Why do developers spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on apps that they KNOW do not follow the rules? It amazes me to read stories like this where a app developer is upset because his/her app was rejected.
And I thought that Apple offers you to get subscriptions from outside the app store if you offer the same service from within.
Give the customer a choice and see what they choose.
I don't see what all the hub-ub is about. This is THEIR phone, using THEIR App Store. They should reserve the right for business to be run on their terms. Why shouldn't they get a cut of developer's who make money off of the software they put on their device? It's the same way when royalites are paid to creators of films or television shows that are later remade, or when actors are paid for DVDs and such that are sold of their films.
This is nearly the equivalent as saying that Apple deserves 30% of all revenue from any ad on any web page that anybody views with Safari. After all, you say it's Apple's phone, and Safari is Apple's application. Therefore Apple is adding value to the web page ads by allowing people to view it on their iOS device. Is that really your stance?
And the argument that Apple is entitled to 30% because of the costs they have maintaining the App Store are pretty weak, too. Apple created the App Store, according to them, in order to ensure a high quality experience for iOS users. That was entirely Apple's choice, their doing. And in the case of subscriptions, Apple is nothing more than a transaction processor. You don't go through the iTunes storefront to order your apps. You do it in-app, via the programming the creator of the app created.
As others have said, the developers and publishers add value to iOS and enable Apple sell millions and millions of them based on the fact of all the applications which are available. Why is Apple not compensating those folks for adding value to the iOS eco system? The purpose of the App Store, according to Apple, is to ensure a good experience, which ads value to iOS and helps Apple sell more iOS devices. So again they benefit. Why do they need additional compensation?
Bottom line: the true purpose of the App Store has been revealed. It's not to secure iOS or ensure a good experience. It's to allow Apple to charge excessive fees for doing little to earn it. And guess what? YOU are the one paying the price in higher cost subscriptions.
And by the way, it's NOT Apple's phone. It's yours. Apple doesn't license the phone to you. It's yours. By your reasoning, Apple owns my Mac, too?
I don't see what all the hub-ub is about. This is THEIR phone, using THEIR App Store. They should reserve the right for business to be run on their terms. Why shouldn't they get a cut of developer's who make money off of the software they put on their device? It's the same way when royalites are paid to creators of films or television shows that are later remade, or when actors are paid for DVDs and such that are sold of their films.
True, it's Apple's product, their rules, and their business to make succeed or fail. It wouldn't be as much of and issue if Apple wasn't running competing services. When someone subscribes to something from Apple, Apple doesn't have to pay anyone else a 30% revenue, but they force their competition to do so (directly to Apple) effectively breaking the business model for others while keepin it intact for Apple. It's anti-competitive. Apple is entitled to no more than a reasonable bounty and operational cost recovery for bringing customers to the subscriber through their product. 30% of total revenue is way beyond reasonable.
They can do why they want, but it's going to repel developers, make their offering less attractive as developers go to other platforms and ultimately lose market share.
I for one will move on to Windows phone or Android if this doesn't change because it means services I want will no longer be available on iPhone (eg:Rhapsody.)
Apple is not treating these devs/services as partners, and that's their problem.
I understood that 30% mainly covers the cost of the distribution and purchase. I disagree that an app should be able to be free on the store and then in some way charge the user for it's use outside of the Apple structure.
But In-App-Purchases (IAP) are not served from Apple's servers, the only cost Apple has for this is the payment processing (and PayPal has shown that the costs for this are at most in the 3 to 5% range even for small sums).
If Apple wants to cover its cost for the free app, charge the app developer for the downloads of the apps.
I don't care what margin apple decides it wants to charge.
BUT when it says suscriptions outside their ecosystem cannot be cheaper THAT is called price fixing. They are using their market share to bully developers and screw customers.
... As for this app, this seems to be another issue of a developer thinking they are too important to play by the rules Apple has created. ...
That's exactly what this is. This is no different than the people who make a big stink that Apple rejected their app because it was using private APIs. In both cases developers are looking to cheat on their developer agreement, then go whining to the public when the get rejected for cheating. What a great business plan, give the app away for free and generate all the revenue outside the App Store, that way they pay 0% of the costs and get 100% of the revenue. (Yes, I know they say their plan is to share it with the content creators.) I mean, they're "unique", after all. And people wonder why Apple feels it's necessary to crack down on this loophole when everyone is looking for ways to hide their revenue.
