... Their new subscription policies are the equivalent of Microsoft charging Apple a 30% fee every time Apple sold a song through iTunes for Windows, simply because Apple is using Microsoft's platform...
And for my next phone, I will be looking at Android.
That's rather ridiculous, you can currently buy anything you'd like using Apples OS platform without a cent going to Apple, on the web that is.
Not saying that 30% is the right or wrong percentage, but charging for something on a purchase via iTunes is a different proposition. You don't seem to understand retailing, online or otherwise. An art gallery gets 50% of every sale, Amazon gets 70% of publications subs, etc. 30% as a flat rate is pretty reasonable in comparison.
As for Android users, they are notorious for not wanting to spend a dime on anything ... watch developers as they flock to cater to that crowd ...
i haven't read every last post here, but it seems there's quite a debate about whether apple is justified in keeping 30% of every sale through their store. i think they are, but let me step away from that debate, and look at readability's position for a moment.
do you use readability? i do. you go to a web page - say, the new york times, or appleinsider - and click on readability in the browser. their technology reformats that web page (someone else's content and design, none of it created or owned by readability) to make it more "readable" by stripping out all of the extraneous bits... like advertising. that's right - using readability deprives other publishers of their key source of revenue: ad clicks and eyeballs.
now readability is outraged because apple has some conflicts with their underlying technology and objections to the way readability generates revenue? seems like karmic payback to me.
... So in the next couple of years are we going to see Apple restricting Netflix, Rhapsody, Pandora, NYT, etc from access to OS X as well...unless they pay 30% to Apple. When that happens...I am going back to Windows.
'Restricting access to OX X as well ...' ?
What are you talking about, this appears nonsensical as are your fears.
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.
Well, the question here is not whether they have the right or not to do it, but whether it is smart of them to do it
Deserves? Wow. Well maybe they "deserve" to go to another competitor or switch to another business model wholly using web apps, thereby bypassing Apple completely.
Read my previous comment. I sincerely hope they do that.
Readability iOS App Rejected for Violating New Subscription Content Guidelines ★
Richard Ziade of Readability, in an ?Open Letter to Apple? regarding their app?s rejectiong:
We?re obviously disappointed by this decision, and surprised by the broad language. By including ?functionality, or services,? it?s clear that you intend to pursue any subscription-based apps, not merely those of services serving up content. Readability?s model is unique in that 70% of our service fees go directly to writers and publishers. If we implemented In App purchasing, your 30% cut drastically undermines a key premise of how Readability works.
I can see how many people, including content providers like Readability, wish that Apple had not instituted these new rules. But, given these rules, how can anyone be surprised by this rejection? Readability?s business model is to charge a subscription fee, keep 30 percent, and pass 70 percent along to the writers/publishers of the articles being read by Readability users. Sound familiar?
Maybe I?m missing something, but these guys claiming to be surprised and disappointed by Apple?s insistence on a 30 percent cut of subscriptions when their own business model is to take a 30 percent cut of subscriptions strikes me as rich. And how can they claim that Readability isn?t ?serving up content?? That?s exactly what Readability does. What they?re pissed about is that Apple has the stronger hand. Readability needs Apple to publish an app in the App Store. Apple doesn?t need Readability.
It's entertaining to see comments in other forums condeming Apple for being greedy-bottom-line-centic and other such nonsense.... As if the app developers or google or anyone for that matter are aiming to provide communitty service????
Every company will try to use their leverage to help their bottom line....when did things get so goofy with this "higher moral ground" crap?
Dunno if it will hurt them or help them. They have reversed policies that don't work in the past so they may do the same
Readability iOS App Rejected for Violating New Subscription Content Guidelines ★
Richard Ziade of Readability, in an ?Open Letter to Apple? regarding their app?s rejectiong:
We?re obviously disappointed by this decision, and surprised by the broad language. By including ?functionality, or services,? it?s clear that you intend to pursue any subscription-based apps, not merely those of services serving up content. Readability?s model is unique in that 70% of our service fees go directly to writers and publishers. If we implemented In App purchasing, your 30% cut drastically undermines a key premise of how Readability works.
I can see how many people, including content providers like Readability, wish that Apple had not instituted these new rules. But, given these rules, how can anyone be surprised by this rejection? Readability?s business model is to charge a subscription fee, keep 30 percent, and pass 70 percent along to the writers/publishers of the articles being read by Readability users. Sound familiar?
