Apple backs down on in-app purchasing rules, allows lower prices for out-of-app purchases - Page 3

deleted

While I'm glad Apple backed down, the truth of the matter is that Apple should be allowed to charge what they want. Let them stick to their guns. And if they drive content from the App Store...well that might not be so good for those lovely iPad TV commercials.

deleted

Yes, but, it's small enough, in real terms, that if developers were allowed to simply cheat on the revenue sharing implicit in the developer agreement, they could quickly go $189 million into the red on it.

Yes, how dare Apple try to share in the benefit of bringing customers to vendors like Amazon...

If not for the iPad I wouldn't own one Kindle book or be thinking of getting a Kindle now. But your absolutely correct, Apple deserves no credit for that at all - their just being childish

Why, pray tell, are you assuming the prices will automatically be higher?

Would someone pay $13 for a book through Itunes or exit an app and get if from Amazon for $10? It doesn't take a genius tp figure out what most people would choose.

I do. If publishers want to shoot themselves in the foot and treat poorly the free gift of new users that iOS brings them, I say let them look like the idiots they are.

The hardest part of making a sale in publishing is finding a customer and then getting them to complete the transaction. If they are that hopped up over 30% that they are going to potentially raise a barrier for what otherwise would be a transaction so easy and thoughtless that most customers would do it on an impulse - let 'em!

Thats why I doubt there will be that many publishers that end up pricing content through an iOS in-app purchase and their web sites differently. Especially for magazines and newspapers, the subscription prices is almost inconsequential. The eyeballs of the readers are what is important, not the subscription fees. As others pointed out, the brouhaha over price was a smokescreen for the real issue - access to subscriber data. That's the real gold, not the subscription price.

Apple's calling the publishers bluff with this, not the other way around.


LOL - read Apple's announcement when they "backtracked", as you put it - the biggest stipulation is that the apps created with porting tools or third party frameworks can't suck.

Once again, Apple called the developers and the tool makers like Adobe out. "You want to use sub-optimal development environments? Knock yourself out. Just don't expect poorly crafted shovel-ware to make it into the store!".

Instead of the argument being about Apple's flat out restriction on such tools, the discussion now turns to what really matters - the quality of apps produced. If you can create a quality app with such tools it shouldn't matter. But it still has to meet the same standards of all other apps.

BTW - I do think the original ban was put in place because Apple wanted time to craft a policy that was fair, maintained the vision and high standards for App quality that Apple has, and was easy to understand. Adobe's announcement caught a number of people by surprise, and it probably caught Apple by surprise at first too. If you have never had to craft policy or policy memo's for a large organization, I can tell you from personal experience it's a non-trivial exercise. Writing something that is clear, concise and consistent takes time. If you have never had to do such a thing, it's easy to trivialize the amount of work required or have an overly simplistic view of "ooh, they backtracked" but I assure you that couldn't be further from the truth.

It's just as laughable as those who insist that Apple was "forced" to release the SDK and apps - anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge of programming can look at the SDK and iOS and tell that the two were developed together from day one. Quality takes time - and Apple is one of the few companies that is willing to put off and not ship until it's right - even going so far as to dismiss the thought and then later address it. And that, really, shouldn't be a surprise - why talk up a feature you don't have now but will be adding later? It just confuses the marketplace - google the "osborne effect" if you really want to understand this instead of just making naive and flip assertions on the Internet.


The only blunders are your vapid conclusions

I'm pretty sure that exact point was touched on in the keynote when Steve was talking about Sync.

deleted

The $99 developer license?

Just how cheap do you think bandwidth is?

I wouldn't have had to if you handn't quoted his entire message.

Thanks for nothing...

deleted

So in your mind, the 30% that Apple was charging was 100% expense?

Put another way, Apple brought absolutely no value for that 30%?

No wonder American's are more in debt now than ever and our country is going bankrupt - people don't have the first clue about the real costs of doing business, nor real concepts of value

Netflix distributes apps?


If Amazon could tap into your Microsoft or Google account history through the browsers on those platforms and allow users to seamlessly purchase an item with one click and without having to do anything else, and if Microsoft or Google were processing the transaction on the behalf of Amazon then yes - I absolutely think Microsoft and Google would be entitled a piece of that action.

Because that's exactly what happens with an in-app purchase. Apple is providing seamless access as well as payment processing. That sounds suspiciously like a service. And not surprisingly, when someone provides a service for someone else, they tend to expect to get something for that.

In otherwords, don't be an a$$ - ask questions that are based on comparisons that are similar enough to make sense


See my previous response - the only thing being proven by your non-sesensical and unequal comparisons is your ignorance of the topic at hand.