While I'm defending Apple, I've seen the analogy of Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes purchases on Windows a couple times, and it's beyond stupid. Microsoft doesn't host, advertise, or do quality control for iTunes. Apple does do all three for app developers. If Apple were charging people for downloading the iOS SDK, then it would be similar to Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes (though of note, Microsoft does actually charge for it's development software, whilst Xcode is free).
Apple doesn't host, QC, or advertise for subscription content either. They provide a valuable service in hosting the actual app itself, and it makes sense that they charge 30% cut for the transaction of selling apps. As far as forcing in-app subscriptions for content that's hosted, delivered, QC'd elsewhere, they aren't providing any additional value to the developer. They are just being greedy. Do you think Apple is gonna be hosting Netflix content on the app store? They just want a cut out of their business just because they wanted their customers to be able to watch content on the phone in an App.
As for the other argument that someone made about MS Windows being an OS, and not an App Store, therefore the analogy is wrong. You should understand that the only legit way to get an App on the iPhone is through the App Store. So, the App Store is an integral part of the OS.
This isn't about Apple having them by the short and curlies. If it isn't a worthwhile partnership, they WILL try the competition when it becomes viable. And it will actually help the competition become viable.
Why do developers spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on apps that they KNOW do not follow the rules? It amazes me to read stories like this where a app developer is upset because his/her app was rejected.
The press release is exactly five days old. Until this press release, Apple had no objections against apps offering commercial services without IAP.
These app developers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars based on what was standard practice for more than two years, then bam a press release is issued and what was fine for two years is no longer fine.
But In-App-Purchases (IAP) are not served from Apple's servers, the only cost Apple has for this is the payment processing (and PayPal has shown that the costs for this are at most in the 3 to 5% range even for small sums).
If Apple wants to cover its cost for the free app, charge the app developer for the downloads of the apps.
I don't realize why so many people have so much trouble comprehending the simple fact that the App Store is not a fee for services system; it's a revenue sharing system. And the revenue sharing goes mostly to supporting the costs of operating the App Store. Developers trying to hide revenue so they don't have to share it according to the terms of the contract they signed with Apple are trying to avoid their share of these costs and stick other developers with them.
Why do developers spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on apps that they KNOW do not follow the rules? It amazes me to read stories like this where a app developer is upset because his/her app was rejected.
And I thought that Apple offers you to get subscriptions from outside the app store if you offer the same service from within.
Give the customer a choice and see what they choose.
Why? Because Apple keeps changing the rules and writes them so incredibly vague that you can't really know what they mean all the time. And because you have to write an app and then submit it according to the rules at that time, and only then find out if you violate the newest rules, it's a moving target. Who's to say that these developers didn't start writing their app months ago, before Apple changed the rules (again)? Or do you think these apps are written in a day?
As for subscriptions outside of the store, sure, but Apple forces them to sell them at the same price as Apple's 43% markup on the App Store requires (yes, that's 43%, it's how much more you pay for you subscription because of Apple's policy). If the price is artificially set to match the App Store, and the App Store is easier, then yes, the market will drive people to use the App Store.
If you want customer choice, as you say, then let the provider set the prices. Not Apple dictating them. If you have content that cost you $6 to create, and you want to make $1 profit, you want your revenue to be $7 for the content. But then the App Store price is $10. A 43% market-up for Apple doing almost nothing.
I say let Apple sell it for $10, and the content provider sell it for $7 (or maybe $8 to pay to process the transaction on the provider's web site), then see what the customer chooses. Would you be willing to go through a couple extra clicks on the provider's web site to avoid that 43% Apple tax? I bet a lot of people would. And then Apple can lower their percentage to find what it takes to sway customers. I'm thinking it would be around 10%, nowhere near 30%
SO much disinformation and confusion on this issue! Look, these guys are publishers. If they want to distribute, say, through Amazon, they'd be paying 60%. But they can publish through Apple for 30%. What's their beef?!
