How could this be applied to things which you didn't sell in the first place? For example, a 3rd party app that let me view my Google books (which i purchased through Google)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPDLVMH
Developers forget to mention that although they pay a hefty 30%, they have no advertising costs, no distribution costs and their app can potentially be purchased worldwide. That's also worth a lot of money...
Absolutely; they are talking about extending their reach online to 90+ countries and expect to waltz away with no responsibilities and the right to further transactions with that market scot-free?
Visualise for a moment the logistical extent of the back-office infrastructure that is involved in such a gigantic undertaking and its attendant cost, which can only rise with time.
For my money, vendors who are involved in similar ventures like Amazon and Sony among others really should be excluded from participating in the subscription system altogether. I can see no other ulterior motive for their participation than parasitism and "passenger hijacking".
For those established publishers that see this as a hindrance, surely they have their own infrastructure in place and have no need of the iTunes eco-system? Don't they?
Apple wanted a 30% cut of all music sold through iTunes. All the haters said it would fail. No one buy music, subscription model was the only way to go. 99 cents was way too much. What happened? iTunes became the biggest distributor of online music in the world. Did the price of music go up? For some tracks it did, but that was only after they were forced into it by the labels.
Apple wanted a 30% cut of all apps that sold through the AppStore. All the haters said it would fail, apps would be priced too high, developers would refuse to write apps for the platform. What happened? The AppStore is the largest online app store in the world. In fact, 80% of all revenue made last year from all mobile devices combined came from iOS devices. Did the prices of apps go up? Nope. They actually went down. Developers were able to reach more users (willing to pay) and could sell more copies for less of a price.
Now Apple wants a 30% cut of all subscriptions that sell through iOS apps. All the haters once again are out and whining about how it’s going to fail and how it’s going to raise subscription prices. Based on precedent, I’m going to say that it will kick start the digital subscription market and not only that, as more people subscribe, the prices will go down, not up.
Apple gets a 30% cut of all sales through its AppStore, regardless of content type, provider or sales volume. If an independent app developer has to give Apple 30% for in app purchases, then why shouldn’t huge companies like Amazon or Time Magazine?
Whenever there is change, especially with something related to Apple, lawsuit, class action, monopoly, antitrust, anti-competitive always come into play. The fact of the matter is, Apple is not doing anything illegal. Apple is not forcing developers or publishers to alter their normal model for sales through other channels. All they are doing is requiring how content gets sold on/thru their platform. Apple holds the right to reject any application, FOR ANY REASON. It doesn't matter how big the platform gets as long as Apple sticks to its rules.
This is funny because Apple gets blamed for forcing the music labels to the 99 cent a song model. When in fact, that model was created before iTunes was even announced. It was only after iTunes started selling billions of songs that the music labels wanted to change the terms and model by implementing tiered pricing, where popular music (90% of music sales) was sold for 30% more. What happened? Music sales declined.
Now we're hearing the same antitrust crap from the same people. Apple is unfairly wielding its super powers to gain leverage over content providers once again... the fact is, other than subscriptions being added, the rules have been in place since IAP was first introduced. And the 30% fee has been in place since the AppStore opened. The IAP issue has been largely overlooked by Apple until recently. Now that they're enforcing the 30% IAP for publishers who want to make money from both subscription fees and advertising dollars, they're forced to also begin enforcing it for everyone else.
Bottom line, Apple will continue as they always have. They have the right formula and they're not going to let anyone screw it up. If a content provider doesn't like it here, don't offer it here. You're always going to get whining and complaints at first, but it'll die down.
How could this be applied to things which you didn't sell in the first place? For example, a 3rd party app that let me view my Google books (which i purchased through Google)?
It doesn't apply. And can't be enforced. If that were the case, why stop there. What if there's an app that allows me to connect to my home computer, on which I have a lot of content purchased outside of the app. It could get messy if that were the case.
It only applies to content providers and resellers - those that profit directly from the sales of the content being accessed through the app.
The more moves like this Apple pulls, the more it will push developers and publishers into the arms of Google.
I don't think so; Apple may desire affordably low prices, but Google's eventual aim is NO price at all, as their market strategy is focussed on commoditisation which allows them to push their advertising cash cow to everyone everywhere, which will be to the detriment of said publishers and developers and much to Google's prosperity.
