WSJ, Amazon, Google, Kobo iOS apps affected by Apple's direct sales rules - Page 2

I personally don't think it changes the value proposition for buying an iOS device, but it could negatively affect the user experience. I have a Kindle 3G, so I can buy books directly from the Kindle (but it's clunky and slow). I've also purchased Kindle books from the Amazon website and sent it to my iPad running the Kindle app. It is is faster and more flexible because you are on the full amazon.com website, which looks great on the iPad. Based on that experience, no, it's not necessarily something I miss.

You switch to the browser to buy that content. That's not preventing anything.

The developer fee is dirt cheap and is not intended to cover the costs of the App Store nor pay Apple for the privilege of selling to Apple's customers through Apple's storefront. It is, rather, intended to pay for the developer tools and keep lowlife devs from spamming the store.

Safari is not a storefront. It is a web browser, which means it can view and access content from third-parties, including storefronts.

The App Store and Apple's In-App API service is Apple's storefront.

I'm not sure if you actually "don't understand" or are just trying to purposely "muddy the waters" by making nonsensical posts.

I will try to make this as simple as I can ... just for you.:

Safari is a browser .... not the storefront that everyone here is talking about ... well, except you.. the app store is what the article is talking about. If a developer sells through safari browser that links to his/her own "storefront ... no problem.

What Apple is saying is this:

We have created a storefront that has 100 + million accounts .... and counting .... and we spend a considerable amount of $$$$ to build and maintain it .... so if you want to reach a potential customer by accessing our client data base .... we expect our share of revenue generated by said access. This is done by any store I know of.

Imagine what Walmart would say if I approached them and said I want to put my products in their store, because I know they have a lot of "foot traffic" .... but not sell them 'thru their store ... but instead , just put up a sign "directing the interested customer to my car in the parking lot where I will be glad to complete the transaction, while avoiding giving Walmart any of the $$$$ earned.

How well do you think that would go over ???

And this is what Amazon, B&N or Spotify apps did

The iOS Developer Program provides you with the ability to distribute your apps on the App Store. Offer your free or commercial apps to millions of iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch customers around the world. Extend the ability to generate revenue from your apps on the App Store with In-App Purchases, iAd rich media ads, volume purchases and more.

http://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/distribute.html

I'm sure this anaology is full of holes, but.... I'm starting to view Apple in the same light as the music labels we all despise so much. Who is this middle man who gets in between the guy creating the art (music, books, applications) and me? And why do they think they should get such a huge cut of the revenue. And in terms of content distribution (the actual music or book) Apple does even less than a music label does as they don't have to handle any manufacturing, inventory management, etc.

And we all know what this lead to in the music industry, essentially a revolt against The Man. Only this time, it's not Apple coming to the rescue, because now Apple is The Man.


I think Apple created the rule to see the reaction, just like they did when they tried to ban applications generated from Flash conversion tools. In both cases, their bluff was called and they've backed down. And I suspect they will have further backing down in this latest issue, too.


I don't think anyone here would argue that Apple shouldn't get some compensation. But I think most would argue that 30% is far too high for the services they provide.

Apple's attitude is that the hardware/OS (platform) is adding value to the software/content, but then they deny that the software/content is adding value to the platform. I'd argue that, at least as far as the subscription content we are discussing here goes, the software adds far more value to the platform than the other way around. I can play Angry Birds and read the Wall Street Journal on any number of platforms, an iDevice is entirely optional.


1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple doesn't get 30% for iTunes music/movies. I thought that was closer to 10%, but I've not seen a recent figure. And in that case Apple is actually storing and delivering the content (in some cases fairly large files). If I understand correctly, subscription media for iOS applications is more like the podcast model. Apple provides the method for finding and subscribing, but the provider provides the storage and bandwidth to deliver the content.

2. Knowing that the rules can change, and liking the changed rules are two different things. Apple changed the rules, content providers don't like the rules and are reacting. The risk is that Apple will start to be viewed like MS...as a very unreliable partners. How many twists and turns did MS put it's partners through with all the different flavors of DRM for music players, continually changing the rules. Sooner or later, developers and providers will get gun shy and start to delay iOS releases for fear the rug will get pulled off from under their feet again.


Not quite. If I may be allowed to reword your statement a bit:


It's perfectly within Apple's rights to change the rules. I'm sure they had such a clause in the original agreement. But to suggest that the publishers knew what the rules were going to be long after they had already released their apps is not a fair statement. This is a fairly big change in the rules as it would complete up-end the business model you had designed your app around. It's borderline "bait-and-switch". And as mentioned above, it makes Apple a very unreliable partner.

Yes, it's less convenient purchasing subscriptions and books via the browser. Yes, it's annoying having dozens of different apps for magazines and books.

But to me, it's not worth paying an extra 30% just for the convenience of having this streamlined. I hope the publishers don't give in to Apple's demands and raise rates, even if it means a clunky workaround experience once a year when I renew.