Maybe I?m missing something, but these guys claiming to be surprised and disappointed by Apple?s insistence on a 30 percent cut of subscriptions when their own business model is to take a 30 percent cut of subscriptions strikes me as rich. And how can they claim that Readability isn?t ?serving up content?? That?s exactly what Readability does. What they?re pissed about is that Apple has the stronger hand. Readability needs Apple to publish an app in the App Store. Apple doesn?t need Readability.
---------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
Deserves? Wow. Well maybe they "deserve" to go to another competitor or switch to another business model wholly using web apps, thereby bypassing Apple completely.
They'd also be bypassing Apple's ecosystem. Not a good idea when you're interested in mindshare, money, and appealing to the most well-heeled segment of the market. No one wants to be left off the iPad.
They'd also be bypassing Apple's ecosystem. Not a good idea when you're interested in mindshare, money, and appealing to the most well-heeled segment of the market. No one wants to be left off the iPad.
These argument comes up often. But doesn't hold water for every case. Do you really think Kindle and Netflix need the iOS ecosystem? Do you think they've gained significant (this being the key word...before you go arguing) visibility and mindshare that they didn't have before? And who do you think really benefits from their presence in the ecosystem? I'd argue that Apple benefits as much (if not more) from some of these developers. Think about what iPhone or iPad commercials would be like without apps from third party devs.
This is the first of what could be additional steps for Apple to bring manageability to the App Store. There are hundreds of thousand of apps in the store. First thing is to establish that all rules and regs are adhered to by everyone. There is a tremendous amount of deadwood and freeloaders. They are Apple's first targets.
If this App Store is going to work efficiently and be a better experience than it is now, Apple must have the ability to reduce the number of Apps. There are other shoes going to drop.
Amazon has a free Kindle App in the store right now. It isn't in Apple's best interest to carry that into the future. That's only one example. If Amazon wants to be in Apple's store they could offer Apple's products for sale on Amazon for no cut to Amazon. That's the way business works. It's not likely. What is possible is for Amazon to make a private deal that is acceptable to Apple. Both of their apps remain in the store, Apple is satisfied and so is Amazon. This whole thing can be solved rather easily. Amazon just has to go to Apple directly.
I have both am Amazon and Kindle App on my touch. The maintenance of those Apps in the store costs Apple. It isn't fair to the other smaller devs that are generating income for the maintenance of the store to have a freeloader the size of Amazon right next to their App.
Should Apple subsidize Amazon's business model for free and make the little guys pay? On the face of it is being unfair to the smaller guys who are generating income for the maintenance of the store.
If Readability would go to Cydia that would certainly frost Apple's a**. I really wish some developers who get rejected by Apple would do this. Apple is certainly a superb company and Steve Jobs is a genius. But they're getting a little too greedy. I also object to the dictates of Jobs as to what I'm allowed to view on my Apple device. So far, the superiority of Apple products has outweighed the negatives. But more and more, I see that changing. The more crap Apple pulls like this, the more opportunity competitors have to produce a product that gives people and developers more freedom of choice. Android is overtaking iPhone - even though I still feel the iPhone is superior. It just shows that Apple has competition and they could lose if they don't stay on top of their game. They need to stop and think about their pissing off customers and developers.
Apple may be able to run iOS perfectly on top of OSX so Apple can offer a curated experience with great power. Not saying it's going to happen, but it's possible. A perfect solution for business to totally control what their computers do.
NO. Apple is not ENTITLED to 30%. Apple is requiring 30%. Again Apple is NOT ENTITLED to 30%. How do you come to the conclusion?
You apparently didn't read the memo that the App Store is a revenue sharing based system. You agree to share 30% of the revenue from your app with them as part of the terms of the developer agreement. They are therefore entitled to it.
The app is free and is for people who already have a subscription to a service. IF the app doesnt link to the website to subscribe I dont see why it must sell the in-app subscription...
The app rely on ITS OWN subscribers that it got by ITSELF on there website. This is suppose to be allowed.
SJ should may be a genius regarding hardware, but I think he should let someone else handle anything regarding itunes and content providers negociations.
These argument comes up often. But doesn't hold water for every case. Do you really think Kindle and Netflix need the iOS ecosystem? Do you think they've gained significant (this being the key word...before you go arguing) visibility and mindshare that they didn't have before? And who do you think really benefits from their presence in the ecosystem? I'd argue that Apple benefits as much (if not more) from some of these developers. Think about what iPhone or iPad commercials would be like without apps from third party devs.