Apple wanted a 30% cut of all apps that sold through the AppStore. All the haters said it would fail, apps would be priced too high, developers would refuse to write apps for the platform. What happened? The AppStore is the largest online app store in the world. In fact, 80% of all revenue made last year from all mobile devices combined came from iOS devices. Did the prices of apps go up? Nope. They actually went down. Developers were able to reach more users (willing to pay) and could sell more copies for less of a price.
Right on. People seem to forget that just prior to the App Store's disruptive pitch, online cross-platform mobile app vendors like Handango and PocketGear (which now owns the former) had just announced a rise in their cut of small developers' revenues to 55%; but what still amazes me was the fact that they charged the large games developers even more at around a whopping 70% cut! What's the rationale behind that? This profit-madness effectively drove the small developers and gamer companies to Apple in droves. The launch of the App Store with eye-opening demo's by gamers, medical, enterprise and music developers did the rest.
Quote:
All the haters once again are out and whining about how it?s going to fail and how it?s going to raise subscription prices. Based on precedent, I?m going to say that it will kick start the digital subscription market and not only that, as more people subscribe, the prices will go down, not up.
I suspect quite strongly that this is the main reason for the disquiet and resistance; these vendors want prices to go in the other direction. But what choice do they have? Apple may desire affordably low prices, but Google's eventual aim is NO price at all, as their market strategy is focussed on commoditisation which allows them to push their advertising cash cow to everyone everywhere, which will be to the detriment of said publishers and developers and much to Google's prosperity.
Record companies, newspaper publishers, and movie studios have shot themselves in the foot by either being too stubborn or too dense to see where technology was headed and what people wanted. Each of these industries could have put their content online and offered online subscriptions but they didn't, even though that's what people wanted and now they're paying the price. If I could access Hulu, Netflix, CBS, NBC, TNT, and USA Network and stream shows from their sites on my mobile phone I would. For whatever reason though, they don't make this available. If you don't want to put the time or money into making your sites compatible with mobile browsers and just want to rely on the App Store, you are giving Apple a great deal of leverage which is not necessary.
The more moves like this Apple pulls, the more it will push developers and publishers into the arms of Google.
Please explain how they will make any where near the income from a notorious "FREE" open market, where ads pay the bills... not subscriptions or purchases of anything.
"On the flip side, I think Apple is absolutely sure that these companies aren’t going to be able to match their offering in an HTML5 web store either.
Sometimes it is easy to forget that you can buy and watch media right in the browser. Amazon already has a Kindle web store/reader. Netflix movies could be streamed via Quicktime. Spotify could be a web player. Why don’t these companies just set up shop on the HTML5-browsing web? The technical hurdles could be overcome with the right amount of investment.
Perhaps some will. In fact, I’m willing to bet this move by Apple will spark the biggest move to HTML5 web stores that’s ever existed."
+++++++++++++
Fact is that some of these "too big to ignore" companies are freeloading on THE ONLY WORKING MOBILE platform on the planet.
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.
If the app doesn't offer IAP then Apple does stop you from reading or viewing what you have previously purchased... anywhere. ie Unless Amazon etc rewrite their existing apps to add in-app purchases they will be in violation of appstore guidelines and Apple could remove them.
What's wrong with devs/publishers upcharging an app/subscription by 30% in the App Store, but offering a coupon code on their own individual websites that discounts the purchase price (but only through them?) Then technically they would be offering the same good at the same price in the App Store, but not be taking a hit.
It doesn't have to work exactly this way, but do you see my point? And if consumers found out about this (which they certainly would), the devs/publishers wouldn't even have to have a hyperlink in their own app-- we'd find it ourselves.
Just a thought.
i suggested the same idea yesterday, I'm pretty sure it will happen. It's not like Apple can forbid it without getting hit with said antitrust rules...
"On the flip side, I think Apple is absolutely sure that these companies aren?t going to be able to match their offering in an HTML5 web store either.
Sometimes it is easy to forget that you can buy and watch media right in the browser. Amazon already has a Kindle web store/reader. Netflix movies could be streamed via Quicktime. Spotify could be a web player. Why don?t these companies just set up shop on the HTML5-browsing web? The technical hurdles could be overcome with the right amount of investment.
Perhaps some will. In fact, I?m willing to bet this move by Apple will spark the biggest move to HTML5 web stores that?s ever existed."
Now if that was the hidden motive instead of an "evil" money grab... That would be cool
YOU CAN STILL SELL YOUR STUFF HOW YOU ARE DOING IT. YOU JUST HAVE TO ADD THE OPTION OF SELLING IT THROUGH APPLE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO SELL THINGS ON THE APP STORE. REALLY. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T SELL THERE.
