PDA

View Full Version : Apple Pulls Match.com iOS App over External Subscription Links




MacRumors
Dec 2, 2011, 02:43 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/12/02/apple-pulls-match-com-ios-app-over-external-subscription-links/)


TechCrunch notes (http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/01/match-com-app-store/) that Apple has removed online dating service Match.com's iOS app from the App Store over violations of the company's in-app subscription requirements. The Match.com app had allowed users to sign up for subscriptions to the service through an external link in the app, a mechanism that is no longer permitted by Apple as it has sought to drive usage of its in-app subscription services that sees Apple taking a 30% cut of revenues.Apple has removed Match.com's iOS app because it allowed the lonely to pay for Match subscriptions with a credit card through an external link rather than using the in-app purchases system. That meant Apple wasn't getting its 30% cut. In June Apple revised its policy to state that "Apps can read or play approved content that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app, as long as there is no button or external link in the app to purchase the approved content." Apple and Match.com are now negotiating how the app must change before their relationship can be rekindled and they can have an earth-shattering makeup revenue split.Match.com can satisfy Apple's requirements either by offering an in-app option via Apple, which would result in Apple taking its 30% cut, or by simply omitting any links to external payment mechanisms. Under the latter scenario, users would have to know to visit the full Match.com site to sign up for a subscription, an extra step for users which may reduce the number of new subscribers but one that would enable Match.com to avoid having Apple skim off 30% of subscription revenue from the app.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/12/match_com_ios.jpg


Apple had originally announced that the new in-app subscription requirements would go into effect on June 30th, but the company offered a grace period (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/01/apple-not-yet-pulling-apps-helping-developers-meet-in-app-guidelines/) as it worked with some developers to help them meet the guidelines. Some developers and content providers such as the Financial Times ultimately decided not to adopt Apple's guidelines, and Apple has in those cases removed the apps (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/08/30/apple-kills-financial-times-app-for-in-app-subscription-non-compliance/) from the App Store.

It is unclear why it took Apple five months from the official start of the new guideline enforcement to take the Match.com app down. The app was originally introduced back in March 2009 and had been receiving regular updates, but the most recent one had appeared in early June ahead of Apple's new policy implementation. Match.com may simply have been avoiding submitting any updates or investing further in the app while it either discussed options with Apple or hoped to remain under Apple's radar, but it seems that Apple has decided that the best way to encourage compliance was to remove the app for the time being.

Article Link: Apple Pulls Match.com iOS App over External Subscription Links (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/12/02/apple-pulls-match-com-ios-app-over-external-subscription-links/)



soco
Dec 2, 2011, 02:45 PM
Understandable. Good thing the Safari browser is good enough to use in the meantime.

Great app though. Used it to find my fiance. :D

TXAppleUser
Dec 2, 2011, 02:47 PM
If it were eHarmony this video would a lot more relevant and funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTTwcCVajAc

kirk26
Dec 2, 2011, 02:48 PM
What a terrible practice Apple is doing with this.

psac
Dec 2, 2011, 02:50 PM
How is Netflix allowed then, since that is subscription based?

dmblue
Dec 2, 2011, 02:51 PM
What a terrible practice Apple is doing with this.

how is it a terrible practice?

those are apple's rules in their store. if a certain company doesnt want to follow
it, they can take their business elsewhere

cire
Dec 2, 2011, 02:54 PM
What a terrible practice Apple is doing with this.

I agree with you! I think it is horrible that McDonald's doesn't allow Burger King to sell the Whopper in their lobbies! How DARE they obstruct free enterprise. It's just Apple and McDonald's and Walmarts and Targets and Sears and Overstock.com and MacMall's (continue with any company you can think of)'s greed that makes them come up with policies that prevent other companies from selling in their business!

Down with the 1%!!!! Oh...and pay my student loans for me while your at it!

----------

How is Netflix allowed then, since that is subscription based?

AFAIK, you can't sign up for Netflix through the app. That's the point. You need to be a preexisting customer.

GREEN4U
Dec 2, 2011, 02:55 PM
Think of how many of us men won't get laid because of this. Way to go :apple:

:mad:

frunkis54
Dec 2, 2011, 02:56 PM
How is Netflix allowed then, since that is subscription based?

they aren't you can only use the netflix app if you already have an account.

samcraig
Dec 2, 2011, 02:56 PM
Netflix doesn't allow you to subscribe IN APP.

And I am sure it took 5 months for Apple to realize the "breach" because there are thousands and thousands of apps in the marketplace. I am sure they are either reviewing all in their due time or relying on users/competitors to report offending apps.

nuckinfutz
Dec 2, 2011, 02:57 PM
match.com sucks.

No big loss. They need to pay to play.

pmjoe
Dec 2, 2011, 02:57 PM
I agree with you! I think it is horrible that McDonald's doesn't allow Burger King to sell the Whopper in their lobbies! How DARE they obstruct free enterprise. It's just Apple and McDonald's and Walmarts and Targets and Sears and Overstock.com and MacMall's (continue with any company you can think of)'s greed that makes them come up with policies that prevent other companions from selling in their business!


Exactly, how dare Apple tell me I can only use nails with their hammer if I pay Apple a 30% surcharge on each nail. :rolleyes:

Lordskelic
Dec 2, 2011, 02:58 PM
I still think this whole in-app purchasing thing is a raw deal and frankly, it sucks.

nuckinfutz
Dec 2, 2011, 02:58 PM
Exactly, how dare Apple tell me I can only use nails with their hammer if I pay Apple a 30% surcharge on each nail.

This makes absolutely no sense. DO OVER



I still think this whole in-app purchasing thing is a raw deal and frankly, it sucks.

Why? in-app purchases give you the ability to enable extra features in an app without having to blindly buy all the features. It's giving you choice.

As for Apple taking a cut of the transactions that makes sense. They've cultivated the app stores and have millions of users with Apple ID backed via credit cards. Why would they let companies come to the table ..get free marketing and cut them out of the process.

The choice is rather simply. Gain access to millions of customers who are proven to spend on technology for a 30% fee or take your business elsewhere.

nagromme
Dec 2, 2011, 03:00 PM
how is it a terrible practice?

those are apple's rules in their store. if a certain company doesnt want to follow
it, they can take their business elsewhere

Not to mention, Apple’s rules have an upside: if all subscriptions are handled the same way, and it’s the same as your music and app buying (rather than giving your credit card out in random ways to many random companies) then the subscription process is very consistent, secure, trusted, and user-friendly. Now, it’s not friendly if the company chooses not to participate, but that’s their choice. Match.com would probably stand to make a lot of money AND please their customers* if they’d change their mind.

Most of what Apple does is for the sake of users first, and developers come second. User experience—not a 30% cut of subscriptions—is how Apple makes nearly all of its money!

* Well, maybe not please their customers :p Online dating is pretty close to a scam that preys on a bottomless resource: loneliness! False hope in exchange for a piece of your income :) (I haven’t tried Match, but I’ve tried others. And I have friends who have been burned by Match for no result.)

swingerofbirch
Dec 2, 2011, 03:01 PM
I still think this whole in-app purchasing thing is a raw deal and frankly, it sucks.

All glory belongs unto Apple

Kwill
Dec 2, 2011, 03:01 PM
I guess Apple and Match.com weren't compatible.

If it were eHarmony this video would a lot more relevant and funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTTwcCVajAc

:):):) LOL. I can't stand it! :D:D:D Stop! ROFLOL!

brdeveloper
Dec 2, 2011, 03:04 PM
When browsers become capable of running rich 3d graphics and sound, OS-dependent apps will be only needed in some critical applications. So AppStore will be just one more site where people buy stuff. SJ's "dream" of having HTML5 Flash-like content will affect negatively the AppStore business.

jca24
Dec 2, 2011, 03:04 PM
Isn't match.com where all the fat girls go to find a guy?

cire
Dec 2, 2011, 03:05 PM
Exactly, how dare Apple tell me I can only use nails with their hammer if I pay Apple a 30% surcharge on each nail. :rolleyes:

That is not a good analogy. More like having to have my doctor buy my hip implant...why can't I just go down to Walmart and pick one up and bring it with me to my surgery. I hear there are some good bargains on Craigslist.

nuckinfutz
Dec 2, 2011, 03:08 PM
When browsers become capable of running rich 3d graphics and sound, OS-dependent apps will be only needed in some critical applications. So AppStore will be just one more site where people buy stuff. SJ's "dream" of having HTML5 Flash-like content will affect negatively the AppStore business.

One can only hope but it took Apple stonewalling Adobe just to get rid of Flash on mobile devices. I'm not too sure i'm placing my faith in the Web to deliver great user experiences.

The app store has shown the consumers want consistency and great access. The web can offer great access but fails a bit on the consistency (i.e multiple websites, logins, payment processing etc)

----------

Isn't match.com where all the fat girls go to find a guy?

No that's plenty of fish lol

Shrink
Dec 2, 2011, 03:13 PM
Think of how many of us men won't get laid because of this. Way to go :apple:

:mad:

So, only the men who use the service get laid?

