or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple's rejection of 'Readability' iOS app stirs subscription controversy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's rejection of 'Readability' iOS app stirs subscription controversy - Page 2

post #41 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinnLee View Post

For an ebook, Amazon's cut is 30%, the publisher receives 70%

Yeah? So that means Apple's price is comparable to Amazon's. Hmm. Don't hear a lot of howls of outrage regarding Amazon....
post #42 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

The press release is exactly five days old. Until this press release, Apple had no objections against apps offering commercial services without IAP.
These app developers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars based on what was standard practice for more than two years, then bam a press release is issued and what was fine for two years is no longer fine.

What you are arguing is that because some developers found a loophole in their contract (or at least in the enforcement of that contract) they should be allowed to exploit that loophole and avoid the revenue sharing that supports the costs of running the App Store, and that Apple ought not be allowed to close that loophole. The App Store is a revenue sharing system, and when developers try to game that system to avoid the revenue sharing they are cheating Apple, and they are cheating other developers who end up supporting the cost of distributing the cheaters apps when in many cases the cheaters are generating more revenue that the honest developers.
post #43 of 381
30% is not that big of a deal guys.

Apple is delivering so much for the developers of an App. Happy consumers, a safe marketplace, a wonderful iOS interface... 30% is nothing.

I understand if SJ backs down on this one because of all the bad press. But that's all this is.

This is an ecosystem that I love being a part of-- and I will pay more if that's what the whiners want now that Apple has finally decided to start enforcing their payment rules.



Wanna complain about price-gouging? Look how much your cell-phone company is charging you for SMS.
17" iMac G4 1.25/2/0.08 | 15" uMBP C2D 2.4/4/1 | iPhone 3G/0.008 | iPad 2 3G/0.064
Reply
17" iMac G4 1.25/2/0.08 | 15" uMBP C2D 2.4/4/1 | iPhone 3G/0.008 | iPad 2 3G/0.064
Reply
post #44 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

Apple should be encouraging data coming to their devices not putting up walls that will make content creators and ultimately Apple hardware customers think twice.

I don't agree. Content creators won't be paying any more by going directly through Apple than when they went through Amazon. Customers also won't be paying any more. That's a red herring.
post #45 of 381
There are apps that allow you to monitor home security and surveillance systems. And naturally these apps require that you log in to see actual information. Should Apple require that you can pay for these security systems (or at least their monthly fees and not the installation cost) via IAP?
post #46 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I don't realize why so many people have so much trouble comprehending the simple fact that the App Store is not a fee for services system; it's a revenue sharing system. And the revenue sharing goes mostly to supporting the costs of operating the App Store. Developers trying to hide revenue so they don't have to share it according to the terms of the contract they signed with Apple are trying to avoid their share of these costs and stick other developers with them.

I have no problem with Apple requiring in-app purchase functionality. Dictating prices outside of the App Store is what I object to.
post #47 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I don't realize why so many people have so much trouble comprehending the simple fact that the App Store is not a fee for services system; it's a revenue sharing system. And the revenue sharing goes mostly to supporting the costs of operating the App Store. Developers trying to hide revenue so they don't have to share it according to the terms of the contract they signed with Apple are trying to avoid their share of these costs and stick other developers with them.

Everyone understood it all right. We just wonder what it means: will Apple demand a cut from Direc TV because it offers a viewing app for the iPad?
post #48 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

What you are arguing is that because some developers found a loophole in their contract (or at least in the enforcement of that contract) they should be allowed to exploit that loophole and avoid the revenue sharing that supports the costs of running the App Store, and that Apple ought not be allowed to close that loophole.

Of course, Apple can change its rules whenever it wants. They just should not be surprised if others complain when they destroy their business model (all business which currently operate with a margin of less than 30%).
post #49 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I have no problem with Apple requiring in-app purchase functionality. Dictating prices outside of the App Store is what I object to.

What makes you think others aren't doing the same thing - including Amazon! It's standard business practice!

http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Most_favored_nation_clause
post #50 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

I don't agree. Content creators won't be paying any more by going directly through Apple than when they went through Amazon. Customers also won't be paying any more. That's a red herring.

How do you figure that? Apple is adding 43% markup to your content, without adding any value to the content itself? They are just another middleman between you and the content creator. That does nothing but add cost to you. Do you really think other delivery methods are making 43% profit? (Yes, profit. Apple does almost nothing here).
post #51 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post

The rule 11.2 at its current form leaves too much for interpretition. It could mean that Apple will not approve a "reader" app with ANY kind of out-of-app subscription service.

Impossible. That would be like saying that the iPad won't play music unless you bought it through iTunes, or that you can't watch a movie on the device unless bought the same way.

