Legacy apps must comply with Apple's App Store subscription rules by June 30

179111213

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 255
    I don't see this working at all as others have explained. They will pull out of the AppStore I am sure if something else isn't worked out. They can not increase the cost for every other platform just because of apple. They certainly will not take a 30% loss regardless what apple feels is fair.



    In the end Apple and end users will be hurt by this. Bye kindle.., netflix... it was nice knowing you on iOS.



    If I were amazon netflix I would simply put up a dialog that mentions because of the costs assocated with the apple store purchases with subscriptions, iTunes subscriptions are disabled. We simply can not take a 30% loss or increase prices everywhere else 30% because of the apple platform. Feel free to contact Apple and let them know how you feel about this issue.
  • Reply 162 of 255
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by John F. View Post


    Is this only for publishers, or also for content distributors?



    The question is, does the uptake of subscribers via in-app outweigh the costs of 30 percent? Maybe publishers would like a higher take, but what if this in-app thing causse subscribers to surge? Looking at short term, might be actually good for companies if and when subsciptions take off.



    But "in-app" means the user has already downloaded the app. Which means they are already aware of the publication and probably already decided to subscribe. They made that discovery with out the aid of in-app subscriptions (since they didn't have the app yet).



    So is it realy going to create that big of a surge in subscribers?
  • Reply 163 of 255
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    First of all, Amazon is a RESELLER. In case you hadn't noticed, so is Apple (iBooks). The PUBLISHER can choose to sell the book through Apple's iBook app. Screw Amazon if they can't compete. And yes, screw Apple if THEY can't compete!



    Same with Hulu, etcetera.



    Besides, Amazon can still put their reader on the iPad. They just can't sell books through it come June unless they're willing to pay Apple's price - which they won't. So?



    Flip it around: Can you buy an iBook on the Kindle? No? How about an iBook reader? Hey, at least Apple lets you read a Kindle book on an iPad!



    Apple's tired of carrying the water for its competition. Guess what? THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT.



    amazon can still put their reader app up now. But it's only a single new rule before apple blocks the kindle app unless it offers in app purchasing.



    ibooks is ONLY available on the iOS ecoystem. this is APPLE's choice. If they created a ibooks android app it would be available on android, but they won't do that because they're a HARDWARE company. You cannot use the question about ibooks on other platforms because it is APPLE blocking that, not other providers.



    On top of that, the kindle is a SINGLE use product. It's there for the consumption of amazon content. It is a totally different product from the Kindle or a similar device.
  • Reply 164 of 255
    With the new App Store for the Mac, it just might end up there also, restricting all software on your laptop to only those that you bought through the app store.

    The writing seems to be on the wall.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post


    The iPad and App store are only there to earn money for Apple. It is understandable. What I don't understand is how Apple can require companies to give them a cut of everything their company does.



    When I buy a car from Ford, they don't require every store I visit to give them 30% of all of my purchases just because I used the Ford to get to their store. It seems apps are the same way. The iPad or iPhone is the vehicle used to visit or buy apps. Those apps are like stores. They have things that people want. Why should those stores give Apple anything just because the person used an iPad or iPhone to get to that store? If Apple is storing the data that is being sold then I can understand them getting a cut. If the app vendor wants to send people elsewhere to buy things then it should be none of Apple's business if people purchase things outside of the Apple universe.



    I use a Mac Book and visit web sites. I purchase things from Amazon and other vendors. Apple doesn't get a cut of all of my purchases on those other web sites just because I used something they built.



  • Reply 165 of 255
    xsuxsu Posts: 401member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    Companies will not offer content in iOS if it doesn't make them money. Netflix doesn't give a crap about the number of subscribers they have, they care about the number of PROFITABLE subscribers they have.



    This rule will result in only one of TWO outcomes:



    1) Content providers will increase the price across the board to compensate meaning EVERYONE pays more, even those of us without iOS devices.



    2) Content providers will drop an now unprofitable platform.



