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

178101213

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    ummm... you're missing the mark entirely. I'm the one who is saying that 30% is far too high. Anonymouse is the one who doesn't understand business.



    If that's the case, my apologies. I tend to only see red when I read about topics like this .
  • Reply 182 of 255
    xsuxsu Posts: 401member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    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.





    Go read up on some basic concept of fixed cost and variable cost before you talk up things you don't understand, ok?



    A large portion of netflix's cost is fixed, they had to spend it with or without Apple's users. So these costs are immaterial when considering whether it's a good idea to try to attract users on Apple platform. The cost to Netflix for providing service to each additional subscriber is very low compared to the monthly fee, and until subscriber base increase by a large percentage, it doesn't require additional fixed investment. Thus, it pays to sign up as much subscriber as possible, since most of the subscription fee go to offset the fixed cost and pad the bottomline. Now Apple's cut decreases that income by 30%, meaning the variable cost of adding each customer increased by that much. However, since adding this customer still netted you 70%-original cost in income, it increases overall profit by signing this customer up.
  • Reply 183 of 255
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    "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!



    DOH my arse. If you sell the app with the option to buy anywhere else, that is the mere existence of a website, you invalidate the rules. Thats what the Sony e-reader was doing. It was banned.
  • Reply 184 of 255
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    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.



    Apple can be stubborn is these types of situations. Remember the big deal with the third party code in apps. Adobe filed a suit but it never really mattered because Apple changed their policy before it could come to a legal suit. As it turns out, Apple wanted to promote gaming on the iOS and they needed the existing game engines like Unity. Since using Unity was contrary to the fight with Adobe, Apple just bailed on the whole restriction. I think a similar thing could easily happen here where some huge publisher wants to do subscriptions themselves and if Apple doesn't play ball they will lose the bragging rights of bringing on that huge publisher. Instant overnight reversal of the 30% tariff.
  • Reply 185 of 255
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    The other thing that is not being discussed here is the total ineptness of Apple's in app purchasing as a piece of technology.



    1) It restricts to 3,000 product Ids. Clearly that is useless to Amazon.

    2) Even if it were useful the fact that these product Ids have to added manually is itself a massive and fruitless undertaking.

    3) Apple has it's own tiered model. in the UK it is 59p for tier 1, 79p for tier 2, etc. Thats all the options you have. To not be in opposition to Apple's new rules you need not only to price everything the same everywhere, you need to follow Apple's utterly ridiculous pricing model everywhere.

    4) If Kindle wanted to add iAP to their app it would take a large amount of engineering effort as they would have to replicate the the website discovery system in the App, and then add IAP.



    So nothing survives this.
  • Reply 186 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    The stench of overwhelming fanboyism assaults the nostrils.



    Hey, bud, if you want to bring this down to the level of a flame-war with your smack talk, I'll be happy to oblige you. You won't be pleased with the results. If, on the other hand, you want to have a reasonable discussion, I'll oblige.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    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.



    Buh-bye Rhapsody, then. If they want to have access to the iDevice marketplace, play by Aople's rules. If they can't survive without a click-through in their app, they're in trouble anyway.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    What now? You once bought a subscription for something via Popular science and this anecdote tells us something about amazons's business model?



    No, it tells you that this story is being concatenated with a completely separate issue. One is about subscriptions. The other is about click-throughs to websites.
  • Reply 187 of 255
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xsu View Post


    Go read up on some basic concept of fixed cost and variable cost before you talk up things you don't understand, ok?



    A large portion of netflix's cost is fixed, they had to spend it with or without Apple's users. So these costs are immaterial when considering whether it's a good idea to try to attract users on Apple platform. The cost to Netflix for providing service to each additional subscriber is very low compared to the monthly fee, and until subscriber base increase by a large percentage, it doesn't require additional fixed investment. Thus, it pays to sign up as much subscriber as possible, since most of the subscription fee go to offset the fixed cost and pad the bottomline. Now Apple's cut decreases that income by 30%, meaning the variable cost of adding each customer increased by that much. However, since adding this customer still netted you 70%-original cost in income, it increases overall profit by signing this customer up.



    I doubt if any of that is true - the fact is the each customer is probably a loss on the iPad and people are skirming around for excuses even though companies have already lauched action ( Rhapsody, for instance).



    And it certainly does not apply to e-books - there is a cost per book for e-books.
  • Reply 188 of 255
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    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?



    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.



