or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple backs down on in-app purchasing rules, allows lower prices for out-of-app purchases
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple backs down on in-app purchasing rules, allows lower prices for out-of-app purchases - Page 2

post #41 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

There is really no talking to that guy. He thinks that being on the platform and hosting your own content means you owe Apple money when you allow people to purchase from your servers. Even Apple dont believe that any more.


Heres a trick - the app can now show its website internally. Of course that is not what they want.

The other common viewpoint, and one that Apple tried to use to justrify the old policy and their 30% cut, is that iDevices add value to the apps by making them possible; but then they completely ignore the fact that the apps add value to the iDevices so people will buy them in the first place. It's a two-way street but Apple tried to make it a one-way toll booth.

Now the customers can decide if the extra convenience of in-app purchasing is worth a higher price (because let's face it, no publisher is going to charge a higher price on their own web site than it is on iTunes). Apple dictating the prices they charge on their own web site based on Apple's markup was always wrong.
post #42 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

There is really no talking to that guy. He thinks that being on the platform and hosting your own content means you owe Apple money when you allow people to purchase from your servers. Even Apple dont believe that any more.


Heres a trick - the app can now show its website internally. Of course that is not what they want.

Yes, we're all familiar with your childish, petulant, selfish views on this topic. But, repeating them doesn't make them any less so.
post #43 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

and developers/companies whose business model is to give away free apps and sell the content outside the App Store are freeloading on the backs of honest developers.

So you think Netflix is freeloading on the backs of honest developers?

Do you think Amazon has to pay Microsoft or Google when a book is sold though thier mobile browsers?

If I buy a B&N book from my Macbook Air to read it on my iPhone or Android phone do I have to pay Apple or Google?
post #44 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

Amazon will still have to remove the Kindle web link from the Kindle app, and will no doubt be hit with lots of negative reviews on iTunes for doing so.

Or won't. Those that had Kindles before or even used Amazon before have their accounts set up already and will keep using them. Same as the folks that signed up for Hulu, Netflix etc. Few major companies are likely to change their prices over this rule until they see if it really makes a difference. Which they will likely find it doesn't. Even the smaller companies may not see a serious effect by the rule since they would also have existing customers that will stick with what is already set up and gets Apple nothing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

The other common viewpoint, and one that Apple tried to use to justrify the old policy and their 30% cut, is that iDevices add value to the apps by making them possible; but then they completely ignore the fact that the apps add value to the iDevices so people will buy them in the first place. It's a two-way street but Apple tried to make it a one-way toll booth.

Crazy thing is that Apple stopped short of really making that one way road by saying 'in app and in app only'. That would really have achieved their goal

Quote:

Now the customers can decide if the extra convenience of in-app purchasing is worth a higher price (because let's face it, no publisher is going to charge a higher price on their own web site than it is on iTunes).

You assume the prices will go up. They might not. This change is rule is more playing to the developer's egos than anything else. They aren't saying they will charge more, they just want to feel they are in control and can change the price. Just like they did when Apple wanted to take DRM off the music, just like when they were being asked to put their books in the ibooks store
post #45 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

You're deluded if you think $99/year covers the costs of distributing even one app on the App Store. The App Store runs on, and pays for itself, with a very simple revenue sharing system: if you generate revenue from your app, you share 30% of that revenue with Apple to cover the costs of running the store. The App Store is not a profit generator for Apple, the revenue sharing system is there to cover the costs of running it, and developers/companies whose business model is to give away free apps and sell the content outside the App Store are freeloading on the backs of honest developers.

I agree the the $99 developer license has nothing to do with this discussion. But do you really think Apple's expenses to run the App Store are 30% of revenue and that Apple doesn't make a profit? I realize there are a lot of free and extemely low priced apps, but I find it hard to believe that Apple's operation is that inefficient.
post #46 of 138
This is good news. Hopefully we now will see a iOS app for the Amazon Cloud Player.
post #47 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I agree the the $99 developer license has nothing to do with this discussion. But do you really think Apple's expenses to run the App Store are 30% of revenue and that Apple doesn't make a profit? I realize there are a lot of free and extemely low priced apps, but I find it hard to believe that Apple's operation is that inefficient.

