Originally Posted by cloudgazer
Apple really needs to introduce a different charging structure for content resellers if they want to move those transactions into the App Store.
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
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Not sure of the wisdom of taking iOS users out of the AppStore altogether and sending them to the vendor's site instead. Of course you do have to assume that Apple thought all this thru when they created the rule. FWIW, Apple may not really want Amazon, B&N, etc in the AppStore anyway, which may be part of the reason for the policy in the first place.
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.
Originally Posted by Unkown Blogger
Let's see. Apple provides the infrastructure to host their apps, but the vendors don't want to support that infrastructure by paying 30% of their price - they want a free ride.
Now what would they do if they were in Apple's position? I doubt any of them would want to incur costs to support someone else's business, particularly when those businesses are competitors (e.g., Amazon or B&N vs. iBooks).
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.
Originally Posted by charlituna
So you don't buy any apps for the iphone/ipad, for your Mac via MAS and no itunes media. Cause the same 30% rule applies.
The developers, studios, labels etc know the rules when they sign up. Including the rule that the rules can be changed.
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.
Originally Posted by anonymouse
What they are trying to prevent is app publishers circumventing the revenue sharing agreement they entered into when they published their apps through the app store.
Not quite. If I may be allowed to reword your statement a bit:
What they are trying to prevent is app publishers circumventing the revised revenue sharing agreement they were forced to entered into when Apple changed the rules after they had already published their apps through the app store.
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.