Even though prices have to be the same in and outside the app, you can still have different pricing for iOS services.
Hulu, Pandora, Netflix, etc., can all do the following (as I read the rules).
-Subscription price for access on the web, android, etc., but EXCLUSING iOS apps = $7
-Subscription price for access by any means, INCLUDING iOS apps = $10 (this price applies if the subscription is purchased in app or not, as required by the rules).
I bet this is what happens. Consumers get it in the shorts in the short term, if they want to use iOS apps. Apple makes more $$. Eventually, Apple offers viable competing services at a lower price (since they aren't paying the extra fee), and takes over market share.
You can't do this, however, for eBooks. Apple has declared holy war on Kindle. Again, in the short term at least, consumers get it in the shorts. Because iBooks selection sucks. BUT, in the mid-term, the lack of a Kindle app will cause publishers to contract with Apple, thus improving the selection on iBooks.
This has been done before with Music. Name a killer app for purchasing music (not a subcription but a per-song purchase)? Its iTunes. No other competitor can compete with Apple on its own device for Music. Give it a couple of years and the same thing will be true for books and subscription services. Apple isn't content on hardware money. They want media money too. And they want to kill there competition (Netrlix, Hulu, Amazon, etc.) If you believe otherwise you are kidding yourself.
These outcries reflect how big Apple is, for good and for bad. And I think it's a bit overblown much like Antennagate.
For example people talking about Amazon or Netflix pulling the app. Why should they? All they need to do is delete any link to outside store or subscription service, then nothing will change. No price change. No need to pull off.
Amazon can delete in-app links to their store. Make it purely a reader app. Have people go to Safari to purchase book. Once it's purchased it'll be on your account. Go back to the app, sign in and read. Apple get nothing.
Netflix? Just don't put any subscription service in the app. Have people subscribe on website then if you want to watch it on your iPad, pick it up, sign in and watch. Apple also get nothing.
If you want the convenience of Apple system then pay. If you don't want to pay, don't use it.
Do I understand something wrong?
Yes, you understand something wrong. Everything you wrote is correct, but you are neglecting the part that so many people conveniently overlook. The part where Apple dictates what Amazon charges for the book on their own web site. That, in my opinion, is Apple overstepping its bounds.
Amazon may sell the book to Apple for $7 and Apple sells it to you for $10. (Yes, I know that's now quite how it works, but it's still accurate). But if Amazon wants to sell you the book directly, they can't sell it to you for $7 or $8. Apple forces them to sell it to you for $10. Sure, Amazon gets to see the extra $3, but where do you think that extra $3 comes from? It comes from you! How can you possibly like that?
Google just announced their service, 10% instead of 30%. They give consumer information to the publisher. Apple does not.
Now - where's that monopoly everyone is talking about?
Argue that 30% is high, fine. But please provide some reasons. Don't just scream "antitrust!!" - you need to show the monopoly. Show how consumers are being hurt BECAUSE of a monopoly.
Which is why there should be anti-trust implications.....
Please do tell why. Because no other company can figure out how to do what Apple does? Please. Get the government involved because MS, Sony, Netflix, Google... and a number of Multi-billion dollar companies, can't program or plan their way out of a paper bag?
Quote:
And if the landscape changes (and I hope it does), this problem will sort itself out pretty quickly. There is no way Apple would have even contemplated something like this if the market was truly competitive.
Yes. We're all still waiting since like 4 years now. They've only just recently been able to create phones that on a par with the iPhone. Will it take that long for the tablets too? If it does, Apple can really laugh all the way to the bank. IMO: 30% is perfect at the moment... for everyone! Not just little devs... but the big boys too.
Quote:
I think so too. Once they kick Netflix and Hulu Plus off, they'll have lots of negotiating power with Hollywood....something they can't have as long as there are competing services.
[/QUOTE]
Seriously, I do think Apple wants NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon et al. to be available on their devices. And actually, I doubt any of them are going to pull their Apps either.... because... see #1 above.
If Apple gets some more deals and becomes any bigger, some of them may just have to close up shop anyway... other than Amazon.
BTW: if Apple is tanking (sorry, "doomed") over this news... why is the stock going up?
Yes, you understand something wrong. Everything you wrote is correct, but you are neglecting the part that so many people conveniently overlook. The part where Apple dictates what Amazon charges for the book on their own web site. That, in my opinion, is Apple overstepping its bounds.
Amazon may sell the book to Apple for $7 and Apple sells it to you for $10. (Yes, I know that's now quite how it works, but it's still accurate). But if Amazon wants to sell you the book directly, they can't sell it to you for $7 or $8. Apple forces them to sell it to you for $10. Sure, Amazon gets to see the extra $3, but where do you think that extra $3 comes from? It comes from you! How can you possibly like that?
