They can choose to agree or not to agree. If they agree, it's mutual.
That's aactually why the concept of dominant position was defined by law makers. It means you're big enough that you cannot not agree, but it's still not mutual consent. And courts can strike down such clauses because of that concept.
Anyway, Apple is going to solve that issue one way or another, have confidence in them...
Wrong. You don't own the patents on it. They do. So go pedal YOUR KoolAid somewhere else!
I don't own the patents: I can't make more of them. I still paid for the hardware. I guess you just have some Motorola crap, or you'd know just how expensive the iPhone is. I do.
That's aactually why the concept of dominant position was defined by law makers. It means you're big enough that you cannot not agree, but it's still not mutual consent. And courts can strike down such clauses because of that concept.
Anyway, Apple is going to solve that issue one way or another, have confidence in them...
Have to agree this will work itself out. Of couse not everyone will be happy,however lets see what the final outcome is.
I need some clarification on the nuances of Apple's subscription model.
Apple states that they don't take a cut from customers the Magazine generate on their own. I.e. Not through iOS. So Mag A has a current subscriber that's delighted to be able to read on an iPad. The subscription is up for renewal and is done through the iPad. Does Apple get 30%?
If it's more like Apple gets 30% on NEW customers only then I think this issue will blow over really quick. Otherwise it'll be interesting to see what competitors come up with to deal with this. Galaxy Tab 2 anyone?
Wrong. You don't own the patents on it. They do. So go pedal YOUR KoolAid somewhere else!
Your logic is pretty twisted. Patents have nothing to do with physical ownership. Parts of the iMac are patented. Does that mean I do not own it and that I do not have the right to decide what applications to install on it? No it doesn't. Parts of cars are patented. Does that mean I do not own my own car and that I do not have the right to decide what gas to use with it? No it doesn't.
The fact of the matter is that Apple does not own my iPhone and that they are not in a position where they can claim it is reasonable that I should pay a 43% Apple Sales Tax on every content purchase I make with my iPhone. They are basically abusing their dominant position as owners of the App Store infrastructure to impose unfair terms on competing distributors of content. This is no different from how Microsoft used their dominant position as developers of Windows to make their Office product run more efficiently than competing software from third party developers. In fact it's worse.
" Subscriptions purchased from within the App Store will be sold using the same App Store billing system that has been used to buy billions of apps and In-App Purchases. Publishers set the price and length of subscription (weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, bi-yearly or yearly). Then with one-click, customers pick the length of subscription and are automatically charged based on their chosen length of commitment (weekly, monthly, etc.). Customers can review and manage all of their subscriptions from their personal account page, including canceling the automatic renewal of a subscription. Apple processes all payments, keeping the same 30 percent share that it does today for other In-App Purchases.
“Our philosophy is simple—when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app. We believe that this innovative subscription service will provide publishers with a brand new opportunity to expand digital access to their content onto the iPad, iPod touch and iPhone, delighting both new and existing subscribers.”
Publishers who use Apple’s subscription service in their app can also leverage other methods for acquiring digital subscribers outside of the app. For example, 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. Publishers must provide their own authentication process inside the app for subscribers that have signed up outside of the app. However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the App Store. "
Based on my reading of this -
A) as long as Apple processes the payment they get 30%.
as long as you offer subscription you MUST offer it in-app as well. So reader/streaming only apps will get rejected if it's tied to a paid subscription.
My reaction to the above 2 points -
A) so existing customers that choose to renew in-app Apple gets 30%? wait they're my customers, you should be getting nothing. And how does a magazine bring new subscribers to the App? If someone goes to the App Store, downloads the app and buys a subscription Apple will say it's their customer, even if the person went there at the urging of the magazine. Muddy.
anti-trust. Should be allowed to offer a reader/streaming only app as long as it does not try to sell to the customer by redirecting in the app to an outside store.
My 2 cents. Any other interpretations of Apple's press release?
32 posts of trolling and nothing but anti-Apple sentiment on an Apple fansite.
Someone has issues.
Did it occur to you that some people might be generally happy with their Apple products and prefer to only raise their voice in a public forum when the company they know and appreciate does something they consider to be wrong? If we're talking about who has issues I'd say that some bozo, who has a post count of 4,000 on an Apple fanboard would be the one.