Banning "reader" apps will not happen -- at least not without the DOJ going apeshit on Apple.
post #52 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

What makes you think others aren't doing the same thing - including Amazon! It's standard business practice!

http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Most_favored_nation_clause

Most favoured nation clauses are mutually agreed, not imposed by one party.
post #53 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by rf9 View Post

True, it's Apple's product, their rules, and their business to make succeed or fail. It wouldn't be as much of and issue if Apple wasn't running competing services. When someone subscribes to something from Apple, Apple doesn't have to pay anyone else a 30% revenue, but they force their competition to do so (directly to Apple) effectively breaking the business model for others while keepin it intact for Apple. It's anti-competitive. Apple is entitled to no more than a reasonable bounty and operational cost recovery for bringing customers to the subscriber through their product. 30% of total revenue is way beyond reasonable.
They can do why they want, but it's going to repel developers, make their offering less attractive as developers go to other platforms and ultimately lose market share.
I for one will move on to Windows phone or Android if this doesn't change because it means services I want will no longer be available on iPhone (eg:Rhapsody.)

Apple is not treating these devs/services as partners, and that's their problem.

How do you figure Apple is not treating their devs like partners. 30% is perfectly reasonable for a partner who (did not create the product) but is selling the product, distributing the product and creating the audience for the product. If you went into business with someone; you create the product, they manage the sales and distribution and promotion, wouldn't you split profits 50/ 50? So I think Apple is being very fair.

Apple's terms are very similar to all others. Amazon included. If the devs want to explore other options they are free to do so, but I'm sure they will quickly discover the grass is not always greener and if it is it's because your septic tank has a problem.

You guys need to let this play out. We honestly have no idea what the Devs of apps like rhapsody, netflix, skype etc are thinking or how the rules really even affect them.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #54 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by hface119 View Post

This is THEIR phone, using THEIR App Store. They should reserve the right for business to be run on their terms. Why shouldn't they get a cut of developer's who make money off of the software they put on their device?

Did you drink the Apple fanboy koolaid so extensively that you forgot the concept of private property? It's not THEIR phone it's MY friggin' phone and as a consumer and owner of iOS devices I don't see how it is in my interest to have Apple imposing an Apple Sales Tax of 43% to every content purchase that I make on MY FRIGGIN' PHONE!

I was going to purchase an iPad 2 in 2011 but with this insane move by Apple I've decided that they can go screw themselves.
post #55 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

Well, Apple certainly seems to be losing the PR war here. They do come off as greedy and more controlling than in the past. They have always had a high profit margin, but fans (like me) said "it is worth it for a great product package." Here, it doesn't seem that Apple is adding all that much with in-app subscriptions...

I don't see how they will win all these battles. Not sure where it will end...

Apple is usually right. In fact, chances are, they've already perceived the long-term outcome.

I'm content to simply let the numbers speak.
post #56 of 381
These statements appear to be contradictory:

"Apple's terms also prevented links to external websites to purchase content or subscriptions. In addition, fees cannot be less expensive for customers outside of the App Store."

I do believe they allow external puchases as long as you have internal purchases as well.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #57 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eideard View Post

Don't like Apple's choices? Try the competition.

Don't like Apple's latest diktat, basically killing your investment made in the platform by pushing overnight an extortion policy? Show them your middle finger, trash them as they completely deserve it, sue them, and yep move your business over less indecent alternatives.

There, fixed that for you.
post #58 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by TalkingNewMedia View Post

Impossible. That would be like saying that the iPad won't play music unless you bought it through iTunes, or that you can't watch a movie on the device unless bought the same way.

Banning "reader" apps will not happen -- at least not without the DOJ going apeshit on Apple.

And what is the Kindle app but a reader app?
Right now, any reader app that allows you to read DRM-ed books is required that can buy those DRM-protected books via IAP.

Music and movies can be bought from any source without Apple requiring a cut as long as they do not require any DRM. Simply because without DRM, Apple cannot 'prevent' you from playing them in Apple's own apps.
post #59 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

How do you figure that? Apple is adding 43% markup to your content, without adding any value to the content itself? They are just another middleman between you and the content creator. That does nothing but add cost to you. Do you really think other delivery methods are making 43% profit? (Yes, profit. Apple does almost nothing here).

No, they are the ONLY middleman between you and the content creator, if the content creator sells directly through Apple.
post #60 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

Most favoured nation clauses are mutually agreed, not imposed by one party.