You're right, Apple's higher charge could be passed to the consumer. Or the publisher might eat it - you don't actually know the answer. But the real point is that there IS competition. So all this talk of antitrust is a waste of time.
Google just announced they will share subscriber information with publishers and charge less. Apple won't share the information. There's actual value in that, Apple considers it when they set their price. Not sure what all the confusion is about.
It doesn't matter. You can't use the new API to rent content directly through the iTunes store.
And as Apple has posted in their press release, "?publishers can sell digital subscriptions on their web sites, or can choose to provide free access to existing subscribers. Since Apple is not involved in these transactions, there is no revenue sharing or exchange of customer information with Apple,"
I would suggest that it covers the likes of Netflix.
Yes that applies to the Netflix website. However, we are talking about the apps. To come into compliance, the Netflix app has to offer in-app subscriptions at the same price as the website. So if the iOS app is the first Netflix service a customer uses, Apple gets 30% of the subscription fees for the lifetime of that subscription. That's quite the referral fee.
That's an understatement. So what happens when Google and Microsoft/Nokia get their crap together and developers tell Apple to go fuck themselves?
The operative term there is "... get their crap together ..." Microsoft has been licensing the technology for Mobile phones for years, long before Apple even entered the market. Nokia is the mobile phone manufacturing giant for years... RIM was the smartphone King... So, why did they not think of doing what Apple did? When did Bill Gates showed us the MS tablet that he claimed would revolutionize computing?
Why did they not think to create their own equivalent of an iOS ecosystem? And, didn't MS have its music subscription at one point, but closed it? Naptser, etc. -- all subscription business ideas... and they too closed.
There are also digital technologies, that were supposed to do for the mass media long before Apple entered the market. Amazon had the eReader and ties with the book industry and electronic mass media long before the iPad came to light? It was so dominant in electronic publishing, it threatened to strong arm books and mass media publishers the moment the iPad came to light?
Didn't every Apple detractor claim that the closed system of Apple supposed to crumble once the "open system" business competition can get their act together. In fact, if you follow those tracking mobile phone sales, the Android phones eclipsed Apple in the US market, at an astronomical pace. Worldwide, Apple mobile products account for less that 5% of the market.
Every Apple detractor and competitor (Android makers, RIM, HP, Nokia, Microsoft) that their "announced" tablet products are far superior to that of the iPad.
Great for developers and publishers... they will have choices (and they should).
So why is the closed Apple ecosystem, which has been predicted and doomed to fail, suddenly become the monopolist? The iPad killers have come in 2010, and more are coming this year, they say. So, if Apple is so bad, why not just boycott the Apple ecosystem altogether and focus their attention to building Apps for all those iPad killers? (Sony claims it may not need the Apple iTunes at all).
The could have pitted Amazon behemoth in electronic publishing to counter the "unfair" practices of the newer and closed Apple ecosystem. So, why are they pinning their hopes on a closed Apple ecosystem that they claim they do not like and unfair... and just collaborate with others -- Google (and Android makers), Amazon, Microsoft, Nokia to get their act together?
It would be a collaborative effort of the giants in mobile computing, and the giants in music, and the giants in publishing and mass media.... against a single entity that has nothing but a closed ecosystem.
Surely, as you predict, Apple is doomed to repeat its history in the 1990s and will eventually fail? And open systems will triumph?
So, what's all the fuss about a company that has not only been eclipsed in the US market and have only less 5% of the world market?
Maybe, just maybe, these third parties have seen what Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Nokia, RIM, etc. are capable of.
You pin your hopes on Google. To refresh your memory, Google has embarked on its ambitious plan to digitize information -- with Google Books -- to offer to a new world to everyone? Did you read all those cries from publishers of unfair practices?
You may not know these but Google, Yahoo, Huffington, and other information consolidators have even into electronic publishing for years -- using the copyrighted materials of mainstream media as their main sources.
All the revenues from resulting go to Google, Yahoo, Huffington, and those who made big in information consolidation. Huffington just sold for US $350 million, a news consolidation empire that was built on the works of mass media and bloggers. Would Ariana Huffington give 70% of that windfall to the mass media and all those bloggers, and keep 30% for herself? I did not hear much outcry from all the loudmouths in the unfairness of it all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash
Just when you think Apple has learned the lesson of the last platform war they lost, they pull this crap. Does Apple want to sell iPhones and iPods or do they want to get 30% cuts on Kindle books? Cause they can't have both. Amazon can't make enough money and still compete with iBooks with the 30% cut. So the Kindle app goes, and small outfits like Instapaper go, and pretty soon its 1997 all over again.
If you are so sure of the fate of Apple, why not just let them learn their lesson then? Or, maybe you are one of the detractors who predict that Apple is doomed to fail, but then in the back of your mind, it might be the David that faced Goliath?
And this, my friends, is why Google will beat Apple in the tablet market just as they have in the smartphone market. Pissed off content providers are going to leave in droves to go to a place where they don't get bilked out of their well-deserved money.