I highly doubt that Apple makes any kind of notable profit from the App Store any more than they do from the other iTunes stores. These fees are to try to get them closer to breaking even. The profit comes from the hardware.
post #48 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

FT issue was really about subscription data which Apple does not allow by default.

Really? Because FT requires you to log in with your FT account in the FT App, so they do not need Apple to get subscriber data.
post #49 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

The original policy would effectively have meant higher prices for everybody.

There is zero evidence to support that notion, just like there is zero to support the notion that publishers/developers are definitely going to charge more in app than out under the new rule.
post #50 of 138
Maybe there is something missing n the AI article because this doesn't seem like a very good outcome for anyone.
I'm not familiar with the issues around FT but take Kindle for an example. If Amazon wants to make the same margin on a sale through Itunes they will raise the Itune price by 30%. Without an in-app link consumers will either have to pay the extra 30% or go through a cumbersome process to buy outside the app.
I think a far better solution would be for Apple to take a lower cut on purchases where the product is hosted outside of Aople. If they had taken a more reasonable cut, I think Amazon would be willing to keep the Itunes price the same, customers would have an easy link for the purchase and Apple would retain some revenue. The current solution looks like a poorly thought out mess.
post #51 of 138
Near as I can see, this doesn't help apps like the Kindle who'd like to enable in-app purchases. Under the Agency model, the publisher sets the price, and Amazon gets 30%. Amazon can't change the price, so they're screwed.

Apple would do better to drop the in-app purchase cut for third-party content (books, movies, etc.) to 15%. At that rate, at least they'd get a piece of the action. As is, no in-app purchase option for Kindle. Or Netflix. Or...
post #52 of 138
Glad Apple came to their senses over this. I've had many a heated discussion on these boards over this topic, so this reversal feels somewhat vindicating.

The option to include in app purchases is good, but the price fixing and forcing of companies with established online, cross platform businesses to use the in app purchase/subscription model was not.

It would be nice if all our transactions could go through Apple, but Apple would have to charge a lot less than 30% to simply process a transaction before it would become reasonable for them to force companies to include the in app purchase option.

As far as subscriber info goes, it was a major sticking point, but I understand publishers have seen a high rate of iOS users agreeing to share their information under Apple's opt in model, so it's become much less of an issue.
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 #53 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Apple have had few missteps in recent memory. I can only really think of a handful.

1. iPod hifi lol
2. This in app policy
3. Button less shuffle
4. That app compilation things.
5. iBooks thus far

Btw, where's the chanting about 70% of something is better than 100% of nothing?

I disagree on #5. iBooks is way better than Amazon kindle on the ipad and iphone.
post #54 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

You're deluded if you think $99/year covers the costs of distributing even one app on the App Store. The App Store runs on, and pays for itself, with a very simple revenue sharing system: if you generate revenue from your app, you share 30% of that revenue with Apple to cover the costs of running the store. The App Store is not a profit generator for Apple, the revenue sharing system is there to cover the costs of running it, and developers/companies whose business model is to give away free apps and sell the content outside the App Store are freeloading on the backs of honest developers.

OK, I give up... what does it cost ?
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 #55 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

So you think Netflix is freeloading on the backs of honest developers?

Yes.

Quote:
Do you think Amazon has to pay Microsoft or Google when a book is sold though thier mobile browsers?

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Quote:
If I buy a B&N book from my Macbook Air to read it on my iPhone or Android phone do I have to pay Apple or Google?

Also irrelevant to the issue at hand.
post #56 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Yes.

Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Can you answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Also irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Can you answer?


So you think any free app with adds is no honest and it has to pay Apple, don't you?
post #57 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by newagemac View Post

Because higher prices is [sic] bad for consumers. Why would a consumer prefer that publishers jack up their prices? I don't see how you can say higher prices for consumers is a good thing unless you are a publisher.

Convenience. Consumers have always been asked to pay more for any service they can be convinced is a greater convenience. Banks charge for the convenience of ATM access (and some now charge for teller access [!]), and customers shrug and pay. This will be no different.
post #58 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

I disagree on #5. iBooks is way better than Amazon kindle on the ipad and iphone.

