At the heart of the matter is the question of why should Netflix (or any other cross platform service) be forced to surrender 30% of their lifetime subscription revenue from a customer because they initially signed up for the service on their iPhone? If Apple gave Netflix the choice to implement in-app subscriptions or not, they'd be free to implement them if they felt they were beneficial.
I find it weird that anyone would download the Netflix app before they got a sub.
I said they don't get a cut from those sales. What more do you expect? But Apple still has to pay for all the work they do in hosting the FREE app, for which they get nothing.
I suspect you think that's fair though.
If Apple thinks it's not fair to host an app for free, they can charge for hosting and bandwith costs, but why is fair to charge for sometimes they aren't providing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I
Sure, because you really don't seem to know anything about any of this. You're unresponsive to certain questions, you don't seem to be familiar with any of the companies we're talking about, and you mention most things only after someone else has brought it up first.
I'm even beginning to wonder if you're an IBM plant, some version of Watson.
Where do you want i send the iMac, Macbook, iPhone, Mac Mini receipts?
Gizmodo actually offers some pretty good coverage of this, including this bit:
Quote:
Rhapsody says straight up: "an Apple-imposed arrangement that requires us to pay 30 percent of our revenue to Apple, in addition to content fees that we pay to the music labels, publishers and artists, is economically untenable."
You know, I think YOU don-t want to understand. Kindle books weeren't bought through the Apple store, Netflix subs weren't bought thought the App Store. It's not hard to understand if you want to understand.
I understand well. I also see, that as usual, you don't respond to a whole post, but just one small part of it, as though the rest will just go away. But it's here forever.
You know very well that 30% is no higher, and often lower than any other way the publisher can get this done for them. If they have to maintain their own site, there is heavy overhead there as well. And if a third party other than Apple doing it, they will charge just as much, or more. But you know that.
And of course Apple has to charge that. Why should subs be any different from any other app? How would other app producers feel if Apple charged less then they paid? That wouldn't be fair.
This way, everyone pays the same, for the same services. Nothing could be more fair than that.
If they already have to maintain their own site for other platforms, why should they also have to have the in-app purchasing arrangement with Apple?
At the heart of the matter is the question of why should Netflix (or any other cross platform service) be forced to surrender 30% of their lifetime subscription revenue from a customer because they initially signed up for the service on their iPhone? If Apple gave Netflix the choice to implement in-app subscriptions or not, they'd be free to implement them if they felt they were beneficial.
Because there's a possibility that the customer never would've signed up in the first place if they hadn't done so through the Netflix iOS app. So they would be out of that 70% until the customer stumbled across it some other way.
But the opposite is true, Apple is providing Netflix with a free platform for existing customers to view content. They will NEVER see a single cent from those customers and will continue to host Netflix's app for free as well.
And are you kidding me? Do you really think Netflix would volunteer to implement IAP, if they didn't have to? This is the heart of the problem as it is now. All these companies are making money off Apple's platform and not one is offering Apple anything in return, not even charging for the app, so Apple could make some money from them. Instead they're abusing Apple's policy of not charging for free apps and charging users for content elsewhere.
At the heart of the matter is the question of why should Netflix (or any other cross platform service) be forced to surrender 30% of their lifetime subscription revenue from a customer because they initially signed up for the service on their iPhone? If Apple gave Netflix the choice to implement in-app subscriptions or not, they'd be free to implement them if they felt they were beneficial.
We'll just have to see what happens. We're arguing this all day, but we really don't know exactly how this will pan out. I don't agree with everything Apple has done here, but for the most part, it does look pretty good for publishers, much better than we thought it would.
With Netflix continually lowering their prices, apparently there's a lot of rubber there. It all comes down to whether these companies think they will do better in the App Store or not. We can't decide that for them.
But no matter what, it's Apple's store, and all stores make their own rules. This is a new convention, selling within an app. Apple is trying to see how this will work out for them. It's not written in stone. Apple has made changes to its rules before, and they will do so again.
Ah, but the reality is that they de facto force the in-app purchase making difficult to make it outside the app if using the iPhone or iPad.