The women who use the service don't get laid?

By that logic, if only the men get laid... then...um...women not getting laid...ah....who are the men screwing?

(OMG- other men!!???):eek:

:rolleyes: ;)

cire
Dec 2, 2011, 03:13 PM
nagromme
What happens when corporations buy the government? Americans have returned to receiving 1960s wages, despite being twice as productive.

OT: Interesting chart here. I notice it started in 1971. So I looked up the graph for the budget deficit. Surprisingly, it began to balloon around the same time. I posit that that lost productivity is going to finance our government endless appetite for american's hard earned cash. Just a thought.

iEvolution
Dec 2, 2011, 03:15 PM
What a terrible practice Apple is doing with this.

While I think it is a pretty large cut its well within Apples right to do it as it is their App store.

*LTD*
Dec 2, 2011, 03:18 PM
What a terrible practice Apple is doing with this.

They pulled an app. So what. And a dating site app or whatever, on top of that. Big loss!

Rodimus Prime
Dec 2, 2011, 03:25 PM
Why? in-app purchases give you the ability to enable extra features in an app without having to blindly buy all the features. It's giving you choice.

As for Apple taking a cut of the transactions that makes sense. They've cultivated the app stores and have millions of users with Apple ID backed via credit cards. Why would they let companies come to the table ..get free marketing and cut them out of the process.

The choice is rather simply. Gain access to millions of customers who are proven to spend on technology for a 30% fee or take your business elsewhere.

In App purchases is a rip off to the dev.
If you read the requirements the devs are required to support everything for uploading the new content to the iOS device or have it built in enabled in the app.

Apple is taking 30% to be nothing more than a credit card processor. Tell you the truth they are worse than a credit card processor because they block even more information for the supplier.

30% is way out of line for nothing more than a bad payment processor. Credit cards take 2-3%. So Apple charging 5% would be much more reasonable rate for what serve they are offering.

If Apple allowed you to use outside payment collection then it would be fine. They would then at least provide options but the current system is pretty much a Apple being like the Mob demanding a huge cut for "protection"

ivladster
Dec 2, 2011, 03:25 PM
What a terrible practice Apple is doing with this.

It's called Capitalism.

*LTD*
Dec 2, 2011, 03:29 PM
In App purchases is a rip off to the dev.
If you read the requirements the devs are required to support everything for uploading the new content to the iOS device or have it built in enabled in the app.

Apple is taking 30% to be nothing more than a credit card processor. Tell you the truth they are worse than a credit card processor because they block even more information for the supplier.

30% is way out of line for nothing more than a bad payment processor. Credit cards take 2-3%. So Apple charging 5% would be much more reasonable rate for what serve they are offering.

If Apple allowed you to use outside payment collection then it would be fine. They would then at least provide options but the current system is pretty much a Apple being like the Mob demanding a huge cut for "protection"

Increasingly sounding like the lone voice in the wilderness . . .

Seasought
Dec 2, 2011, 03:30 PM
If it were eHarmony this video would a lot more relevant and funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTTwcCVajAc

I prefer this version of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP4NMoJcFd4

joemama
Dec 2, 2011, 03:31 PM
Exactly, how dare Apple tell me I can only use nails with their hammer if I pay Apple a 30% surcharge on each nail. :rolleyes:

Because you can always go buy a different hammer and use that one instead.

samcraig
Dec 2, 2011, 03:31 PM
This makes absolutely no sense. DO OVER





Why? in-app purchases give you the ability to enable extra features in an app without having to blindly buy all the features. It's giving you choice.

As for Apple taking a cut of the transactions that makes sense. They've cultivated the app stores and have millions of users with Apple ID backed via credit cards. Why would they let companies come to the table ..get free marketing and cut them out of the process.

The choice is rather simply. Gain access to millions of customers who are proven to spend on technology for a 30% fee or take your business elsewhere.


Apple is just serving as a CC processing department at that point. The app itself was marketed. The end user was already sold. If they buy in-app after that - it's not really Apple's "selling."

I do understand Apple wanting a take. However for developers (especially publishers or monthly re-curring type charges) it's a rawer deal because they do not have access to the specific subscribers. Apple doesn't release that data. So it's not JUST that they lose 30%. It's that they lose that and one of the most important things they can ever own in their business. Their "list."

nuckinfutz
Dec 2, 2011, 03:35 PM
When you start talking about transaction fees things get a bit murky.

If you look at a companies biggest bills you see a couple of standout areas that consume a lot of finances.

1. Payroll
2. Marketing

The actual transportation of goods or services is relatively cheap. The App Store isn't going to help your payroll. That is what it is but the App Store is about Marketing. Millions of users coming to the same central store where you have the opportunity to sell your goods is a potential gold mine.

That's where the 30% is paying off for good developers. They don't have to expend as much money to market their product. A few good reviews and being included in New and Noteworthy are enough to propel sales.

leroypants
Dec 2, 2011, 03:35 PM
It's called Capitalism.

Microsoft should have used tht excuse in the 90s, oh wait they just made it slightly annoying for other companies to get a program preinstalled, unlike apple who makes it 100% impossible to even get access, unless you pay their extortion fee. I wonder what would have happened if Microsoft started to demand a 30% cut of every program sold that runs under windows....

nuckinfutz
Dec 2, 2011, 03:36 PM
Apple is just serving as a CC processing department at that point. The app itself was marketed. The end user was already sold. If they buy in-app after that - it's not really Apple's "selling."

I do understand Apple wanting a take. However for developers (especially publishers or monthly re-curring type charges) it's a rawer deal because they do not have access to the specific subscribers. Apple doesn't release that data. So it's not JUST that they lose 30%. It's that they lose that and one of the most important things they can ever own in their business. Their "list."

But they couldn't just drop the fee down to nothing. Otherwise developers would just deliver free programs and then make everything in-app purchases skirting the 30% and only paying the CC processing fee. That clearly isn't going to happen thus 30% across the board.

Oletros
Dec 2, 2011, 03:41 PM
Like or not, until now is a legal practice by Apple. If you don't like it, don't publish in the App Store.

samcraig
Dec 2, 2011, 03:41 PM
But they couldn't just drop the fee down to nothing. Otherwise developers would just deliver free programs and then make everything in-app purchases skirting the 30% and only paying the CC processing fee. That clearly isn't going to happen thus 30% across the board.

They could also not allow free apps to HAVE in-app purchasing thus requiring users to pay first for an app. Or take a sliding scale based on the purchase price.

IE - 30% .99 - 1.99; 20% 2.00 - 2.99, etc...

But again - the 30% is only 1/2 the issue. A big reason publishers and monthly subscription based apps hate having to go through apple is they lose information about their subscribers.

nuckinfutz
Dec 2, 2011, 03:42 PM
Microsoft should have used tht excuse in the 90s, oh wait they just made it slightly annoying for other companies to get a program preinstalled, unlike apple who makes it 100% impossible to even get access, unless you pay their extortion fee. I wonder what would have happened if Microsoft started to demand a 30% cut of every program sold that runs under windows....

This makes no sense either. Desktop OS have never required a curate store and thus there's no point in charging fees. Mobile platforms are different because they are connected to networks owned by companies like Verizon, ATT etc. This means that there needs to be more controls in place and malware and virus are unacceptable. You're getting your contexts all messed up.

oxocube
Dec 2, 2011, 03:43 PM
When the MacRumors webpage loaded for me, I first thought the headline read that Apple pulled iTunes Match. Whew.

JHankwitz
Dec 2, 2011, 03:55 PM
While I think it (30%) is a pretty large cut its well within Apples right to do it as it is their App store.

It's not a large cut. If it were large, app developers would be peddling their apps from outside the App Store. Using the App Store costs less than most any other alternative, or it wouldn't be used or so successful.

This is a free market, Apple is not demanding that apps only get sold and distributed through their store. Developers choose it because it makes financial sense (i.e., more Profit).

----------

It's called Capitalism.

No, it's call a free market. Developers are free to choose any distribution system they want. Those that choose the App Store need to follow the App Store rules jast as they would for any other distribution service.

Oletros
Dec 2, 2011, 03:58 PM
This is a free market, Apple is not demanding that apps only get sold and distributed through their store. Developers choose it because it makes financial sense (i.e., more Profit).

Ah, you can install apps in iOS devices from outside the App Store?

linuxcooldude
Dec 2, 2011, 03:59 PM
I still think this whole in-app purchasing thing is a raw deal and frankly, it sucks.

How? Its using the popularity of the app store to lure Apples customers to their website. Apple spent much time, effort and money to setup their ecosystem only to allow a third party to take their business?

cire
Dec 2, 2011, 04:02 PM
30% is way out of line for nothing more than a bad payment processor. Credit cards take 2-3%. So Apple charging 5% would be much more reasonable rate for what serve they are offering.

Incorrect. Almost all CCPs charge a percentage AND a transaction fee of around 30 cents. That's one of the reasons that iTunes consolidates its credit card transactions whenever possible. Since most apps and in-app purchases are relatively small, this is a large percentage. There is also the factor of chargebacks which are rare in the app store i think.

