I was being sarcastic. In the case of IAP content, Apple doesn't store it. So they literally are only a payment processor. Amazon has all of their own infrastructure that they use to send me content that I purchase through the Kindle Store.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hulu Complies With Apple's New iOS In-App Subscription Rules Without Sharing Revenue
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was being sarcastic. In the case of IAP content, Apple doesn't store it. So they literally are only a payment processor. Amazon has all of their own infrastructure that they use to send me content that I purchase through the Kindle Store.
That's the problem; it's currently a gray area to explore.
Link or no Link, I don't see how it aggravates Apple. It only aggravates the End User.
Would have loved in-app purchase as it would have FINALLY given me a chance to get HuluPlus with my US iTunes account - as Hulu doesn't have any loop hole from other countries to pay, even PayPal and credit cards are not accepted if not located in the US. I want to give them my money, but aren't allowed to...
That outcome is by design but not for that reason.
Apple's vision for the App Store is that is can be used by developers to extend an existing service to iOS users but should be used as a billboard on Apple's commercial territory to divert revenue away from Apple. If you are coming to the app from finding it on the App Store and not as an existing customer of the third party, why should Apple make it easy for the third party to divert that revenue?
It's the same result as Conde Nast magazine subscriptions; if you want to subscribe as an in-app purchase you can, if you want to enter your subscriber information from your print edition for free access you can, but the app is not bait for getting you to go to the magazine's web site to subscribe outside of Apple.
I think removing the links is a good outcome that balances Apple and the third parties' commercial interests without making things particularly difficult on consumers. It puts the ball in the third parties' court to make the user experience easier for the consumer by providing them a way to subscribe through an in-app purchase.
That's not where Apple brings value to Amazon. For users who come to the Kindle via the iOS Kindle app, Apple is the would-be point of sale, i.e., Apple is effectively a Kindle reseller that broaden's Amazon's market for Kindle and its content.
Last edited:
not for nothing, but I said this is all the app makers needed to do back when the restrictions were first announced...
I haven't read the whole thread but I don't really see what the fuss is about. Spotify has been like this since it launched. The only way to use the Spotify app is to have signed up to premium on their website before it lets you sign in. Surely this is just the same?
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
no company is being forced into including their apps in apples stores where millions of people have credit cards and are ready to spend their money on products snd services.
jamied95 said:
no company is being forced into including their apps in apples stores where millions of people have credit cards and are ready to spend their money on products snd services.
I am sorry, I must have missed where Apple has started allowing side loaded applications...
I agree that using the in-app purchase would be better, but 30% is a ridiculous fee, it's obvious it's not going to work for most third parties, some of which already have in place their payment processing infrastructure.
Also to "cripple" a bit these apps might be a double-edged sword. I love my iPhone but I would never have bought it without the Kindle app. If using the Kindle app on the iPhone becomes a nuisance I will surely consider switching to a different device instead of the new iPhone model.
There is a free app. It's called HuluPlus. The service is $7.99 though. I hear you though. It's ridiculous to see the website come up on a laptop, but not on an iPad. You just sit there and think WTF??? It's the same thing. Why does it matter? There are a lot of problems with Hulu. Believe me. But for that $7.99 I get The Daily Show, on my HDTV through my XBOX360 and do not need cabletv and do not have to sit in front of the computer. So it depends on what you personally find useful. For some people it's just not enough.
First of all, I wasn't making an argument. I was just answering a simple question with a simple answer.
More importantly, your understanding of the situation is off. Apple only gets revenue from content transactions within an app if the customer uses IAP (In App Purchasing) in which case Apple is the middle man. They do not get paid if you deal with the third party directly.
Microsoft was convicted of abusing their monopoly status. What is illegal for an abusive monopolist is not necessarily illegal for anyone else.
Whatever. You seem to be trying to turn what I said into your strawman. Apple's platform seems to me to be an important part of the infrastructure used by apps to deliver content to an iOS device. If you disagree with my understanding of the word "infrastructure", feel free to provide your own definition.
I still have no idea what your point is.
By authenticating the user, authorizing the transaction and processing the payment. Apple does this in a way which reduces the barrier for the user to complete the transaction. This translates to potentially more sales.
And best of all, these benefits are optional for the provider.
For the record, I agree that 30% is far to much and the original plan of making this mandatory was terrible. In fact I had decided that I would not buy the next iPhone unless this was addressed. Fortunately the current process seems fair enough to eliminate my concerns.
Last edited:
It is illegal to use your monopoly in one market to gain a monopoly in another market.
Microsoft was a monopoly. Microsoft Windows controlled 95% of the OS market. Microsoft was using this monopoly to try and corner the browser market.
