Originally Posted by MacRulez
If publishers attempt to recoup Apple's 30% with a higher price, customers will either accept it or not. But at least normal free-market pricing is now possible on the platform. Those who prefer capitalism applaud this move.
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.
How many times does this have to happen before Apple simply stops making such blunders in the first place?
The only blunders are your vapid conclusions