Also, do you know that malls charge a percentage of sales in addition to the rent? They do that because they provide a value to the tenant in terms of attracting buyers. The same principles apply.

Why does the AppStore model work so successfully, yet the shareware model that had basically in-app purchases not perform as well? Why do so many AppStore apps have instore purchasing but normally apps generally don't?

Apple brings value to AppStore developers. That is why 80% of the revenue from mobile device app marketplaces comes from the AppStore.

----------

Ah, you can install apps in iOS devices from outside the App Store?

No, Oletros. As you pointed out last night, they can go the Android ecosystem, which you claim will give them more money in the end. Good luck with that.

leroypants
Dec 2, 2011, 04:03 PM
It's not a large cut. If it were large, app developers would be peddling their apps from outside the App Store.

Care to explain how a developer can peddle their app on an iphone without the App store?

Second I have done some work with Gameloft and they have said flat out they charge a dollar more per game because of the huge apple cut. They charge 6.00 dollars and apple gets 1.80, they have stated they would like to keep games under the 5.00 dollar mark but can't because of apples huge cut.

Using the App Store costs less than most any other alternative, or it wouldn't be used or so successful.

Once again could you please explain to me the the other alternatives you are speaking about? Unless I am wrong I thought the only way to get an app onto the iphone is through the app store.

JHankwitz
Dec 2, 2011, 04:03 PM
Originally Posted by nuckinfutz
But they couldn't just drop the fee down to nothing. Otherwise developers would just deliver free programs and then make everything in-app purchases skirting the 30% and only paying the CC processing fee. That clearly isn't going to happen thus 30% across the board..

Why don't you work for nothing? That way your company could deliver product at less cost, skirting the excessive overhead you create.

cire
Dec 2, 2011, 04:04 PM
This makes no sense either. Desktop OS have never required a curate store and thus there's no point in charging fees. Mobile platforms are different because they are connected to networks owned by companies like Verizon, ATT etc. This means that there needs to be more controls in place and malware and virus are unacceptable. You're getting your contexts all messed up.


Actually, desktop software was primarily, until recently, sold by retailers. This involved a significant markup by both distributors and the end retailers. 30% including financial handling is not unreasonable.

JHankwitz
Dec 2, 2011, 04:04 PM
Ah, you can install apps in iOS devices from outside the App Store?

You're free to create and put them on Android.

nuckinfutz
Dec 2, 2011, 04:07 PM
Why don't you work for nothing? That way your company could deliver product at less cost, skirting the excessive overhead you create.

There would still be heavy marketing costs even a company had essentially free labor.

Actually, desktop software was primarily, until recently, sold by retailers. This involved a significant markup by both distributors and the end retailers. 30% including financial handling is not unreasonable.

Good point and if people think getting your app in the App Store is expensive try a retail shelf.

Oletros
Dec 2, 2011, 04:13 PM
No, Oletros. As you pointed out last night, they can go the Android ecosystem, which you claim will give them more money in the end. Good luck with that.

Can you point where I have said that? I think you haven't read very well or you're confusing me with other people.

----------

You're free to create and put them on Android.

This is a no, I suppose.

cire
Dec 2, 2011, 04:13 PM
Good point and if people think getting your app in the App Store is expensive try a retail shelf.

I just looked up Ebay. They charge 9% of a transaction, plus an insertion fee whether it sells or not. And that is not including CCP or delivery or additional marketing schemes they have. On a $5 item it would be like $1.20 including CCP. Apple charges $1.50. Not outrageous.

pmjoe
Dec 2, 2011, 04:13 PM
This makes no sense either. Desktop OS have never required a curate store and thus there's no point in charging fees. Mobile platforms are different because they are connected to networks owned by companies like Verizon, ATT etc. This means that there needs to be more controls in place and malware and virus are unacceptable. You're getting your contexts all messed up.
Ah right, his context is messed up because there are not now and never were any smartphones that let you install whatever app you choose or purchase in-app without being forced to use the phone manufacturer's store/services.

GenesisST
Dec 2, 2011, 04:14 PM
Think of how many of us men won't get laid because of this. Way to go :apple:

:mad:

Don't blame ugliness on Apple... ;-)

nylonsteel
Dec 2, 2011, 04:15 PM
re original article

eharmony and match.com = a joke
poor suckers who waste money at dating sites
i meet chicks all the time without paying for it

linuxcooldude
Dec 2, 2011, 04:15 PM
Care to explain how a developer can peddle their app on an iphone without the App store?

Match.com already has a service they sell outside the app store. Its not like they are making money just from being in the app store.

cire
Dec 2, 2011, 04:16 PM
Can you point where I have said that? I think you haven't read very well or you're confusing me with other people.

I stand corrected. I had assumed that you were agreeing with wikus when you repeated seemed to defend the Android marketplace. I misinterpreted your intent.

UPDATE: See retraction below.

macbookguy
Dec 2, 2011, 04:18 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Think of how many of us men won't get laid because of this. Way to go :apple:

:mad:

Relax. They only pulled match.com, not Grindr.

(couldn't resist the joke, sorry!)

cire
Dec 2, 2011, 04:20 PM
Can you point where I have said that? I think you haven't read very well or you're confusing me with other people.

Actually, I retract my correction :D

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=13949315

Oletros
Dec 2, 2011, 04:22 PM
Actually, I retract my correction :D

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=13949303#post13949315

Can you read again the conversation? Can you point where I say that there is more revenue in the Android Market than in the App Store?

j4c3k69
Dec 2, 2011, 04:25 PM
'It is unclear why it took Apple five months from the official start of the new guideline enforcement to take the Match.com app down'.

Could dozens of fart apps cause the delay? :rolleyes:

Rodimus Prime
Dec 2, 2011, 04:26 PM
Incorrect. Almost all CCPs charge a percentage AND a transaction fee of around 30 cents. That's one of the reasons that iTunes consolidates its credit card transactions whenever possible. Since most apps and in-app purchases are relatively small, this is a large percentage. There is also the factor of chargebacks which are rare in the app store i think.

Also, do you know that malls charge a percentage of sales in addition to the rent? They do that because they provide a value to the tenant in terms of attracting buyers. The same principles apply.

Why does the AppStore model work so successfully, yet the shareware model that had basically in-app purchases not perform as well? Why do so many AppStore apps have instore purchasing but normally apps generally don't?

Apple brings value to AppStore developers. That is why 80% of the revenue from mobile device app marketplaces comes from the AppStore.[COLOR="#808080"]


At Apple size and power no way in hell they have not gotten a reduced rate and chances are do not have the fix cost charge.

Also does not get around the fact that Apple is charging a 30% cut which kills the margins of a lot of companies. That 30% gross cuts all their margins and then some.

If Apple allowed an option to use someone else then there would not be the complaining about this. The fact that Apple is the only way to charge threw anything on iOS.

But seeing as you do not understand this logic or lock in because it points at massive problems in Apple system.....

saving107
Dec 2, 2011, 04:27 PM
If it were eHarmony this video would a lot more relevant and funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTTwcCVajAc

If I was straight I'd be all over that mess,

I love me some crazy.

cire
Dec 2, 2011, 04:28 PM
Can you read again the conversation? Can you point where I say that there is more revenue in the Android Market than in the App Store?

I don't have to. Your side in the entire convo was directed either at the superiority of the Android marketplace or in disputing whether the facts show AppStores prominence were true. You asked where you said there was more money in the marketplace and I showed you. Now you want to claim a different intent. I'll leave it to other readers to reread what you said and see what impression they got.

In the heat of the moment, you may have made an impression you didn't intend, but, to me, the impression was clear.

Oletros
Dec 2, 2011, 04:30 PM
I don't have to. Your side in the entire convo was directed either at the superiority of the Android marketplace or in disputing whether the facts show AppStores prominence were true. You asked where you said there was more money in the marketplace and I showed you. Now you want to claim a different intent. I'll leave it to other readers to reread what you said and see what impression they got.

In the heat of the moment, you may have made an impression you didn't intend, but, to me, the impression was clear.

The conclusion is that you can't understand a simple conversation?

I'll leave it to other readers toi reread what you have said and see what impression they got.

cire
Dec 2, 2011, 04:32 PM
At Apple size and power no way in hell they have not gotten a reduced rate and chances are do not have the fix cost charge.


If they didn't have some fixed charge, I doubt they would consolidate iTunes transactions.

But seeing as you do not understand this logic or lock in because it points at massive problems in Apple system.....

Do you believe that Target is wrong by demanding a 30%+ margin? Is Ebay wrong by charging the fees I outlined? I Amazon wrong for following the same model?

linuxcooldude
Dec 2, 2011, 04:32 PM
30% is way out of line for nothing more than a bad payment processor. Credit cards take 2-3%. So Apple charging 5% would be much more reasonable rate for what serve they are offering.

Considering Apple takes care of marketing, distribution and will get much more exposure, developers still make quite a profit off of it.

but the current system is pretty much a Apple being like the Mob demanding a huge cut for "protection"

But considering Apple put in the capitol, took all the risks, and now developers want to cash in on that success and get their cut of Apples money making machine.