I'm a huge Apple fan, but things like this just make me shake my head and wonder what the hell the people at One Infinite Loop are thinking.
And regardless of iOS, Android or anything MS comes up with, I'll bet that none of the publishers will get back what they invest.
Back-track: yes... Android's publishers will. They'll get your data to do anything they damn well please to do with it. Expect spam and carpet-bombing advertising to your Gmail account, your home, your cell... everything. Have fun
Yeah, and please do not be furious about all this, since you shouldaveknown better than investing your money and time in building apps for the app store, that we would make this kind of dickish moves arbitrarily and with no pre warning.
Because ah, what are 30 percent anyways? It's not as if you lost all the margins in ...? Oh, you did? Oh poor developers/publishers... so I guess you won't make it to have your shops in our app store, now will you? Oh look, our iBook app is so lonely there, and turning such a great profit! I wonder how so suddenly apple got a 100% market share in book publishing inside iOS...
They have 6 months to transfer their hard work over to meet the store's standards.
Why did they spend their money and time building apps in the first place? Oh, to get on the Apple gravy Train!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonch
This would be like Microsoft insisting on taking 30% for every Windows app that offered any subscription content, and anyone offering subscription content outside of Windows would be required to also offer it for Windows. And they'd say, "We made the market, so you need to give us our due."
People like you would be screaming bloody murder if Microsoft did that.
No, this would be like Microsoft saying that in order to be on the Zune Store, you have to have any outside purchase or subscription that is out there, be available through them as well. They are free to do that and devs/publishers are free to say no.
But I'm sure that people like you don't understand what a great deal the App store is for devs/publishers... or understand much at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
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?
Yep, Microsoft ABUSED their dominant position.
The market is not Apps on iOS, the market is digital content distribution.
Apple is not taking 30% of all sales of ebooks etc. They are taking 30% of purchases through their distribution channel. Devs/Publishers are free to have their own distribution, but they have to allow Apple to have the same deal if they want to leverage Apple's distribution as well.
Microsoft could do anything they want with their ecosystem (save the blatant anti-trust abuse of the 90's). But they would have to take the consequences along with their position. Windows isn't as valuable as iOS for some.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eswinson
Just realize that at some point that due gets passed on to you.
Of course! Just like taxing any company raises prices. Tax Exxon-Mobile? Gas goes up.
If it gets too high, people will not buy anymore. That's how the markets work (in theory!).
If you are a dev/publisher and you absolutely need Apple's store, you need to pay the price. Otherwise, come up with your own way to reach 100 million plus people that actually pay for content.
@guch20: you don't get it. Now go back and read Apple Eco-systems post. I believe I can hear Apple now in a famous Hollywood voice: "Frankly my Dear... I don't give a damn."
I've been a part of the internet-age now since 1994. I've seen payment and subscription systems come and go by the dozens, including micro-payment systems specifically for publishers. Easy stuff too to program for.
However... not one... I repeat not 1 system has made the publishers any respectable ROI money. Even their websites are because "they must have a web-presence", and many do not make enough to cover even those costs. Maybe "RupDoch" knows something, or has a plan... but I still do not see even his bravado and bluster being able to make a return on a dedicated News App.
They don't even need to wait for HTML5. Apps like NYT and The Daily work well in the HTML we already have - no need for them to be apps, no need to pay the 30%.
And by using the web, publishers aren't limited to the few million iOS users, but can reach EVERYONE who has ANY web-enabled device.
How right you are. Although, HTML5 means more than video... basically HTML, CSS3, and native browser coding for touch. Naturally: NO FLASH! Thank "G"!!!
Nice line studiomusic :
Quote:
If you are a dev/publisher and you absolutely need Apple's store, you need to pay the price. Otherwise, come up with your own way to reach 100 million plus people that actually pay for content.
The fact that Rupert Murdoch is okay with this model says he probably understands it better than most others who are commenting on it.
There's a reason why FOX, Wall Street, etc. are doing well and willing to port their intellectual property under the terms of Apple.
The Daily has the advantage of being the first subscription model in the iOS system. i like the format, more a magazine (daily) than a newspaper. Not sure how receptive iOS users will be to the subscription fee, but I think it is reasonable compared to the single edition charges by publishers.
Eventually, it is the content that will decide whether the Daily wil make it. More than likely, if the other publishers hesitate because of their complaints about the unfairness of Apple's terms, iOS users may become comfortable with the Daily.
Myself, I do not see the logic of paying for the same information, if the web version would be available in the same mobile device, for free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guch20
And this, my friends, is why Google will beat Apple in the tablet market just as they have in the smartphone market. Pissed off content providers are going to leave in droves to go to a place where they don't get bilked out of their well-deserved money.
To repeat myself, using your logic, shouldn't books and publishers, and developers be making more effort to go with the sure winner, Google? Or, even Amazon, their long term partner?
