HBO should raise the price of their subscription to subsidize all the free apps not generating income for Apple? If Apple needs subsidies, it sounds like they’re the one with the bad business model.
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.
Apple Allegedly Buys Ads for Subscription-Based Apps to Collect More Commission [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What is Apple giving HBO's customers that would require it to raise the price of an iPhone? Not content, not payment processing if the customer buys directly from HBO, not customer service. Just the app hosting and download.
Doesn't it seem arbitrary that Apple provides iOS, Siri, maps data, a bundle of preinstalled apps, 5 GB of iCloud hosting, a charging cable and 90 days of support, included with the cost of an iPhone, but to download third-party apps, now THAT requires a 15-30% commission of all third-party transactions? I'm not saying Apple should never charge for extras, just that it doesn't seem written in stone to me that App Store expenses have to be directly compensated, any more than these other expenses that support their hardware sales.
How does a consumer saving 10%-30% = free?
Apples and oranges, this has nothing to do with a company running ads for another company that doesn't want them to. The iphone is Apples product. HBO, Netflix etc. is not.
Is Apple not making profit of the iphones sales? Pretty sure they aren't relying on app store revenue to break even on iphones.
Perhaps you need to steep yourself in a little reality. A.) It seems based on updated information the devs were onboard with this. B.) Apple makes both products and operates a store to sell and distribute third-party products. C.) Stores advertise all the time for products and services they sell even when those very same products and services are available elsewhere, even directly from the company that makes them. - This is called "competition."
You're the only one saying free. Devs already pay Apple in multiple ways, it's reasonable to not want to be middlemanned out of money you're already earning on top of that.
A quick breakdown of the places Apple extracts money from an iOS dev:
A Mac to build your app.
An iPhone to test it (and, more commonly, an iPad and Apple Watch).
An annual developer fee to list your app.
A percentage of the app sale price.
A percentage of a subscription price.
A percentage of any in-app purchase price.
App store ads to increase visibility.
And you're saying that somehow, after all of that, Apple can't make the App Store work without losing money?
Secret from the developers (i.e. one of the two parties who would traditionally be involved).
That's a crazy conclusion to jump to, but with how little visibility we have into the app store and the costs of running it, trying to solve that problem blind is also pretty pointless.
Last edited:
What? Again no one is being forced to sell their shares. How are they taking advantage of the company? The company is buying back their own shares? It's only cheating if they are paying under the share value at the time of purchase. They still have to pay to buy back the shares. They can't just take the shares back from share holders. Buying back shares come out of the companies net profits.
You are saying that Apple’s profits should be due to selling hardware. Right now those profits are split between markups on the hardware itself and revenue from the services they sell associated with that hardware. You proposed that Apple should reduce their profits from the App Store. It simply follows that means they need to make up for that reduction in profits by increasing the profits on the hardware.
But everyone who buys Apple hardware is not an HBO customer. So if they raise the price of their iPhones to maintain their profits while allowing HBO to retain more of their revenue from Apple supported services, then all iPhone customers are subsidizing HBO.
Is it weird that Apple includes Apple software and services in the sale of Apple hardware? No.
Regarding point C, when Walmart advertises Crest, presumably they don’t take an extra 30% from Crest on sales made that week. Certainly not without permission. And yes, it seems there is no longer a use in this conversation unless Apple is lying.
Yeah, even when people are fighting for depleted natural resources, or during a war. Capitalism cares absolutely nothing else but wealth. That’s why seeing apple getting caught on such behavior is infinitely better than letting them running away unharmed.
Stock buybacks only benefit those that hold a lot of shares in the company. If I had 1,000 shares of company 'a', and someone has 100,000 shares, and the price goes up $1.00, I get $1,000. That other guy gets $100,000. The pie just got bigger, but not for me. Stock buybacks dilute minority shareholder representation. There are a lot of reasons why stock buy backs are wrong, but I'll just stop here.
I have a higher tax rate on that $1,000 than the guy that got $100,000. It's how the rich keep getting richer... How they 'make the pie higher'.
If that 10-30% is the part that Apple would other wise charge for their service, and that 10-30% is given away to make customers happy, they they are getting that service for free.
Or, to satisfy @boss.king, they are getting it for ($99/number HBO subscribers) which is a number distinct from free.
I’m a customer (One of the two parties traditionally involved in a purchase) and they keep their upcoming releases secret from me.