Also does not get around the fact that Apple is charging a 30% cut which kills the margins of a lot of companies. That 30% gross cuts all their margins and then some.

The app store is probably much better deal for the single small developer. Large companies not so much, but they have quite a lot of money to begin with.

BobGunn
Dec 2, 2011, 04:33 PM
What a terrible practice Apple is doing with this.

Absolutely.

Rodimus Prime
Dec 2, 2011, 04:47 PM
If they didn't have some fixed charge, I doubt they would consolidate iTunes transactions.


Easily be part of the argeement Apple has with the CC company to combined when possible.


Do you believe that Target is wrong by demanding a 30%+ margin? Is Ebay wrong by charging the fees I outlined? I Amazon wrong for following the same model?


You are confusing two different things.

It is not the 30% cut that is the problem. It is requiring that they using Apple's system and no other. That is the issue. The 30% cut on in app purchases and requiring all in App purchases be run threw Apple's system is the problem.

It seems you can not understand that little issue. It not the 30% cut but requiring that you use Apple system and the 30% cut. If it was 5% for in app and required Apple system it would be fine or 30% but you can use 3rd party systems.

Either would be fine but they are requiring 30% and the use of Apple system.

----------

Considering Apple takes care of marketing, distribution and will get much more exposure, developers still make quite a profit off of it..
What marketing? (answer is none.)
What distribution of in app purchases? (Answer is None)




But considering Apple put in the capitol, took all the risks, and now developers want to cash in on that success and get their cut of Apples money making machine.

This is about in app purchases.

The app store is probably much better deal for the single small developer. Large companies not so much, but they have quite a lot of money to begin with.

Small devs fine.
Big guys, requiring in app purchases go threw App = losing money on everything.

It is about giving the OPTION to use another system. That or charge a more reasonable rate for requiring to use Apple's system (5%)

linuxcooldude
Dec 2, 2011, 05:02 PM
It is about giving the OPTION to use another system. That or charge a more reasonable rate for requiring to use Apple's system (5%)

An option outside the App store? If that were the case, it would be like giving them free advertising. Put an app in the store, with all proceeds going to the service they are selling.

Losing money on it? I don't believe that. Making less profit on it. Nothings for free.

They are still making a profit off of it. While not the amount they would make just selling the service from their website.

What marketing? (answer is none.)
What distribution of in app purchases? (Answer is None)

Marketing? itunes store, The App store, the more iPhones & iPad advertized/sold more chance your app will get seen and purchased.

Distribution comes from being downloaded from the itunes and app store. Which includes their app being on their icloud service and auto updates.

Yellowstone2012
Dec 2, 2011, 05:04 PM
Waiting for the FTC hammer....

Rodimus Prime
Dec 2, 2011, 05:22 PM
An option outside the App store? If that were the case, it would be like giving them free advertising. Put an app in the store, with all proceeds going to the service they are selling.

Losing money on it? I don't believe that. Making less profit on it. Nothings for free.

They are still making a profit off of it. While not the amount they would make just selling the service from their website.



Then you really have no idea how thin some margins are.

Take for example things like netflex. They operated on less than a 10% margin. Apple 30% cut would of been meaning they were eating a 15% loss for each customer who used iOS for subscritions. (10%+5% credit card giveback -30% apple cut)= 15% loss.

Anyone who runs on less than a 25% margin would be losing money.

I also think it is funny that you think the the App store is advertisement. That pond has so many fish in it that you have to spend money to advertises in it.
Also in your view that means companies have to pay Apple for its advertisement. (Words largest app store. or X number of Apps, there is an App for that. 99.9% of those apps Apple is talking about are NOT made by Apple.)

heisetax
Dec 2, 2011, 05:27 PM
This is the reason that I do not like the app store. The 3rd party developers are what makes the iPod Touch, iPad & iPhone what it is. The Apple app store makes it more difficult to use many of the apps the way they are meant to be used. I know that the change in the Kindle cut out of in app purchases changed nothing. That is because I always get my Kindle books straight from Amazon. I would never think of going though Apple for them. Why should I have to pay a 30% Apple tax when Apple should not be any part of this transaction. Also Apple has gotten some to the ebook producers to not allow the book to be sold for a discounted price. For one thing this means that the paper version of the book will many times be cheaper than the much cheaper to produce & ship ebook. Apple has already screwed up the ebook area enough. We need them to get out of that area. The iBooks will not even have a version that can be natively read on the Mac let alone on a Windows computer.

Companies want to better serve their customers. With the lack of in app purchasing without paying the 30% Apple tax does a very effective stop in making their service not as good as it should be.

I have over 600 apps on our various iToys. Of that less than 6 are paid for apps. So does the app store actually help anyone. In my case probably not. The most expensive program is one that is made by FileMakerGo. So Apple gets the whole thing. The others are spreadsheet programs. But none of them are any part of the iWork suite. We've been shown by the lack of any updates for them on the Mac that they are really meant for file transfer programs. Thus allowing us to save to any format other than the Numbers, Page or KeyNote formats.

Apple has shown that when it gets big that it is just like MicroSoft.

These boards need to take Mac out of their name if they are going to always be all things other than Mac. I thought that it was bad when the iPo was the only iToy. I own several but the articles I want to read are articles about the Mac. iToy articles are in general boring. Having a whole section on iPad or iPhone cases is a prime example of how boring this area is.

The Mac App store has only one program in it that I would & have already purchased. That is the Mac OS 10.7 Lion update. But all of its updates still come from outside the Mac App Store. For someone that doesn't want their Mac to turn into a large iToy, there is little or nothing useful in Lion. I even installed Lion for some reason. For that reason I have been trying to use it. But that just seems to waste my time & make my work harder. But just like the lack of in app purchases frustrates the end user Lion seems to be there to keep the experience the same. Thus much frustration even without using the App Store.

chirpie
Dec 2, 2011, 05:34 PM
I prefer this version of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP4NMoJcFd4

You guys need to step it up and find the REAL gems out there. :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bomkgXeDkE

mdriftmeyer
Dec 2, 2011, 05:58 PM
What a terrible practice Apple is doing with this.

Get a life and respect the Terms of Development or find another platform.

lilo777
Dec 2, 2011, 06:03 PM
Poor iFans get screwed by overpaying for iToys and now that? hey will have to stay single? Well deserved :D

marksman
Dec 2, 2011, 06:10 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Match.com pays more than 30% to some affiliates for sign ups so it seems like match.com will get on board.

Vizin
Dec 2, 2011, 06:37 PM
.

Nostromo
Dec 2, 2011, 06:47 PM
If you check consumer complaints on match.com the whole enterprise sounds like a rip-off with hidden fees and fake profiles.

Good riddance!

flameproof
Dec 2, 2011, 07:25 PM
I think it is horrible that McDonald's doesn't allow Burger King to sell the Whopper in their lobbies!

I think that comparison is not correct. I see iTunes as a mall and Match (or whoever) as a tenant that should be able to use the space within certain rules. A 30% turnover cut (turnover cut, not profit cut!) seems high, specially considering that iTunes has zero risks.

I guess Match could afford it since they sell a service, but if you sell physical goods, were often profit margins well below 10% then a 30% cut is simply unworkable.

SirHaakon
Dec 2, 2011, 07:35 PM
I agree with you! I think it is horrible that McDonald's doesn't allow Burger King to sell the Whopper in their lobbies! How DARE they obstruct free enterprise.
That is a terrible analogy. Match.com and Apple don't make competing products.

This would be a better analogy:

Match.com wants a spot in Apple's food court and thus they have to pay rent (30% of every sale of the app). But Apple is demanding that in addition to that, they must also pay 30% of all of their sales (subscriptions) as well. Could you imagine if McDonald's had to give the mall 30% of their hamburger sales? Haha, as if.

Of course it's easy to say "well they can just choose to not do business with Apple," except that Apple's "App Store" is the ONLY way you can get apps on your iPhone. And yes, there are other phones and operating systems out there, but Apple is dominating the app market and obviously they want their application to be available to as wide an audience as possible. It's like saying "well they don't have to be in the food court in the one mall everyone shops at - they could choose to set up shop in the gas station down the road."

A free market is a good thing, yes, but simply saying "don't play by their rules if you don't like it" doesn't mean there are reasonable alternatives.

Rodimus Prime
Dec 2, 2011, 07:48 PM
I honestly wish Amazon was the one to their foot down and forced Apple to act. It nice to see some companies start doing it pointing out how insane Apple's demands are.

inlovewithi
Dec 2, 2011, 07:52 PM
Reading the 1st page, can't explain it, but something about really shows me how annoying fanboys are. How defensive they get over a corporation, almost as if they were afraid that someone might criticize their child.

kirk26
Dec 2, 2011, 08:19 PM
Get a life and respect the Terms of Development or find another platform.

Why so mad? I'm just stating that I don't agree with what they do and didn't insult anyone. If it makes you feel like a man to insult people then go ahead.