They can choose to agree or not to agree. If they agree, it's mutual.
post #61 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

What makes you think others aren't doing the same thing - including Amazon! It's standard business practice!

http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Most_favored_nation_clause

You might want to read that a little closer. It's between the seller and the buyer. If you consider Apple to be the buyer (even though they aren't really buying anything here, they are just the transaction processor), then this only applies to the price Apple pays for the content. It does NOT include the mark-up Apple then applies when they resell the product. it's Apple's choice to add 43% to the price.

Amazon, Wal-Mart, and other's may use such contract language with their suppliers to ensure they are getting a good price for their inventory. It has NOTHING to do with the price they in-turn charge their customers. If it did, every time some store had a sale on an item, every other store that sells the same item would then also have to adjust their retail prices! How exactly do you think that would work? It would be chaos!

So, if I were to apply your "favored nation clause", and using my example of something that cost $10 in the app store, that means Apple is paying $7 for it. So therefore, using your clause, $7 would be the minimum price on the content providers web site. Not $10.
post #62 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by habermas View Post

It's not THEIR phone it's MY friggin' phone and as a consumer and owner of iOS devices I don't see how it is in my interest to have Apple imposing an Apple Sales Tax of 43% to every content purchase that I make on MY FRIGGIN' PHONE!

What people tend to forget that we all bought iOS devices with the implicit assumption that we trade the right to install on it what we want against the promise by Apple that it will always carry free apps. If an app wanted to make money via ads and give it to us for free (very similar to most of the web), Apple would allow this.
Now, they start to go back on this initial proposition.
post #63 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by habermas View Post

Did you drink the Apple fanboy koolaid so extensively that you forgot the concept of private property? It's not THEIR phone

Wrong. You don't own the patents on it. They do. So go pedal YOUR KoolAid somewhere else!
post #64 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

No, they are the ONLY middleman between you and the content creator, if the content creator sells directly through Apple.

And Apple requires that the content creator creates the possibility to sell through Apple (IAP) and that this sales channel cannot be more expensive than other channels.
post #65 of 381
30% cut for subscribed, ad-supported apps
0% cut for subscribed, ad-free apps

Apple would be doing a service to it's customers by taxing the developers' greed.
post #66 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

No, they are the ONLY middleman between you and the content creator, if the content creator sells directly through Apple.

That's a pretty darn big "if". So every author should now become and App Store developer?
post #67 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

What people tend to forget that we all bought iOS devices with the implicit assumption that we trade the right to install on it what we want against the promise by Apple that it will always carry free apps. If an app wanted to make money via ads and give it to us for free (very similar to most of the web), Apple would allow this.
Now, they start to go back on this initial proposition.

A free app by definition doesn't make any money. Hawking an ad is one thing. Charging via the app is another thing altogether.

False equivalency.
post #68 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

There are apps that allow you to monitor home security and surveillance systems. And naturally these apps require that you log in to see actual information. Should Apple require that you can pay for these security systems (or at least their monthly fees and not the installation cost) via IAP?

Real world goods are not permitted to be sold using IAP, so, no, they won't be asking for 30% of the cost of these systems and monthly fees, just like they aren't looking to get 30% of sales made through Amazon Mobile.
post #69 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

That's a pretty darn big "if". So every author should now become and App Store developer?

Ideally, yes. That's the beauty of the Apple approach.
post #70 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I have no problem with Apple requiring in-app purchase functionality. Dictating prices outside of the App Store is what I object to.

Amazon does this sort of thing all the time, why aren't you whining about them? Not requiring price parity just opens another loophole where "developers" set ridiculous IAP prices to essentially force users not to use that mechanism.
post #71 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

No, they are the ONLY middleman between you and the content creator, if the content creator sells directly through Apple.

Yes, why have competition between different e-book sellers on iOS? With only iBooks available, there is only one middleman left ensuring that (a) all middlemen profits go to Apple and (b) there is no competition between middlemen to drive down margins.
post #72 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post

Everyone understood it all right. We just wonder what it means: will Apple demand a cut from Direc TV because it offers a viewing app for the iPad?

Most likely it will not be affected because you will continue to renew via you DirecTV bill. Same thing goes for Netflix and most likely skype, hulu et al. These guys already have their own billing system, negotiations etc. What Apple is trying to prevent are the devs (particularly independent publishers; music and or print) from offering their apps for free while selling their product outside of the app store.

That's not fair to the other devs who use the system nor is it fair to Apple. It's also not fair to other distributors. (IE Amazon) who would normally take a cut of the books they sell. If publishers are trying to bypass distribution costs (and that is really what we are talking about here) then they are kidding themselves. They have to pay someone and if they threaten to go to Amazon or some such nonsense they are throwing out a red herring. Amazon, B&N etc. are entities publishers are trying to avoid.