While I'm defending Apple, I've seen the analogy of Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes purchases on Windows a couple times, and it's beyond stupid. Microsoft doesn't host, advertise, or do quality control for iTunes. Apple does do all three for app developers. If Apple were charging people for downloading the iOS SDK, then it would be similar to Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes (though of note, Microsoft does actually charge for it's development software, whilst Xcode is free).
Apple hosts, advertises and does QA for the APPS, not for the subscription data. That comes from outside the walled garden and never touches an Apple server or passes before Apple eyes.
And it's the content that has value, not the app used to view it. Apple should be encouraging data coming to their devices not putting up walls that will make content creators and ultimately Apple hardware customers think twice.
The other option is to make their app a "reader" app where only those who already subscribe to the service can use it. By taking out the out-of-app purchasing option they will not be in conflict with the app store rules.
The rule 11.2 at its current form leaves too much for interpretition. It could mean that Apple will not approve a "reader" app with ANY kind of out-of-app subscription service.
Apple recently changed their policies, most likely the app was already in development for some time.
I don't think the policy changed at all, despite what the jilted developer said. They are just enforcing what was out there all along.
If these developers don't like it, they can take their business elsewhere. I don't see why they would, though. They can up the price to $6 and still get close to what they did when they were flaunting the rules.
Apple built the playground, and they can charge to play there. It's business, which has a a bit of greed in it, but this is not pure greed. They deserve to be compensated for putting together a system that can make people very wealthy and bring them a lot of customers overnight.
If a ton of big developers decided to jump ship, or a whole bunch of users decided that the only way they could subscribe to the content they need would be to jailbreak their iPhones, Apple might reduce the rate to 20% to prevent disaster, but I don't even think they will need to do that. Those things aren't happening! It's a tempest in a teapot at this point.
They will wait and see. The question is: What will Amazon do with their Kindle app between now and June?
Comments
And I thought that Apple offers you to get subscriptions from outside the app store if you offer the same service from within.
Give the customer a choice and see what they choose.
I don't see what all the hub-ub is about. This is THEIR phone, using THEIR App Store. They should reserve the right for business to be run on their terms. Why shouldn't they get a cut of developer's who make money off of the software they put on their device? It's the same way when royalites are paid to creators of films or television shows that are later remade, or when actors are paid for DVDs and such that are sold of their films.
This is nearly the equivalent as saying that Apple deserves 30% of all revenue from any ad on any web page that anybody views with Safari. After all, you say it's Apple's phone, and Safari is Apple's application. Therefore Apple is adding value to the web page ads by allowing people to view it on their iOS device. Is that really your stance?
And the argument that Apple is entitled to 30% because of the costs they have maintaining the App Store are pretty weak, too. Apple created the App Store, according to them, in order to ensure a high quality experience for iOS users. That was entirely Apple's choice, their doing. And in the case of subscriptions, Apple is nothing more than a transaction processor. You don't go through the iTunes storefront to order your apps. You do it in-app, via the programming the creator of the app created.
As others have said, the developers and publishers add value to iOS and enable Apple sell millions and millions of them based on the fact of all the applications which are available. Why is Apple not compensating those folks for adding value to the iOS eco system? The purpose of the App Store, according to Apple, is to ensure a good experience, which ads value to iOS and helps Apple sell more iOS devices. So again they benefit. Why do they need additional compensation?
Bottom line: the true purpose of the App Store has been revealed. It's not to secure iOS or ensure a good experience. It's to allow Apple to charge excessive fees for doing little to earn it. And guess what? YOU are the one paying the price in higher cost subscriptions.
And by the way, it's NOT Apple's phone. It's yours. Apple doesn't license the phone to you. It's yours. By your reasoning, Apple owns my Mac, too?
I don't see what all the hub-ub is about. This is THEIR phone, using THEIR App Store. They should reserve the right for business to be run on their terms. Why shouldn't they get a cut of developer's who make money off of the software they put on their device? It's the same way when royalites are paid to creators of films or television shows that are later remade, or when actors are paid for DVDs and such that are sold of their films.