MacAddict1978
Dec 2, 2011, 08:40 PM
What a terrible practice Apple is doing with this.

I don't think ANYONE wants to fill out a dating profile on a mobile device. Match.com requires a good bit of info... you'd be running for a computer anyway. Really a non-issue.

Exactly, how dare Apple tell me I can only use nails with their hammer if I pay Apple a 30% surcharge on each nail. :rolleyes:

It's so not like that. Apple is saying they offer the nails, bring your own hammer... or you can buy one next door. Next door is that Safari icon on your IOS device... it's so painful to click one extra button, isn't it?

You only sign up for a service 1 fracking time. If this is such an issue for you, don't hold your breath about getting a second date with someone, if you get one at all filling out a profile with an IOS device.

I can only imagine the damnyouautocorrect.com postings now.

And it's not about being a fanboy. This is business. Apple need to be consistent with their policies. Let a dating site go, then a publisher pulls their app in protest. If Apple just banned these apps all together that would be a totally different story.

Also, they not only gave developers like half a year to get their apps in compliance, they gave them another extension on top of it... at this point, it's just laziness on match.com's part.

My car can go 180 mph, how dare they tell me there is a speed limit on this road! How dare they tax me for driving on this road, tax my car, and tell me to follow a speed limit! The nerve!

----------

re original article

eharmony and match.com = a joke
poor suckers who waste money at dating sites
i meet chicks all the time without paying for it

All the time? So you don't have any success with keeping one? So who is doing the walk of shame the next day?

Yes, beer can lend a helping hand... but without it, you only have your own hand.

nuckinfutz
Dec 2, 2011, 08:55 PM
I honestly wish Amazon was the one to their foot down and forced Apple to act. It nice to see some companies start doing it pointing out how insane Apple's demands are.

LOL Amazon?

http://shiftyjelly.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/amazon-app-store-rotten-to-the-core/

or the same Amazon that pulled 3rd party access to their API which screwed over products like Delicious Library (basically killed their iOS app) and others?

http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/07/delicious-library-for-iphone-runs-afoul-of-amazons-api-terms-p/

Keep vilifying Apple if you wish but companies are in this business to make money and not necessarily friends.

MacAddict1978
Dec 2, 2011, 09:05 PM
Care to explain how a developer can peddle their app on an iphone without the App store?

Second I have done some work with Gameloft and they have said flat out they charge a dollar more per game because of the huge apple cut. They charge 6.00 dollars and apple gets 1.80, they have stated they would like to keep games under the 5.00 dollar mark but can't because of apples huge cut.

Once again could you please explain to me the the other alternatives you are speaking about? Unless I am wrong I thought the only way to get an app onto the iphone is through the app store.

An IOS developers business model would be the app store, so you need to explain the logic of the question. Developers make money either on in app advertising, or the retail price.

Match.com is not a developer anyway. Their app is an extension of an existing service, so again doesn't make a lick of sense.

To your second point about alternatives: Apple is doing quite a bit for that 30% cut: they are hosting all the web traffic to your product (it costs money to have people looking at your web page you know), they store your files and host them, handle all the credit card fees, etc. They also give you a marketing boost you can't get on your own. For a small developer, that's striking gold. For a company like match.com, maybe not as much, but that's why it's an option for them to offer or not offer in app subscriptions.

Lots of developers only came toe exist because of the app store.

What would Game Loft be doing without mobile apps? Google takes that same cut you know. It's a revenue stream, plain and simple. They don't price their games that way because of the 30%. They price them because that is the average sweet spot people will pay for apps that are not given away. Very few apps survive a retail price higher than $6.99, very few!

In App purchases is a rip off to the dev.
If you read the requirements the devs are required to support everything for uploading the new content to the iOS device or have it built in enabled in the app.

Apple is taking 30% to be nothing more than a credit card processor. Tell you the truth they are worse than a credit card processor because they block even more information for the supplier.


You're really wrong, see my post above about what that 30% covers. Apple is acting like an Amazon or a Target, being the retailer, the developers are technically vendors. Apple is lucky to net even 10% at times on an app store purchase, and they take a hit on free apps. Welcome to business 101.

And the developer has no part in uploading the content to the new device. You lost all cred with me with that comment. That's what the app store is for and does! ROFLMAO. All the developer is responsible for is developing the app, and uploading it to Apple 1 time. From there on, they're role is done unless they decide to provide updates to their app.

When you start talking about transaction fees things get a bit murky.

If you look at a companies biggest bills you see a couple of standout areas that consume a lot of finances.

1. Payroll
2. Marketing

The actual transportation of goods or services is relatively cheap. The App Store isn't going to help your payroll. That is what it is but the App Store is about Marketing. Millions of users coming to the same central store where you have the opportunity to sell your goods is a potential gold mine.

That's where the 30% is paying off for good developers. They don't have to expend as much money to market their product. A few good reviews and being included in New and Noteworthy are enough to propel sales.

I agree with you, but a few things to point out more value in what you said:

The transportation of good accounts for one of the largest expenses in the supply chain. All raw materials to make a good (right down to a manual) carry a transportation expense to them, and then again when a product is assembled and shipped back out, often going from a plant to a warehouse to the end sellers warehouse who then ships to a store. By the time a product arrives in a store, it's in part and it's whole been shipped over 10 times, at least. Not even counting manufacturing expenses alone.

Payroll is every companies BIGGEST expense. If you are a company dealing in virtual goods, your payroll is now rooted exclusively in development, support staff, and some minor positions. Do you know how much money it costs to operate even a small distribution center? This is why game downloads are being pushed so hard by every game company out there. It saves them millions of dollars at a clip, even having existing distribution. Imagine taking that all away.

If developers had to sell apps on their own, or via a physical delivery system, they would see well over 30% in over head bite them in the butt.

Subscription based apps get into a very different beast though. Periodicals are funded by advertising. That news stand price is often below the cost of printing and shipping, and then there is the unsold copies. Places like Netflix and such price as low as they can afford to already... these are the companies who get wounded by a 30% cut. Conde Naste is experimenting heavily, but that 30% will kill them if they don't see a large rise in subscribers, which increases their ad rates.

I think Apple only needs to revise it's policy for periodical companies. Do 10% like Google is doing. Everyone else, pay up.

Rodimus Prime
Dec 2, 2011, 09:22 PM
LOL Amazon?

http://shiftyjelly.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/amazon-app-store-rotten-to-the-core/

or the same Amazon that pulled 3rd party access to their API which screwed over products like Delicious Library (basically killed their iOS app) and others?

http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/07/delicious-library-for-iphone-runs-afoul-of-amazons-api-terms-p/

Keep vilifying Apple if you wish but companies are in this business to make money and not necessarily friends.

different topic. Thanks for the moving of goal post.

Besides on Android there are multiple options for selling Apps. Take your pick.

You're really wrong, see my post above about what that 30% covers. Apple is acting like an Amazon or a Target, being the retailer, the developers are technically vendors. Apple is lucky to net even 10% at times on an app store purchase, and they take a hit on free apps. Welcome to business 101.

And the developer has no part in uploading the content to the new device. You lost all cred with me with that comment. That's what the app store is for and does! ROFLMAO. All the developer is responsible for is developing the app, and uploading it to Apple 1 time. From there on, they're role is done unless they decide to provide updates to their app.



You really should read the requirements for in app purchases.
Read it and you will see for in app purchases the only thing Apple function as is a credit card processor.
But that would require you not going ooo Apple is great and looking at it.

I am not talking about selling Apps at all. it for IN APP purchases only.

cire
Dec 2, 2011, 09:51 PM
I think that comparison is not correct. I see iTunes as a mall and Match (or whoever) as a tenant that should be able to use the space within certain rules. A 30% turnover cut (turnover cut, not profit cut!) seems high, specially considering that iTunes has zero risks.

I guess Match could afford it since they sell a service, but if you sell physical goods, were often profit margins well below 10% then a 30% cut is simply unworkable.


Yes, a mall is one correct analogy. Another is simply as a consignment retailer. Anyway, I don't hear you saying that Ebay is too high? Or Kindle? Or Nook?

vitzr
Dec 2, 2011, 10:05 PM
At the end of the day I don't see why people spend the time to discuss it. Apple has a history of charging and keeping far more money than others in the tech sector. They've cultivated the skill to manipulate, influence, and sell to a massive number of people.

There's nothing new here. Apple does what Apple wants. How they want, when they want, and they've got legions of excuse makers that stand behind them to brag if the result is good, or put up smoke screens to cover up Apples mistakes. It is what it is.

Many find it very easy to get sucked into Apples web, stop thinking for themselves & become somewhat of a zealot as modeled by the former CEO. Its the crowd mentality (iFans vs...) that attracts a certain type. It's a charismatic ego centric leader they seek & worship.

Again there's nothing wrong with that, it is what it is. Apples done a brilliant job of turning mere devices into cash cows that are the envy of any money loving person. In fact that's why I find it so humorous that the Android hating Apple lovers get so worked up over their competition even though Apples already won. It's having Apple to covet, worship & belong to that draws them in.

nuckinfutz
Dec 2, 2011, 10:21 PM
different topic. Thanks for the moving of goal post.