I think you’re trying to draw lines around special cases here specifically because it’s Apple.
There is no god given right to sell through the AppStore. People do it because they make money from it. If there was a way to make more money, they would.
Yeah, I remember having a choice on whose software was loaded into the computer on my Toyota when I bought it. Yeah...
OMG! I had to buy some shoes I was looking from at an 'authorized dealer'. Oh, and the last bike I bought too. I mean if I wanted to make sure I was getting authentic shoes, and a real dealer supported warranty on an authentic 'real' bike, and not a copy, or a re-manufactured used one.
There are reasons to buy things in dark allies, and reasons for buying from legitimate vendor recognized sources.
That's not what's happening, so they're not.
You're not one of the parties involved in deciding how/where to place ads for a business, which is what we're talking about.
Nope, it would be just as scummy if it were Google doing it, or Amazon, or anyone else.
No one said there was. This is a point that no one was making.
True. Also, I specifically subscribe to things from the Apple App Store so that all my subscriptions live in one place and I can easily see them/cancel them by going to one place. See that benefit? I prefer that over having subscriptions randomly spread out. They live in one place and I can find/manage them all there. The App Store provides an ease and home base one could argue increases buying.
Just telling you there's another side.
Sounds like you are talking a taxation issue not a stock buy back issue. Everyone who owns the shares get the same change in the price. Again nobody is forcing minority share holders to sell their shares. Companies aren't making money on the buy back. They are regaining equity that they lost when they issued shares which companies release because they need the money for expansion etc. Sorry I see nothing wrong with that unless they unethically drove down the stock price before doing so. It's also very much legal sooo...
3 Reasons Companies Choose Stock Buybacks
Companies can repurchase their stock for ownership consolidation, investor sentiment, and stock valuation.
Yes, but Walmart doesn’t take an extra 30% for the ad. And clearly there’s a functional difference between a markup and a cut. Once Walmart pays Crest for the product, they could care less what price Walmart sells it for. If Walmart could get away with a 200% mark up, then bully for them. If they can only get 5% we’ll, that sucks but not Crest’s problem. Imagine if Walmart ran an ad for Crest and then told Crest that they’d be paying 30% less for the next shipment because their ad got them more sales. Crest probably wouldn’t be sending anymore product or would be taking Apple to court.
Last edited:
I don't think anybody is arguing that Apple can provide in app subscriptions. The argument is Apple posting ads on the net to direct people to do it that way when a particular developer doesn't want them to advertise their products.
It's kinda like if you hired a real estate agent to list your property and that agents real estate company starts putting up ads that direct buyers directly to the head office to buy the house. The house sells that way and then takes 30% of that listing agents commission even though the agent didn't ask them for any ads to help with the sale.
Does that seem fair?
Hmmm so a couple things. A) It's not free for the consumer which is what I thought you meant in the original post? If you mean free for the developer well if you're not going to allow them to sideload then I think any fees to be in the appstore should just cover the apples cost tbh. Allow sideloading different story.
B) The argument at the end of the day is if you own the property you should be able to dictate how and who publishes advertisements for it. I'm sure the developers wouldn't mind Apple paying for ads but in an agreed upon way which they should have the right to.
C) I believe as long as your app doesn't break any appstore terms, your app has as much right as any other to be on the app store.
Apple doesn’t extract anything, you willingly make an investment. Having said that:
- don’t need a Mac. Windows and frameworks works well. And you can rent macs in the cloud for cheap.
- whether you need a watch is up to you.
- Infrastructure: yep, but instead of building your own, apple for a small fee will provide you all you need, along with management and accountability reports, etc.
What problem are you trying to solve with the App Store?
The analogy doesn't seem fair if there's 1 product.
I mean, do you think Target, Amaon, Walmart, Costco, etc. all pay the same for the products they sell? Is that fair? The profit margins are all different. I can buy a Bose speaker on Amazon or at Target or on Bose.com. Why doesn't Bose forbid outside sales? Because they want their products to be available and in the hands of customers, even if they take home a little less. They see the value in the other marketplaces. The Apple App Store provides a service to find, use and monitor subscriptions and app sales.
Last edited:
I have no problem if a store makes an ad which says "10% of drinks from Coca-Cola" without having an agreement with Coca-Cola. Even if Coca-Cola looses money.
If the store has an agreement with Coca-Cola saying they can advertise, it's even better.