Quote:
Originally Posted by guch20
but things like this just make me shake my head and wonder what the hell the people at One Infinite Loop are thinking.
And, didn't many pundits, tech bloggers, company executive (who have tried it before), just last year (and some even much later) that the iPad is nothing but a large iPod touch, and at the same time were so sure that the iPad killers, that have come, and more coming will doom the iPad, just the Android doomed the iPhone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
However... not one... I repeat not 1 system has made the publishers any respectable ROI money. Even their websites are because "they must have a web-presence", and many do not make enough to cover even those costs. Maybe "RupDoch" knows something, or has a plan... but I still do not see even his bravado and bluster being able to make a return on a dedicated News App.
We all have stake in the free dissemination of information, especially news on a daily basis. And, I hope the news and media companies get their act together, be it with Apple or whatever ecosystem they choose. I do not read Google, Yahoo or Huffington by choice because I think they are among the reasons why the news and media have been in great decline -- they profit almost exclusively on the work of others without sharing the profit with the original creators. The irony of it all is that not too many here or anywhere have ever complained about the unfairness of the essence of information consolidation site.
Having stated the above, I used to be a print subscriber of New York Times, for years, and quite a few magazines. But, their prices have gone up. And, they are giving away their web for free (with advertisements of course, just like the print version). With the convenience of having access to the web, the choice was easy.
I hope ecosystems like those of Apple, Amazon, Google, or some other new business model would find a way to monetize the efforts of publishers and their journalists and staff -- to replace the untenable free web sites. When that comes, and the price is decent, I would not mind paying again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
They don't even need to wait for HTML5. Apps like NYT and The Daily work well in the HTML we already have - no need for them to be apps, no need to pay the 30%.
And by using the web, publishers aren't limited to the few million iOS users, but can reach EVERYONE who has ANY web-enabled device.
That's why I find all this talk about monopoly and unfairness rather odd. Everyone, who thinks so can do it on their own, and they have choices. Apple is in the business to make profit not solely to save the dying business of everyone, else.
I myself would not mind paying Apple that 30% if I get a 70%, rather than nothing from such a potentially huge market. More so because Apple's terms does not ban me from exploring other modes of monetizing my creation.
What people forget is that when you jump into a system that has great promise, you pay the toll to have a piece of the pie.. not dictate the terms of your entry.
It's not "Developers ire", but the publishers. Two different types of folks.
iPhone developers think the App Store guidelines are just fine. As a consumer, to have all financial transactions go through one player just makes it easier instead of dealing with multiple sites.
I think what's at issue here is Apple trying to price control external markets, it's something they try to do already with their hardware but now they are applying that to software. I think where the antitrust stuff comes in is in that Apple could restrict you from selling your own magazine app in order to push you towards their own subscription service app, but have they done this yet?
It's my impression that anyone who doesn't want to use Apple's subscription service can create their own app and just handle the financials outside Apple. You'd verify via a login to the app but when time to pay comes you would have to actually login their website or pay by mail, you couldn't just have a link to renew right in the app.
Now I could see Apple coming along & banning such apps based on duplication of functionality, but then I think they definitely would get sued. I still don't know that they would loose though, it'd be bad business practice but not necessarily illegal. Honestly I think Apple just doesn't see how bad some of this stuff makes them look, in the past when similar issues have arisen they are usually pretty quick to change policy or clarify terms. That's my impression anyway and I think they aren't backing down from the publishers because this is one area the publishers are trying to bully Apple into doing things their way. They aren't used to companies being big enough that they actually have to compromise, they may not even know what that word means.
So you're okay with Apple losing money as long as Adobe doesn't make any money either. Nice.
Dislike of Flash has nothing to do with desire to see Adobe lose money. If Adobe can design flash in such a way as to NOT causing my laptop's fan to kick in almost immediately for the most trivial items, or allowing errors in flash to crash my web browser, I wouldn't have much against it. I think that's probably the general feeling of everyone who dislikes flash.
And again: what is keeping Hulu or Netflix from creating a usable and friendly web-app and/or mobile-optimized website, to be used within Safari...or Firefox, IE, or Chrome?
Technically, a large number of the Apps targeted by this proclamation, SHOULD be web-apps available on ANY device: mobile, desktop, or TV box.
The newspapers and magazines are the biggest idiots: WHY an App in the first place? They SHOULD be updating their websites first, concentrating on user-friendly and mobile-access, with their current ad-structure/financing. There seriously is no market for a dedicated app as I see it.
...
For things like Hulu and Netflix, which are streaming, that is a good point. Couldn't they create a web app? Of course, an actual app might be a little easier to use.
But for newspapers and magazines, my personal preference is that these are downloaded files, not online streaming. If I'm on a plane, in the subway, or elsewhere without online access, I expect my newspapers and magazines to still be available. Including all of my back issues which I subscribed to (and which I frequently refer back to with my paper copies today). That said, I don't know that the current subscription model is. Is your content available offline within the app?
