Then you have no objection. Apple is not telling anyone what to charge for their product outside of the App Store. Only inside.
Nice try. Read the language Apple uses. It explicitly states that you can not sell the item for less than it is for sale on the App Store. Apple's 43% market dictates the final price of my content on the App Store, than in turn dictates the minimum price I can sell if for on my own web site.
Of course, Apple can change its rules whenever it wants. They just should not be surprised if others complain when they destroy their business model (all business which currently operate with a margin of less than 30%).
If you build a business model based on exploiting a loophole you are skating on thin ice. Suppose your business is only profitable because you are exploiting tax loopholes? Does that mean that Congress ought not close those loopholes, and allow you a free ride at the expense of other taxpayers?
I don't see what all the hub-ub is about. This is THEIR phone, using THEIR App Store.
with THEIR subscribers running THEIR app.
oh, wait...
Okay, let's start over and look at it another way. This kind of skimming occurs all the time by Microsoft with Windows apps and Apple with Mac OS X apps.
oh, wait...
If Apple was to use 30% service fees to knock down the price of an tricked-out iPad to a mere $49, then I could perhaps overlook it. But Apple isn't doing this and I don't trust that they will any time soon, if ever.
Do they sell subscriptions? If they generate revenue through the app, then Apple is entitled to 30%.
Does Apple sell iPhones? Do the generate revenue from selling iPhones? Do their iPhone sales benefit from the content available from 3rd parties on the iPhone? So aren't 3rd party developers entitled to a cut of that revenue?
The only reason they don't is because Apple is in control. Not because one why is any more "fair" than the other. It's only because Apple has the leverage right now.
Personally, as much as I like Apple and their products (which I do), I hope this comes back to bite them in the ass. They need to be put in their place because they are becoming everything we all hated about Microsoft (Ok, Apple makes better products, but their business practices are no better than MS's).
If you build a business model based on exploiting a loophole you are skating on thin ice. Suppose your business is only profitable because you are exploiting tax loopholes? Does that mean that Congress ought not close those loopholes, and allow you a free ride at the expense of other taxpayers?
So, the Skype app was exploiting a loophole? And everybody knew it was exploiting a loophole? Funny that nobody ever mentioned that they were exploiting a loophole until this year.
If you build a business model based on exploiting a loophole you are skating on thin ice. Suppose your business is only profitable because you are exploiting tax loopholes? Does that mean that Congress ought not close those loopholes, and allow you a free ride at the expense of other taxpayers?
Loophole? Until recently, there where no subscriptions. All you could do were single issue purchases. So how could they have exploited a subscription loophole? They didn't exploit a loophole, they did it the only way possible because their was no other way to do it.
Most likely it will not be affected because you will continue to renew via you DirecTV bill. Same thing goes for Netflix and most likely skype, hulu et al. These guys already have their own billing system, negotiations etc.
Why should they not be affected by this? Because they have the clout to get special treatment from Apple?
Amazon has their own billing system but yet everybody agrees that they are affected.
I have no problem with Apple requiring in-app purchase functionality. Dictating prices outside of the App Store is what I object to.
Apple is not dictating prices. Apple's rules say you can sell online as well as in-App, but you cannot charge lower prices on your website than you do in the app. And any app listed in the App Store must have in-App payment method. These are the rules. They've always been there, Apple is just enforcing them. The developers got a free ride on that one for a while, but not anymore.
And by the way, this 30% thing is nothing. For example, if you have a product to sell, one of the best places to list it is on Amazon. Guaranteed to get plenty of built-in shoppers and e-traffic. If you list an item on Amazon, Amazon charges you a fee for doing so, and I promise you it is more than 30% (ebooks are 30% fee to Amazon I've heard). So why are people bitching about Apple, but noone is saying anything about Amazon, a site doing the EXACT SAME THING?
Then you have no objection. Apple is not telling anyone what to charge for their product outside of the App Store. Only inside.
Oh yes, they do:
?All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app."
Whatever you offer inside your app has to be offered outside the app for the same price.
Nice try. Read the language Apple uses. It explicitly states that you can not sell the item for less than it is for sale on the App Store. Apple's 43% market dictates the final price of my content on the App Store, than in turn dictates the minimum price I can sell if for on my own web site.
Your logic fails.
no... they do not dictate the price you sell it for in any shape... you are setting your own price based on many factors.
They simply say, you cannot sell it in app for a higher price than you sell it for outside. Thats all. You are just twisting their words around to try to find something to complain about.
You can sell your content for free, or 1 cent or 5 billion dollars... thats up to you... but you cannot price it higher in the app... thats all.
While I'm defending Apple, I've seen the analogy of Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes purchases on Windows a couple times, and it's beyond stupid. Microsoft doesn't host, advertise, or do quality control for iTunes. Apple does do all three for app developers. If Apple were charging people for downloading the iOS SDK, then it would be similar to Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes (though of note, Microsoft does actually charge for it's development software, whilst Xcode is free).