If you want to tap into a market made by Apple, you need to give them their due.
Yeah....Microsoft tried that argument too. You can still use any browser and media player you like on Windows. Their bundling still got them in trouble.
Anti-trust doesn't mean that there's no alternative, it just means that you have a dominant position and you are abusing your monopoly. The way I see it, Apple controls the App market on iOS (which is the dominant app retail platform), they don't allow any competing app stores on iOS, and now they are demanding huge cuts of profits. There's a good argument to be made here that they are abusing their dominant position.
And imagine Microsoft demanded 30% of all iTunes sales on Windows. After all, you need to give Microsoft its due too. They created the Windows ecosystem and there are alternatives to Windows if you don't want to follow Microsoft's terms. Would you consider that to be fair?
Still can't get my head around this being justifiable.
First the developer / publisher pays Apple to have their app in the app store
Then Apple take 30% of what the app sells for
If the customer want's a refund on there app the developer pays back 100% of the price, Apple still keep there 30%
And now if your going to offer a subscription Apple get 30% of that to
The argument for this is Apple is bringing the customer to you, but Apple has apps in all their add's so in part the App developers are bringing customers to Apple to buy the phone. But Apple doesn't pay anything for that.
I think therefore with this reasoning Apple should pay 30% of the iPhone price to app developers. Or in other words for last quarter alone $9,500ish per app in the app store.
I'm sorry but this is just another example of US-centric myopia? The Apple TV sells well in many countries that don't have Netflix. It is not a deal breaker for a lot of people.
The AppleTV doesn't sell well in any country, including the US. But from a US-centric perspective, Apple needs Netflix on the the AppleTV a lot more than Netflix needs to be on the AppleTV.
Fact is that some of these "too big to ignore" companies are freeloading on THE ONLY WORKING MOBILE platform on the planet.
The real fact is these companies are adding value to the platform and directly increasing the sale of iDevices. Many of these companies are adding service in areas where apple lacks competent solutions and or ones with sizable market share.
The inverse is true Apple has been freeloading off the backs of the app developers in order to tout the vast selection of the app store and the quality and name brand apps available only for the iDevices. Do you think the "there's an app for that" commercials promoted apps? No, it was used to show the iPhone with expanded capabilities provided by third party developers in order to sell more phones. Claiming 300K+ apps and 10 billion downloads is pure marketing gold helping to sell millions of phones for billions of dollars in profits and not a source of liability for apple.
if you are in the market for an ebook reader and are comparing an iPad to a Kindle. Having the ability to read Kindle ebook on the iPad helps make that decision a little easier as the iPad covers the base functionality of the kindle then add features. If you are having to compare iBooks to Kindle then you have a harder sale.
Without these "freeloading" apps Apple would not have a working mobile platform.
It is only fair that a shop which adds a new sale through its store receives the benefit of such additional sale. If you found the contend on the net Apple takes no cut, but if the sale is made through iTunes it is only right that Apple gets rewarded for adding a customer.
Further, without Apple, the extra sale would not be made.
The success of the AppStore proves that the 70/30 cut is acceptable to developers so it is silly to whine that Apple?s 30% cut is too much.
On the whole the offer is very reasonable and publishers would be cutting their noses to spite their faces by not taking advantage of the huge new customer base Apple products offer.
Take it or leave it.
What if it's a current subscriber and they just want to access the content from a app? Should Apple get a cut of them as well?
I've been thinking about that... if Netflix tells Apple to f-off, and pulls their service from Apple TV, that would basically kill that box. Not sure if Apple cares enough about Apple TV to make that a good negotiating position for Netflix, however.
According to Apple's newly posted iOS Developer Program License Agreement, rentals are not affected.
As a developer, I don't know of any store in the world with a captive audience of a hundred million or so potential customers, that will automatically inform my users of any updates I make, pay me within a 30 days, vet my changes, give me all the tools and support to create my app, etc., for virtually peanuts.
And if I develop a publication app, Apple will host it for free and I can still spend tons of monies in marketing, advertising, accounting, supporting upgrading, etc., on my own, send new customers to the iTunes store and collect the whole price.
Somehow, I think I would make more money with less effort supplementing Apple's approach of taking a 30% commission for customers they find for me, not fighting against it.
Comments
How could this be applied to things which you didn't sell in the first place? For example, a 3rd party app that let me view my Google books (which i purchased through Google)?