True, it's Apple's product, their rules, and their business to make succeed or fail. It wouldn't be as much of and issue if Apple wasn't running competing services. When someone subscribes to something from Apple, Apple doesn't have to pay anyone else a 30% revenue, but they force their competition to do so (directly to Apple) effectively breaking the business model for others while keepin it intact for Apple. It's anti-competitive. Apple is entitled to no more than a reasonable bounty and operational cost recovery for bringing customers to the subscriber through their product. 30% of total revenue is way beyond reasonable.
They can do why they want, but it's going to repel developers, make their offering less attractive as developers go to other platforms and ultimately lose market share.
I for one will move on to Windows phone or Android if this doesn't change because it means services I want will no longer be available on iPhone (eg:Rhapsody.)
Apple is not treating these devs/services as partners, and that's their problem.
No one is arguing that Apple deserves a cut but 30% is just flat out ridiculous.
But Amazon's 70% is not?
I understood that 30% mainly covers the cost of the distribution and purchase. I disagree that an app should be able to be free on the store and then in some way charge the user for it's use outside of the Apple structure.
But In-App-Purchases (IAP) are not served from Apple's servers, the only cost Apple has for this is the payment processing (and PayPal has shown that the costs for this are at most in the 3 to 5% range even for small sums).
If Apple wants to cover its cost for the free app, charge the app developer for the downloads of the apps.
Why do developers spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on apps that they KNOW do not follow the rules?
Apple recently changed their policies, most likely the app was already in development for some time.
Don't like Apple's choices? Try the competition.
I don't care what margin apple decides it wants to charge.
BUT when it says suscriptions outside their ecosystem cannot be cheaper THAT is called price fixing. They are using their market share to bully developers and screw customers.
... As for this app, this seems to be another issue of a developer thinking they are too important to play by the rules Apple has created. ...
That's exactly what this is. This is no different than the people who make a big stink that Apple rejected their app because it was using private APIs. In both cases developers are looking to cheat on their developer agreement, then go whining to the public when the get rejected for cheating. What a great business plan, give the app away for free and generate all the revenue outside the App Store, that way they pay 0% of the costs and get 100% of the revenue. (Yes, I know they say their plan is to share it with the content creators.) I mean, they're "unique", after all. And people wonder why Apple feels it's necessary to crack down on this loophole when everyone is looking for ways to hide their revenue.
But Amazon's 70% is not?
For an ebook, Amazon's cut is 30%, the publisher receives 70%
While I'm defending Apple, I've seen the analogy of Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes purchases on Windows a couple times, and it's beyond stupid. Microsoft doesn't host, advertise, or do quality control for iTunes. Apple does do all three for app developers. If Apple were charging people for downloading the iOS SDK, then it would be similar to Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes (though of note, Microsoft does actually charge for it's development software, whilst Xcode is free).
Apple doesn't host, QC, or advertise for subscription content either. They provide a valuable service in hosting the actual app itself, and it makes sense that they charge 30% cut for the transaction of selling apps. As far as forcing in-app subscriptions for content that's hosted, delivered, QC'd elsewhere, they aren't providing any additional value to the developer. They are just being greedy. Do you think Apple is gonna be hosting Netflix content on the app store? They just want a cut out of their business just because they wanted their customers to be able to watch content on the phone in an App.
As for the other argument that someone made about MS Windows being an OS, and not an App Store, therefore the analogy is wrong. You should understand that the only legit way to get an App on the iPhone is through the App Store. So, the App Store is an integral part of the OS.
Don't like Apple's choices? Try the competition.
I'm glad you are not in charge.
This isn't about Apple having them by the short and curlies. If it isn't a worthwhile partnership, they WILL try the competition when it becomes viable. And it will actually help the competition become viable.
For an ebook, Amazon's cut is 30%, the publisher receives 70%
Plus, Amazon hosts the content for those publishers. Apple doesn't in this case besides the initial app.
Why do developers spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on apps that they KNOW do not follow the rules? It amazes me to read stories like this where a app developer is upset because his/her app was rejected.
The press release is exactly five days old. Until this press release, Apple had no objections against apps offering commercial services without IAP.
These app developers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars based on what was standard practice for more than two years, then bam a press release is issued and what was fine for two years is no longer fine.
