Legacy apps must comply with Apple's App Store subscription rules by June 30
Software currently available in the iOS App Store that does not comply with Apple's newly enforced in-app subscription rules, such as the Amazon Kindle or Hulu+ applications, have until June 30 to comply or they could be removed.
According to Digital Daily, publishers were sent a memo earlier this year to let them know they must offer content or subscriptions for purchase within their App Store application, providing Apple with a 30 percent cut. Apple has claimed that the rule has always existed, but is now being enforced, which led to the rejection of Sony's eBookstore.
"For existing apps already in the App Store, we are providing a grace period to bring your app into compliance with this guideline," the letter to publishers from Apple reads. "To ensure your app remains on the App Store, please submit an update that uses the In App Purchase API for purchasing content, by June 30, 2011."
That means applications like Amazon Kindle, Hulu+, and Netflix now have less than four months to add an in-app purchasing option to their App Store software. And for those content providers, Apple will take a 30 percent cut of all sales made within the application.
AppleInsider reached out to Amazon on Tuesday for comment, but has not received a response.
Apple on Tuesday officially unveiled its new App Store subscription service for iOS devices. It allows publishers of content-based applications to charge recurring fees to customers.
But Apple also said that software may not include links to external websites to purchase content or subscriptions. Publishers will, however, be able to sell digital subscriptions on their websites, or provide free access to existing subscribers. Apple would not be involved in that exchange and would not take a cut, but publishers would be required to provide their own authentication process inside the iOS software.
But if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of their iOS application, the same subscription must be made available at the same price or less to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app.
"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," Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said in a statement.
Before it was even formally announced, Apple's subscription offering for iOS drew the ire of some content providers, who feel that Apple's 30 percent cut of transactions is unreasonable. Peter Kafka of MediaMemo reported on Tuesday that major publishers like Time Inc. are unlikely to flock to the iPad's new subscription offering, and instead are more likely to work with other platforms like Google Android.
According to Digital Daily, publishers were sent a memo earlier this year to let them know they must offer content or subscriptions for purchase within their App Store application, providing Apple with a 30 percent cut. Apple has claimed that the rule has always existed, but is now being enforced, which led to the rejection of Sony's eBookstore.
"For existing apps already in the App Store, we are providing a grace period to bring your app into compliance with this guideline," the letter to publishers from Apple reads. "To ensure your app remains on the App Store, please submit an update that uses the In App Purchase API for purchasing content, by June 30, 2011."
That means applications like Amazon Kindle, Hulu+, and Netflix now have less than four months to add an in-app purchasing option to their App Store software. And for those content providers, Apple will take a 30 percent cut of all sales made within the application.
AppleInsider reached out to Amazon on Tuesday for comment, but has not received a response.
Apple on Tuesday officially unveiled its new App Store subscription service for iOS devices. It allows publishers of content-based applications to charge recurring fees to customers.
But Apple also said that software may not include links to external websites to purchase content or subscriptions. Publishers will, however, be able to sell digital subscriptions on their websites, or provide free access to existing subscribers. Apple would not be involved in that exchange and would not take a cut, but publishers would be required to provide their own authentication process inside the iOS software.
But if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of their iOS application, the same subscription must be made available at the same price or less to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app.
"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," Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said in a statement.
Before it was even formally announced, Apple's subscription offering for iOS drew the ire of some content providers, who feel that Apple's 30 percent cut of transactions is unreasonable. Peter Kafka of MediaMemo reported on Tuesday that major publishers like Time Inc. are unlikely to flock to the iPad's new subscription offering, and instead are more likely to work with other platforms like Google Android.
Comments
Lawsuits in 3..2..1..
Why? They are far from breaking any law. They are not saying that you CAN NOT have any other means to offer subscriptions, just that, in addition, they must offer an in app purchase.
Also, I love how everyone is saying things like "that is why I am on Android"
Well, perhaps because android currently is not able to support such a model is the reason it doesn't exist.
This will be the norm in less than 2 years.
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.
It doesn't? Like another post states, it puts amazon, netflix, etc on the same playing field as Joe's App Shop. Apple manages the transaction, users know that only one place has their credit card, etc. Plus, think of it this way. Users who don't have a credit card can now use iTunes gift cards for these in app purchases. It is streamlining the entire process, which, in the end, will benefit all companies involved.
more like Uncle Sam is going to start asking for data like they did with Microsoft back in the day
For what, exactly? They are not preventing anything that is happening now. They are saying that in addition to the methods you currently employ outside the app, you must also include an in app option.
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.