Developers forget to mention that although they pay a hefty 30%, they have no advertising costs, no distribution costs and their app can potentially be purchased worldwide. That's also worth a lot of money...
Absolutely; they are talking about extending their reach online to 90+ countries and expect to waltz away with no responsibilities and the right to further transactions with that market scot-free?
Visualise for a moment the logistical extent of the back-office infrastructure that is involved in such a gigantic undertaking and its attendant cost, which can only rise with time.
For my money, vendors who are involved in similar ventures like Amazon and Sony among others really should be excluded from participating in the subscription system altogether. I can see no other ulterior motive for their participation than parasitism and "passenger hijacking".
For those established publishers that see this as a hindrance, surely they have their own infrastructure in place and have no need of the iTunes eco-system? Don't they?
Apple wanted a 30% cut of all music sold through iTunes. All the haters said it would fail. No one buy music, subscription model was the only way to go. 99 cents was way too much. What happened? iTunes became the biggest distributor of online music in the world. Did the price of music go up? For some tracks it did, but that was only after they were forced into it by the labels.
Apple wanted a 30% cut of all apps that sold through the AppStore. All the haters said it would fail, apps would be priced too high, developers would refuse to write apps for the platform. What happened? The AppStore is the largest online app store in the world. In fact, 80% of all revenue made last year from all mobile devices combined came from iOS devices. Did the prices of apps go up? Nope. They actually went down. Developers were able to reach more users (willing to pay) and could sell more copies for less of a price.
Now Apple wants a 30% cut of all subscriptions that sell through iOS apps. All the haters once again are out and whining about how it’s going to fail and how it’s going to raise subscription prices. Based on precedent, I’m going to say that it will kick start the digital subscription market and not only that, as more people subscribe, the prices will go down, not up.
Apple gets a 30% cut of all sales through its AppStore, regardless of content type, provider or sales volume. If an independent app developer has to give Apple 30% for in app purchases, then why shouldn’t huge companies like Amazon or Time Magazine?
Whenever there is change, especially with something related to Apple, lawsuit, class action, monopoly, antitrust, anti-competitive always come into play. The fact of the matter is, Apple is not doing anything illegal. Apple is not forcing developers or publishers to alter their normal model for sales through other channels. All they are doing is requiring how content gets sold on/thru their platform. Apple holds the right to reject any application, FOR ANY REASON. It doesn't matter how big the platform gets as long as Apple sticks to its rules.
This is funny because Apple gets blamed for forcing the music labels to the 99 cent a song model. When in fact, that model was created before iTunes was even announced. It was only after iTunes started selling billions of songs that the music labels wanted to change the terms and model by implementing tiered pricing, where popular music (90% of music sales) was sold for 30% more. What happened? Music sales declined.
Now we're hearing the same antitrust crap from the same people. Apple is unfairly wielding its super powers to gain leverage over content providers once again... the fact is, other than subscriptions being added, the rules have been in place since IAP was first introduced. And the 30% fee has been in place since the AppStore opened. The IAP issue has been largely overlooked by Apple until recently. Now that they're enforcing the 30% IAP for publishers who want to make money from both subscription fees and advertising dollars, they're forced to also begin enforcing it for everyone else.
Bottom line, Apple will continue as they always have. They have the right formula and they're not going to let anyone screw it up. If a content provider doesn't like it here, don't offer it here. You're always going to get whining and complaints at first, but it'll die down.
How could this be applied to things which you didn't sell in the first place? For example, a 3rd party app that let me view my Google books (which i purchased through Google)?
It doesn't apply. And can't be enforced. If that were the case, why stop there. What if there's an app that allows me to connect to my home computer, on which I have a lot of content purchased outside of the app. It could get messy if that were the case.
It only applies to content providers and resellers - those that profit directly from the sales of the content being accessed through the app.
The more moves like this Apple pulls, the more it will push developers and publishers into the arms of Google.
I don't think so; Apple may desire affordably low prices, but Google's eventual aim is NO price at all, as their market strategy is focussed on commoditisation which allows them to push their advertising cash cow to everyone everywhere, which will be to the detriment of said publishers and developers and much to Google's prosperity.
That would be the last resort of the desperate.
LOL Damn all of this sounds familiar?
Apple wanted a 30% cut of all apps that sold through the AppStore. All the haters said it would fail, apps would be priced too high, developers would refuse to write apps for the platform. What happened? The AppStore is the largest online app store in the world. In fact, 80% of all revenue made last year from all mobile devices combined came from iOS devices. Did the prices of apps go up? Nope. They actually went down. Developers were able to reach more users (willing to pay) and could sell more copies for less of a price.