Comments
Hulu, Pandora, Netflix, etc., can all do the following (as I read the rules).
-Subscription price for access on the web, android, etc., but EXCLUSING iOS apps = $7
-Subscription price for access by any means, INCLUDING iOS apps = $10 (this price applies if the subscription is purchased in app or not, as required by the rules).
I bet this is what happens. Consumers get it in the shorts in the short term, if they want to use iOS apps. Apple makes more $$. Eventually, Apple offers viable competing services at a lower price (since they aren't paying the extra fee), and takes over market share.
You can't do this, however, for eBooks. Apple has declared holy war on Kindle. Again, in the short term at least, consumers get it in the shorts. Because iBooks selection sucks. BUT, in the mid-term, the lack of a Kindle app will cause publishers to contract with Apple, thus improving the selection on iBooks.
This has been done before with Music. Name a killer app for purchasing music (not a subcription but a per-song purchase)? Its iTunes. No other competitor can compete with Apple on its own device for Music. Give it a couple of years and the same thing will be true for books and subscription services. Apple isn't content on hardware money. They want media money too. And they want to kill there competition (Netrlix, Hulu, Amazon, etc.) If you believe otherwise you are kidding yourself.
These outcries reflect how big Apple is, for good and for bad. And I think it's a bit overblown much like Antennagate.
For example people talking about Amazon or Netflix pulling the app. Why should they? All they need to do is delete any link to outside store or subscription service, then nothing will change. No price change. No need to pull off.
Amazon can delete in-app links to their store. Make it purely a reader app. Have people go to Safari to purchase book. Once it's purchased it'll be on your account. Go back to the app, sign in and read. Apple get nothing.
Netflix? Just don't put any subscription service in the app. Have people subscribe on website then if you want to watch it on your iPad, pick it up, sign in and watch. Apple also get nothing.
If you want the convenience of Apple system then pay. If you don't want to pay, don't use it.
Do I understand something wrong?
Yes, you understand something wrong. Everything you wrote is correct, but you are neglecting the part that so many people conveniently overlook. The part where Apple dictates what Amazon charges for the book on their own web site. That, in my opinion, is Apple overstepping its bounds.
Amazon may sell the book to Apple for $7 and Apple sells it to you for $10. (Yes, I know that's now quite how it works, but it's still accurate). But if Amazon wants to sell you the book directly, they can't sell it to you for $7 or $8. Apple forces them to sell it to you for $10. Sure, Amazon gets to see the extra $3, but where do you think that extra $3 comes from? It comes from you! How can you possibly like that?
Now - where's that monopoly everyone is talking about?
Argue that 30% is high, fine. But please provide some reasons. Don't just scream "antitrust!!" - you need to show the monopoly. Show how consumers are being hurt BECAUSE of a monopoly.
Which is why there should be anti-trust implications.....
Please do tell why. Because no other company can figure out how to do what Apple does? Please. Get the government involved because MS, Sony, Netflix, Google... and a number of Multi-billion dollar companies, can't program or plan their way out of a paper bag?
And if the landscape changes (and I hope it does), this problem will sort itself out pretty quickly. There is no way Apple would have even contemplated something like this if the market was truly competitive.
Yes. We're all still waiting since like 4 years now. They've only just recently been able to create phones that on a par with the iPhone. Will it take that long for the tablets too? If it does, Apple can really laugh all the way to the bank. IMO: 30% is perfect at the moment... for everyone! Not just little devs... but the big boys too.
I think so too. Once they kick Netflix and Hulu Plus off, they'll have lots of negotiating power with Hollywood....something they can't have as long as there are competing services.
[/QUOTE]
Seriously, I do think Apple wants NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon et al. to be available on their devices. And actually, I doubt any of them are going to pull their Apps either.... because... see #1 above.
If Apple gets some more deals and becomes any bigger, some of them may just have to close up shop anyway... other than Amazon.
BTW: if Apple is tanking (sorry, "doomed") over this news... why is the stock going up?
Yes, you understand something wrong. Everything you wrote is correct, but you are neglecting the part that so many people conveniently overlook. The part where Apple dictates what Amazon charges for the book on their own web site. That, in my opinion, is Apple overstepping its bounds.
Amazon may sell the book to Apple for $7 and Apple sells it to you for $10. (Yes, I know that's now quite how it works, but it's still accurate). But if Amazon wants to sell you the book directly, they can't sell it to you for $7 or $8. Apple forces them to sell it to you for $10. Sure, Amazon gets to see the extra $3, but where do you think that extra $3 comes from? It comes from you! How can you possibly like that?
You're right, Apple's higher charge could be passed to the consumer. Or the publisher might eat it - you don't actually know the answer. But the real point is that there IS competition. So all this talk of antitrust is a waste of time.