Besides on Android there are multiple options for selling Apps. Take your pick.


You really should read the requirements for in app purchases.
Read it and you will see for in app purchases the only thing Apple function as is a credit card processor.
But that would require you not going ooo Apple is great and looking at it.

I am not talking about selling Apps at all. it for IN APP purchases only.

Not really moving the goal posts but rather speaking to the credibility or lack thereof of Amazon. They too have their issues where they become the bully. They could stand up to Apple but they have not power...Apple doesn't rely on Amazon services and frankly would rather you use them instead.

Yes there are multiple options for selling on Android. You can get screwed by Amazon as witnessed by Shifty Jelly's blog post or you can be on a number of market places. If those are better options then Match.com can peddle their flesh fantasy there.

For the App Store it's clear. Wall Gardens have won.

I've got 50GB of content across an iPhone and iPad. iCloud lets me backup both of these devices with just 4GB of data used. How is Android going to back up content as seamlessly across multiple stores?

It's not about loving or even hating Apple but realizing that there is a "reason" why they do what they do.

----------

At the end of the day I don't see why people spend the time to discuss it. Apple has a history of charging and keeping far more money than others in the tech sector. They've cultivated the skill to manipulate, influence, and sell to a massive number of people.



You seem awfully young. Some of "iFans" were using Macs back in the day when Apple wasn't doing so hot. What Apple has done over the last decade is something you will not see many times in your life. It's worthy of discussion from my point of view. YMMV

Rodimus Prime
Dec 2, 2011, 10:25 PM
Not really moving the goal posts but rather speaking to the credibility or lack thereof of Amazon. They too have their issues where they become the bully. They could stand up to Apple but they have not power...Apple doesn't rely on Amazon services and frankly would rather you use them instead.

Yes there are multiple options for selling on Android. You can get screwed by Amazon as witnessed by Shifty Jelly's blog post or you can be on a number of market places. If those are better options then Match.com can peddle their flesh fantasy there.

For the App Store it's clear. Wall Gardens have won.

I've got 50GB of content across an iPhone and iPad. iCloud lets me backup both of these devices with just 4GB of data used. How is Android going to back up content as seamlessly across multiple stores?

It's not about loving or even hating Apple but realizing that there is a "reason" why they do what they do.


Multiple stores would fall on the requirement of each of the stores used.

I know about shift Jelly post. Reason I choose amazon is they are among the few companies that have the power to stand up to Apple. Apple blocking the kindle App on iOS would hurt Apple. Currently Amazon keeps 30% of books sold threw their estore (same rate as Apple) and per Apple's requirement they would be forced to eat losses since Apple is taking 100% of their cut and per the rules Amazon could not pass on the cost to people buying threw iOS.

Right now Apple being the gate keeper for iOS is becoming more and more of a problem. They increase the gate and make it harder to be on iOS. Small devs fine but the big companies Apple's requirements are getting a little steep.

nuckinfutz
Dec 2, 2011, 10:31 PM
Right now Apple being the gate keeper for iOS is becoming more and more of a problem. They increase the gate and make it harder to be on iOS. Small devs fine but the big companies Apple's requirements are getting a little steep.

"Most people want security in this world, not liberty."

HL Mencken


In essence Humans LOVE Walled Gardens. Look at ancient architecture ...it was always about encapsulating the citizens from danger. It's time tested. Android's "Have it your way" campaign is distinctly like Burger King which has played second fiddle to McDonalds.

TXAppleUser
Dec 2, 2011, 11:44 PM
You guys need to step it up and find the REAL gems out there. :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bomkgXeDkE

That one is good, too.

schmidm77
Dec 3, 2011, 12:16 AM
Do you believe that Target is wrong by demanding a 30%+ margin? Is Ebay wrong by charging the fees I outlined? I Amazon wrong for following the same model?

Your examples aren't even comparable. Target doesn't get a 30% cut of World of Warcraft subscriptions after they've sold the boxed retail copy, and they don't prevent the application from pointing to a non-Target site for subscribing.

cjbryce
Dec 3, 2011, 12:55 AM
If it were eHarmony this video would a lot more relevant and funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTTwcCVajAc

I'm up at stupid o'clock on a Saturday for a work conference call - this cheered me up no end. She really is very funny! 10 out of 10 to her for taking the mickey out of all the online cat-loving lonely hearts!

fifthworld
Dec 3, 2011, 01:16 AM
how is it a terrible practice?

those are apple's rules in their store. if a certain company doesnt want to follow
it, they can take their business elsewhere

Wrong. Apple Store has nothing to do with it. These are Apple rules applied to our iPhones.

marksman
Dec 3, 2011, 03:37 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Whenever these discussions come up it is always clear who has absolutely no business experience or understanding.

Some of you need to create a product or service and then try to successfully distribute or sell it. You will quickly see what a good deal Apple's 30% is.

heehee
Dec 3, 2011, 03:52 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Do you believe that Target is wrong by demanding a 30%+ margin? Is Ebay wrong by charging the fees I outlined? I Amazon wrong for following the same model?

Your examples aren't even comparable. Target doesn't get a 30% cut of World of Warcraft subscriptions after they've sold the boxed retail copy, and they don't prevent the application from pointing to a non-Target site for subscribing.

Except World of Warcraft can't put boxes in Target for free.

Why can't people get that you can't rent a mall space for free and won't expect the mall to get a 30% of the sales?

There is a way around that, just look at Netflix.

The Phazer
Dec 3, 2011, 04:02 AM
How? Its using the popularity of the app store to lure Apples customers to their website. Apple spent much time, effort and money to setup their ecosystem only to allow a third party to take their business?

Yes. That's how capitalism works. If Apple's App Store is so worthwhile, stop being anti-competitive and blocking other stores on people's devices, and we'll see how much the 30% is worth it in an open, proper market.

It wouldn't do well.

Apple continues to want to create a **** user experience for paying customers in order to furnish their greed.

Phazer

fabianjj
Dec 3, 2011, 06:23 AM
This makes absolutely no sense. DO OVER


The point is that even though Apple owns the App Store, WE own our devices and Apple is telling us we're not allowed to certain things with them, making up rules as they go along. As long as they don't allow side-loading of apps, I think I dare say it's bordering unethical for them to deny apps for any other reasons than stability or security reasons.

----------

You're free to create and put them on Android.

But how can the OWNERS of iOS devices use the apps then? It's not as much unfair to the developers being forced to allow apples rules for the iOS ecosystem, but the users that paid $600+ for their devices that are told by apple that their devices are no longer allowed to do certain things because a developer decided to add a URL to an app.

rdowns
Dec 3, 2011, 06:57 AM
That is a terrible analogy. Match.com and Apple don't make competing products.

This would be a better analogy:

Match.com wants a spot in Apple's food court and thus they have to pay rent (30% of every sale of the app). But Apple is demanding that in addition to that, they must also pay 30% of all of their sales (subscriptions) as well. Could you imagine if McDonald's had to give the mall 30% of their hamburger sales? Haha, as if.




The only problem with your analogy is that malls charge rent based on square footage and, wait for it, a percentage of your sales.

schmidm77
Dec 3, 2011, 09:13 AM
Except World of Warcraft can't put boxes in Target for free.

Why can't people get that you can't rent a mall space for free and won't expect the mall to get a 30% of the sales?

There is a way around that, just look at Netflix.

Umm, you are the one who can't get the fact that the sale of the application, and any services that the app may also use are different. Apple getting a cut of the app sale is fine. Demanding a cut of all subsequent subscription revenues, and preventing the app maker from pointing to a non-Apple subscription mechanism, is, as somebody else put it, like the mob demanding protection money.

So as I originally said in my first post, Target gets whatever margin they make off selling the retail box of WoW, but they don't demand a cut of all subscription revenues thereafter. Apple is demanding both, and when the app developer provides a direct way for user subscription, Apple takes their ball and goes home like a greedy child.

inlovewithi
Dec 3, 2011, 09:28 AM
At the end of the day I don't see why people spend the time to discuss it. Apple has a history of charging and keeping far more money than others in the tech sector. They've cultivated the skill to manipulate, influence, and sell to a massive number of people.

There's nothing new here. Apple does what Apple wants. How they want, when they want, and they've got legions of excuse makers that stand behind them to brag if the result is good, or put up smoke screens to cover up Apples mistakes. It is what it is.

Many find it very easy to get sucked into Apples web, stop thinking for themselves & become somewhat of a zealot as modeled by the former CEO. Its the crowd mentality (iFans vs...) that attracts a certain type. It's a charismatic ego centric leader they seek & worship.

Again there's nothing wrong with that, it is what it is. Apples done a brilliant job of turning mere devices into cash cows that are the envy of any money loving person. In fact that's why I find it so humorous that the Android hating Apple lovers get so worked up over their competition even though Apples already won. It's having Apple to covet, worship & belong to that draws them in.