All of you guys who are saying things like "i'm not gonna an ipad" are blowing things way out of the water. Pricing policies have nothing to do with the devices and if you think other device manufacturers care more about the consumer you are living a fantasy. For example I was "outraged" MSFT requires a paid xbox live account BEFORE I could add a Netflix account. Who did I cry to? no one. I got an ATV.

I wish AI would publish a comparative article so people can understand the costs of any distribution model wether it was print, or the insane movie distribution model or the equally insane music distribution model. Apple has done nothing but make distribution easier and cheaper in all facets concerning selling products through the Apple store.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #73 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

And Apple requires that the content creator creates the possibility to sell through Apple (IAP) and that this sales channel cannot be more expensive than other channels.

So? If I'm a novelist and I charge Amazon less than Apple, Apple should be able to tell the novelist to "go fish".
post #74 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

Most likely it will not be affected because you will continue to renew via you DirecTV bill. Same thing goes for Netflix and most likely skype, hulu et al. These guys already have their own billing system, negotiations etc. What Apple is trying to prevent are the devs (particularly independent publishers; music and or print) from offering their apps for free while selling their product outside of the app store.

No it applies to them as well. They will get 100% of the revenue from anyone who signs up on the website, but they have to provide in app purchasing within the app and give Apple a 30% cut of that, which in a lot of cases would undermine their business models.

Quote:
That's not fair to the other devs who use the system nor is it fair to Apple.

What Apple is doing isn't fair (but with web apps as an alternative, they may be free to do so, it is their store)

Quote:
It's also not fair to other distributors. (IE Amazon) who would normally take a cut of the books they sell.

Apple's not doing Amazon a favor by making them use Apple's services and charging 30% for it when they already have their own payment systems in place.

Quote:
If publishers are trying to bypass distribution costs (and that is really what we are talking about here) then they are kidding themselves. They have to pay someone and if they threaten to go to Amazon or some such nonsense they are throwing out a red herring. Amazon, B&N etc. are entities publishers are trying to avoid.

What are you smoking? Amazon and the Kindle outsell iBooks by something like 10-1. Why wouldn't publishers want to be there? Why would I as a consumer want to buy eBooks from the iBookstore when my Kindle books can be read on the computer, iPhone/iPad, and the Kindle wheres iBooks is only on the iPhone/iPad... it isn't even on the computer yet???

Quote:
All of you guys who are saying things like "i'm not gonna an ipad" are blowing things way out of the water. Pricing policies have nothing to do with the devices and if you think other device manufacturers care more about the consumer you are living a fantasy. For example I was "outraged" MSFT requires a paid xbox live account BEFORE I could add a Netflix account. Who did I cry to? no one. I got an ATV.

I won't get an iPad if the apps I use leave iOS. Whether they do of course remains to be seen, but Apps make the device and if the ipad doesn't have the apps I want, I have no reason to buy it.

Quote:
I wish AI would publish a comparative article so people can understand the costs of any distribution model wether it was print, or the insane movie distribution model or the equally insane music distribution model. Apple has done nothing but make distribution easier and cheaper in all facets concerning selling products through the Apple store.

30% is a good deal for anyone wishing to make something directly for the iPad. It's not a good deal for cross platform services.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #75 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I have no problem with Apple requiring in-app purchase functionality. Dictating prices outside of the App Store is what I object to.

Then you have no objection. Apple is not telling anyone what to charge for their product outside of the App Store. Only inside.
post #76 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

Yes, why have competition between different e-book sellers on iOS? With only iBooks available, there is only one middleman left ensuring that (a) all middlemen profits go to Apple and (b) there is no competition between middlemen to drive down margins.

The competition exists on other platforms that the middlemen can choose to sell through. Obviously. Including the Kindle or the Nook, for example.
post #77 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

Plus, Amazon hosts the content for those publishers. Apple doesn't in this case besides the initial app.

Amazon charges publisher every megabyte transfered via 3G.
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
post #78 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Real world goods are not permitted to be sold using IAP, so, no, they won't be asking for 30% of the cost of these systems and monthly fees, just like they aren't looking to get 30% of sales made through Amazon Mobile.

Well, the remote viewing access via iOS apps is not a physical good. Basically the company now has to sell their general services separately from remote viewing access since that remote viewing access has to be made purchasable via IAP.
post #79 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

The competition exists on other platforms that the middlemen can choose to sell through. Obviously.

And MS could bundle whatever they wanted with Windows and kill all other vendors offering software for Windows since their always was competition via other platforms.
post #80 of 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

And MS could bundle whatever they wanted with Windows and kill all other vendors offering software for Windows since their always was competition via other platforms.

False equivalency. And you know it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple's rejection of 'Readability' iOS app stirs subscription controversy
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple's rejection of 'Readability' iOS app stirs subscription controversy