To me, the irony of a lot of this is that there is very little content that is available in the form of a native app that is any better than what's available through the web. Actually, in many cases, the app-version of content is *worse* than the website (the NY Times perhaps being the most dramatic example that I can think of).
If I were a content person, I think I'd just make an html5 web app that installs on people's home screens. From the user's perspective, that's pretty similar to a native app, and if all you're doing is looking at text, graphics, and video, why do you need a native app to begin with? Those things work just fine through html5 and can have interactive components.
The app store is a great distribution channel.
However, I fully agree. HTML 5 ftw. Readability is storing contents for later offline use if I understand this correctly. Not sure how that would work in Safari. Perhaps if the server parced a custom PDF or an ePub for download and use in iBooks instead.
This policy... What's next? Apple charging 30% on eBay purchases?
I need some clarification on the nuances of Apple's subscription model.
Apple states that they don't take a cut from customers the Magazine generate on their own. I.e. Not through iOS. So Mag A has a current subscriber that's delighted to be able to read on an iPad. The subscription is up for renewal and is done through the iPad. Does Apple get 30%?
If it's more like Apple gets 30% on NEW customers only then I think this issue will blow over really quick. Otherwise it'll be interesting to see what competitors come up with to deal with this. Galaxy Tab 2 anyone?
In your above example where a customer renews a subscription through the iPad app, Apple takes 30%. It doesn't matter to Apple whether the customer was a previous subscriber or not. All that matters is that a transaction took place through the in-app purchase mechanism. Thus Apple gets its 30%. Oh and in-app subscriptions are set to automatically renew so Apple basically gets 30% of all future revenue unless the customer decides to cancel.
Leaving iOS is not an appealing move for any company now. NBC left iTunes only to come crawling back a year later. But they acted alone. If a large group of content providers decided they weren't going to bend over, Apple could find themselves with a real problem.
What good is having the nicest looking, easiest to use OS if you don't have any popular mainstream content available? Would people still buy iPhones if most of what they use them for today was no longer possible? Of course not. This is a game of chicken that Apple thinks they will win.
Actually, it's more like, developers who were naive enough to agree to the App Store's revenue sharing and thought Apple would be fine with them giving away shell apps and then generating large amounts of revenue by selling the app content out the back door are getting exactly what should be expected. Maybe they thought Apple wasn't serious about the 30%? Maybe they thought no one would realize that they were stealing large amounts of cash out of the revenue streams that fund the App Store? Maybe they thought the small honest developers wouldn't mind subsidizing Amazon's eBook sales?
It is a partnership, and one in which many honest developers have done, and will continue to do, very well out of. But one of the important aspects of a partnership is that you not try to steal money from your partners.
The guys we're talking about here have developed an entire business model built on stealing from anyone they can. They were certainly naive to think that Apple would not only be a party to the theft, but that they'd be happy to have the Readability crew steal from them as well.
Very well said ... if only everyone could understand the situation as well as you, the post count would fit on one page.
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:
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?
He is a ridiculous apologist - they are surprised because the changing of policy took place a week ago and they probably had already written their app before that, when it was legal.
[/quote]
The question is, is this kind of thing just stupidity, or generally just deliberate misleading of readers, is it self delusion, or delusion?
Quote:
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.
---------------------------------------------
More rubbish. The readability are giving a 70% margin to publishers they publish, who would otherwise not be published. Since authors have zero marginal cost that is all revenue. For Readability, the marginal costs per sale are the sunk development costs, server costs, wages, and the 70% take for authors of the sticker sale. So their margins are <30% per sale of the sticker price. Apple takes 30% ( for nothing) and they have no business model.
Note that Apple once featured this app - so within Apple there are people who understand that apps promote the platform. Daring Fireball does not.
Actually, it's more like, developers who were naive enough to agree to the App Store's revenue sharing
You mean the rules that changed just recently?
Quote:
and thought Apple would be fine with them giving away shell apps and then generating large amounts of revenue by selling the app content out the back door are getting exactly what should be expected.
Except nobody is stealing anything from Apple. Apple has 0% claim on any service which can deliver it's own content. And apps that deliver content are not shell apps, you halftard, the whole point of these apps is to sell content, or allow people to read previously bought content. Thats a valuable service. You are basically calling Netflix, Amazon, Sony E-reader, any app which vends content a shell - to the sane these are the most useful apps out there.