    The "So What?" comes because Apple is essentially closing off their system more. This WILL cause Amazon and others to stop selling services on their platform, so if someone wants to buy a book on the go they HAVE to go through iBooks.



    In layman's terms it's a bait and switch. They created an app market and then used that app market to get people to pick up their product instead of alternatives. Now that people have their product, they're making it so publishers HAVE to go through them and not amazon or another service.



    The "SO WHAT" is that this means further locking for those consumers.



    Apple's stated that if a company offers a subscription service for their product they MUST offer it in app on their device. this prevents "read only" apps like you are implying. So what does this mean? This means no kindle on your ipad, only ibooks. No netflix/hulu+, only iTunes.



    Maybe a few people bought a netflix subscription because they can get it on their phone, but I'm positive a much larger number of people got that phone because it had netflix/kindle/etc. Why else would Apple stress apps so much?



    This might not matter to you because you buy everything apple anyway, but it's a HUGE deal for people who like those other options, especially those consumers who bought the devices BECAUSE of those third party apps.
  • Reply 189 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    DOH my arse. If you sell the app with the option to buy anywhere else, that is the mere existence of a website, you invalidate the rules. Thats what the Sony e-reader was doing. It was banned.



    Again, SO WHAT?
  • Reply 190 of 255
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    Again, SO WHAT?



    Look the previous post answered the "So What" - which is the catch cry of an idiot, or a child. But let me add: So What is this - Apple have killed all content providers on the iPad except Apple.



    thats a big issue. You may not care, but the percentage of people who defend Apple to the Death and agree with the Dear Leader whatever he says is a tiny percentage of those of us who are sometimes, or (as in my case) primarily Apple users.



    We do care. If Kindle goes, and it has to, then the iPad is no good for me and millions like me. Google must be shitting themselves with laughter, they have made a marketing campaign, somewhat falsely, about Apple's closed platform. Up until now people did not really care - the average guy cared less about curation, and not much about Flash.



    Then Apple do this. This is huge.
  • Reply 191 of 255
    App Store subscriptions will go the way of iAd.
  • Reply 192 of 255
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    Publishers set the list price not Amazon.



    Yeah, and it was Apple that gave publishers this ability last year.
  • Reply 193 of 255
    pokepoke Posts: 506member
    Here's what Apple says in the App Store Review Guidelines:



    Quote:

    11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected



    11.12 Apps offering subscriptions must do so using IAP, Apple will share the same 70/30 revenue split with developers for these purchases, as set forth in the Developer Program License Agreement.



    11.13 Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions.



    11.14 Apps that link to external mechanisms for purchasing content to be used in the app, such as a ?buy" button that goes to a web site to purchase a digital book, will be rejected



    Looks like this would definitely effect Amazon, Hulu and Netflix.
  • Reply 194 of 255
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xsu View Post


    Go read up on some basic concept of fixed cost and variable cost before you talk up things you don't understand, ok?



    A large portion of netflix's cost is fixed, they had to spend it with or without Apple's users. So these costs are immaterial when considering whether it's a good idea to try to attract users on Apple platform. The cost to Netflix for providing service to each additional subscriber is very low compared to the monthly fee, and until subscriber base increase by a large percentage, it doesn't require additional fixed investment. Thus, it pays to sign up as much subscriber as possible, since most of the subscription fee go to offset the fixed cost and pad the bottomline. Now Apple's cut decreases that income by 30%, meaning the variable cost of adding each customer increased by that much. However, since adding this customer still netted you 70%-original cost in income, it increases overall profit by signing this customer up.



    Go look at Netflix's costs before you try talking about things you don't understand, ok?



    Netflix's net income is NOT GREATER THAN 30%. Heck, their GROSS profit is only 37%. It doesn't matter what their fixed income is compared to their non-fixed costs. It's not rocket science. On top of that, every dollar paid to apple is one less dollar that goes towards getting new content, which will retain current subscribers.



    TLDR: If you decrease a companies revenue stream by 30% you kill any real profit they make.
  • Reply 194 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    The "So What?" comes because Apple is essentially closing off their system more.



    They have that right.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    This WILL cause Amazon and others to stop selling services on their platform, so if someone wants to buy a book on the go they HAVE to go through iBooks.



    No, it will cause Amazon to rewrite their app so it doesn't click through to their web site. BFD



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    In layman's terms it's a bait and switch. They created an app market and then used that app market to get people to pick up their product instead of alternatives. Now that people have their product, they're making it so publishers HAVE to go through them and not amazon or another service.



