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

17891113

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 255
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    They have that right.







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







    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.







    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.







    This is not true. Ereaders that don't link to websites won't have a problem.







    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



    The bolded section is what you should read.
  • Reply 202 of 255
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tawilson View Post


    Apple wants 30% of the REVENUE, not 30% of the PROFIT. Even Apple couldn't sell that one to anybody. Just saying.



    You know I agree with you right? Context is everything. Please don't comment on a conversation before reading it.



    Cancel that... unless you're trying to imply that 30% of profit is somehow worse than 30% of revenue.. if so, you should go re-read your account textbooks.
  • Reply 203 of 255
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 204 of 255
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 205 of 255
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 206 of 255
    Try to sell on Android. Oops, you can only sell for free with ads.
  • Reply 207 of 255
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fuwafuwa View Post


    Try to sell on Android. Oops, you can only sell for free with ads.



    EDIT: We're not talking about going from iOS to android. We're saying that this current model makes selling on iOS unprofitable, so even if they DONT GO ANYWHERE ELSE, they'll stop offering an app on iOS. There is NO POINT to offering a service if you lose money by doing so.
  • Reply 208 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by poke View Post


    Here's what Apple says in the App Store Review Guidelines:



    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.



    11.13 puts a different complexion on things. It appears to go beyond removing links to external websites. It appears to say that iAP must be part of an app if an app reads purchased content.



    That means that starting in June, resellers will be penalized for selling into the iOS market. As a result, content creators will have a huge incentive to sell directly to Apple.



    In effect, Apple appears to have just declared war on resellers.



    Wow.
  • Reply 209 of 255
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    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.



    No you don't. I buy non-DRM'd books from webscriptions and load them into iBooks, Stanza, etc.



    As for Amazon leaving, I guess I'd be annoyed if I bought Kindle books and primarily read them on the iPad. However, if that's the case then Amazon is really freeloading since i'm using very little of their infrastructure. The most costly is to develop is the ebook reader.



    Quote:

    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.



    Amazon could have pulled the Kindle app at any point so Apple at no point sold the iPad based on the availability of any particular app. The app store will continue to exist.



    Quote:

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



    Actually looking into it only really impacts Amazon. B&N and Sony both use ePub with Adobe DRM. I believe that the iFlow Reader currently supports that but it is tied to a book store. Still, adding Adobe DRM to someone like Stanza should be possible even if the app price goes up. Optimally iBooks adds Adobe DRM in additon to Fairplay but that'll be a cold day in hell.
  • Reply 210 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    11.13 puts a different complexion on things. It appears to go beyond removing links to external websites. It appears to say that iAP must be part of an app if an app reads purchased content.



    That means that starting in June, resellers will be penalized for selling into the iOS market. As a result, content creators will have a huge incentive to sell directly to Apple.



    In effect, Apple appears to have just declared war on resellers.



    Wow.



    Exactly. That's why this is so upsetting to me. After welcoming Kindle, and Netflix, and Hulu, and their users, into the iOS platform, and even advertising their presence as a benefit of the iPad and iPhone, Apple is turning around and asking for an unreasonably high fee to stay in the platform.



    I don't really care about Amazon or Netflix or Hulu, though I do like those companies, and their products, which are superior to their competitors, including those provided by Apple. I care because as a user, I bought an iPad in part because these sorts of services were a part of the iOS software library. Now, because Apple's terms are incredibly onerous and usorious, it is likely that these applications will be pulled off the platform.



    Why shouldn't I be pissed at Apple about this change which will most likely have a negative impact on my enjoyment and use of my iPad?
  • Reply 211 of 255
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nht View Post


    No you don't. I buy non-DRM'd books from webscriptions and load them into iBooks, Stanza, etc.



    But most people don't buy their books from a DRM free source. Most purchase through a webstore like Kindle or ibooks, or buy physical copies. Furthermore, a lot of popular content is only available (legally) with DRM.