Quote:
Maybe they thought Apple wasn't serious about the 30%? Maybe they thought no one would realize that they were stealing large amounts of cash out of the revenue streams that fund the App Store? Maybe they thought the small honest developers wouldn't mind subsidizing Amazon's eBook sales?
LOL. ROFL. FFS. Stealing my arse- what a fanatic. Amazon buys the rights to books, agrees to prices, develops an app and handles it's own content buying and hosting system. Apple makes a profit on the App Store anyway, and "small" honest developers are not getting penalised.
What an utter DEAR LEADER drone. You are apparently arguing that by selling e-books on the iPad Amazon is somehow stealing revenue from small developers. This, despite the fact that small developers are also getting raped by Apple - the very subject of this thread.
Quote:
It is a partnership, and one in which many honest developers have done, and will continue to do, very well out of. But one of the important aspects of a partnership is that you not try to steal money from your partners.
Apple should stop trying to steal Readability's revenue then.
Quote:
The guys we're talking about here have developed an entire business model built on stealing from anyone they can. They were certainly naive to think that Apple would not only be a party to the theft, but that they'd be happy to have the Readability crew steal from them as well.
What an unbelieveable fanatic. Readability and Amazon are "stealing" by buying content, storing it, serving it and giving 70% revenues back to authors. Apple, providing none of this, are not "stealing" by taking 100% of their margins.
Look, Annonymouse is a clown. However the vast majority of future Apple buyers are not fanatics, and if Kindle goes, they will move elsewhere. As the one Android fan who posted here said - he was hoping that would happen. As someone who isnt a fan of Android, I hope it doesn't. If it does we all will become fans of Android.
" Subscriptions purchased from within the App Store will be sold using the same App Store billing system that has been used to buy billions of apps and In-App Purchases. Publishers set the price and length of subscription (weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, bi-yearly or yearly). Then with one-click, customers pick the length of subscription and are automatically charged based on their chosen length of commitment (weekly, monthly, etc.). Customers can review and manage all of their subscriptions from their personal account page, including canceling the automatic renewal of a subscription. Apple processes all payments, keeping the same 30 percent share that it does today for other In-App Purchases.
?Our philosophy is simple?when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing,? said Steve Jobs, Apple?s CEO. ?All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app. We believe that this innovative subscription service will provide publishers with a brand new opportunity to expand digital access to their content onto the iPad, iPod touch and iPhone, delighting both new and existing subscribers.?
Publishers who use Apple?s subscription service in their app can also leverage other methods for acquiring digital subscribers outside of the app. For example, 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. Publishers must provide their own authentication process inside the app for subscribers that have signed up outside of the app. However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the App Store. "
Based on my reading of this -
A) as long as Apple processes the payment they get 30%.
as long as you offer subscription you MUST offer it in-app as well. So reader/streaming only apps will get rejected if it's tied to a paid subscription.
My reaction to the above 2 points -
A) so existing customers that choose to renew in-app Apple gets 30%? wait they're my customers, you should be getting nothing. And how does a magazine bring new subscribers to the App? If someone goes to the App Store, downloads the app and buys a subscription Apple will say it's their customer, even if the person went there at the urging of the magazine. Muddy.
anti-trust. Should be allowed to offer a reader/streaming only app as long as it does not try to sell to the customer by redirecting in the app to an outside store.
My 2 cents. Any other interpretations of Apple's press release?
I subscribed to The Times before downloading the Free app. Once the app was installed I logged in using my pre-existing subscription and subsequently renewed my subscription via an in-app purchase. I don't believe Apple earns anything from this transaction.
My view is simply that Apple has invested billions of its dollars innovating and building a platform used by millions of potential customers of developers and content providers. Apple's distribution is huge and the cost to obtain access to that distribution is 30% of the revenues.
I also understand my personal details held by Apple are not shared with third parties. I really appreciate that feature of my commercial relationship with Apple.
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.
What nonsense the "freeloader" crap is. Apple have the costs of distributing Amazon's original app as it forces those costs on Amazon, because the iPad is curated.