Have you read the thread this thread is about? I'll have to assume you answer is one of a) "no", b) "yes, but I didn't understand what I read", or c) "maybe, but I'm a troll so it doesn't matter."

(I think your answer to whether you read the article is on of the above options too.)

I'm glad Apple did the right thing. Losing the Amazon app would have been a bad thing for the iOS platform. Having access to Amazon's superior, and often less expensive, ebook library makes the iPad a better device for many users. I would have hated having to carry both an iPad and a Kindle around. Now I can use the best device and the best bookstore.

It has nothing to do with inefficiency and everything to do with laymen that have absolutely no experience with the real operational costs associated with running a business - let alone a project - having completely unrealistic and simplistic ideas about "cost" and "profit". I now understand why it is such a small percentage of the population who can be successful at either starting, running or managing a business...

If a significant amount of publishers (I'll be nice and won't even ask for a majority) price content via in-app purchase differently, I'll be shocked. Have fun waiting to be "vindicated".

deleted

It's more than convenience - it's also about bringing you new customers. I guarantee, if it wasn't' for the Kindle app on the iPad I wouldn't own the growing library of Kindle ebooks that I have. I doubt I'm alone. There are 200 million iOS devices. And with iOS 5 and the dropping of the requirement for a computer, Apple is now opening up markets for those who don't even own a computer - or if they do own one, barely use it for more than email or basic web browsing. The potential iOS userbase is a HUGE market - and that has value. Apple created it, so they should get a cut.

That these concepts are confusing or flat out misunderstood is depressing...

If they didn't know they could get it for $10 on the web they would happily pay $13

Only an arrogant or ignorant person would assume that everyone shares the same world view they do.

EDIT: and again I find it amusing that you assume that everyone will automatically charge more now that they can...

Then again if content publishers are as stupid as the record companies perhaps they will. And they will probably see their sales plummet just like the music companies did once they got multi-tierd pricing and went crazy jacking up prices.

I mean you can go get a physical CD for the same or cheeper AND you have a physical CD... Yup, that whole convenience thing is overblown

No, but the other op said that they have to pay Apple because you can watch movies after paying netflix outside Apple system




Why people insult so easily without even reading what the question is?

The other post said that out app purchase are cheating and they owe Apple money.




Perhaps the ignorant is the one that doesn't read the whole discussion before insulting

It doesn't mind, Apple doesn't charges for it, the developer license is all you need to put applications and is all you need to be distributed.

And if Apple think it's expensive, they can charge for it.

Forgive me if I overlooked something obvious. Could you kindly help me find the post that makes this comment relevant?

This seems like a reasonable arrangement. The content provider can offer a price in the app store that is 30% more than on their web site and the customers can decide if it is worth it or not.

As was exhaustively discussed when Apple first introduced this policy, the quantifiable value that Apple brought was around 3%, the cost of the credit card processing. As all other costs are borne by the publisher, not Apple, the remaining 27% sure looks like an expense.

Sure, Apple does bring some difficult to quantify value in the form of customer leads ("bringing the customer"), but many of us find it hard to believe that's 27% of the value of the transaction. There are not many industries where sales guys get 27% sales commissions. For any kind of one time commodity sale (books, etc), there is no way profit margins are high enough to support that kind of commission.

Apple has wisely recognized this and backed off some. Magazine publishers may still be willing to pay the 30% because the acquisition costs of a new subscriber may pay off over many years of subscriptions. Some may pass along the 30%, or maybe only 15%, or maybe none at all. Other markets, Netflix, Amazon, will probably just skip in-app purchases because it doesn't make much sense for them.

In my mind, the real justification for Apple pushing in-app purchasing was controlling the quality of the ecommerce transaction. Handling electronic purchasing is hard to do safely and securely. I like that Apple is providing in-app purchasing, handled by them in a secure manner, or forcing the app to go completely outside the app to handle the purchasing. This prevents a lot of custom purchasing systems produced by programmers who are not really experts in that area and a likely source of problems.

I see absolutely no downside to the new policy and am glad Apple has arrived at something I think is workable for everyone.

The vindication is in the fact that Apple reversed policy and my Kindle and Netflix apps are now safe because they don't have to offer in app purchases (at a loss to themselves) to stay in the app store.

And now you've quoted my "entire message" as I have quoted yours. Damn.

At any rate, since the guy's message was a single line and I responded to it, it was going to be a little tricky to edit it down. Or maybe I should just stop quoting and start throwing stuff out with no apparent motivation, which could be interesting.

I'm guessing you don't want me to respond at all to posts you feel are beneath you; regrettably this is not your call.