    NEITHER option is a net gain for consumers. Do you honestly think that ANY big company can just give up an extra 30% of their revenue? You're assuming that everything will continue the way it has with just the added "benefit" of everything going through itunes. It won't.



    Netflix isn't desperate for iOS subscribers. They're desperate for profit. They won't lose money ACROSS THE BOARD to make their user base larger.





    For Netflix, EVERY subscriber is another profitable subscriber. Their costs are mostly fixed cost, such as data center, warehousing, licensing fees, and advertisements. These costs won't change much with or without Apple users as potential subscribers. Their variable costs for each subscriber is very low compared to the monthly fee. So Netflix will increase their profit no matter what kind of cut Apple takes. Apple can charge them 90% and Netflix will probably still come out ahead on new subscribers on Apple's platform.



    Unless Netflix's licensing fee is calculated on a per view basis, then their profit margin will suffer a bit with Apple's cut. But still, each additional subscriber is most likely a profitable one even with Apple's cut.
  • Reply 166 of 255
    tjwaltjwal Posts: 404member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    Exactly. Which won't happen. All that means is that, come June, you won't be able to click on a button in the Kindle app and launch to the Amazon store. Big deal.



    Except that Apple requires them to include an in app purchase option.

    " Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app."



    I don't know whether an ebook is considered a subscription but I don'tdoubt Amazon would be willing to allow an option that takes all their profit.
  • Reply 167 of 255
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    I think it comes down to whether or not you define Apple as a distributor/reseller of content. If you do then the 30% isn't that bad. Many resellers mark up merchandise even 50% from the wholesale price. I'm not sure what the markup is for books, magazines or music in particular but a typical reseller gets merchandise for a substantial discount and then marks it up.



    In this case the problem arises when the distributor is a re-distributor, then the merchandise gets marked up twice. Since Amazon is the reseller of the publisher and the Apple is the reseller of Amazon, there is one too many middle men .



    But apple isn't directly reselling the service. They're taking NONE of the costs associated with Amazon working out a deal with the publishers. They're not reselling ANYTHING of amazon's.



    What they're doing is telling amazon to fork over a portion of the revenue (often the total profit) without giving them ANY additional compensation for it. in this relationship Apple isn't a distributor of the content, they're not even a reseller of the content, they're the platform the content gets consumed on once it's already purchased.



    They're not selling ANY of the content. They're more like the leaseholder of a lot where a bookstore opens. Should a leaseholder have the right to charge rent? Yes. Do they have the right to take a HIGH % of every single sale that store makes? Hell no. No store would agree to those terms, no matter how high the traffic at that location is.
  • Reply 168 of 255
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xsu View Post


    For Netflix, EVERY subscriber is another profitable subscriber. Their costs are mostly fixed cost, such as data center, warehousing, licensing fees, and advertisements. These costs won't change much with or without Apple users as potential subscribers. Their variable costs for each subscriber is very low compared to the monthly fee. So Netflix will increase their profit no matter what kind of cut Apple takes. Apple can charge them 90% and Netflix will probably still come out ahead on new subscribers on Apple's platform.



    Unless Netflix's licensing fee is calculated on a per view basis, then their profit margin will suffer a bit with Apple's cut. But still, each additional subscriber is most likely a profitable one even with Apple's cut.



    False. No, not just false, outright delusional.



    Take a look at Netflix's income statement's for the past year. Their profit margin has nowhere NEAR the amount of leeway to give up 30% of their revenue.



    To put it in perspective, if only 10% of Netflix subscribers subscribe through itunes, Apple will get 44% of their TOTAL net profit. The more popular the in app purchase model is, the less money Netflix will make.



    There is no universe where that is "fair." Especially when you consider that most of those people who subscribe through netflix will also be using the service on different mediums (like their TV) just as much, or MORE than they'll be consuming content on the iOS device. This means that apple will get close to 50% of the companies net income just by providing a storefront?