Right on. People seem to forget that just prior to the App Store's disruptive pitch, online cross-platform mobile app vendors like Handango and PocketGear (which now owns the former) had just announced a rise in their cut of small developers' revenues to 55%; but what still amazes me was the fact that they charged the large games developers even more at around a whopping 70% cut! What's the rationale behind that? This profit-madness effectively drove the small developers and gamer companies to Apple in droves. The launch of the App Store with eye-opening demo's by gamers, medical, enterprise and music developers did the rest.
All the haters once again are out and whining about how it?s going to fail and how it?s going to raise subscription prices. Based on precedent, I?m going to say that it will kick start the digital subscription market and not only that, as more people subscribe, the prices will go down, not up.
I suspect quite strongly that this is the main reason for the disquiet and resistance; these vendors want prices to go in the other direction. But what choice do they have? Apple may desire affordably low prices, but Google's eventual aim is NO price at all, as their market strategy is focussed on commoditisation which allows them to push their advertising cash cow to everyone everywhere, which will be to the detriment of said publishers and developers and much to Google's prosperity.
That would be the last resort of the desperate.
The more moves like this Apple pulls, the more it will push developers and publishers into the arms of Google.
Please explain how they will make any where near the income from a notorious "FREE" open market, where ads pay the bills... not subscriptions or purchases of anything.
Seth Weintraub of 9to5
"On the flip side, I think Apple is absolutely sure that these companies aren’t going to be able to match their offering in an HTML5 web store either.
Sometimes it is easy to forget that you can buy and watch media right in the browser. Amazon already has a Kindle web store/reader. Netflix movies could be streamed via Quicktime. Spotify could be a web player. Why don’t these companies just set up shop on the HTML5-browsing web? The technical hurdles could be overcome with the right amount of investment.
Perhaps some will. In fact, I’m willing to bet this move by Apple will spark the biggest move to HTML5 web stores that’s ever existed."
+++++++++++++
Fact is that some of these "too big to ignore" companies are freeloading on THE ONLY WORKING MOBILE platform on the planet.
AppStore guidelines:If the app doesn't offer IAP then Apple does stop you from reading or viewing what you have previously purchased... anywhere. ie Unless Amazon etc rewrite their existing apps to add in-app purchases they will be in violation of appstore guidelines and Apple could remove them.
Thanks. So no pay no app then. hmmm....
So somebody correct me here:
What's wrong with devs/publishers upcharging an app/subscription by 30% in the App Store, but offering a coupon code on their own individual websites that discounts the purchase price (but only through them?) Then technically they would be offering the same good at the same price in the App Store, but not be taking a hit.
It doesn't have to work exactly this way, but do you see my point? And if consumers found out about this (which they certainly would), the devs/publishers wouldn't even have to have a hyperlink in their own app-- we'd find it ourselves.
Just a thought.
i suggested the same idea yesterday, I'm pretty sure it will happen. It's not like Apple can forbid it without getting hit with said antitrust rules...
Someone that agrees with an earlier post.
Seth Weintraub of 9to5
"On the flip side, I think Apple is absolutely sure that these companies aren?t going to be able to match their offering in an HTML5 web store either.
Sometimes it is easy to forget that you can buy and watch media right in the browser. Amazon already has a Kindle web store/reader. Netflix movies could be streamed via Quicktime. Spotify could be a web player. Why don?t these companies just set up shop on the HTML5-browsing web? The technical hurdles could be overcome with the right amount of investment.
Perhaps some will. In fact, I?m willing to bet this move by Apple will spark the biggest move to HTML5 web stores that?s ever existed."
Now if that was the hidden motive instead of an "evil" money grab... That would be cool
Lotsa stuff
Hey, I tried reading that, but it's just too packed.
Why don't you use the return key on your keyboard...
Nag, nag, nag
One more time publishers:
YOU CAN STILL SELL YOUR STUFF HOW YOU ARE DOING IT. YOU JUST HAVE TO ADD THE OPTION OF SELLING IT THROUGH APPLE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO SELL THINGS ON THE APP STORE. REALLY. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T SELL THERE.
If you want to tap into a market made by Apple, you need to give them their due.
Yeah....Microsoft tried that argument too. You can still use any browser and media player you like on Windows. Their bundling still got them in trouble.