Google just announced they will share subscriber information with publishers and charge less. Apple won't share the information. There's actual value in that, Apple considers it when they set their price. Not sure what all the confusion is about.
It doesn't matter. You can't use the new API to rent content directly through the iTunes store.
And as Apple has posted in their press release, "?publishers can sell digital subscriptions on their web sites, or can choose to provide free access to existing subscribers. Since Apple is not involved in these transactions, there is no revenue sharing or exchange of customer information with Apple,"
I would suggest that it covers the likes of Netflix.
Yes that applies to the Netflix website. However, we are talking about the apps. To come into compliance, the Netflix app has to offer in-app subscriptions at the same price as the website. So if the iOS app is the first Netflix service a customer uses, Apple gets 30% of the subscription fees for the lifetime of that subscription. That's quite the referral fee.
That's an understatement. So what happens when Google and Microsoft/Nokia get their crap together and developers tell Apple to go fuck themselves?
The operative term there is "... get their crap together ..." Microsoft has been licensing the technology for Mobile phones for years, long before Apple even entered the market. Nokia is the mobile phone manufacturing giant for years... RIM was the smartphone King... So, why did they not think of doing what Apple did? When did Bill Gates showed us the MS tablet that he claimed would revolutionize computing?
Why did they not think to create their own equivalent of an iOS ecosystem? And, didn't MS have its music subscription at one point, but closed it? Naptser, etc. -- all subscription business ideas... and they too closed.
There are also digital technologies, that were supposed to do for the mass media long before Apple entered the market. Amazon had the eReader and ties with the book industry and electronic mass media long before the iPad came to light? It was so dominant in electronic publishing, it threatened to strong arm books and mass media publishers the moment the iPad came to light?
Didn't every Apple detractor claim that the closed system of Apple supposed to crumble once the "open system" business competition can get their act together. In fact, if you follow those tracking mobile phone sales, the Android phones eclipsed Apple in the US market, at an astronomical pace. Worldwide, Apple mobile products account for less that 5% of the market.
Every Apple detractor and competitor (Android makers, RIM, HP, Nokia, Microsoft) that their "announced" tablet products are far superior to that of the iPad.
Great for developers and publishers... they will have choices (and they should).
So why is the closed Apple ecosystem, which has been predicted and doomed to fail, suddenly become the monopolist? The iPad killers have come in 2010, and more are coming this year, they say. So, if Apple is so bad, why not just boycott the Apple ecosystem altogether and focus their attention to building Apps for all those iPad killers? (Sony claims it may not need the Apple iTunes at all).
The could have pitted Amazon behemoth in electronic publishing to counter the "unfair" practices of the newer and closed Apple ecosystem. So, why are they pinning their hopes on a closed Apple ecosystem that they claim they do not like and unfair... and just collaborate with others -- Google (and Android makers), Amazon, Microsoft, Nokia to get their act together?
It would be a collaborative effort of the giants in mobile computing, and the giants in music, and the giants in publishing and mass media.... against a single entity that has nothing but a closed ecosystem.
Surely, as you predict, Apple is doomed to repeat its history in the 1990s and will eventually fail? And open systems will triumph?
So, what's all the fuss about a company that has not only been eclipsed in the US market and have only less 5% of the world market?
Maybe, just maybe, these third parties have seen what Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Nokia, RIM, etc. are capable of.
You pin your hopes on Google. To refresh your memory, Google has embarked on its ambitious plan to digitize information -- with Google Books -- to offer to a new world to everyone? Did you read all those cries from publishers of unfair practices?
You may not know these but Google, Yahoo, Huffington, and other information consolidators have even into electronic publishing for years -- using the copyrighted materials of mainstream media as their main sources.
All the revenues from resulting go to Google, Yahoo, Huffington, and those who made big in information consolidation. Huffington just sold for US $350 million, a news consolidation empire that was built on the works of mass media and bloggers. Would Ariana Huffington give 70% of that windfall to the mass media and all those bloggers, and keep 30% for herself? I did not hear much outcry from all the loudmouths in the unfairness of it all.
Just when you think Apple has learned the lesson of the last platform war they lost, they pull this crap. Does Apple want to sell iPhones and iPods or do they want to get 30% cuts on Kindle books? Cause they can't have both. Amazon can't make enough money and still compete with iBooks with the 30% cut. So the Kindle app goes, and small outfits like Instapaper go, and pretty soon its 1997 all over again.
If you are so sure of the fate of Apple, why not just let them learn their lesson then? Or, maybe you are one of the detractors who predict that Apple is doomed to fail, but then in the back of your mind, it might be the David that faced Goliath?
Apple Ecosystems
I'm a huge Apple fan, but things like this just make me shake my head and wonder what the hell the people at One Infinite Loop are thinking.
Not surprised.