Last I checked, iPad and iPhone have a very good mobile browser, arguably the best. Don't see how difficult it is to access a Amazon's website or a Magazine site and sign up for a subscription. You do surf the internet, don't you? You add it to your iTunes library, just like you do with many things now (I have a few Audible audio books), and sync. Of course it is a bit more of a hassle than in-App purchases: that's the point! Apple created the platform and store, and expects to gain from it. Why is this so difficult for some of you to understand?
Use a webpage. The only thing Apple has stipulated in order to get your iApp accepted, is that the webpage not be linked to directly from within the iApp. They also ask that the in-App purchase option reflect the same price as on your website. Amazon can persuade iOS users to purchase outside the app as much as it likes -- on its own website, on TV, in magazines, in newspapers, on billboards, etc.
That will net Amazon a few more dollars on those particular sales. However, they will probably gain much more by playing ball with Apple, than were they to have no in-app purchases, because they will likely make many more sales, since iOS users will probably prefer the convenience of using their iTunes account, and giving less data to Amazon.
Really wonder why y'all are so worried for Amazon.
But is this not exactly what Amazon does? I dare say they are not creating content and then selling it. The are buying it at wholesale prices, marking it up and selling it to make a buck. Why shouldn't Apple be able to do the same thing? Why is it evil for Apple to do this but OK for Amazon? Amazon is bummed because a site that they paid nothing to sell before now says "hey if you are going to use us to facilitate the sale we want our share". Maybe you feel that is not fair but artists/writers/musicians have said the same thing about getting their product sold for a long time. You can either use the service or not. It is left as a choice - but don't give away an app as a vehicle to generate sales for yourself and expect someone else to tote the line for you.
It's not evil. But it does border on monopolistic. Apple is fully within their rights to do so. But basically slapping a 30% tax on every media distribution app (what most subscriptions services are) that competes with iTunes brings up some rather interesting anti-trust issues.
The worst thing about this is that people are using it to bandwagon-bash apple.
It's still developing, and it's certainly not finished shaking out. But Apple isn't doing anything anti-consumer here.
Apple is saying they will ban the app if the company undercuts the app store by offering a better price outside. I highly doubt that companies like Amazon or Netflix will raise their price to EVERYONE as a result; at least, not in the near future.
What's more likely is that companies, like Rhapsody is claiming, will withdraw from the App Store. Which is perfectly fair. And if Apple wants them back, they'll have to change their policies.
It's absurd that people are saying that 30% is outlandish. There's no basis for comparison. This isn't comparable to a 2.5% credit card transaction. The App Store is a form of reseller, attracting new customers and providing service to existing ones. They're not simply processing a payment any more than a brick and mortar retailer is.
That being said, it concerns me because I don't want to see providers like Netflix pulling out of the App Store as a result. Either Apple's policies are fair, and the major providers will stick it out, or they will push back.
If Apple thinks it's not fair to host an app for free, they can charge for hosting and bandwith costs, but why is fair to charge for sometimes they aren't providing?
The disagreement comes in your thinking that Apple isn't providing anything for their cut, and my thinking that they are. Since we're not going to convince each other on this point, perhaps we should abandon it.
Quote:
Where do you want i send the iMac, Macbook, iPhone, Mac Mini receipts?
I just want a better feeling that your familiar with all this, because I don't have that feeling. You seem very distant about all of it.
Does Apple receive 30% of the monthly Netflix subscription cost or do they just get the initial subscription cost when you sign up?
It depends how it's implemented, Apple cannot get a cut of DVD rental subscriptions as that breaks their own policy. Apple only wants a cut of content that is playable on the device itself. So I would guess that the Netflix app will only offer IAP streaming services through its app, of which Apple will get a 30% cut of for as long as that subscription is still active.
So if someone signs up to Netflix through their app, there will be only one IAP option, streaming. For other services, they should be able to provide a link to their website.
I don't agree with you on this one Mel. My iPad 2 purchase will be put on hold if Amazon, B&N, Netflix content goes bye-bye.