Apple gear would still sell. Because it's Apple's design and UI tech. That kind of sex appeal is hard to get around.
Comments
... Their new subscription policies are the equivalent of Microsoft charging Apple a 30% fee every time Apple sold a song through iTunes for Windows, simply because Apple is using Microsoft's platform...
And for my next phone, I will be looking at Android.
That's rather ridiculous, you can currently buy anything you'd like using Apples OS platform without a cent going to Apple, on the web that is.
Not saying that 30% is the right or wrong percentage, but charging for something on a purchase via iTunes is a different proposition. You don't seem to understand retailing, online or otherwise. An art gallery gets 50% of every sale, Amazon gets 70% of publications subs, etc. 30% as a flat rate is pretty reasonable in comparison.
As for Android users, they are notorious for not wanting to spend a dime on anything ... watch developers as they flock to cater to that crowd ...
do you use readability? i do. you go to a web page - say, the new york times, or appleinsider - and click on readability in the browser. their technology reformats that web page (someone else's content and design, none of it created or owned by readability) to make it more "readable" by stripping out all of the extraneous bits... like advertising. that's right - using readability deprives other publishers of their key source of revenue: ad clicks and eyeballs.
now readability is outraged because apple has some conflicts with their underlying technology and objections to the way readability generates revenue? seems like karmic payback to me.
... So in the next couple of years are we going to see Apple restricting Netflix, Rhapsody, Pandora, NYT, etc from access to OS X as well...unless they pay 30% to Apple. When that happens...I am going back to Windows.
'Restricting access to OX X as well ...' ?
What are you talking about, this appears nonsensical as are your fears.
But Amazon's 70% is not?
Wrong! The Agency Model splits books sales 70% publisher 30% Amazon.
Another app rejection that is made to seem important when it isn't.
Sort of like you???
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.
Well, the question here is not whether they have the right or not to do it, but whether it is smart of them to do it
Deserves? Wow. Well maybe they "deserve" to go to another competitor or switch to another business model wholly using web apps, thereby bypassing Apple completely.
Read my previous comment. I sincerely hope they do that.
Sort of like you???
No more than you pal, or anyone else on these boards.
Anyway, I think John Gruber of Daring Fireball makes a good point:
-----------------------------------------------
http://daringfireball.net/
Readability iOS App Rejected for Violating New Subscription Content Guidelines ★
Richard Ziade of Readability, in an ?Open Letter to Apple? regarding their app?s rejectiong:
We?re obviously disappointed by this decision, and surprised by the broad language. By including ?functionality, or services,? it?s clear that you intend to pursue any subscription-based apps, not merely those of services serving up content. Readability?s model is unique in that 70% of our service fees go directly to writers and publishers. If we implemented In App purchasing, your 30% cut drastically undermines a key premise of how Readability works.
I can see how many people, including content providers like Readability, wish that Apple had not instituted these new rules. But, given these rules, how can anyone be surprised by this rejection? Readability?s business model is to charge a subscription fee, keep 30 percent, and pass 70 percent along to the writers/publishers of the articles being read by Readability users. Sound familiar?
Maybe I?m missing something, but these guys claiming to be surprised and disappointed by Apple?s insistence on a 30 percent cut of subscriptions when their own business model is to take a 30 percent cut of subscriptions strikes me as rich. And how can they claim that Readability isn?t ?serving up content?? That?s exactly what Readability does. What they?re pissed about is that Apple has the stronger hand. Readability needs Apple to publish an app in the App Store. Apple doesn?t need Readability.
---------------------------------------------
Wrong. You don't own the patents on it. They do. So go pedal YOUR KoolAid somewhere else!
Have you posted ANYTHING on this thread that wasn't immediately repudiated?
And, the word you're thinking of is "peddle."
Every company will try to use their leverage to help their bottom line....when did things get so goofy with this "higher moral ground" crap?
Dunno if it will hurt them or help them. They have reversed policies that don't work in the past so they may do the same
Sort of like you???
No more than you pal, or anyone else on these boards.
Anyway, I think John Gruber of Daring Fireball makes a good point:
-----------------------------------------------
http://daringfireball.net/
Readability iOS App Rejected for Violating New Subscription Content Guidelines ★
Richard Ziade of Readability, in an ?Open Letter to Apple? regarding their app?s rejectiong:
We?re obviously disappointed by this decision, and surprised by the broad language. By including ?functionality, or services,? it?s clear that you intend to pursue any subscription-based apps, not merely those of services serving up content. Readability?s model is unique in that 70% of our service fees go directly to writers and publishers. If we implemented In App purchasing, your 30% cut drastically undermines a key premise of how Readability works.