And regardless of iOS, Android or anything MS comes up with, I'll bet that none of the publishers will get back what they invest.
Back-track: yes... Android's publishers will. They'll get your data to do anything they damn well please to do with it. Expect spam and carpet-bombing advertising to your Gmail account, your home, your cell... everything. Have fun
Yeah, and please do not be furious about all this, since you shouldaveknown better than investing your money and time in building apps for the app store, that we would make this kind of dickish moves arbitrarily and with no pre warning.
Because ah, what are 30 percent anyways? It's not as if you lost all the margins in ...? Oh, you did? Oh poor developers/publishers... so I guess you won't make it to have your shops in our app store, now will you? Oh look, our iBook app is so lonely there, and turning such a great profit! I wonder how so suddenly apple got a 100% market share in book publishing inside iOS...
They have 6 months to transfer their hard work over to meet the store's standards.
Why did they spend their money and time building apps in the first place? Oh, to get on the Apple gravy Train!
This would be like Microsoft insisting on taking 30% for every Windows app that offered any subscription content, and anyone offering subscription content outside of Windows would be required to also offer it for Windows. And they'd say, "We made the market, so you need to give us our due."
People like you would be screaming bloody murder if Microsoft did that.
No, this would be like Microsoft saying that in order to be on the Zune Store, you have to have any outside purchase or subscription that is out there, be available through them as well. They are free to do that and devs/publishers are free to say no.
But I'm sure that people like you don't understand what a great deal the App store is for devs/publishers... or understand much at all.
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?
Yep, Microsoft ABUSED their dominant position.
The market is not Apps on iOS, the market is digital content distribution.
Apple is not taking 30% of all sales of ebooks etc. They are taking 30% of purchases through their distribution channel. Devs/Publishers are free to have their own distribution, but they have to allow Apple to have the same deal if they want to leverage Apple's distribution as well.
Microsoft could do anything they want with their ecosystem (save the blatant anti-trust abuse of the 90's). But they would have to take the consequences along with their position. Windows isn't as valuable as iOS for some.
Just realize that at some point that due gets passed on to you.
Of course! Just like taxing any company raises prices. Tax Exxon-Mobile? Gas goes up.
If it gets too high, people will not buy anymore. That's how the markets work (in theory!).
If you are a dev/publisher and you absolutely need Apple's store, you need to pay the price. Otherwise, come up with your own way to reach 100 million plus people that actually pay for content.
@guch20: you don't get it. Now go back and read Apple Eco-systems post. I believe I can hear Apple now in a famous Hollywood voice: "Frankly my Dear... I don't give a damn."
I've been a part of the internet-age now since 1994. I've seen payment and subscription systems come and go by the dozens, including micro-payment systems specifically for publishers. Easy stuff too to program for.
However... not one... I repeat not 1 system has made the publishers any respectable ROI money. Even their websites are because "they must have a web-presence", and many do not make enough to cover even those costs. Maybe "RupDoch" knows something, or has a plan... but I still do not see even his bravado and bluster being able to make a return on a dedicated News App.
They don't even need to wait for HTML5. Apps like NYT and The Daily work well in the HTML we already have - no need for them to be apps, no need to pay the 30%.
And by using the web, publishers aren't limited to the few million iOS users, but can reach EVERYONE who has ANY web-enabled device.
How right you are. Although, HTML5 means more than video... basically HTML, CSS3, and native browser coding for touch. Naturally: NO FLASH! Thank "G"!!!
Nice line studiomusic :
If you are a dev/publisher and you absolutely need Apple's store, you need to pay the price. Otherwise, come up with your own way to reach 100 million plus people that actually pay for content.
The fact that Rupert Murdoch is okay with this model says he probably understands it better than most others who are commenting on it.
There's a reason why FOX, Wall Street, etc. are doing well and willing to port their intellectual property under the terms of Apple.
The Daily has the advantage of being the first subscription model in the iOS system. i like the format, more a magazine (daily) than a newspaper. Not sure how receptive iOS users will be to the subscription fee, but I think it is reasonable compared to the single edition charges by publishers.
Eventually, it is the content that will decide whether the Daily wil make it. More than likely, if the other publishers hesitate because of their complaints about the unfairness of Apple's terms, iOS users may become comfortable with the Daily.
Myself, I do not see the logic of paying for the same information, if the web version would be available in the same mobile device, for free.
And this, my friends, is why Google will beat Apple in the tablet market just as they have in the smartphone market. Pissed off content providers are going to leave in droves to go to a place where they don't get bilked out of their well-deserved money.
To repeat myself, using your logic, shouldn't books and publishers, and developers be making more effort to go with the sure winner, Google? Or, even Amazon, their long term partner?
but things like this just make me shake my head and wonder what the hell the people at One Infinite Loop are thinking.