I was looking forward to Newsstand, but I'm guessing it will be just as big of a flop as iBooks and AppleTV.

By your logic Apple has to pay MS for every song I buy using iTunes on my Windows machine. {ad hom attack removed}

What they did was link from the App Store directly to their website using a "buy here" link .... no ???

Sure, but that's not really what is for. If that was the case, Apple wouldn't charge 30% on app purchases. Use some common sense.

And Prof. Peabody did not say that Safari is a storefront. He said that certain webpages are storefronts.

Safari =/= the Nook Store website

Safari is nothing more than a browser to view content.

You forot to include the rest of the story .... from the same link. ...Huh .. imagine that.

You pick the price
You get 70% of sales revenue
Receive payments monthly
No charge for free apps
No credit card fees
No hosting fees
No marketing fees

Do you know what percentage the online aggregators used to charge before Apple came on the scene?

Around the time of the App Store's birth, for instance, Handango and Pocketgear were the top online stores for app distribution and sales, and were charging small developers around 55% (and amazingly, the large ones like EA around 70%!).

Why do you reckon there was such a large exodus to the Apple platform in such a short period of time in the first place?

Talk about greed, pffft!

Amazon for one doesn't allow any other aggregators to ply their trade on its storefront.

Go figure...

No, because Windows is an OS.

If your analogy was that iTunes is sold (free) and downloaded from the "Windows Store" (a digital storefront... do they have this? not sure, but it's hypothetical), then yes, Microsoft could say they wanted a percentage of every song sold if Apple wants to have the right to use Microsoft's "Windows Store".

In that case, Apple wouldn't distribute their app on the "Windows Store". Just like these companies don't have to distribute their apps on the App Store. In this instance, both Apple and Microsoft would be providing a service and delivering customers, and can therefore charge whatever they feel like, and developers can choose whether or not the value proposition is worth it.

It is a free market, right?

Even if you buy, using a windows machine .... you still buy 'thru the IiTunes store, genius

MSFT has nothing to do with it.

THIS should get posted more. THIS is the value proposition, and Apple says it is valued at 30% of revenues (including app purchases and in-app purchases).

If the developer signs up, they obviously feel it is worth is.

And by the way, that list should also include "Access to 100,000+ users with credit cards on file"...

The revenue sharing part of the "rules" is the part of the developer agreement where you agree to let Apple have 30% of the revenue your app generates.

You aren't rewording my statement, you're simply making up the fantasy version that represents your distorted and mistaken view.

Googgle Books is back in the App Store, sans their direct link button, just as the others did.

Actually no, in software sales Apple is not the man, Apple is the anti-man. Apple is allowing small indy developers access to a population of users that they could never have reached before. It offers promotions, and marketing - most important of all it promises trust, so that you can buy that $1 app without worrying about malware.

The result is a bonanza for small devs that is unprecedented in the history of the software industry. Apple is not the man - and while 30% might seem high, compared to what developers would have had to pay in the past for a global distribution system, micropayment system and quality assurance system it's a bargain.

The people being disadvantaged here aren't the little guys, they're the big content resellers and they're quite capable of advertising their external content sites elsewhere. They just can't use free apps in the App store as a source of free advertising.

You really don't know what is going on. Amazon used to sell through it's own store, which it still does. Apple have stopped them linking to their own store in safari.

Also, post reported.

Through in app purchases. For companies who have a safari store front that doesn't apply. Apple haven't banned the safari storefront, but the link to it.

Also post reported for calling a honest argument a troll.

Amazon doesn't need Apple's credit card files. They invented one touch.

Anyway the latest kindle release is getting an average of 1 star reviews on the App Store. The average customer is reacting angrily. Why has Amazon done this? Are they stupid. Most people don't follow the tech news. However the truth will out and Apple will face the mother of all back lashes.

EDIT: the situation is evolving. The average for the new release is now ( on the UK store) 2 stars. Consisting of mostly 1 stars and 3 5 stars from people saying it is Apples fault.

EDIT 2: as I wrote that I swapped innthe app store to get the actual numbers. All reviews for 2.8 are now gone!

Please point out which part of my statement is untrue? Apple changed the rules AFTER many of the publishers released their apps on the App Store, correct? And Apple said they would remove any app that didn't meet the new rules, even if it had been previously approved under the old rules, correct? Are you somehow suggesting that those publishers should have had crystal balls to anticiapte how and when Apple would change the rules?

As I said, it's within Apple's right to do so as they likely had that clause in the agreement. But that doesn't change the fact that there was no way for an app creator to know ahead of time what Apple's future rule changes are going to be and how those changes would impact your business plan.

Apple hosts the app.
They do not host content.

Note that Amazon and others are resellers. They are not publishers.
Publishers pay far more to distributors (such as Amazon and the corner bookstore) to sell their product.