But In-App-Purchases (IAP) are not served from Apple's servers, the only cost Apple has for this is the payment processing (and PayPal has shown that the costs for this are at most in the 3 to 5% range even for small sums).
If Apple wants to cover its cost for the free app, charge the app developer for the downloads of the apps.
I don't realize why so many people have so much trouble comprehending the simple fact that the App Store is not a fee for services system; it's a revenue sharing system. And the revenue sharing goes mostly to supporting the costs of operating the App Store. Developers trying to hide revenue so they don't have to share it according to the terms of the contract they signed with Apple are trying to avoid their share of these costs and stick other developers with them.
Why do developers spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on apps that they KNOW do not follow the rules? It amazes me to read stories like this where a app developer is upset because his/her app was rejected.
And I thought that Apple offers you to get subscriptions from outside the app store if you offer the same service from within.
Give the customer a choice and see what they choose.
Why? Because Apple keeps changing the rules and writes them so incredibly vague that you can't really know what they mean all the time. And because you have to write an app and then submit it according to the rules at that time, and only then find out if you violate the newest rules, it's a moving target. Who's to say that these developers didn't start writing their app months ago, before Apple changed the rules (again)? Or do you think these apps are written in a day?
As for subscriptions outside of the store, sure, but Apple forces them to sell them at the same price as Apple's 43% markup on the App Store requires (yes, that's 43%, it's how much more you pay for you subscription because of Apple's policy). If the price is artificially set to match the App Store, and the App Store is easier, then yes, the market will drive people to use the App Store.
If you want customer choice, as you say, then let the provider set the prices. Not Apple dictating them. If you have content that cost you $6 to create, and you want to make $1 profit, you want your revenue to be $7 for the content. But then the App Store price is $10. A 43% market-up for Apple doing almost nothing.
I say let Apple sell it for $10, and the content provider sell it for $7 (or maybe $8 to pay to process the transaction on the provider's web site), then see what the customer chooses. Would you be willing to go through a couple extra clicks on the provider's web site to avoid that 43% Apple tax? I bet a lot of people would. And then Apple can lower their percentage to find what it takes to sway customers. I'm thinking it would be around 10%, nowhere near 30%
THAT is customer choice.
While I'm defending Apple, I've seen the analogy of Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes purchases on Windows a couple times, and it's beyond stupid. Microsoft doesn't host, advertise, or do quality control for iTunes. Apple does do all three for app developers. If Apple were charging people for downloading the iOS SDK, then it would be similar to Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes (though of note, Microsoft does actually charge for it's development software, whilst Xcode is free).
Apple hosts, advertises and does QA for the APPS, not for the subscription data. That comes from outside the walled garden and never touches an Apple server or passes before Apple eyes.
And it's the content that has value, not the app used to view it. Apple should be encouraging data coming to their devices not putting up walls that will make content creators and ultimately Apple hardware customers think twice.
The other option is to make their app a "reader" app where only those who already subscribe to the service can use it. By taking out the out-of-app purchasing option they will not be in conflict with the app store rules.
The rule 11.2 at its current form leaves too much for interpretition. It could mean that Apple will not approve a "reader" app with ANY kind of out-of-app subscription service.
Apple recently changed their policies, most likely the app was already in development for some time.
I don't think the policy changed at all, despite what the jilted developer said. They are just enforcing what was out there all along.
If these developers don't like it, they can take their business elsewhere. I don't see why they would, though. They can up the price to $6 and still get close to what they did when they were flaunting the rules.
Apple built the playground, and they can charge to play there. It's business, which has a a bit of greed in it, but this is not pure greed. They deserve to be compensated for putting together a system that can make people very wealthy and bring them a lot of customers overnight.
If a ton of big developers decided to jump ship, or a whole bunch of users decided that the only way they could subscribe to the content they need would be to jailbreak their iPhones, Apple might reduce the rate to 20% to prevent disaster, but I don't even think they will need to do that. Those things aren't happening! It's a tempest in a teapot at this point.
They will wait and see. The question is: What will Amazon do with their Kindle app between now and June?
For an ebook, Amazon's cut is 30%, the publisher receives 70%
Yeah? So that means Apple's price is comparable to Amazon's. Hmm. Don't hear a lot of howls of outrage regarding Amazon....