    Apple isn't selling the content, they're not paying the rights for the content. They should NOT be getting that big of a chunk.
  • Reply 169 of 255
    dave k.dave k. Posts: 1,306member
    I really am beginning to wonder if Steve is the only one to run this company... These changes just cry stupidity.



    Why on earth would Apple make these changes so early on in the mobile OS/platform wars. Are they that arrogant that they feel Google, MS, RIM, and HP aren't competitors.
  • Reply 170 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    See the post DIRECTLY above the one you just quoted. or see fireball's response.



    This isn't rocket science we're talking about here. It's simple math.



    Cost+Markup=Revenue



    You add apple's tax and it's coming directly from your markup which is almost always significantly less than 30%



    I guess the actual documents aren't showing up in my browser. You'll forgive me if I think you guys are just making up numbers to support your "rage".
  • Reply 171 of 255
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    I guess the actual documents aren't showing up in my browser. You'll forgive me if I think you guys are just making up numbers to support your "rage".



    So your browser can't view Yahoo Finance pages? Go to your browser of choice, type in "Netflix income statement 2010" and hit enter. I linked to the yahoo finance page, which is the official documents published by the company.



    I've just confirmed that it loads in a webkit browser, so you're excuse is absolute BS. It also loads on IE9, firefox, Chrome, and I'm pretty sure Opera (though I don't use it). So what browser are you using exactly? Because it sucks.
  • Reply 172 of 255
    Wow!!



    Apple is really pushing the limits with it's users. Now they want to really restrict content that we can put on our devices if the t vendors don't' allow them to put their hands in their pockets and take their money.



    It's quite obvious what Apple's goals are now. They are.



    Sell you a device (iPad, iPhone, iPod touch) and make you think you can put any software on it, (as long as it's not porn or illegal content).



    Cutting off Hulu, Netflix will pave the way for Apple's movie rental and tv show rental service.



    Cutting off Kindle and Barns and Noble would pave the way to Apple's eBook store.



    Regarding music, they have iTunes which already has a monopoly on online distribution of music.



    To me, Apple is engaging in anti-competitive practices. In some instances, like iPod and iPad, Apple has a monopoly market-share, and since these rules affect those platforms, they can be brought up in that sense.
  • Reply 173 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    amazon can still put their reader app up now. But it's only a single new rule before apple blocks the kindle app unless it offers in app purchasing.



    ibooks is ONLY available on the iOS ecoystem. this is APPLE's choice. If they created a ibooks android app it would be available on android, but they won't do that because they're a HARDWARE company. You cannot use the question about ibooks on other platforms because it is APPLE blocking that, not other providers.



    On top of that, the kindle is a SINGLE use product. It's there for the consumption of amazon content. It is a totally different product from the Kindle or a similar device.



    Not true. Here's the quote:



    "Apps like the Kindle app from Amazon.com and the one that Sony submitted open up a browser window when a user wants to buy something. This allows the app makers to argue that technically the purchase is happening on the Web, not within the app.



    Apple is now saying the app makers must allow those purchases to happen within the app, not in a separate browser window, with Apple getting its standard 30 percent cut of the transaction. At the moment this applies only to e-book purchases.



    ?We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines,? Trudy Muller, an Apple spokeswoman, said Tuesday. ?We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase.?



    Note that they can have a READER ONLY, and there's no problem.



    As regards why iBooks is not available, it's irrelevant. It's only relevant that Kindle IS available on the iPad.
  • Reply 174 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tjwal View Post


    Except that Apple requires them to include an in app purchase option.

    " Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app."



    I don't know whether an ebook is considered a subscription but I don'tdoubt Amazon would be willing to allow an option that takes all their profit.



    It's not. You can have a pure ebook reader that doesn't sell anything. See below:



    "Apps like the Kindle app from Amazon.com and the one that Sony submitted open up a browser window when a user wants to buy something. This allows the app makers to argue that technically the purchase is happening on the Web, not within the app.



    Apple is now saying the app makers must allow those purchases to happen within the app, not in a separate browser window, with Apple getting its standard 30 percent cut of the transaction. At the moment this applies only to e-book purchases.