Well, I did say that some people would be affected by that. Just not very many. After all people are buying this in record numbers, and a number of these things weren't available earlier on when sales were ramping up rapidly.
There are too many other things in the store, and in iTunes for most people to care about a few.
There's no problem with Apple charging for that service. The problem exists with forcing app developers to use that service even though they already have existing web stores and subscription models in place.
Publishers aren't allowed to have direct pay kiosks in bookstores or attached to magazine racks that avoid having a transaction go through the local cash register. This is the electronic version of that. And the publisher is still allowed to keep their normal and totally independent by-mail and website subscription process just like they always did.
So if it's not a problem in meatspace, why should it suddenly become a problem in cyberspace?
Publishers aren't allowed to have direct pay kiosks in bookstores or attached to magazine racks that avoid having a transaction go through the local cash register. This is the electronic version of that. And the publisher is still allowed to keep their normal and totally independent by-mail and website subscription process just like they always did.
So if it's not a problem in meatspace, why should it suddenly become a problem in cyberspace?
If you want to use real world analogies, the app store is more like at shopping mall than a store.
Publishers aren't allowed to have direct pay kiosks in bookstores or attached to magazine racks that avoid having a transaction go through the local cash register. This is the electronic version of that. And the publisher is still allowed to keep their normal and totally independent by-mail and website subscription process just like they always did.
So if it's not a problem in meatspace, why should it suddenly become a problem in cyberspace?
But in "meatspace" when I see an ad in a magazine and respond, the corner store where I bought said magazine does not get a cut of the transaction.
I think it's reasonable to charge where Apple is providing some service (content hosting, payment processing, etc.). But 30% seems a bit much. We'll see very soon, how reasonable content providers think that charge is.
Comments
At the heart of the matter is the question of why should Netflix (or any other cross platform service) be forced to surrender 30% of their lifetime subscription revenue from a customer because they initially signed up for the service on their iPhone? If Apple gave Netflix the choice to implement in-app subscriptions or not, they'd be free to implement them if they felt they were beneficial.
I find it weird that anyone would download the Netflix app before they got a sub.
I said they don't get a cut from those sales. What more do you expect? But Apple still has to pay for all the work they do in hosting the FREE app, for which they get nothing.
I suspect you think that's fair though.
If Apple thinks it's not fair to host an app for free, they can charge for hosting and bandwith costs, but why is fair to charge for sometimes they aren't providing?
I
Sure, because you really don't seem to know anything about any of this. You're unresponsive to certain questions, you don't seem to be familiar with any of the companies we're talking about, and you mention most things only after someone else has brought it up first.
I'm even beginning to wonder if you're an IBM plant, some version of Watson.
Where do you want i send the iMac, Macbook, iPhone, Mac Mini receipts?
Rhapsody says straight up: "an Apple-imposed arrangement that requires us to pay 30 percent of our revenue to Apple, in addition to content fees that we pay to the music labels, publishers and artists, is economically untenable."
You know, I think YOU don-t want to understand. Kindle books weeren't bought through the Apple store, Netflix subs weren't bought thought the App Store. It's not hard to understand if you want to understand.
I understand well. I also see, that as usual, you don't respond to a whole post, but just one small part of it, as though the rest will just go away. But it's here forever.
As long as it auto-renewed through iTunes, they'd get 30% of every payment.
How would you auto-renew through iTunes? Is Apple requiring all in-app purchases to be made via iTunes accounts too?
You know very well that 30% is no higher, and often lower than any other way the publisher can get this done for them. If they have to maintain their own site, there is heavy overhead there as well. And if a third party other than Apple doing it, they will charge just as much, or more. But you know that.
And of course Apple has to charge that. Why should subs be any different from any other app? How would other app producers feel if Apple charged less then they paid? That wouldn't be fair.
This way, everyone pays the same, for the same services. Nothing could be more fair than that.
If they already have to maintain their own site for other platforms, why should they also have to have the in-app purchasing arrangement with Apple?