Agreed. I love iBooks' UI and read eBooks exclusively through it. For me, the visuals are half the story. The Kindle app is ugly and non-realistic, giving me a sterile, lifeless sort of feeling. I bought a full-length 341-page book in the iBookstore yesterday afternoon for $2.99 and read the entire thing in one sitting. That's about 5 hours of non-stop reading. Absolutely loved it. I just bought the other 2 books in the trilogy for $6.99 each.

As a side note, I loved the fact that I downloaded the book on my iPod Touch on my way out of work yesterday; read a few pages on it before docking it for the night; and picked up my iPad to find it already downloaded (through iCloud) and began reading right where I stopped on my iPod until I finished. iCloud is so great.

It just works.
GIGO. The truth in all of life.
Reply
GIGO. The truth in all of life.
Reply
post #59 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I agree the the $99 developer license has nothing to do with this discussion. But do you really think Apple's expenses to run the App Store are 30% of revenue and that Apple doesn't make a profit? I realize there are a lot of free and extemely low priced apps, but I find it hard to believe that Apple's operation is that inefficient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

OK, I give up... what does it cost ?

Apple has stated publicly, including in quarterly calls, numerous times that the App Store is essentially a break even operation. I think one of you is ignoring everything that's involved in running the App Store and the app approval process, and the other is being intentionally obtuse.
post #60 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Why?

Can you answer?

Can you answer?

So you think any free app with adds is no honest and it has to pay Apple, don't you?

1. I've already answered "why?" in this thread.

2. Since it's irrelevant, there's no need to address it.

3. See 2 above.

4. Yes, those distributing free apps that generate revenue through ad sources other than iAds are freeloading on the backs of honest developers.
post #61 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

You're deluded if you think $99/year covers the costs of distributing even one app on the App Store. The App Store runs on, and pays for itself, with a very simple revenue sharing system: if you generate revenue from your app, you share 30% of that revenue with Apple to cover the costs of running the store. The App Store is not a profit generator for Apple, the revenue sharing system is there to cover the costs of running it, and developers/companies whose business model is to give away free apps and sell the content outside the App Store are freeloading on the backs of honest developers.

Pretty much correct if analysts estimates are correct. Thru middle of last year Piper-Jaffray figured around 1% of Apple's net profit came from the Appstore. But as they also correctly pointed out, that's not why Apple put it in place anyway. It's meant to push hardware sales.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/06/...-gross-profit/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #62 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Apple has stated publicly, including in quarterly calls, numerous times that the App Store is essentially a break even operation. I think one of you is ignoring everything that's involved in running the App Store and the app approval process, and the other is being intentionally obtuse.

Apple's costs for hosting the Kindle app are the same as every other free or ad supported app in the store. The extra costs of selling and distributing ebooks and other content was borne purely by Amazon.
post #63 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Pretty much correct if analysts estimates are correct. Thru middle of last year Piper-Jaffray figured around 1% of Apple's net profit came from the Appstore. But as they also correctly pointed out, that's not why Apple put it in place anyway. It's meant to push hardware sales.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/06/...-gross-profit/

But, it's also meant to be self-sustaining through revenue sharing, not fee for service, which is the more important point in this discussion.

I don't see why so many people, like Orlando above, and those I've replied to, have so much understanding this very simple point. It's not about what it costs, because it isn't fee for service. If you generate revenue, you are supposed to share it, according to the agreement you made with Apple to have your software accepted into the store. Not doing so, whether through selling content out of app or subsidizing it through third-party ad services is cheating on that agreement, at the expense of developers who are not cheating.

It's got nothing to do with "extra costs" borne by anyone, it's got to do with honestly abiding by an agreement you made, and not leaving those who do honestly abiding picking up the tab for you. Amazon, in this instance is like the guy you go to dinner with who pays for his meal with a coupon and doesn't contribute to the tip, leaving the other diners to cover that for them. Ethically, the two situation are more or less equivalent.
post #64 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

4. Yes, those distributing free apps that generate revenue through ad sources other than iAds are freeloading on the backs of honest developers.