Yes, indeed. To "quote" Steve Balmer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U
And, didn't many pundits, tech bloggers, company executive (who have tried it before), just last year (and some even much later) that the iPad is nothing but a large iPod touch, and at the same time were so sure that the iPad killers, that have come, and more coming will doom the iPad, just the Android doomed the iPhone?
However... not one... I repeat not 1 system has made the publishers any respectable ROI money. Even their websites are because "they must have a web-presence", and many do not make enough to cover even those costs. Maybe "RupDoch" knows something, or has a plan... but I still do not see even his bravado and bluster being able to make a return on a dedicated News App.
We all have stake in the free dissemination of information, especially news on a daily basis. And, I hope the news and media companies get their act together, be it with Apple or whatever ecosystem they choose. I do not read Google, Yahoo or Huffington by choice because I think they are among the reasons why the news and media have been in great decline -- they profit almost exclusively on the work of others without sharing the profit with the original creators. The irony of it all is that not too many here or anywhere have ever complained about the unfairness of the essence of information consolidation site.
Having stated the above, I used to be a print subscriber of New York Times, for years, and quite a few magazines. But, their prices have gone up. And, they are giving away their web for free (with advertisements of course, just like the print version). With the convenience of having access to the web, the choice was easy.
I hope ecosystems like those of Apple, Amazon, Google, or some other new business model would find a way to monetize the efforts of publishers and their journalists and staff -- to replace the untenable free web sites. When that comes, and the price is decent, I would not mind paying again.
They don't even need to wait for HTML5. Apps like NYT and The Daily work well in the HTML we already have - no need for them to be apps, no need to pay the 30%.
And by using the web, publishers aren't limited to the few million iOS users, but can reach EVERYONE who has ANY web-enabled device.
That's why I find all this talk about monopoly and unfairness rather odd. Everyone, who thinks so can do it on their own, and they have choices. Apple is in the business to make profit not solely to save the dying business of everyone, else.
I myself would not mind paying Apple that 30% if I get a 70%, rather than nothing from such a potentially huge market. More so because Apple's terms does not ban me from exploring other modes of monetizing my creation.
What people forget is that when you jump into a system that has great promise, you pay the toll to have a piece of the pie.. not dictate the terms of your entry.
Apple Ecosystems
It's not "Developers ire", but the publishers. Two different types of folks.
iPhone developers think the App Store guidelines are just fine. As a consumer, to have all financial transactions go through one player just makes it easier instead of dealing with multiple sites.
I think what's at issue here is Apple trying to price control external markets, it's something they try to do already with their hardware but now they are applying that to software. I think where the antitrust stuff comes in is in that Apple could restrict you from selling your own magazine app in order to push you towards their own subscription service app, but have they done this yet?
It's my impression that anyone who doesn't want to use Apple's subscription service can create their own app and just handle the financials outside Apple. You'd verify via a login to the app but when time to pay comes you would have to actually login their website or pay by mail, you couldn't just have a link to renew right in the app.
Now I could see Apple coming along & banning such apps based on duplication of functionality, but then I think they definitely would get sued. I still don't know that they would loose though, it'd be bad business practice but not necessarily illegal. Honestly I think Apple just doesn't see how bad some of this stuff makes them look, in the past when similar issues have arisen they are usually pretty quick to change policy or clarify terms. That's my impression anyway and I think they aren't backing down from the publishers because this is one area the publishers are trying to bully Apple into doing things their way. They aren't used to companies being big enough that they actually have to compromise, they may not even know what that word means.
So you're okay with Apple losing money as long as Adobe doesn't make any money either. Nice.
Dislike of Flash has nothing to do with desire to see Adobe lose money. If Adobe can design flash in such a way as to NOT causing my laptop's fan to kick in almost immediately for the most trivial items, or allowing errors in flash to crash my web browser, I wouldn't have much against it. I think that's probably the general feeling of everyone who dislikes flash.
...
And again: what is keeping Hulu or Netflix from creating a usable and friendly web-app and/or mobile-optimized website, to be used within Safari...or Firefox, IE, or Chrome?
Technically, a large number of the Apps targeted by this proclamation, SHOULD be web-apps available on ANY device: mobile, desktop, or TV box.
The newspapers and magazines are the biggest idiots: WHY an App in the first place? They SHOULD be updating their websites first, concentrating on user-friendly and mobile-access, with their current ad-structure/financing. There seriously is no market for a dedicated app as I see it.
...
For things like Hulu and Netflix, which are streaming, that is a good point. Couldn't they create a web app? Of course, an actual app might be a little easier to use.
But for newspapers and magazines, my personal preference is that these are downloaded files, not online streaming. If I'm on a plane, in the subway, or elsewhere without online access, I expect my newspapers and magazines to still be available. Including all of my back issues which I subscribed to (and which I frequently refer back to with my paper copies today). That said, I don't know that the current subscription model is. Is your content available offline within the app?