Since free apps dont need DRM Amazon could, were it allowed, just have a "DownLoad App" link on their website when you visit in Safari. That link doesnt have to direct to the app store, the download could work via Amazon's servers, as could everything else. It would mean a change to the iPad security, but so what?
That would be like Mac OS X. People who want to use their own distribution model can use it, and Apple can help smaller devs. Amazon, dont need Apple anywhere in the loop.
For an ebook, Amazon's cut is 30%, the publisher receives 70%
A year ago...before iBook and the iPad it was a 70% cut.
Amazon put limits on what gets a 30% cut.
Book?s list price must fall between $2.99 and $9.99 and be at least 20 percent below the lowest price of the physical edition of the book
The Amazon price must be the same or less than at competing ebook sellers
The ebook version must be offered everywhere the author or publisher has intellectual property rights
That second term looks familiar...I wonder where I've seen that before...odd that no one bitching about that requirement a year ago...
And WOW...look...Amazon terms limits the lowest price of physical editions of a book too! That seems familiar somehow too...
Frankly, all the "anti-competitive" moves Apple is making is a pale shadow of the crap Amazon was pulling a year ago and even still does today. That Amazon is taking one in the shorts doesn't bother me one bit despite being an ebook fan.
I feel mildly bad about the collateral damage to other devs but closing the "free app w/paid subscription" loophole is being applied fairly across the board. It would be more unfair for Apple to pick on just Amazon...just like it would have been unfair for Apple to pick on just Adobe.
... Except nobody is stealing anything from Apple. Apple has 0% claim on any service which can deliver it's own content. And apps that deliver content are not shell apps, you halftard, the whole point of these apps is to sell content, or allow people to read previously bought content. Thats a valuable service. You are basically calling Netflix, Amazon, Sony E-reader, any app which vends content a shell - to the sane these are the most useful apps out there. ...
Yes, all of the apps you mention are shell apps. Free apps that on their own offer no useful functionality and require the purchase of in-app content to be useful. Apple's "claim" is the contract those companies signed agreeing to share 30% of their revenue. You can rant and rail all you want, and I'm sure you will, but it doesn't change the fact that these companies are stealing by hiding their revenue, just as you would be stealing if you avoided taxes by hiding your money in off-shore accounts.
Comments
They can choose to agree or not to agree. If they agree, it's mutual.
That's aactually why the concept of dominant position was defined by law makers. It means you're big enough that you cannot not agree, but it's still not mutual consent. And courts can strike down such clauses because of that concept.
Anyway, Apple is going to solve that issue one way or another, have confidence in them...
Wrong. You don't own the patents on it. They do. So go pedal YOUR KoolAid somewhere else!
I don't own the patents: I can't make more of them. I still paid for the hardware. I guess you just have some Motorola crap, or you'd know just how expensive the iPhone is. I do.
False equivalency. And you know it.
You said that several times, and never justified, because it's a lie. And you know it.
Actually, I think your goal is to make Apple look bad and you are a Xoom salesman or something like that
That's aactually why the concept of dominant position was defined by law makers. It means you're big enough that you cannot not agree, but it's still not mutual consent. And courts can strike down such clauses because of that concept.
Anyway, Apple is going to solve that issue one way or another, have confidence in them...
Have to agree this will work itself out. Of couse not everyone will be happy,however lets see what the final outcome is.
Apple states that they don't take a cut from customers the Magazine generate on their own. I.e. Not through iOS. So Mag A has a current subscriber that's delighted to be able to read on an iPad. The subscription is up for renewal and is done through the iPad. Does Apple get 30%?
If it's more like Apple gets 30% on NEW customers only then I think this issue will blow over really quick. Otherwise it'll be interesting to see what competitors come up with to deal with this. Galaxy Tab 2 anyone?
Wrong. You don't own the patents on it. They do. So go pedal YOUR KoolAid somewhere else!
Your logic is pretty twisted. Patents have nothing to do with physical ownership. Parts of the iMac are patented. Does that mean I do not own it and that I do not have the right to decide what applications to install on it? No it doesn't. Parts of cars are patented. Does that mean I do not own my own car and that I do not have the right to decide what gas to use with it? No it doesn't.