Good analysis.

schmidm77
Dec 3, 2011, 09:32 AM
At the end of the day I don't see why people spend the time to discuss it. Apple has a history of charging and keeping far more money than others in the tech sector. They've cultivated the skill to manipulate, influence, and sell to a massive number of people.

There's nothing new here. Apple does what Apple wants. How they want, when they want, and they've got legions of excuse makers that stand behind them to brag if the result is good, or put up smoke screens to cover up Apples mistakes. It is what it is.

Many find it very easy to get sucked into Apples web, stop thinking for themselves & become somewhat of a zealot as modeled by the former CEO. Its the crowd mentality (iFans vs...) that attracts a certain type. It's a charismatic ego centric leader they seek & worship.

Again there's nothing wrong with that, it is what it is. Apples done a brilliant job of turning mere devices into cash cows that are the envy of any money loving person. In fact that's why I find it so humorous that the Android hating Apple lovers get so worked up over their competition even though Apples already won. It's having Apple to covet, worship & belong to that draws them in.

Apologists will love it until Apple gets slapped with a suit for restraint of trade.

heehee
Dec 3, 2011, 10:20 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Except World of Warcraft can't put boxes in Target for free.

Why can't people get that you can't rent a mall space for free and won't expect the mall to get a 30% of the sales?

There is a way around that, just look at Netflix.

Umm, you are the one who can't get the fact that the sale of the application, and any services that the app may also use are different. Apple getting a cut of the app sale is fine. Demanding a cut of all subsequent subscription revenues, and preventing the app maker from pointing to a non-Apple subscription mechanism, is, as somebody else put it, like the mob demanding protection money.

So as I originally said in my first post, Target gets whatever margin they make off selling the retail box of WoW, but they don't demand a cut of all subscription revenues thereafter. Apple is demanding both, and when the app developer provides a direct way for user subscription, Apple takes their ball and goes home like a greedy child.

Yes, Target makes a margin off selling WoW. Whatever the cost is, that's fine. But you don't seem to get that fact that WoW at Target is not free. Match.com is free (I presume). Apple can't make a margin off of $0. As I have said before, do what Netflix does and be happy, there is a way around it.

Stella
Dec 3, 2011, 11:50 AM
Not a problem, Match.com can just build a rich web app. If built well, for *this* type of application the differences between a native and web app can be minimized.

The future will be more towards web applications than native apps. Future versions of HTML will enable more integration between the web app and phone functionality - i.e., camera etc.

Of course, not everything will be possible in a web app that is possible in a native app. But web applications have the bonus of being cheaper to develop - one web app for many devices.

ghostlyorb
Dec 3, 2011, 12:28 PM
How is Netflix allowed then, since that is subscription based?

You can't sign up for Netflix on your iDevice any more. You can do it from on the computer.

schmidm77
Dec 3, 2011, 01:36 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)



Yes, Target makes a margin off selling WoW. Whatever the cost is, that's fine. But you don't seem to get that fact that WoW at Target is not free. Match.com is free (I presume). Apple can't make a margin off of $0. As I have said before, do what Netflix does and be happy, there is a way around it.

The Match app is apparently just a native front-end to their web site, similar to the Facebook app.

Apple has chosen to allow free application to be offered, just has it was their choice to be the only sanctioned venue for selling applications to iPhone users. Given these facts, these (relatively new) demands for 30% cut of everything or you can't even sell your software to an iPhone user are pretty onerous.

MagnusVonMagnum
Dec 3, 2011, 03:59 PM
how is it a terrible practice?

those are apple's rules in their store. if a certain company doesnt want to follow
it, they can take their business elsewhere

It's terrible because the consumer is the one that is harmed by all of this. Do you seriously believe any of us give a rat's hind end about this GREEDY BS? We just want the darn App! :mad:

This is why I think it's ridiculous that Apple can limit who can sell software for one of their computers. The consumer is definitely the one getting the shaft by Apple's greedy practice of both monopolizing and policing what software you are "allowed" to put on your computer (and yes, the iPad is a computer!) It is that practice in general that people should be protesting, IMO because the next step will be to do the same for your desktop/notebook as well.

Kwill
Dec 3, 2011, 07:53 PM
If it were eHarmony this video would a lot more relevant and funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTTwcCVajAc

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_T7BhcH-_Lqw/SVRKcd1QiZI/AAAAAAAACO4/GitdleqdF0E/s400/Eartha.bmp
Ertha Kit (Catwoman)

flameproof
Dec 3, 2011, 09:00 PM
Image (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_T7BhcH-_Lqw/SVRKcd1QiZI/AAAAAAAACO4/GitdleqdF0E/s400/Eartha.bmp)
Ertha Kit (Catwoman)

@Kwill
The quality of dates you get from Match.com is certainly another area of concern...

Lennholm
Dec 3, 2011, 09:42 PM
Marketing? itunes store, The App store, the more iPhones & iPad advertized/sold more chance your app will get seen and purchased.

A chance that the app gets seen because it's added to a list? That's not marketing. Marketing means actively reaching out to potential customers with information about the product. Apple does nothing like that for other developers except for the very few that Apple uses to promote the app store.

Distribution comes from being downloaded from the itunes and app store. Which includes their app being on their icloud service and auto updates.

For the apps themselves yes, and this is supposed to be covered by the developer fee and 30% cut of the purchase of the app. But were talking in-app content, and Apple does not play any part in the distribution of this



Umm, you are the one who can't get the fact that the sale of the application, and any services that the app may also use are different. Apple getting a cut of the app sale is fine. Demanding a cut of all subsequent subscription revenues, and preventing the app maker from pointing to a non-Apple subscription mechanism, is, as somebody else put it, like the mob demanding protection money.

So as I originally said in my first post, Target gets whatever margin they make off selling the retail box of WoW, but they don't demand a cut of all subscription revenues thereafter. Apple is demanding both, and when the app developer provides a direct way for user subscription, Apple takes their ball and goes home like a greedy child.

Imagine if Target started making such demands and threatening to stop selling WoW if they didn't get it. What would happen?

---

The bottom line is, this affects us customers negatively. When Apple is making in-app subscriptions out of the question and prohibits any information about how to subscribe it's only making the experience worse for us.
Apple wont gain much because the majority of content providers will not use the in-app subscriptions. They simply can't because they don't have the margins.
Atleast Apple dropped the requirement that content providers can't charge more in-app than elsewhere but is it likely that they would markup the in-app subscriptions to cover Apples cut while at the same time not being allowed to inform the customers about the cheaper options? Wouldn't that cause a lot of angry customers who feel cheated when they find out later on?
Probably, the majority of content providers will simply opt out which in time could undermine the app store

JAT
Dec 3, 2011, 10:14 PM
Your examples aren't even comparable. Target doesn't get a 30% cut of World of Warcraft subscriptions after they've sold the boxed retail copy, and they don't prevent the application from pointing to a non-Target site for subscribing.
That's right. Retail markup is closer to 50%.

So as I originally said in my first post, Target gets whatever margin they make off selling the retail box of WoW, but they don't demand a cut of all subscription revenues thereafter. Apple is demanding both, and when the app developer provides a direct way for user subscription, Apple takes their ball and goes home like a greedy child.
If you had to go to Target and check out in order to buy the extras, they would take their percent. You know, like WoW add-on packs...sold in boxes...at Target.

marksman
Dec 3, 2011, 11:00 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

People who like to use wow as an example should realize the retailer can take 70% + in such cases.

People that don't understand business are free to not sell their non existant products in the app store. Those who actually make and sell things will continue to make lots of money working with apple despite your protests.

Please let us know when your non existant products find a better marketing channel. Someone said the app store is not marketing. That is 100% incorrect. Being able to easily go through the app store and browse and locate products is extremely valuable marketing. To be fair I just own a marketing company I don't not sell imaginary products via unknown channels like some here.

The apple app store has been a revolutionary positive devolopment for small app developers. It is worth significantly more than a 30% cut, including subscription and in app purchases. Versus traditional methods it is not even close. Without the app store 95% of the app developers would make zero dollars. It is silly for people to argue the benefit and value is not huge.

Some people do not understand how much time, energy and resources it takes for a very small business to replicate what apple provides. Add to that a lot of those things are not necessarily things programmers would be experienced at managing and it is an amazing benefit. As someone who has adaptly managed the same services for businesses I have owned, I would not hesitate to give apple their cut. It is a godsend for almost all developers.

divinox
Dec 4, 2011, 05:03 AM
Not a problem, Match.com can just build a rich web app. If built well, for *this* type of application the differences between a native and web app can be minimized.

The future will be more towards web applications than native apps. Future versions of HTML will enable more integration between the web app and phone functionality - i.e., camera etc.

Of course, not everything will be possible in a web app that is possible in a native app. But web applications have the bonus of being cheaper to develop - one web app for many devices.

Yup. I'm sure that even today most apps could be replicated in non-native ways. Thankfully, companies are (slowly) beginning to realize that. Applications will become industry assets; the web is the platform.

divinox
Dec 4, 2011, 05:15 AM
A chance that the app gets seen because it's added to a list? That's not marketing. Marketing means actively reaching out to potential customers with information about the product. Apple does nothing like that for other developers except for the very few that Apple uses to promote the app store.