No, another truth. Are they forced to implement in app purchasing if they want their app approved yes or not?
Ps, have you read the fictionwise epub links?
Only if they have out of app purchasing as well. We're not arguing that. We're arguing the results of what it means.
At the heart of the matter is the question of why should Netflix (or any other cross platform service) be forced to surrender 30% of their lifetime subscription revenue from a customer because they initially signed up for the service on their iPhone? If Apple gave Netflix the choice to implement in-app subscriptions or not, they'd be free to implement them if they felt they were beneficial.
Because there's a possibility that the customer never would've signed up in the first place if they hadn't done so through the Netflix iOS app. So they would be out of that 70% until the customer stumbled across it some other way.
But the opposite is true, Apple is providing Netflix with a free platform for existing customers to view content. They will NEVER see a single cent from those customers and will continue to host Netflix's app for free as well.
And are you kidding me? Do you really think Netflix would volunteer to implement IAP, if they didn't have to? This is the heart of the problem as it is now. All these companies are making money off Apple's platform and not one is offering Apple anything in return, not even charging for the app, so Apple could make some money from them. Instead they're abusing Apple's policy of not charging for free apps and charging users for content elsewhere.
At the heart of the matter is the question of why should Netflix (or any other cross platform service) be forced to surrender 30% of their lifetime subscription revenue from a customer because they initially signed up for the service on their iPhone? If Apple gave Netflix the choice to implement in-app subscriptions or not, they'd be free to implement them if they felt they were beneficial.
We'll just have to see what happens. We're arguing this all day, but we really don't know exactly how this will pan out. I don't agree with everything Apple has done here, but for the most part, it does look pretty good for publishers, much better than we thought it would.
With Netflix continually lowering their prices, apparently there's a lot of rubber there. It all comes down to whether these companies think they will do better in the App Store or not. We can't decide that for them.
But no matter what, it's Apple's store, and all stores make their own rules. This is a new convention, selling within an app. Apple is trying to see how this will work out for them. It's not written in stone. Apple has made changes to its rules before, and they will do so again.
Ah, but the reality is that they de facto force the in-app purchase making difficult to make it outside the app if using the iPhone or iPad.
Last I checked, iPad and iPhone have a very good mobile browser, arguably the best. Don't see how difficult it is to access a Amazon's website or a Magazine site and sign up for a subscription. You do surf the internet, don't you? You add it to your iTunes library, just like you do with many things now (I have a few Audible audio books), and sync. Of course it is a bit more of a hassle than in-App purchases: that's the point! Apple created the platform and store, and expects to gain from it. Why is this so difficult for some of you to understand?
Use a webpage. The only thing Apple has stipulated in order to get your iApp accepted, is that the webpage not be linked to directly from within the iApp. They also ask that the in-App purchase option reflect the same price as on your website. Amazon can persuade iOS users to purchase outside the app as much as it likes -- on its own website, on TV, in magazines, in newspapers, on billboards, etc.
That will net Amazon a few more dollars on those particular sales. However, they will probably gain much more by playing ball with Apple, than were they to have no in-app purchases, because they will likely make many more sales, since iOS users will probably prefer the convenience of using their iTunes account, and giving less data to Amazon.
Really wonder why y'all are so worried for Amazon.
But is this not exactly what Amazon does? I dare say they are not creating content and then selling it. The are buying it at wholesale prices, marking it up and selling it to make a buck. Why shouldn't Apple be able to do the same thing? Why is it evil for Apple to do this but OK for Amazon? Amazon is bummed because a site that they paid nothing to sell before now says "hey if you are going to use us to facilitate the sale we want our share". Maybe you feel that is not fair but artists/writers/musicians have said the same thing about getting their product sold for a long time. You can either use the service or not. It is left as a choice - but don't give away an app as a vehicle to generate sales for yourself and expect someone else to tote the line for you.
It's not evil. But it does border on monopolistic. Apple is fully within their rights to do so. But basically slapping a 30% tax on every media distribution app (what most subscriptions services are) that competes with iTunes brings up some rather interesting anti-trust issues.