The fact of the matter is that Apple does not own my iPhone and that they are not in a position where they can claim it is reasonable that I should pay a 43% Apple Sales Tax on every content purchase I make with my iPhone. They are basically abusing their dominant position as owners of the App Store infrastructure to impose unfair terms on competing distributors of content. This is no different from how Microsoft used their dominant position as developers of Windows to make their Office product run more efficiently than competing software from third party developers. In fact it's worse.
" Subscriptions purchased from within the App Store will be sold using the same App Store billing system that has been used to buy billions of apps and In-App Purchases. Publishers set the price and length of subscription (weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, bi-yearly or yearly). Then with one-click, customers pick the length of subscription and are automatically charged based on their chosen length of commitment (weekly, monthly, etc.). Customers can review and manage all of their subscriptions from their personal account page, including canceling the automatic renewal of a subscription. Apple processes all payments, keeping the same 30 percent share that it does today for other In-App Purchases.
“Our philosophy is simple—when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app. We believe that this innovative subscription service will provide publishers with a brand new opportunity to expand digital access to their content onto the iPad, iPod touch and iPhone, delighting both new and existing subscribers.”
Publishers who use Apple’s subscription service in their app can also leverage other methods for acquiring digital subscribers outside of the app. For example, 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. Publishers must provide their own authentication process inside the app for subscribers that have signed up outside of the app. However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the App Store. "
Based on my reading of this -
A) as long as Apple processes the payment they get 30%.
My reaction to the above 2 points -
A) so existing customers that choose to renew in-app Apple gets 30%? wait they're my customers, you should be getting nothing. And how does a magazine bring new subscribers to the App? If someone goes to the App Store, downloads the app and buys a subscription Apple will say it's their customer, even if the person went there at the urging of the magazine. Muddy.
My 2 cents. Any other interpretations of Apple's press release?
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.
Did it occur to you that some people might be generally happy with their Apple products and prefer to only raise their voice in a public forum when the company they know and appreciate does something they consider to be wrong? If we're talking about who has issues I'd say that some bozo, who has a post count of 4,000 on an Apple fanboard would be the one.
To me, the irony of a lot of this is that there is very little content that is available in the form of a native app that is any better than what's available through the web. Actually, in many cases, the app-version of content is *worse* than the website (the NY Times perhaps being the most dramatic example that I can think of).
If I were a content person, I think I'd just make an html5 web app that installs on people's home screens. From the user's perspective, that's pretty similar to a native app, and if all you're doing is looking at text, graphics, and video, why do you need a native app to begin with? Those things work just fine through html5 and can have interactive components.
The app store is a great distribution channel.
However, I fully agree. HTML 5 ftw. Readability is storing contents for later offline use if I understand this correctly. Not sure how that would work in Safari. Perhaps if the server parced a custom PDF or an ePub for download and use in iBooks instead.
This policy... What's next? Apple charging 30% on eBay purchases?
I need some clarification on the nuances of Apple's subscription model.
Apple states that they don't take a cut from customers the Magazine generate on their own. I.e. Not through iOS. So Mag A has a current subscriber that's delighted to be able to read on an iPad. The subscription is up for renewal and is done through the iPad. Does Apple get 30%?
If it's more like Apple gets 30% on NEW customers only then I think this issue will blow over really quick. Otherwise it'll be interesting to see what competitors come up with to deal with this. Galaxy Tab 2 anyone?
In your above example where a customer renews a subscription through the iPad app, Apple takes 30%. It doesn't matter to Apple whether the customer was a previous subscriber or not. All that matters is that a transaction took place through the in-app purchase mechanism. Thus Apple gets its 30%. Oh and in-app subscriptions are set to automatically renew so Apple basically gets 30% of all future revenue unless the customer decides to cancel.
Leaving iOS is not an appealing move for any company now. NBC left iTunes only to come crawling back a year later. But they acted alone. If a large group of content providers decided they weren't going to bend over, Apple could find themselves with a real problem.
What good is having the nicest looking, easiest to use OS if you don't have any popular mainstream content available? Would people still buy iPhones if most of what they use them for today was no longer possible? Of course not. This is a game of chicken that Apple thinks they will win.