Apple's iOS does not have a monopoly. Android is neck and neck with iOS. Apple can do whatever it wants with it's AppStore, because you don't NEED an iOS device to do anything. You have choices. This was not the case back in the Windows days - there were very little legitimate options.
I'm not sure what his claim has to do with side loaded apps, but since you asked...
http://www.apple.com/webapps/whatarewebapps.html
Think people are failing to see that iOS is a new model, it comes free with the device for starters and you usually get 2 major upgrades for free as well.
Have you looked at how much a copy of Windows costs? That's why Microsoft doesn't need to chase Amazon for payments when it sells books on the Windows Kindle application.
iOS also has a very easy app delivery and upgrade infrastructure.
That automatically makes it different from desktop OSs. iOS devices are closer to the console model.
Now, looking at consoles if you try to put your App in Xbox, Playstation or the Wii you'll get a huge upfront joining up bill plus a commission structure that makes 30% seem just like an add-on option. They also don't allow anyone else to install stuff in their machines, even to going to extremes like Sony. Free apps? You'd be laughed at.
So Apple is already quite open in what they allow.
So the devices, iOS itself, the marketing, app store system, and of course free app delivery is all infrastructure that these companies ride for free.
You can claim that these products also help Apple sell more devices, but one can also argue that what Apple's offers also has value, and in a fair agreement they should also be compensated.
To just ask not to include a link is IMHO a very generous offer.
I'd like to see what would happen if Apple asked Amazon to let them sell iBooks directly on the Kindle.
Have you looked at how much a copy of Windows costs? That's why Microsoft doesn't need to chase Amazon for payments when it sells books on the Windows Kindle application.
iOS also has a very easy app delivery and upgrade infrastructure.
That automatically makes it different from desktop OSs. iOS devices are closer to the console model.
Now, looking at consoles if you try to put your App in Xbox, Playstation or the Wii you'll get a huge upfront joining up bill plus a commission structure that makes 30% seem just like an add-on option. They also don't allow anyone else to install stuff in their machines, even to going to extremes like Sony. Free apps? You'd be laughed at.
So Apple is already quite open in what they allow.
So the devices, iOS itself, the marketing, app store system, and of course free app delivery is all infrastructure that these companies ride for free.
You can claim that these products also help Apple sell more devices, but one can also argue that what Apple's offers also has value, and in a fair agreement they should also be compensated.
To just ask not to include a link is IMHO a very generous offer.
I'd like to see what would happen if Apple asked Amazon to let them sell iBooks directly on the Kindle.
"Competition law prohibits agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business"
By making Amazon (rival of iBooks) or Netflix (rival of iTunes) have to shell out an extra 30%, that restricts competition because it is impossible for either of those two companies to compete with Apple on pricing - what most people purchase on.
Presumably also, Safari on iOS is in kind of the same position as IE was on Windows? By far the dominant mobile browser, and almost impossible to compete with because it's there when you install it, and you can't create a competitor that is as good with the tools provided.
In its very nature, a "closed system" is anticompetitive because it means a user either can't access, or makes it almost impossible to access competing services. Hulu Plus might have a drop in traffic now as people don't understand how to get an account because the page their greeted with doesn't allow them to sign up to an account, the consumer will therefore go for the easiest thing to consume their TV: iTunes.
I like the App Store and everything about the experience, but I do think Apple are a bit arrogant and anti-competitive.
Well I can watch netflix on my computer, xbox, blu-ray player, heck, even the Apple TV, so why is any different? Sure, you can't sign up right on these devices (to the best of my knowledge), but it gives you the website to create an account. I don't see why this is so different.
Heck, I can click on a netflix ad in safari on my iMac, which takes me to the netflix page to sign up, then I can watch an episode of 'the office' within seconds, yet I bet Apple wishes I went to iTunes and rented that episode for $ 0.99. I understand the app is in apples "app store", but I feel like this is a bit greedy when you can watch netflix on a slew of other devices with no problems.
Actually, MS controlled 90% of the *consumer* OS market. Which points out the importance of defining what the relevant market is in determining whether there is a monopoly.
IOS does not have a monopoly on mobile OS's. However, iOS may be coming close to having a monopoly on tablet OS's. And of course iTunes is also close to having a monopoly on music downloads. So Apple does have to at least keep an eye on possible anti-competitive issues.
How is this anti-competitive? You think Best Buy would be okay with Apple placing coupons for $100 off on their packaging if they buy the mac from an Apple Retail Store?
And the 30% cut is necessary, because it helps Apple maintain the App Store (and other online properties). Unlike MS, and Google, Apple likes their properties to at least break even. They don't like throwing away money just to entrench a monopoly.