It's still developing, and it's certainly not finished shaking out. But Apple isn't doing anything anti-consumer here.
Apple is saying they will ban the app if the company undercuts the app store by offering a better price outside. I highly doubt that companies like Amazon or Netflix will raise their price to EVERYONE as a result; at least, not in the near future.
What's more likely is that companies, like Rhapsody is claiming, will withdraw from the App Store. Which is perfectly fair. And if Apple wants them back, they'll have to change their policies.
It's absurd that people are saying that 30% is outlandish. There's no basis for comparison. This isn't comparable to a 2.5% credit card transaction. The App Store is a form of reseller, attracting new customers and providing service to existing ones. They're not simply processing a payment any more than a brick and mortar retailer is.
That being said, it concerns me because I don't want to see providers like Netflix pulling out of the App Store as a result. Either Apple's policies are fair, and the major providers will stick it out, or they will push back.
If Apple thinks it's not fair to host an app for free, they can charge for hosting and bandwith costs, but why is fair to charge for sometimes they aren't providing?
The disagreement comes in your thinking that Apple isn't providing anything for their cut, and my thinking that they are. Since we're not going to convince each other on this point, perhaps we should abandon it.
Where do you want i send the iMac, Macbook, iPhone, Mac Mini receipts?
I just want a better feeling that your familiar with all this, because I don't have that feeling. You seem very distant about all of it.
Does Apple receive 30% of the monthly Netflix subscription cost or do they just get the initial subscription cost when you sign up?
It depends how it's implemented, Apple cannot get a cut of DVD rental subscriptions as that breaks their own policy. Apple only wants a cut of content that is playable on the device itself. So I would guess that the Netflix app will only offer IAP streaming services through its app, of which Apple will get a 30% cut of for as long as that subscription is still active.
So if someone signs up to Netflix through their app, there will be only one IAP option, streaming. For other services, they should be able to provide a link to their website.
I don't agree with you on this one Mel. My iPad 2 purchase will be put on hold if Amazon, B&N, Netflix content goes bye-bye.
Well, I did say that some people would be affected by that. Just not very many. After all people are buying this in record numbers, and a number of these things weren't available earlier on when sales were ramping up rapidly.
There are too many other things in the store, and in iTunes for most people to care about a few.
If they already have to maintain their own site for other platforms, why should they also have to have the in-app purchasing arrangement with Apple?
They don't have to be in the App Store at all. It's their choice.
There's no problem with Apple charging for that service. The problem exists with forcing app developers to use that service even though they already have existing web stores and subscription models in place.
Publishers aren't allowed to have direct pay kiosks in bookstores or attached to magazine racks that avoid having a transaction go through the local cash register. This is the electronic version of that. And the publisher is still allowed to keep their normal and totally independent by-mail and website subscription process just like they always did.
So if it's not a problem in meatspace, why should it suddenly become a problem in cyberspace?
Publishers aren't allowed to have direct pay kiosks in bookstores or attached to magazine racks that avoid having a transaction go through the local cash register. This is the electronic version of that. And the publisher is still allowed to keep their normal and totally independent by-mail and website subscription process just like they always did.
So if it's not a problem in meatspace, why should it suddenly become a problem in cyberspace?
If you want to use real world analogies, the app store is more like at shopping mall than a store.
They don't have to be in the App Store at all. It's their choice.
I hope they exercise that choice and Apple reconsiders.
Publishers aren't allowed to have direct pay kiosks in bookstores or attached to magazine racks that avoid having a transaction go through the local cash register. This is the electronic version of that. And the publisher is still allowed to keep their normal and totally independent by-mail and website subscription process just like they always did.
So if it's not a problem in meatspace, why should it suddenly become a problem in cyberspace?
But in "meatspace" when I see an ad in a magazine and respond, the corner store where I bought said magazine does not get a cut of the transaction.
I think it's reasonable to charge where Apple is providing some service (content hosting, payment processing, etc.). But 30% seems a bit much. We'll see very soon, how reasonable content providers think that charge is.