Actually, it's more like, developers who were naive enough to agree to the App Store's revenue sharing and thought Apple would be fine with them giving away shell apps and then generating large amounts of revenue by selling the app content out the back door are getting exactly what should be expected. Maybe they thought Apple wasn't serious about the 30%? Maybe they thought no one would realize that they were stealing large amounts of cash out of the revenue streams that fund the App Store? Maybe they thought the small honest developers wouldn't mind subsidizing Amazon's eBook sales?
It is a partnership, and one in which many honest developers have done, and will continue to do, very well out of. But one of the important aspects of a partnership is that you not try to steal money from your partners.
The guys we're talking about here have developed an entire business model built on stealing from anyone they can. They were certainly naive to think that Apple would not only be a party to the theft, but that they'd be happy to have the Readability crew steal from them as well.
Very well said ... if only everyone could understand the situation as well as you, the post count would fit on one page.
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:
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?
He is a ridiculous apologist - they are surprised because the changing of policy took place a week ago and they probably had already written their app before that, when it was legal.
[/quote]
The question is, is this kind of thing just stupidity, or generally just deliberate misleading of readers, is it self delusion, or delusion?
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.
---------------------------------------------
More rubbish. The readability are giving a 70% margin to publishers they publish, who would otherwise not be published. Since authors have zero marginal cost that is all revenue. For Readability, the marginal costs per sale are the sunk development costs, server costs, wages, and the 70% take for authors of the sticker sale. So their margins are <30% per sale of the sticker price. Apple takes 30% ( for nothing) and they have no business model.
Note that Apple once featured this app - so within Apple there are people who understand that apps promote the platform. Daring Fireball does not.
Very well said ... if only everyone could understand the situation as well as you, the post count would fit on one page.
We're not all drones of Dear Leader, so the debate must go on.
Anonymouse is a total crank.
Actually, it's more like, developers who were naive enough to agree to the App Store's revenue sharing
You mean the rules that changed just recently?
and thought Apple would be fine with them giving away shell apps and then generating large amounts of revenue by selling the app content out the back door are getting exactly what should be expected.
Except nobody is stealing anything from Apple. Apple has 0% claim on any service which can deliver it's own content. And apps that deliver content are not shell apps, you halftard, the whole point of these apps is to sell content, or allow people to read previously bought content. Thats a valuable service. You are basically calling Netflix, Amazon, Sony E-reader, any app which vends content a shell - to the sane these are the most useful apps out there.
Maybe they thought Apple wasn't serious about the 30%? Maybe they thought no one would realize that they were stealing large amounts of cash out of the revenue streams that fund the App Store? Maybe they thought the small honest developers wouldn't mind subsidizing Amazon's eBook sales?
LOL. ROFL. FFS. Stealing my arse- what a fanatic. Amazon buys the rights to books, agrees to prices, develops an app and handles it's own content buying and hosting system. Apple makes a profit on the App Store anyway, and "small" honest developers are not getting penalised.
What an utter DEAR LEADER drone. You are apparently arguing that by selling e-books on the iPad Amazon is somehow stealing revenue from small developers. This, despite the fact that small developers are also getting raped by Apple - the very subject of this thread.
It is a partnership, and one in which many honest developers have done, and will continue to do, very well out of. But one of the important aspects of a partnership is that you not try to steal money from your partners.
Apple should stop trying to steal Readability's revenue then.
The guys we're talking about here have developed an entire business model built on stealing from anyone they can. They were certainly naive to think that Apple would not only be a party to the theft, but that they'd be happy to have the Readability crew steal from them as well.
What an unbelieveable fanatic. Readability and Amazon are "stealing" by buying content, storing it, serving it and giving 70% revenues back to authors. Apple, providing none of this, are not "stealing" by taking 100% of their margins.
Look, Annonymouse is a clown. However the vast majority of future Apple buyers are not fanatics, and if Kindle goes, they will move elsewhere. As the one Android fan who posted here said - he was hoping that would happen. As someone who isnt a fan of Android, I hope it doesn't. If it does we all will become fans of Android.
From Apple's press release.
" Subscriptions purchased from within the App Store will be sold using the same App Store billing system that has been used to buy billions of apps and In-App Purchases. Publishers set the price and length of subscription (weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, bi-yearly or yearly). Then with one-click, customers pick the length of subscription and are automatically charged based on their chosen length of commitment (weekly, monthly, etc.). Customers can review and manage all of their subscriptions from their personal account page, including canceling the automatic renewal of a subscription. Apple processes all payments, keeping the same 30 percent share that it does today for other In-App Purchases.