    ?We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines,? Trudy Muller, an Apple spokeswoman, said Tuesday. ?We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase.?"
  • Reply 175 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tbsteph View Post


    I find the "newly" enforced "rule" to be nothing more than a money grab by AAPL. Vendors such as Netflix and Amazon have helped to build the App Store ecosystem that has pushed the sale of Apple products. Now that the Store has gained widespread popularity, Apple wants a bigger bite of the income. This enforced "change" does virtually nothing for the customer except to either increase prices or the availability of existing and new apps.



    If I use the slingbox app to oder a pay-per-view movie from my cable company will apple want a cut of that. It's an in app purchase.
  • Reply 176 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    I guess the actual documents aren't showing up in my browser. You'll forgive me if I think you guys are just making up numbers to support your "rage".



    These guys are really confused. First, there's the way Apple is dealing with ebook readers that "sell" from within the app by clicking through to their website. That won't be allowed without also giving Apple the chance to sell at the same price. That won't happen (because it would cost the reseller too much), so ereaders will no longer be able to click through to the reseller's website. So what?



    Second, if you're selling magazines and subscriptions, you need to sell via Apple. Again, so what? The subscriptions are quite reasonable. I just bought one for Popular Science for less than $16. Well worth it, especially for a mag that is optimized for the iPad.



    A lot of these posters are just flapping their gums. Really annoying.
  • Reply 177 of 255
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,612member
  • Reply 178 of 255
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    These guys are really confused. First, there's the way Apple is dealing with ebook readers that "sell" from within the app by clicking through to their website. That won't be allowed without also giving Apple the chance to sell at the same price. That won't happen (because it would cost the reseller too much), so ereaders will no longer be able to click through to the reseller's website. So what!



    The stench of overwhelming fanboyism assaults the nostrils. The "So What" is if they cant click through to their website the lose 30% of the gross sales. So they wont have a business model. so they will pull their apps. Rhapsody has already threatened to do so.



    Quote:

    Second, if you're selling magazines and subscriptions, you need to sell via Apple. Again, so what? The subscriptions are quite reasonable. I just bought one for Popular Science for less than $16. Well worth it, especially for a mag that is optimized for the iPad.



    A lot of these posters are just flapping their gums. Really annoying.



    What now? You once bought a subscription for something via Popular science and this anecdote tells us something about amazons's business model?
  • Reply 179 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post


    Rhapsody is already fighting back



    http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/15/r...eng_latest_art



    "Rhapsody has issued a statement, which says that it's not going to play ball and even levels a bit of a threat: "We will be collaborating with our market peers in determining an appropriate legal and business response to this latest development." The big trouble stems from the fact that Apple requires anybody offering a subscription service to offer that service for the same price or less through Apple. That means you can still sign up folks through your own methods and get all the cash, but if anybody signs up through your app, Apple gets a 30 percent cut. In addition, Apple is no longer allowing applications to include a link to an external site for purchasing, which means vendors will have trouble getting new users to pay them directly instead of using Apple's simple but heavily-taxed option. Rhapsody claims that it can't offer its services at existing prices with Apple grabbing that much of the revenue, and it sounds like Rhapsody will be leaving the App Store soon if an agreement isn't struck."



    How stupid can you get. SO WHAT? Apple is simply saying they can't have a click-through to their website. BFD. Take the blinkin' click through off and sell your App without it.



    DOH!
  • Reply 180 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    These guys are really confused. First, there's the way Apple is dealing with ebook readers that "sell" from within the app by clicking through to their website. That won't be allowed without also giving Apple the chance to sell at the same price. That won't happen (because it would cost the reseller too much), so ereaders will no longer be able to click through to the reseller's website. So what!



    That's where the confusion comes in. An Apple spokesman said that if a service sells a book outside the app, it has to be made possible to buy inside the app as well. So, does that mean removing a link to the web store is enough? Or does the fact that it exists at all linking purchased content mean Kindle has to allow those books instead?
Sign In or Register to comment.