I can see how many people, including content providers like Readability, wish that Apple had not instituted these new rules. But, given these rules, how can anyone be surprised by this rejection? Readability?s business model is to charge a subscription fee, keep 30 percent, and pass 70 percent along to the writers/publishers of the articles being read by Readability users. Sound familiar?
Maybe I?m missing something, but these guys claiming to be surprised and disappointed by Apple?s insistence on a 30 percent cut of subscriptions when their own business model is to take a 30 percent cut of subscriptions strikes me as rich. And how can they claim that Readability isn?t ?serving up content?? That?s exactly what Readability does. What they?re pissed about is that Apple has the stronger hand. Readability needs Apple to publish an app in the App Store. Apple doesn?t need Readability.
---------------------------------------------
Deserves? Wow. Well maybe they "deserve" to go to another competitor or switch to another business model wholly using web apps, thereby bypassing Apple completely.
They'd also be bypassing Apple's ecosystem. Not a good idea when you're interested in mindshare, money, and appealing to the most well-heeled segment of the market. No one wants to be left off the iPad.
No more than you pal, or anyone else on these boards.
---------------------------------------------
I'm not your pal, sycophant.
They'd also be bypassing Apple's ecosystem. Not a good idea when you're interested in mindshare, money, and appealing to the most well-heeled segment of the market. No one wants to be left off the iPad.
These argument comes up often. But doesn't hold water for every case. Do you really think Kindle and Netflix need the iOS ecosystem? Do you think they've gained significant (this being the key word...before you go arguing) visibility and mindshare that they didn't have before? And who do you think really benefits from their presence in the ecosystem? I'd argue that Apple benefits as much (if not more) from some of these developers. Think about what iPhone or iPad commercials would be like without apps from third party devs.
If this App Store is going to work efficiently and be a better experience than it is now, Apple must have the ability to reduce the number of Apps. There are other shoes going to drop.
Amazon has a free Kindle App in the store right now. It isn't in Apple's best interest to carry that into the future. That's only one example. If Amazon wants to be in Apple's store they could offer Apple's products for sale on Amazon for no cut to Amazon. That's the way business works. It's not likely. What is possible is for Amazon to make a private deal that is acceptable to Apple. Both of their apps remain in the store, Apple is satisfied and so is Amazon. This whole thing can be solved rather easily. Amazon just has to go to Apple directly.
I have both am Amazon and Kindle App on my touch. The maintenance of those Apps in the store costs Apple. It isn't fair to the other smaller devs that are generating income for the maintenance of the store to have a freeloader the size of Amazon right next to their App.
Should Apple subsidize Amazon's business model for free and make the little guys pay? On the face of it is being unfair to the smaller guys who are generating income for the maintenance of the store.
NO. Apple is not ENTITLED to 30%. Apple is requiring 30%. Again Apple is NOT ENTITLED to 30%. How do you come to the conclusion?
You apparently didn't read the memo that the App Store is a revenue sharing based system. You agree to share 30% of the revenue from your app with them as part of the terms of the developer agreement. They are therefore entitled to it.
The app is free and is for people who already have a subscription to a service. IF the app doesnt link to the website to subscribe I dont see why it must sell the in-app subscription...
The app rely on ITS OWN subscribers that it got by ITSELF on there website. This is suppose to be allowed.
SJ should may be a genius regarding hardware, but I think he should let someone else handle anything regarding itunes and content providers negociations.
These argument comes up often. But doesn't hold water for every case. Do you really think Kindle and Netflix need the iOS ecosystem? Do you think they've gained significant (this being the key word...before you go arguing) visibility and mindshare that they didn't have before? And who do you think really benefits from their presence in the ecosystem? I'd argue that Apple benefits as much (if not more) from some of these developers. Think about what iPhone or iPad commercials would be like without apps from third party devs.
Apple gear would still sell. Because it's Apple's design and UI tech. That kind of sex appeal is hard to get around.
I'm not your pal, sycophant.
I might certainly be a sycophant. But I'm an APPLE sycophant on an APPLE FANSITE.
It makes sense.
So what are YOU doing here?
http://forums.appleinsider.com/searc...earchid=385717
32 posts of trolling and nothing but anti-Apple sentiment on an Apple fansite.
Someone has issues.