Put it in perspective: Amazon pays $0.00 to distribute their apps to millions of iOS customers, because the apps are marked as "free" in the App Store, per Apple's rules, which was originally to avoid penalizing companies which didn't make money off their apps. That's Apple being fair. But Amazon does make money off their app, just not directly. Apple is basically saying, you guys are taking advantage of us, and we get it. So it stops now.
Even credit card companies only take about 3%.
And don't get something completely different into comparison. Credit cards companies make billions of people with their twisted system. They are not selling anything, they are not providing any kind of storage of data, they simply link accounts across the world.
It doesn't? Like another post states, it puts amazon, netflix, etc on the same playing field as Joe's App Shop. Apple manages the transaction, users know that only one place has their credit card, etc. Plus, think of it this way. Users who don't have a credit card can now use iTunes gift cards for these in app purchases. It is streamlining the entire process, which, in the end, will benefit all companies involved.
For what, exactly? They are not preventing anything that is happening now. They are saying that in addition to the methods you currently employ outside the app, you must also include an in app option.
like microsoft never did anything to prevent you from buying Netscape Navigator for $50 and installing it, they just provided a free web browser and a free web server. or like when they visited one of the earliest startups who had a digital tv guide back in the late 1990's and ripped off the idea for windows 98.
the iTunes business earns a pretty good profit for apple. now it's no more we just sell the hardware and this service is really a not for profit value add. now apple wants to use the itunes store to keep competitors off their devices
i can understand doing this for extra levels or weapons in a game, but books? the reason for the app store was a value add for the iphone and iTouch. when the original iphone was announced i thought it was overpriced crap. why would i pay $600 just to surf the internet outside?
more like Uncle Sam is going to start asking for data like they did with Microsoft back in the day
Did Apple tell Amazon you can't offer an app on Android if you wants to be in my App store?
Did Apple tell Amazon you can't have your own store if you wants to be in my store?
Did Apple tell Amazon you have to push our product on your own store or I won't let you be in my store?
Antitrust issue comes in only if Apple restrict partner's interaction with a 3rd party, not how Apple interact with its partner/customer/supplier.
Did Apple tell Amazon you can't offer an app on Android if you wants to be in my App store?
No, but Apple told Amazon that you cannot offer the same app for less on Android.
(At the moment this is only for content but extending this to apps is no-brainer.)
Even credit card companies only take about 3%.
Exactly. This is problematic because it penalizes content publishers/distributors all around. Since Amazon will be required to offer the same or better offer for books within the App store, it means they will either have to take a loss or increase the price of ALL kindle books sold. This will impact already negotiated contracts between Amazon (distributor) and the book publishers.
I think it makes more sense to say if Apple isn't acting as the distributor (for example if they aren't directly involved in delivering the content or negotiating with the publishers directly) then a lower 3% commission is charged. This would maintain the 30% subscription model for games, magazines and iBooks where Apple is acting as the distributor/commerce solution, however cloud based content services such as Neflix and Amazon Kindle, which up to now have been device-agnostic, would fall under the lower commission category.
like microsoft never did anything to prevent you from buying Netscape Navigator for $50 and installing it, they just provided a free web browser and a free web server. or like when they visited one of the earliest startups who had a digital tv guide back in the late 1990's and ripped off the idea for windows 98.
the iTunes business earns a pretty good profit for apple. now it's no more we just sell the hardware and this service is really a not for profit value add. now apple wants to use the itunes store to keep competitors off their devices
i can understand doing this for extra levels or weapons in a game, but books? the reason for the app store was a value add for the iphone and iTouch. when the original iphone was announced i thought it was overpriced crap. why would i pay $600 just to surf the internet outside?
MS never stopped you from installing any app you wanted. This is not even remotely the same. IE came bundled, and they actively paid or provided incentives to not have other browsers preinstalled. Apple is talking about apps the individual chooses to put on their device. So, I ask again, what legal ground does the government have to get involved here? The closest would be anti-competitive, but that would only come into play if Apple said you can ONLY offer subscriptions through the app, which they are not.
As far as visiting a digital tv guide, how does that pertain to this topic?
Even credit card companies only take about 3%.
But credit card companies provide transaction processing ONLY.
Apple provides so much more, at least that's my opinion (as an iOS developer).
No, but Apple told Amazon that you cannot offer the same app for less on Android.
(At the moment this is only for content but extending this to apps is no-brainer.)
Wow, where did you get that? They did not. They only said that any subscription offer you offer outside the app must be also offered in the app. That is it. So if the offer is "pay for 10 months get 2 free" on their website, that offer must be offered in the app.