I'm not aware that iTunes will host, advertise or do quality control for books and mags they would like to shave of 30%..?
Regarding MS, they should control iTunes quality on Windows... it is really horrible piece of code. I wonder what would happen if MS was able to turn iTunes down
Real world goods are not permitted to be sold using IAP, so, no, they won't be asking for 30% of the cost of these systems and monthly fees, just like they aren't looking to get 30% of sales made through Amazon Mobile.
What about Xfinity or DirecTV? They are content subscription. Apple needs to come out and explain the rules or many existing and would be developers will jump ship.
Apple is delivering so much for the developers of an App. Happy consumers, a safe marketplace, a wonderful iOS interface... 30% is nothing.
I understand if SJ backs down on this one because of all the bad press. But that's all this is.
This is an ecosystem that I love being a part of-- and I will pay more if that's what the whiners want now that Apple has finally decided to start enforcing their payment rules.
Wanna complain about price-gouging? Look how much your cell-phone company is charging you for SMS.
You can justify it all you want, but 30% is still 30%, almost a third of your total revenue. It is not "nothing," especially when your actions begin to affect a *HUGE* number of companies beyond the scope of newspaper and magazines.
Besides, talk like that is dangerous. A "safe" marketplace and a "wonderful" interface? What does that even mean? Apple has allowed information-harvesting applications slip through their fingers before, and Windows has a nice UI as well. Should Microsoft start demanding 30% of every Windows application on the market?
What about the web? Those darn web companies have had it too easy. Google, Mozilla, Microsoft and Apple should all join forces and start demanding 30% off all web services as well. After all, its their browser that's enabling access to those services. Why shouldn't they?
Not sure I'm a fan of the (enforced) policy - I get the 30% cut on apps - look at shareware / indie software for years unable to get visibility & sales - but the subscription side seems a more difficult sell, particularly where companies have set up subscriptions / purchasable content outside of the App Store and have already been selling that way. Not sure what the 30% cut justification is at that point... not content delivery, not billing, and often (amazon / netflix / WSJ) really not visibility either.
But that point aside, I thought Apple wasn't going to reject apps until June (give them time to implement IAP subscriptions). Or was that only for existing versions, not for updates?
Comments
False equivalency. And you know it.
Well, that's all from me for today....
Then you have no objection. Apple is not telling anyone what to charge for their product outside of the App Store. Only inside.
Nice try. Read the language Apple uses. It explicitly states that you can not sell the item for less than it is for sale on the App Store. Apple's 43% market dictates the final price of my content on the App Store, than in turn dictates the minimum price I can sell if for on my own web site.
Your logic fails.
Of course, Apple can change its rules whenever it wants. They just should not be surprised if others complain when they destroy their business model (all business which currently operate with a margin of less than 30%).
If you build a business model based on exploiting a loophole you are skating on thin ice. Suppose your business is only profitable because you are exploiting tax loopholes? Does that mean that Congress ought not close those loopholes, and allow you a free ride at the expense of other taxpayers?
I wouldn't go that far. That is like whipping yourself because the price of milk went up.
Let's just hope that this is sorted out so that Apple's operational costs are covered and apps all go in-app with purchases.
But don't punish yourself by using an Android phone. You did nothing wrong here.
E
Now that's a bit arrogant...
I don't see what all the hub-ub is about. This is THEIR phone, using THEIR App Store.
with THEIR subscribers running THEIR app.
oh, wait...
Okay, let's start over and look at it another way. This kind of skimming occurs all the time by Microsoft with Windows apps and Apple with Mac OS X apps.
oh, wait...
If Apple was to use 30% service fees to knock down the price of an tricked-out iPad to a mere $49, then I could perhaps overlook it. But Apple isn't doing this and I don't trust that they will any time soon, if ever.
False equivalency. And you know it.
Why, the Internet Explorer was an application competing with Netscape Navigator. Apple's iBook is an application competing with the Kindle app.
And Apple currently has 80+% of the mobile app market.
Do they sell subscriptions? If they generate revenue through the app, then Apple is entitled to 30%.
Does Apple sell iPhones? Do the generate revenue from selling iPhones? Do their iPhone sales benefit from the content available from 3rd parties on the iPhone? So aren't 3rd party developers entitled to a cut of that revenue?
The only reason they don't is because Apple is in control. Not because one why is any more "fair" than the other. It's only because Apple has the leverage right now.
Personally, as much as I like Apple and their products (which I do), I hope this comes back to bite them in the ass. They need to be put in their place because they are becoming everything we all hated about Microsoft (Ok, Apple makes better products, but their business practices are no better than MS's).
If you build a business model based on exploiting a loophole you are skating on thin ice. Suppose your business is only profitable because you are exploiting tax loopholes? Does that mean that Congress ought not close those loopholes, and allow you a free ride at the expense of other taxpayers?
So, the Skype app was exploiting a loophole? And everybody knew it was exploiting a loophole? Funny that nobody ever mentioned that they were exploiting a loophole until this year.