The vindication is in the fact that Apple reversed policy (as I had suggested they would, or face a lawsuit) and my Kindle and Netflix apps are now safe because they don't have to offer in app purchases (at a loss to themselves) to stay in the app store.

I'm not defending apps that facilitate drunk driving but here in Albany, NY (where good old Chuck Schumer represents), the local newspapers and radio stations broadcast DUI sweeps a week in advance. Where do they get the info? Local and County law enforcement. Hmmm. I'd like to see the politicians try to shut down the "news media" for being guilty of the same thing as the apps! Not with elections always around the corner. If I have to share the road with a drunk driver, I'd choose one that can open and read the app vs. one who heard/read it 20 times that week.

It may have been exhaustively claimed that the, "quantifiable value that Apple brought was around 3%", but it was a) never established as correct, and b) irrelevant since, as I must once again point out since some of you refuse to accept this very simple and very obvious fact, the App Store is not a fee for service or a commission for service based system. It's a revenue sharing system, so your entire analysis is misguided and utterly pointless.

Then don't buy it In-App. Go to the web where it will be priced "normal".

deleted

I don't know if I can agree that what Apple brings is only 3% of the value. They bring the entire iOS ecosystem, the App Store, and over 200 million customers. Without Apple's efforts none of that would exist in the way it does. I think that is worth far more than only 3%.

I agree that I'm happy it comes to a conclusion that works for everyone.

I think it may very well be worth the price. People still buy products in stores even though you can find it discounted on the Internet. People still buy albums on iTunes even though you can find it cheaper elsewhere.

Why do you assume publishers will charge that much more? If they charge more, I think it would be in the neighborhood of $11 vs. $10 elsewhere, if there's any difference. More likely, the in-app price will be the normal, regular price, and elsewhere they'll run sales and specials.

That 30% that Apple charges IS worth something. In addition to processing the credit card, Apple is providing a digital storefront with a wealth of customers and a ridiculously easy one-click way of purchasing content. Spur of the moment purchases are invaluable to content providers. By trying to get a customer to go to their website instead so they make more money, they set up additional obstacles for the customer and reduce the chances of that coveted spur-of-the-moment purchase.

Apple's App Store and In-App model provide a service that is worth paying for, even if you have to pay more. If you're marketing your product, a highly-read well-regarded magazine is going to be more expensive to advertise in than a lesser magazine. It costs more to rent space for a storefront in the Mall of America than in a strip mall.

Remember, publishers normally give up a cut to retailers, etc.

The people who use the In-App model are likely going to be purchasers who are new to the product. They download an app, try it out, and then purchase the content In-App.

Customers who subscribe to the service before getting the app are likely to purchase on the web, and then use the app, entering their existing login info.

If you're like Amazon, just don't offer an In-App option, like Netflix doesn't.

I'd say it works smoothly. If the customer finds the product through the App Store, they'll likely use the In-App method, and Apple gets a cut. They delivered the customer. If the publisher delivered the customer, they'll likely subscribe on the web and then get the app.

Perhaps we can take the "ecosystem" analogy a little further and say that relationships between its participants have to symbiotic for one to flourish. Once any particular thing becomes parasitic, the whole balance is thrown out: the other things will look for other places to survive.

Obviously, Apple have worked out in this context that it is not so. They have the data, and maybe the dude from the Rolling Stone was right in respect of the amount of revenue generated through the subscription policy, for instance. As people suggest, it's not the revenue to Apple that's important, it's essentially a "break even" proposition for them (although break even for Apple might be an entirely different relativity than for someone else).

However the revenue is important for the person providing the content, despite the other relevant argument about the value of customer information. If they're not selling content through iTunes, why invest the time in the first place to provide an iOS app? Is 70% of very little really worth the effort.


I guess that remains to be seen. To take the case of magazines, while I'd just prefer a magazine delivered differently (perhaps with better navigation), it seems many others prefer the idea of a rich interactive experience. It might the case that reason these subs aren't turning up because the content is not what people are expecting inside such a new paradigm.

You and numerous others are operating under the false premise that having these apps in the App Store add no value to the iOS ecosystem which is flat out WRONG. If Apple is operating the App Store as a mostly break even operation, why are they doing that? Do you know of any business that operates with a break even philosophy? The ONLY reason Apple is willing to do that is because it adds a HUGE amount of value to iOS devices.

If developers started abandoning iOS, the value it had would drop dramatically. It's not the parasitic, leach-like relationship some people here try to characterize it as. It's a symbiotic relationship. Where would iOS be without high profile apps like Kindle, Netflix and Angry Birds?