Well, in that case, if there is any freeloading, the one to blame is not the app developer, but Apple for nor charging their costs or not banning those applications.
post #65 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

But, it's also meant to be self-sustaining through revenue sharing

Can you show me where in the app guidelines or the developer rules the way of sustaining is revenue sharing?
post #66 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Can you show me where in the app guidelines or the developer rules the way of sustaining is revenue sharing?

I hope you are just pretending to be that difficult of understanding.
post #67 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I hope you are just pretending to be that difficult of understanding.

Do you always insult people that don't have your opinion? Perhaps you are the one pretending to be that difficult of understanding.

And, please, can you show me where in the agreement is thepart you are saying?
post #68 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Which costs? They pay the costs with their anual developer license.

There is a difference between development costs and distribution costs ..... no?
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #69 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Do you always insult people that don't have your opinion? Perhaps you are the one pretending to be that difficult of understanding.

And, please, can you show me where in the agreement is thepart you are saying?

No, typically, I only insult people who I believe are being deliberately dishonest in what they post here.

And, frankly, your question is just another bit of either ignorance or dishonesty from you in this discussion. Does, the developer agreement specifically say, "the app store is run on a revenue sharing model"? No. Does that make it any less true or obvious that it is? No.
post #70 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elian Gonzalez View Post

Ah, so the Great Subscription Scandal is over? And right after Financial Times made a big deal about their web app.

Contrary to the way the blogs and boards want to play this, Apple probably did NOT cave all because FT flipped them the finger. This change was likely already in the works. And even if they had announced it a week ago, FT probably still would have gone web app. Because the chief issue is subscriber personal data, in particular location data, type of credit card used etc. The very things Apple won't tell them
post #71 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Which costs? They pay the costs with their anual developer license.

Idiotic statement. The cost for the annual developer license is for the LICENSE. Not for the storage, deployment , bookkeeping, money collection, security of site which apple provides for the 30% cut which they take.
post #72 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea9999 View Post

Idiotic statement. The cost for the annual developer license is for the LICENSE. Not for the storage, deployment , bookkeeping, money collection, security of site which apple provides for the 30% cut which they take.

Apple's not storing or deploying the content in question.
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 #73 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Apple's not storing or deploying the content in question.

What exactly will it take to make you understand that that is irrelevant?

Hint: Think revenue sharing, not fee for services.
post #74 of 138
@Anonymouse: Even I have your back once in awhile
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #75 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea9999 View Post

Idiotic statement. The cost for the annual developer license is for the LICENSE. Not for the storage, deployment , bookkeeping, money collection, security of site which apple provides for the 30% cut which they take.

Yap, the $99 includes the storage and distribution, Apple doesn't account for it.
post #76 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, typically, I only insult people who I believe are being deliberately dishonest in what they post here.

And, frankly, your question is just another bit of either ignorance or dishonesty from you in this discussion. Does, the developer agreement specifically say, "the app store is run on a revenue sharing model"? No. Does that make it any less true or obvious that it is? No.

Is obvious and true FOR YOU, but no for other so I'm not ignorant not dishonest so stop insulting me.
post #77 of 138
deleted
post #78 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This make a lot more sense.

Glad Apple came to their senses on this one. Trying to cut competitors off at the knees has never worked. The "Apple way" is to compete, not stifle.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #79 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Apple's not storing or deploying the content in question.

they easily could be. Suppose I write a new iOS game and put it up free on the App Store. Suppose I then allow users to connect to my website where they can pay to unlock additional level packs. All the storage and deployment is managed by apple, all the profit is made by me.

It's this kind of model that Apple is worried about, and trying to find ways to avoid. I expect we'll see a bunch of iterations of App Store policies before they hit upon a compromise that ensures they get remunerated for distributing for-profit applications, even if the for profit apps are ostensibly free.
post #80 of 138
deleted
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple backs down on in-app purchasing rules, allows lower prices for out-of-app purchases
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple backs down on in-app purchasing rules, allows lower prices for out-of-app purchases