If they generate revenue through the app, then Apple is entitled to 30%.
Would you apply that logic also to flight tickets sold via iOS apps? 30% of the ticket price for Apple?
If you build a business model based on exploiting a loophole you are skating on thin ice. Suppose your business is only profitable because you are exploiting tax loopholes? Does that mean that Congress ought not close those loopholes, and allow you a free ride at the expense of other taxpayers?
Loophole? Until recently, there where no subscriptions. All you could do were single issue purchases. So how could they have exploited a subscription loophole? They didn't exploit a loophole, they did it the only way possible because their was no other way to do it.
Most likely it will not be affected because you will continue to renew via you DirecTV bill. Same thing goes for Netflix and most likely skype, hulu et al. These guys already have their own billing system, negotiations etc.
Why should they not be affected by this? Because they have the clout to get special treatment from Apple?
Amazon has their own billing system but yet everybody agrees that they are affected.
I have no problem with Apple requiring in-app purchase functionality. Dictating prices outside of the App Store is what I object to.
Apple is not dictating prices. Apple's rules say you can sell online as well as in-App, but you cannot charge lower prices on your website than you do in the app. And any app listed in the App Store must have in-App payment method. These are the rules. They've always been there, Apple is just enforcing them. The developers got a free ride on that one for a while, but not anymore.
And by the way, this 30% thing is nothing. For example, if you have a product to sell, one of the best places to list it is on Amazon. Guaranteed to get plenty of built-in shoppers and e-traffic. If you list an item on Amazon, Amazon charges you a fee for doing so, and I promise you it is more than 30% (ebooks are 30% fee to Amazon I've heard). So why are people bitching about Apple, but noone is saying anything about Amazon, a site doing the EXACT SAME THING?
Then you have no objection. Apple is not telling anyone what to charge for their product outside of the App Store. Only inside.
Oh yes, they do:
?All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app."
Whatever you offer inside your app has to be offered outside the app for the same price.
Nice try. Read the language Apple uses. It explicitly states that you can not sell the item for less than it is for sale on the App Store. Apple's 43% market dictates the final price of my content on the App Store, than in turn dictates the minimum price I can sell if for on my own web site.
Your logic fails.
no... they do not dictate the price you sell it for in any shape... you are setting your own price based on many factors.
They simply say, you cannot sell it in app for a higher price than you sell it for outside. Thats all. You are just twisting their words around to try to find something to complain about.
You can sell your content for free, or 1 cent or 5 billion dollars... thats up to you... but you cannot price it higher in the app... thats all.
While I'm defending Apple, I've seen the analogy of Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes purchases on Windows a couple times, and it's beyond stupid. Microsoft doesn't host, advertise, or do quality control for iTunes. Apple does do all three for app developers. If Apple were charging people for downloading the iOS SDK, then it would be similar to Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes (though of note, Microsoft does actually charge for it's development software, whilst Xcode is free).
I'm not aware that iTunes will host, advertise or do quality control for books and mags they would like to shave of 30%..?
Regarding MS, they should control iTunes quality on Windows... it is really horrible piece of code. I wonder what would happen if MS was able to turn iTunes down
Real world goods are not permitted to be sold using IAP, so, no, they won't be asking for 30% of the cost of these systems and monthly fees, just like they aren't looking to get 30% of sales made through Amazon Mobile.
What about Xfinity or DirecTV? They are content subscription. Apple needs to come out and explain the rules or many existing and would be developers will jump ship.
30% is not that big of a deal guys.
Apple is delivering so much for the developers of an App. Happy consumers, a safe marketplace, a wonderful iOS interface... 30% is nothing.
I understand if SJ backs down on this one because of all the bad press. But that's all this is.
This is an ecosystem that I love being a part of-- and I will pay more if that's what the whiners want now that Apple has finally decided to start enforcing their payment rules.
Wanna complain about price-gouging? Look how much your cell-phone company is charging you for SMS.
You can justify it all you want, but 30% is still 30%, almost a third of your total revenue. It is not "nothing," especially when your actions begin to affect a *HUGE* number of companies beyond the scope of newspaper and magazines.
Besides, talk like that is dangerous. A "safe" marketplace and a "wonderful" interface? What does that even mean? Apple has allowed information-harvesting applications slip through their fingers before, and Windows has a nice UI as well. Should Microsoft start demanding 30% of every Windows application on the market?
What about the web? Those darn web companies have had it too easy. Google, Mozilla, Microsoft and Apple should all join forces and start demanding 30% off all web services as well. After all, its their browser that's enabling access to those services. Why shouldn't they?
For an ebook, Amazon's cut is 30%, the publisher receives 70%
And what does the author receive?
Would you apply that logic also to flight tickets sold via iOS apps? 30% of the ticket price for Apple?
Real world good, so prohibited from using Store Kit.
But that point aside, I thought Apple wasn't going to reject apps until June (give them time to implement IAP subscriptions). Or was that only for existing versions, not for updates?