 30% fee, than let it compete on its own terms and let customers decide. By putting in the price restriction, Apple is admiting upfront that their service is worth the same or less than other retail channels which then begs the question why the content providers should have to pay for it.
post #29 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

I think Apple fans would be more keen on government intervention if Windows were doing something like this.

First of all, i'd be all for that even if Apple were doing this for Mac OS X.

But that is an entirely different situation. Both Windows and Mac OS X are open platforms, iOS is not and has never been.
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 #30 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Yes they changed the terms. Sony was rejected for doing what Kindle already does - linking outside the app.

As for Amazons 70% that's an argument of whataboutary ( and I doubt the stats anyway). But it is not relevant to this discussion. Amazon provides a server, hosts the content, distributes the content, and pays for the rights.

Apple does none of this. Kindle doesn't owe them a penny.


No they didn't change the terms... they started ENFORCING them. Go read the original rules. Even Sony said, "Apple changed the way it enforces its rules," on its website after Apple rejected their app.

And no, Apple's iBooks, iTunes and the AppStore all HOST the content, handle the transactions, distributes the content and pays for the rights at a flat 30% fee. What the hell was Amazon doing with all that extra money?

Apple is treating ALL content providers equally. Why do they care where the content originated from and how much the provider had to pay for it and on what terms?
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 #31 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordLacey View Post

Umm....there's no mention of a race in that post, so how is it racism?

Because anyone who does not agree with 100% of what Obama says and does is only disagreeing because he is black and they are a racist.
post #32 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

No they didn't change the terms... they started ENFORCING them. Go read the original rules.

Lol.

The rules prohibited using in app purchases. The wording allowed Kindle.

Deciding that a words means one thing one month and another the next is arbitrary Orwellian bullshit. it also brings down some of the more important publishers in the world who had, or were working on, their own models and allows Google marketing muscle.

Look you fanatics don't matter. What matters is , when kindle goes, what the average Joe does.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #33 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

No they didn't change the terms... they started ENFORCING them. Go read the original rules.

And no, Apple's iBooks, iTunes and the AppStore all HOST the content, handle the transactions, distributes the content and pays for the rights.

Apple is treating ALL content providers equally.

HaHaHaHaHaHa


Sure everybody gets 30% of their gross, taken by Apple including Apple.


Jesus wept.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #34 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

No they didn't change the terms... they started ENFORCING them. Go read the original rules. Even Sony said, "Apple changed the way it enforces its rules," on its website after Apple rejected their app.

And no, Apple's iBooks, iTunes and the AppStore all HOST the content, handle the transactions, distributes the content and pays for the rights.

Apple is treating ALL content providers equally.

Show me the text from the orriginal rules that says content must be offered at the same price or less than it is sold through other channels.

I'll hold my breath.
post #35 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

BINGO! We have a winner in post #1!

The banning links to outside content is not great either but probably acceptable depending on how strict they are in their definitions and enforcement. The price fixing is across the line in a big way. If the iTunes store with single click is so much better that it is worth a 30% fee, than let it compete on its own terms and let customers decide. By putting in the price restriction, Apple is admiting upfront that their service is worth the same or less than other retail channels which then begs the question why the content providers should have to pay for it.

See, this is the attitude I really don't understand.

The issue here is that there is a difference in content "providers"... either the content originated from the provider, creators; publisher, authors, artists, labels, studio, etc. or the content is coming from a middleman, a reseller, a store.

Everyone thinks that Apple should differentiate between the two. They can keep their 30% for the creators to sell on iOS, but they shouldn't charge resellers. How is that even fair? Apple is saying to EVERYONE, if you're selling something we want 30%.

Apple SAID THE EXACT SAME THING when iBooks was released; any publisher that wanted to offer their books on iBooks could not sell them at a higher price than they sold anywhere else.
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 #36 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

Show me the text from the orriginal rules that says content must be offered at the same price or less than it is sold through other channels.

I'll hold my breath.

You're right, that was never mentioned before, but neither was subscriptions. Apple instituted subscriptions and with came enforcing the original terms of not letting anyone sell anything in-app (this means any transaction originating from in an app, including linking to a web store front) without using Apple's IAP system.

And with that came a new rule , which previously applied to iBooks, that content providers cannot charge more for content. This was done for one reason and one reason only, to protect iOS users from being taken advantage of by unfairly being charged more.
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 #37 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

That's not price fixing. That's making sure your users aren't getting screwed - it is well within Apple's rights to make sure of that. It is not anti-competitive in any legal sense. Apple is not forcing them to do anything beyond Apple's own platform; play fair or get off their playground.



Eventually, as the iPad becomes the standard way to view content, these guys won't have any choice but to play on Apple's platform. They will have to adjust or perish. At that point, I hope that Apple raises it to 51%. It will take a while, but at this rate, the publishing industry is quickly running out of options.
post #38 of 153
Should I be upset because it is not as easy to buy a computer without an operating system installed. If I buy a Dell or HP PC it will come with Windows. Part of the cost of that PC is to pay for Windows and the PC mfg. makes money too. Yes I can buy the OS separately and install it myself. It is more hassle for me, so like the vast majority I take advantage of the convenience of having it come pre installed. So Apple figures out a way to make it as seamless as possible to buy music and software, which is attractive to the consumer. Instead of all the providers taking advantage of this consumer friendly service, they fight it at the expense of the customer. However what I just said and what the article talks about is not the real issue. The issue is that Apple has created a business model that will cause the publishers etc from not being able to get your information which they can use to sell advertising.This is not about how the consumer can acquire your product this is about who gets to sell your information. Nail in the coffin. Thank you Apple for providing me a way to be a consumer and not have to reveal information about myself that I don't know I am or want to or who is getting it.
post #39 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

By putting in the price restriction, Apple is admiting upfront that their service is worth the same or less than other retail channels which then begs the question why the content providers should have to pay for it.

If the content providers want people to read their stuff on an iPad, then the content providers can pay Apple for that privilege.

If the publishers want to lose millions of iPad owners forever, then they have no reason to pay Apple for the services that Apple provides to them.

Same as anybody else. There will always be el-cheapo alternatives to Apple, and the most foolish amongst us always picks that alternative. But the wise publishers will come around, more and more as the iPad becomes the standard way to view magazines.

Steve knows what he is doing.
post #40 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Lol.

The rules prohibited using in app purchases. The wording allowed Kindle.

Deciding that a words means one thing one month and another the next is arbitrary Orwellian bullshit. it also brings down some of the more important publishers in the world who had, or were working on, their own models and allows Google marketing muscle.

Look you fanatics don't matter. What matters is , when kindle goes, what the average Joe does.

No, it didn't allow Kindle. Apple overlooked it, because it wasn't a big deal and they didn't need to enforce. NOw that they have a subscription model in place, they HAVE to enforce the rule for everyone.

The rule stated all and any content that enhanced an application had to go through IAP. No other purchasing system could be used which included redirecting someone to a website.

Amazon will NOT remove the Kindle app because of this. There is too much at stake. Apple's user base is the most "spendiest" group of users on any platform. The exposure is too great for anyone to remove their apps.
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • FTC looking into Apple subscription terms, while first publishers get on board
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › FTC looking into Apple subscription terms, while first publishers get on board