You mean one-click, and by invented you mean patented. Honestly that patent alone is enough for me to cheer when somebody screws Amazon a bit. 1-click is the poster child for patent idiocy (yes I mean that in both senses).

That would be +200 million users with credit cards on file.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/02/app...unes-accounts/

If in your business plan Apple hosts your App for free, and you generate income outside your App which Apple gets no share of, then you have to at least vaguely suspect that at some point they may notice you are freeloading.

Now as it happens Apple has decided to treat free-loaders pretty gently, you can still do it, you'll just have to inform your customers of the pay-site some other way. You could even do it by iAds in your free App, but you'd have to pay Apple a cut on the advertising, so they'd still get paid.

In teh end, this is why MS will win this round too...for a few reasons:

1: they already have the distrobution channel
2: They own the Living room with xbox and tehy own the enterprise tablet market (albeit a small market) -- combine teh two and the possibilities are interesting(Windows 8 anyone?)
3: MS tends to get it right the third time: They did tablets with XP, they did it again in a much revamped way in W7 and of course slate/touch is the driving force of Windows 8...
4: Microsoft DOESNT CARE what you do with thir stuff when you buy it cause it is YOURS after all -- they will win the consumers just like they did with Windwos 95 and they will never lose the corprate market in the next 15 years.

That's what I'm leaning toward as well.

This isn't about Apple needing the extra money or one person or another thinks is "fair".

It is a strategy by Apple to remove, or at least disadvantage, "middle man" type apps in the iOS app store where Apple themselves offer an alternative.

I think the main motivation here is nothing to do with the eBook vendors and everything to do with freemium games

http://www.tuaw.com/2011/07/25/study...es-on-ios-and/

Ok, so you posit that software/content adds value to idevices which makes Apple greedy for asking 30% of revenue from NEW subscribers using in app purchases. In the above statement, you acknowledge that both Angry Birds and WSJ can be purchased/used on any number of platforms and an idevice is optional. Well, that seems to show that the software/content DOESN'T in fact add much value since customers are flocking to idevices in droves compared to other platforms. Why is that? Could it be the OS Apple has developed? Or the superior design and build of Apple's hardware? Or the tight integration in the ecosystem that Apple has created? All of those things cost billions of dollars to develop and execute so excuse me if I'm not crying a river for big corporations who think they can spend 99 bucks to get in the app store and make millions.

In Europe that patent application was denied as too obvious.

Yeh their retail stores are bitchin!


Interestingly xbox live is reported as also charging a 30% commission. Outrage eh?
55Mil Xbox-360s since launch in 4Q2005.
50Mil PS-3 since launch in 4Q2006
86MIl Wii since launch in 4Q2006
29Mil iPads since launch in 2Q2010.

Sorry but Xbox doesn't own the living room.


iPad is the highest selling tablet in the enterprise too. So no, they don't own that either.


XP on tablet - try 1
Vista on tablet - try 2
Win 7 on tablet - try 3

4th time lucky this time eh? 5th if we count project Origami separately. 6th if we include windows for pen computing. But next time will be really good right? Hey it's their 7th attempt on the smartphone platform and that's a whole 1% of US handset sales!


Once you've installed your copy of windows on a box it's locked to that box. Far from 'owning it and you can do what you like', it's limited to a single machine and if you upgrade the motherboard you'll have to phone them and ask nicely before you can install it on something else. No they're not obliged to let you.

The fact that you're a hopeless fanboy is much less embarrassing than the fact that you're a clueless hopeless fanboy.

It's not final yet, but the 1-click patent was recently ruled invalid also. Not unique enough to be patentable and prior art exists etc. Amazon is still fighting it and it isn't final, but the smart money is on one-click being history very soon.

WTF are you talking about and why make it a personal attack? The real Holy Steven would not approve.

May a rock fall from the sky and hit you on the head.

The App Store and iOS apps in general are a "value add" for Apple. And in truth, it's a HUGE "value add" for iOS devices. Where do you think the iPhone and iPad would be if Apple had never allowed apps on those devices? Apple has spent a lot of time and effort advertising apps because they know how much value apps add to their products.

People like to point out that the iTunes Store and App Store are basically break even propositions. You can't really "freeload" (which apps don't since they add value to Apple's products) when there's no real expectation that the store is going to make any money or not. People really need to make up their minds. Does Apple expect to make a profit on the App Store or not?

FT's html5-based web app is seriously good. No different from their award-winning native iOS app for the iPad. Moving to html5 gives them the ability to go cross-platform (including Android), and they claim enables easier content updates, better videos etc.

Moreover, they don't have to jump through Apple's app update hoops (and non-existent, or at best, unresponsive customer service) every time they want to add/change something by way of functionality in the app.

I have to wonder what this means for the future of iOS native-apps if more and more big names do this, and by inference, what it means for iPad sales (since web-based apps will look and perform the same, to a large degree, on any hardware).