    This is why Apple is requiring this in-app subscriptions policy. They KNOW it will force all of their competitors out of the market.



    Quote:

    As for Amazon leaving, I guess I'd be annoyed if I bought Kindle books and primarily read them on the iPad. However, if that's the case then Amazon is really freeloading since i'm using very little of their infrastructure. The most costly is to develop is the ebook reader.



    No, if you buy a book from the Kindle 90% of the infrastructure you're using is Amazon. The ONLY Apple part you're using is the small amount of space it takes to store the app on their servers for download. You already paid for the device, either at retail, or by signing a contract with a carrier. All data transmission, server costs, royalties, etc. for that book are covered by Amazon, not Apple.



    Quote:

    Amazon could have pulled the Kindle app at any point so Apple at no point sold the iPad based on the availability of any particular app. The app store will continue to exist.



    I wasn't implying that it wouldn't survive. But one of the reasons it got to the point it is today is because of big ticket apps LIKE Kindle and Netflix.



    Quote:

    Actually looking into it only really impacts Amazon. B&N and Sony both use ePub with Adobe DRM. I believe that the iFlow Reader currently supports that but it is tied to a book store. Still, adding Adobe DRM to someone like Stanza should be possible even if the app price goes up. Optimally iBooks adds Adobe DRM in additon to Fairplay but that'll be a cold day in hell.



    No, it impacts the consumer. Because if I as a consumer want to read a book on my ipad/iphone I'll now be FORCED to get it through Apple (or hunt down a third party somewhere and sideload it, which most customer's won't). And if in 2 years I decide I went the new HpOS tablet, I'll lose ALL the money I invested into my ebook collection because you know Apple won't build an app for other platforms.
  • Reply 212 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fireball1244 View Post


    Exactly. That's why this is so upsetting to me. After welcoming Kindle, and Netflix, and Hulu, and their users, into the iOS platform, and even advertising their presence as a benefit of the iPad and iPhone, Apple is turning around and asking for an unreasonably high fee to stay in the platform.



    I don't really care about Amazon or Netflix or Hulu, though I do like those companies, and their products, which are superior to their competitors, including those provided by Apple. I care because as a user, I bought an iPad in part because these sorts of services were a part of the iOS software library. Now, because Apple's terms are incredibly onerous and usorious, it is likely that these applications will be pulled off the platform.



    Why shouldn't I be pissed at Apple about this change which will most likely have a negative impact on my enjoyment and use of my iPad?



    There's more at work here, IMHO. I think this is actually a play for the content producers. Look at it from the producer's point of view: If the resellers go along with this deal, then the producers have to pay both Apple and the resellers. But if the producers go directly to Apple, they remove the middleman and get the 70% all to themselves. Seems to me that's a no-brainer.



    On the other hand, if the reseller walks, then the producer, if he wants to sell on iDevices, sells directly through Apple anyway.



    In the long run, the reseller's goose is cooked, but you as the consumer will still get your product at a fair price. And frankly, the reseller has pretty much brought it on himself by cutting Apple out of the loop in the first place.
  • Reply 213 of 255
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    There's more at work here, IMHO. I think this is actually a play for the content producers. Look at it from the producer's point of view: If the resellers go along with this deal, then the producers have to pay both Apple and the resellers. But if the producers go directly to Apple, they remove the middleman and get the 70% all to themselves. Seems to me that's a no-brainer.



    On the other hand, if the reseller walks, then the producer, if he wants to sell on iDevices, sells directly through Apple anyway.



    In the long run, the reseller's goose is cooked, but you as the consumer will still get your product at a fair price. And frankly, the reseller has pretty much brought it on himself by cutting Apple out of the loop in the first place.



    No, if Apple cuts out all competition on their devices, there is nothing that prevents them from setting their own prices.



    The reseller's we're talking about had established customer bases LARGER than the iOS customer base before the iPhone came out (namely Amazon). They offered the app as an additional benefit for their customers, and a lot of people bought iPhone's because they could read their books on it, or they could watch netflix on it.