For the apps themselves yes, and this is supposed to be covered by the developer fee and 30% cut of the purchase of the app. But were talking in-app content, and Apple does not play any part in the distribution of this





Imagine if Target started making such demands and threatening to stop selling WoW if they didn't get it. What would happen?

---

The bottom line is, this affects us customers negatively. When Apple is making in-app subscriptions out of the question and prohibits any information about how to subscribe it's only making the experience worse for us.
Apple wont gain much because the majority of content providers will not use the in-app subscriptions. They simply can't because they don't have the margins.
Atleast Apple dropped the requirement that content providers can't charge more in-app than elsewhere but is it likely that they would markup the in-app subscriptions to cover Apples cut while at the same time not being allowed to inform the customers about the cheaper options? Wouldn't that cause a lot of angry customers who feel cheated when they find out later on?
Probably, the majority of content providers will simply opt out which in time could undermine the app store

The Exodus have already begun. Apple should embrace the future, looking for ways to capitalize on it, not fight it and come off as silly looking in the end as the music industry did. Heck, what they will have is what they first envisioned, so how come they haven't figured it out yet?

rdowns
Dec 4, 2011, 06:51 AM
The Exodus have already begun.


Have anything to back that up?

divinox
Dec 4, 2011, 07:17 AM
Have anything to back that up?

Yes. Noteworthy examples are Amazon, Financial Times, Google*. On the other end of things, and somewhat related, we have Facebook and Project Spartan. Just google "publisher apple html5". Should get you started if you want more.

Its simple really. If there is a viable way to not pay Apple 30%, people will not pay Apple 30%. For many, "HTML5" is a viable way. O'Reilly was right, the Web is the platform.

* after reading up, i guess this one is a bit out of context, as this was not related to in-app purchases.

rdowns
Dec 4, 2011, 07:24 AM
Yes. Noteworthy examples are Amazon, Financial Times, Google*. On the other end of things, and somewhat related, we have Facebook and Project Spartan.

Its simple really. If there is a viable way to not pay Apple 30%, people will not pay Apple 30%. For many, "HTML5" is a viable way. O'Reilly was right, the Web is the platform.

* after reading up, i guess this one is a bit out of context, as this was not related to in-app purchases.


Whether this was Apple or another company, of course a few will try and get around paying them. I'd hardly call it an exodus.

Using Facebook's Project Spartan as an example of an "exodus" is laughable. Facebook is a competitor of Apple. Why in the world would their strategy be anything other than competing with them?

So your "exodus" boils down to the Financial Times.

divinox
Dec 4, 2011, 07:42 AM
Whether this was Apple or another company, of course a few will try and get around paying them. I'd hardly call it an exodus.

Using Facebook's Project Spartan as an example of an "exodus" is laughable. Facebook is a competitor of Apple. Why in the world would their strategy be anything other than competing with them?

So your "exodus" boils down to the Financial Times.

I said this was the beginning, not the end. Second, regarding Spartan i explicitly stated that it was "the other side of things" and (only) "related". Point was showing the trend toward "HTML5". Last, i don't know or have the time to find out, exactly which content providers that have opted for "HTML5" (and not) in response to Apples in-app purchase policy. I do know however that the reaction was strong enough to be taken seriously, as Apple evidently altered their position a bit. In fact, i do know that its such a common theme that i no longer save links related to it (i collect links on various it-related things, as i may eventually need them to support scientific theoretical arguments on technological trends).

(while looking at my collection, i did find another example though: http://www.slashgear.com/vudu-uses-new-web-streaming-service-to-avoid-sharing-loot-with-apple-10170770/)


p.s. what happened to Amazon?

rdowns
Dec 4, 2011, 07:57 AM
(while looking at my collection, i did find another example though: http://www.slashgear.com/vudu-uses-new-web-streaming-service-to-avoid-sharing-loot-with-apple-10170770/)


p.s. what happened to Amazon?


Amazon is the same as Facebook, they are a competitor.

My point was there is no exodus from the App Store. Sure, you can find a few companies fighting Apple but the fact remains the App Store earns more for developers than any other store, by a wide margin.

divinox
Dec 4, 2011, 08:34 AM
Amazon is the same as Facebook, they are a competitor.

My point was there is no exodus from the App Store. Sure, you can find a few companies fighting Apple but the fact remains the App Store earns more for developers than any other store, by a wide margin.

Competitors or not, they - evidently - support the platform. In that sense, they are no different than anyone else. They have content. Apple have a platform for said content. Simple, really. Competitor or not, no one wants to give Apple more money than necessary. Further, no one would want to pay Apple to do X if they think they can get X done cheaper through other means.

As for your claim, it is one you cannot support - not even in theory. Yes, the App Store is dominant in terms of quantity. But as "developers" are individual entities rather than a collective, these things matter little. In fact, some evidently earn more money on platforms other than iOS. (A phenomenon that is quite easy to explain using economic theory, as saturation leads to commodization in turn creating margin-pressure making development efforts for other alternatives ever more so interesting).

Last, and once more, i am talking about the beginning of something. Im not saying that every company on earth, or even most, have abandoned the platform or the App store. What i am saying is that were seeing a trend in relation to a particular solution (mainly, in app purchases - specifically, subscription services). This is correct. This can be theoretically supported drawing on e.g. economic theory. How it'll turn out? Only time can tell. Personally, i believe Apple would be better off not fighting technological evolution, embracing it instead.

Also. just to be 100% clear:

Yes. The App store has clear value. Both for users, and for developers. Further, the back-end part offers clear value for both users, and for developers. As result, there will be people happily paying Apple for these services. However, when it comes to content, these people are often quite irrelevant. Big content is owned by big media. Big media have money and balls. Big media can attain these services at a fraction of the cost, and are not as dependent on Apples services front-end.

Keeping ownership of platforms is easier said than done. IBM thought they had things in check, BIOS being their proprietary solution and a requisite for running DOS. How that one played out should be known to all. Safe to say, BIOS today is not "the platform". At times, Apple seem to show off the same arrogance and ignorance. In doing so, they risk bringing forth a future in which their own platform becomes of lesser value (e.g. apps as industry assets; web as the platform).

The Phazer
Dec 4, 2011, 08:35 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)Please let us know when your non existant products find a better marketing channel. Someone said the app store is not marketing. That is 100% incorrect. Being able to easily go through the app store and browse and locate products is extremely valuable marketing. To be fair I just own a marketing company I don't not sell imaginary products via unknown channels like some here.

It's odd that Apple don't agree with you about this if you're so right.

After all, if the App Store was such a superior model, it would cope with having competition and still win. Apple don't think it will, which is why they block other sources of software.

The apple app store has been a revolutionary positive devolopment for small app developers.

Some small app developers. But the point is that small app developers aren't all that exist, and it's only good for the small app developers that, say, don't develop tethering software, are told by Apple all the way through their sunk costs that it will be allowed in the store, and then have their software pulled in a fit of inconsistent panic by Apple with no other way to distribute it to that entire hardware platform.

Phazer

divinox
Dec 4, 2011, 08:37 AM
It's odd that Apple don't agree with you about this if you're so right.

After all, if the App Store was such a superior model, it would cope with having competition and still win. Apple don't think it will, which is why they block other sources of software.



Some small app developers. But the point is that small app developers aren't all that exist, and it's only good for the small app developers that, say, don't develop tethering software, are told by Apple all the way through their sunk costs that it will be allowed in the store, and then have their software pulled in a fit of inconsistent panic by Apple with no other way to distribute it to that entire hardware platform.

Phazer

True.

Identity Fraud
Dec 4, 2011, 06:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Whenever these discussions come up it is always clear who has absolutely no business experience or understanding.

Some of you need to create a product or service and then try to successfully distribute or sell it. You will quickly see what a good deal Apple's 30% is.

So why not explain it to us?

Dbrown
Dec 4, 2011, 06:41 PM
If the app is free, apple should get a cut of in app purchases.

faustfire
Dec 5, 2011, 01:44 AM
OT: Interesting chart here. I notice it started in 1971. So I looked up the graph for the budget deficit. Surprisingly, it began to balloon around the same time. I posit that that lost productivity is going to finance our government endless appetite for american's hard earned cash. Just a thought.

This makes no sense.

Oletros
Dec 5, 2011, 01:57 AM
So why not explain it to us?

Don't waste your time, for him anyone that doesn't praise Apple always and for all is an ignorant, a hater or doesn't get the point

divinox
Dec 5, 2011, 06:16 AM
If the app is free, apple should get a cut of in app purchases.

If so, dev X of app Y should get a cut when i buy an iOS because Y is on that platform.

DirtySocks85
Dec 5, 2011, 11:49 AM
Not sure why Match.com doesn't just have a link to sign up for a "free account" and then once you're there you have an upgrade option. Dropbox does that just fine without paying Apple a dime of their subscription fees.