?Our philosophy is simple?when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing,? said Steve Jobs, Apple?s CEO. ?All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app. We believe that this innovative subscription service will provide publishers with a brand new opportunity to expand digital access to their content onto the iPad, iPod touch and iPhone, delighting both new and existing subscribers.?
Publishers who use Apple?s subscription service in their app can also leverage other methods for acquiring digital subscribers outside of the app. For example, 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. Publishers must provide their own authentication process inside the app for subscribers that have signed up outside of the app. However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the App Store. "
Based on my reading of this -
A) as long as Apple processes the payment they get 30%.
My reaction to the above 2 points -
A) so existing customers that choose to renew in-app Apple gets 30%? wait they're my customers, you should be getting nothing. And how does a magazine bring new subscribers to the App? If someone goes to the App Store, downloads the app and buys a subscription Apple will say it's their customer, even if the person went there at the urging of the magazine. Muddy.
My 2 cents. Any other interpretations of Apple's press release?
I subscribed to The Times before downloading the Free app. Once the app was installed I logged in using my pre-existing subscription and subsequently renewed my subscription via an in-app purchase. I don't believe Apple earns anything from this transaction.
My view is simply that Apple has invested billions of its dollars innovating and building a platform used by millions of potential customers of developers and content providers. Apple's distribution is huge and the cost to obtain access to that distribution is 30% of the revenues.
I also understand my personal details held by Apple are not shared with third parties. I really appreciate that feature of my commercial relationship with Apple.
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.
What nonsense the "freeloader" crap is. Apple have the costs of distributing Amazon's original app as it forces those costs on Amazon, because the iPad is curated.
Since free apps dont need DRM Amazon could, were it allowed, just have a "DownLoad App" link on their website when you visit in Safari. That link doesnt have to direct to the app store, the download could work via Amazon's servers, as could everything else. It would mean a change to the iPad security, but so what?
That would be like Mac OS X. People who want to use their own distribution model can use it, and Apple can help smaller devs. Amazon, dont need Apple anywhere in the loop.
For an ebook, Amazon's cut is 30%, the publisher receives 70%
A year ago...before iBook and the iPad it was a 70% cut.
Amazon put limits on what gets a 30% cut.
- Book?s list price must fall between $2.99 and $9.99 and be at least 20 percent below the lowest price of the physical edition of the book
- The Amazon price must be the same or less than at competing ebook sellers
- The ebook version must be offered everywhere the author or publisher has intellectual property rights
That second term looks familiar...I wonder where I've seen that before...odd that no one bitching about that requirement a year ago...And WOW...look...Amazon terms limits the lowest price of physical editions of a book too! That seems familiar somehow too...
Frankly, all the "anti-competitive" moves Apple is making is a pale shadow of the crap Amazon was pulling a year ago and even still does today. That Amazon is taking one in the shorts doesn't bother me one bit despite being an ebook fan.
I feel mildly bad about the collateral damage to other devs but closing the "free app w/paid subscription" loophole is being applied fairly across the board. It would be more unfair for Apple to pick on just Amazon...just like it would have been unfair for Apple to pick on just Adobe.
... Except nobody is stealing anything from Apple. Apple has 0% claim on any service which can deliver it's own content. And apps that deliver content are not shell apps, you halftard, the whole point of these apps is to sell content, or allow people to read previously bought content. Thats a valuable service. You are basically calling Netflix, Amazon, Sony E-reader, any app which vends content a shell - to the sane these are the most useful apps out there. ...
Yes, all of the apps you mention are shell apps. Free apps that on their own offer no useful functionality and require the purchase of in-app content to be useful. Apple's "claim" is the contract those companies signed agreeing to share 30% of their revenue. You can rant and rail all you want, and I'm sure you will, but it doesn't change the fact that these companies are stealing by hiding their revenue, just as you would be stealing if you avoided taxes by hiding your money in off-shore accounts.
Apple gear would still sell. Because it's Apple's design and UI tech. That kind of sex appeal is hard to get around.
Well, hopefully, we'll get to find out soon, if there any truth to this sentiment.