    If apple prices them out of the market, apple's going to lose customers. There are a ton of people who don't want all their content locked with itunes DRM. If I buy a book, I don't want to be forced to iOS devices in order to read it.
  • Reply 214 of 255
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,192member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Overhead? What overhead? There's no overhead



    Exactly. There's no rational justification for Apple's 30% cut.



    Quote:

    it's a simple revenue sharing system. If your app generates revenue, you agree to share it.



    And I say to Apple what Cee Lo Green sings about, as I join a class action lawsuit.



    Perhaps consumers can get in on the class action fun, too, by claiming Apple is harming them in unusual and unexpected ways.



    Steve Jobs can have his house torn down in more ways than one.
  • Reply 215 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%. 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.



    Except for the basic fact that net profits= total sales - (fixed costs+variable costs)

    In terms of netflix, assuming they have .03 per customer (a month) to pay, but charge $8 a month, this comes out to Net= 7.97x - [movie licencing + r&d + promotions etc.]

    Since the fixed costs are, as stated fixed, even if apple takes 30% from each sale on ios (assume 10% for ease of calculation) this comes out to 7.73 - fixed. In other words, though netflix makes out slightly less per membership, adding more still allows for greater margins. Hence, if they have enough volume, adding ios only can help them. The only detriment is increased fixed costs, i.e. server purchases, but if they have enough subscribers that they need enough servers to reduce 1 year margins to zero, kudos.



    Edit: as for the issue of whether apple should be getting 30%, as they say in south park, "I'm not touching that one with a forty foot pole"
  • Reply 216 of 255
    Quote: And I say to Apple what Cee Lo Green sings about, as I join a class action lawsuit.



    Perhaps consumers can get in on the class action fun, too, by claiming Apple is harming them in unusual and unexpected ways.



    Steve Jobs can have his house torn down in more ways than one.





    This is the problem with our country, everyone thinks if you dont like someone, sue them! You could just excercise your right in a capitalist society and not buy their products, just as you could exercise your right in a democratic society and not vote for a politician. By the way, this is the same argument i get into on political boards
  • Reply 217 of 255
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aquajets1 View Post


    Except for the basic fact that net profits= total sales - (fixed costs+variable costs)

    In terms of netflix, assuming they have .03 per customer (a month) to pay, but charge $8 a month, this comes out to Net= 7.97x - [movie licencing + r&d + promotions etc.]

    Since the fixed costs are, as stated fixed, even if apple takes 30% from each sale on ios (assume 10% for ease of calculation) this comes out to 7.73 - fixed. In other words, though netflix makes out slightly less per membership, adding more still allows for greater margins. Hence, if they have enough volume, adding ios only can help them. The only detriment is increased fixed costs, i.e. server purchases, but if they have enough subscribers that they need enough servers to reduce 1 year margins to zero, kudos.



    Edit: as for the issue of whether apple should be getting 30%, as they say in south park, "I'm not touching that one with a forty foot pole"



    And again, You're talking theoretical. Look at Netflix's numbers (I've even linked them several times in this thread) they don't have the money to give. 30% would take ALL of their revenue and then some.



    The more people who sign up through iOS devices, the larger the chunk of revenue (% wise) netflix will owe apple.



    On top of that, the iOS subscription also grants them access to streaming on all their other devices, which that customer will LIKELY spend most of their time consuming that content. That basically means that if a user subscribes to netflix using their phone and then NEVER watches a single movie through the phone, apple will still get 30% of the monthly revenue until that customer cancels their subscription.



    Then look at stores like Kindle. those prices are fixed and it's a revenue split with publishers already. For most best sellers, the split is 70/30 so that means for every book sold on iOS using the kindle app, Amazon will LOSE money. There is NO way they can use volume to make a profit here.
  • Reply 218 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    And again, You're talking theoretical. Look at Netflix's numbers (I've even linked them several times in this thread) they don't have the money to give. 30% would take ALL of their revenue and then some.