    Not even wrong. People can still buy through Amazon directly, then download the book to the Kindle reader. They just won't be able to click in the reader to get to the web site.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    The "SO WHAT" is that this means further locking for those consumers.



    Apple's stated that if a company offers a subscription service for their product they MUST offer it in app on their device. this prevents "read only" apps like you are implying.



    Again, not even wrong. There's a difference between the subscription service deal and the ebook reader deal. You're concatenating them. Yes, a subscription service, as in a MAGAZINE subscription or some such, will need to be run through Apple. That's not the same as a Kindle reader, which only needs to remove the link through to Amazon's website.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    So what does this mean? This means no kindle on your ipad, only ibooks.



    This is not true. Ereaders that don't link to websites won't have a problem.
  • Reply 196 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    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.



    Microsoft actually modified APIs and left them deliberately undocumented so that Netscape wouldn't work properly, they did the same against WordPerfect/Lotus I believe so that Office would be the defacto standard. Not even remotely similar.
  • Reply 197 of 255
    I think Apple is abusing it's position on this one. ABUSING. Not that they can't do it legally, they are just abusing. Perhaps they are inviting some investigation in their practices. I like/love the iPhone. However, in my view it is just a small computer. Amazon or any other vendor have been able to sell anything they want to any computer user without having to pay a dime to Apple or Microsoft. It is all part of the deal. Apple sell computers because they are useful to customers because companies like Amazon provide goods and services through the use of said computer. Apple wants to change that paradigm. It is like Apple or Microsoft saying Amazon or Hulu or Netflix has to pay 30% of their sale to them because you can use a browser in their computer in order to access the Amazon site to purchase something. What's next? Comcast or AT&T asking for a portion of the sale.



    It is clear to me. Apple makes the money selling the hardware. Amazon makes money selling books, etc. Apple is free to compete on the same level with Amazon by having their iBooks application. Asking for 30% of sales for Amazon, but not iBooks is anti-competitive. I don't want that. I want the iPhone ecosystem to flourish. I don't want to switch to Android, but I will if Apple continues with these Shenanigans. I don't want a completely closed platform that nobody wants to develop for any longer. Once customers start to desert from the platform it will all be a death spiral. I am glad that Apple provides a service of verifying applications and takes a share of their sales in the Apple Store. I think it is indefensible that they want to take a cut of a subscription. Perhaps to setup the subscription, but not every month. Perhaps I haven't read all the information and it is only once that they take the cut, but I gues it is not. They take a cut on every in-app purchase. Any way, there has to be a balance. Nobody would expect Apple or Microsoft to take a cut of an Amazon sale done through their computers. Why should we put up with that in the iPhone?
  • Reply 198 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    Go look at Netflix's costs before you try talking about things you don't understand, ok?



    Netflix's net income is NOT GREATER THAN 30%. Heck, their GROSS profit is only 37%.



    Apple wants 30% of the REVENUE, not 30% of the PROFIT. Even Apple couldn't sell that one to anybody. Just saying.
  • Reply 199 of 255
    pokepoke Posts: 506member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    Again, not even wrong. There's a difference between the subscription service deal and the ebook reader deal. You're concatenating them. Yes, a subscription service, as in a MAGAZINE subscription or some such, will need to be run through Apple. That's not the same as a Kindle reader, which only needs to remove the link through to Amazon's website.



    That's what I thought. The press release was ambiguous. But according to the guidelines it applies to any app that can read or play content from any source regardless of whether it's purchased content or subscription-based. So Amazon's Kindle app would be required to provide in-app purchases via Apple's system.



    This is the specific guideline:



    "11.13 Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions."
  • Reply 200 of 255
    I think people are missing the point that this is 30% off the gross transaction not the net. Even Uncle Sam doesn't tax you on the gross.. you get to offset your costs first. This is on top of every arrangement the publishers have already made to procure their content. In some cases giving apple 30% of the gross my put a company in the red on the deal. This is not like selling an app in the app store. I can accept 30% there as I don't have an iPhone app for sale anywhere else and it is a closed market. I'm paying to distribute my app and I get some benefits of marketing in the app store which is worth 30%. Content is so differently structured and is available in so many different forms that having one distribution channel dictate how you price and utilize the others is just plain wrong. Especially after the others have long been established and your contractual obligations structuring your costs have long been in place.



    What next? does ebay have to give a cut? skype? amazon on their other items? if a third party does a mash up using APIs does that put the Amazon or Ebay on the hook even if their official apps are clean?
Sign In or Register to comment.