Anti-trust doesn't mean that there's no alternative, it just means that you have a dominant position and you are abusing your monopoly. The way I see it, Apple controls the App market on iOS (which is the dominant app retail platform), they don't allow any competing app stores on iOS, and now they are demanding huge cuts of profits. There's a good argument to be made here that they are abusing their dominant position.
And imagine Microsoft demanded 30% of all iTunes sales on Windows. After all, you need to give Microsoft its due too. They created the Windows ecosystem and there are alternatives to Windows if you don't want to follow Microsoft's terms. Would you consider that to be fair?
One more time publishers:
YOU CAN STILL SELL YOUR STUFF HOW YOU ARE DOING IT. YOU JUST HAVE TO ADD THE OPTION OF SELLING IT THROUGH APPLE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO SELL THINGS ON THE APP STORE. REALLY. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T SELL THERE.
If you want to tap into a market made by Apple, you need to give them their due.
Just realize that at some point that due gets passed on to you.
First the developer / publisher pays Apple to have their app in the app store
Then Apple take 30% of what the app sells for
If the customer want's a refund on there app the developer pays back 100% of the price, Apple still keep there 30%
And now if your going to offer a subscription Apple get 30% of that to
The argument for this is Apple is bringing the customer to you, but Apple has apps in all their add's so in part the App developers are bringing customers to Apple to buy the phone. But Apple doesn't pay anything for that.
I think therefore with this reasoning Apple should pay 30% of the iPhone price to app developers. Or in other words for last quarter alone $9,500ish per app in the app store.
I'm sorry but this is just another example of US-centric myopia? The Apple TV sells well in many countries that don't have Netflix. It is not a deal breaker for a lot of people.
The AppleTV doesn't sell well in any country, including the US. But from a US-centric perspective, Apple needs Netflix on the the AppleTV a lot more than Netflix needs to be on the AppleTV.
Fact is that some of these "too big to ignore" companies are freeloading on THE ONLY WORKING MOBILE platform on the planet.
The real fact is these companies are adding value to the platform and directly increasing the sale of iDevices. Many of these companies are adding service in areas where apple lacks competent solutions and or ones with sizable market share.
The inverse is true Apple has been freeloading off the backs of the app developers in order to tout the vast selection of the app store and the quality and name brand apps available only for the iDevices. Do you think the "there's an app for that" commercials promoted apps? No, it was used to show the iPhone with expanded capabilities provided by third party developers in order to sell more phones. Claiming 300K+ apps and 10 billion downloads is pure marketing gold helping to sell millions of phones for billions of dollars in profits and not a source of liability for apple.
if you are in the market for an ebook reader and are comparing an iPad to a Kindle. Having the ability to read Kindle ebook on the iPad helps make that decision a little easier as the iPad covers the base functionality of the kindle then add features. If you are having to compare iBooks to Kindle then you have a harder sale.
Without these "freeloading" apps Apple would not have a working mobile platform.
As I posted on another site:
It is only fair that a shop which adds a new sale through its store receives the benefit of such additional sale. If you found the contend on the net Apple takes no cut, but if the sale is made through iTunes it is only right that Apple gets rewarded for adding a customer.
Further, without Apple, the extra sale would not be made.
The success of the AppStore proves that the 70/30 cut is acceptable to developers so it is silly to whine that Apple?s 30% cut is too much.
On the whole the offer is very reasonable and publishers would be cutting their noses to spite their faces by not taking advantage of the huge new customer base Apple products offer.
Take it or leave it.
What if it's a current subscriber and they just want to access the content from a app? Should Apple get a cut of them as well?
I've been thinking about that... if Netflix tells Apple to f-off, and pulls their service from Apple TV, that would basically kill that box. Not sure if Apple cares enough about Apple TV to make that a good negotiating position for Netflix, however.
According to Apple's newly posted iOS Developer Program License Agreement, rentals are not affected.
As a developer, I don't know of any store in the world with a captive audience of a hundred million or so potential customers, that will automatically inform my users of any updates I make, pay me within a 30 days, vet my changes, give me all the tools and support to create my app, etc., for virtually peanuts.
And if I develop a publication app, Apple will host it for free and I can still spend tons of monies in marketing, advertising, accounting, supporting upgrading, etc., on my own, send new customers to the iTunes store and collect the whole price.
Somehow, I think I would make more money with less effort supplementing Apple's approach of taking a 30% commission for customers they find for me, not fighting against it.