    The more people who sign up through iOS devices, the larger the chunk of revenue (% wise) netflix will owe apple.



    On top of that, the iOS subscription also grants them access to streaming on all their other devices, which that customer will LIKELY spend most of their time consuming that content. That basically means that if a user subscribes to netflix using their phone and then NEVER watches a single movie through the phone, apple will still get 30% of the monthly revenue until that customer cancels their subscription.



    Then look at stores like Kindle. those prices are fixed and it's a revenue split with publishers already. For most best sellers, the split is 70/30 so that means for every book sold on iOS using the kindle app, Amazon will LOSE money. There is NO way they can use volume to make a profit here.



    This argument will start to be cyclical soon, because each of our arguments are based on different assumptions. I'm assuming that ios will, over time, increase ios subscriptions at a faster rate, causing netflix to gain back at least as much revenue as they lost (after all they only need to get 3/70 more than they would have to make out or about 4%) from apple's tax if you want to call it that. You make the assumption that existing people will do the ios subscription instead of the regular, which is possible but in my opinion unlikely as (as a netflix subscriber) they remind you in the mail with a prepaid envelope and send you an email with a website link to get you to send them money. I'm purely talking about netflix or netflix-like (i.e. rhapsody) services that have little additional overhead per subscriber.

    Thank you for the cogent argument though, most of the time people kill me just to simplify.
  • Reply 219 of 255
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aquajets1 View Post


    This argument will start to be cyclical soon, because each of our arguments are based on different assumptions. I'm assuming that ios will, over time, increase ios subscriptions at a faster rate, causing netflix to gain back at least as much revenue as they lost (after all they only need to get 3/70 more than they would have to make out or about 4%) from apple's tax if you want to call it that. You make the assumption that existing people will do the ios subscription instead of the regular, which is possible but in my opinion unlikely as (as a netflix subscriber) they remind you in the mail with a prepaid envelope and send you an email with a website link to get you to send them money. I'm purely talking about netflix or netflix-like (i.e. rhapsody) services that have little additional overhead per subscriber.

    Thank you for the cogent argument though, most of the time people kill me just to simplify.



    Additional revenue might compensate, I just think it's a lot higher than what some of the other posters here are assuming. ATM I think Netflix is pouring too much money into getting new distribution rights to take the hit, so it will be interesting to see if they keep their app active.



    I don't think people should sue. Honestly, I'd just like the big companies (primarily amazon) to just pull their app, or make it so it can only view free content. If enough of them do it, hopefully Apple will rethink this policy. And thank you for not just calling me a Fandroid and writing me off because of that. It seems to be the default response here whenever someone questions Cupertino.
  • Reply 220 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    30% isn't sharing revenue, that's taking practically all the profit. The number of companies who can get anywhere close to 30% in gross profit from sales (after taking out overhead costs and licensing fees) is next to nil. if it were 30% of the profit they MIGHt have a point, but they are saying 30% of revenue. We're not talking about an indie app developer who sells additional levels in app. That has a cost, but it's all developer overhead.

    ...

    Yes, I know that not every Netflix customer has an iPhone. That's not the point. The point is that by requiring 30% of revenue, Apple is potentially taking EVERY CENT of profit and then some. That's not revenue sharing, that's highway robbery.



    Apple's basically saying: You do all the hard work, and we get paid for it.



    Remember, the 30% number wasn't plucked out of the air to suck away profits. 30% is the "rule of thumb" marketing and distribution cost for traditional developers and production costs for content creators....and that's the rub.



    Amazon and Sony, at least on the surface, are not content creators (CC's) --they're distributors in the context of books and periodicals. Time, The Economist, The Daily, etc., these are content creators and (by rule of thumb) don't lose by being on IOS. I don't know why the Sony app was rejected --unless it was trying to sell periodicals in-app like Amazon had announced they were going to do with Kindle app.



    It sounds to me as though this stops Amazon and Sony from undermining Apple's hopes for deals with CC's.
Sign In or Register to comment.