Apple Debuts App Store Subscriptions

[nonameowns]

this is a fair move by apple. 30% cut.. same as itune. quit whining on that.


basically, put ur marketing in test to drive customers to subscribe out of app if you want whole 100% not 70% profit.

 

[spazzcat]

Yes, but that doesn't change Apple's monopoly status over iOS.

You can not have a monopoly on your product. This would be saying Sears has a monopoly on their stores....

 

[CosmoPilot]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Of course by Apple keeping 30% for this model when all they did was billing, it will drive publishers away from the iOS platform. Lets take the Amazon Kindle app for example. If you buy a book on there now, Amazon "owns" the rights to sell you the book, Amazon owns the servers that send you the book, Amazon owns the infrastructure that syncs your book with other Kindle devices, and so forth. Apple has no part in the process, so 30% is not cheap by any means.

If all Apple is doing is the billing, then that 30% should be a lot lower.

We will never know what might have come to the iOS platform but I guarantee you a bean counter somewhere will be saying no to this obscene pricing.

Uhmm, Apple is bringing the consumer to the "iOS" app in question. Without the "iDevice" the app would make $0.00

30% is more than fair! Seems the developer is getting exposure to the millions of iDevice users Apple created. Pass the 30% onto the consumer and get over it already.

 

[spazzcat]

Thank you! I can't believe people are seriously thinking it's reasonable for one company to take 30% from another company that actually made the content, for...uh...the privilege of getting to display it on iOS, I guess.

It happens in retail everyday of the week...

 

[Tailpike1153]

Wolfpup, I need help with your comment.

Doesn't matter, they have a monopoly on iOS distribution. Their market share is 100%. iOS itself has a huge marketshare too for that matter. Android has virtually zero percent for anything but phones.

As far as I know, having a monopoly over the distribution of your product is not against the law in US or most of the world. I haven't seen NTTDocomo try selling SoftBank service to Japansese consumers.

Didn't understand what point you were trying to make with Android.

 

[Tailpike1153]

I think what Apple is trying to prevent is what we now see in the Kindle app -- a link directing a customer to the amazon web site on safari. What apple wants is for the customer to have the purchase ability to buy through itunes in addition to having the link to Amazon's web site. If Amazon removes the in-app link to its web site, they will not be required to have an in app itunes purchase button. I will still be able to manually navigate to Amazon on safari to purchase.

I don't see any problem with that approach.

 

[spazzcat]

Doesn't matter, they have a monopoly on iOS distribution. Their market share is 100%. iOS itself has a huge marketshare too for that matter. Android has virtually zero percent for anything but phones.

Again you can't have a monopoly on your own product. They sell a phone with an OS, if they are the only company doing this then they have a monopoly...


Definitions of monopoly on the Web:

• (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"

 

[mdelvecchio]

Can you imagine VISA or Mastercard charge 30% processing fees to its merchants?

can you imagine a SHOPPING MALL charging merchants rent when all they did was design the building, build the building, wire the building, advertise for the building, and process payments in the building?

its rent, folks. the iphone ecosystem wasnt built with unicorn farts.

 

[deconstruct60]

What apple wants is for the customer to have the purchase ability to buy through itunes in addition to having the link to Amazon's web site. If Amazon removes the in-app link to its web site, they will not be required to have an in app itunes purchase button..

False.

There is no "in addition to". There is an exclusion. From the press release:

Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, .... from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.

(emphasis added)

With or without a previous/current link in the app or external purchasing, it is not allowed. The are also forcing the Apple option if purchasing exists anywhere.

The app is not allowed to present alternative mechanisms for buying. Only one. As written can't even list your own website as that is providing info to allow the customer to make a choice. The intent here is to keep the consumer in the dark. Apple isn't even trying to compete.

If you are single platform content provider this is a non issue (e.g., your content sold for Andriod doesn't also allow you to view the content on iOS). If you are a content provider and want your DRM content available to users on multiple platforms (buy once view in multiple media platforms ) then Apple is cutting themselves in and censoring informing customers of purchasing options.

 

[diamond.g]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)



Uhmm, Apple is bringing the consumer to the "iOS" app in question. Without the "iDevice" the app would make $0.00

30% is more than fair! Seems the developer is getting exposure to the millions of iDevice users Apple created. Pass the 30% onto the consumer and get over it already.

So without the App Store the Kindle Store would make no money?

 

[mdelvecchio]

And they don't even work hard for that 30%, just look at all the compromised itunes accounts.

link please. last one i heard of it was due to user error.

 

[mdelvecchio]

The only way I can see around this is for Netflix to raise it's subscription price 30% for anyone who wants to access via an iPhone, irrrespective of if they subscribe through Apple or via Netflix

um, can you sign-up and pay for netflix on an iOS device? if not then theres no change necessary -- apple's pricing model is only for in-app customers.

 

[spazzcat]

False.

There is no "in addition to". There is an exclusion. From the press release:


(emphasis added)

With or without a previous/current link in the app or external purchasing, it is not allowed.

The app is not allowed to present alternative mechanisms for buying. Only one. As written can't even list your own website as that is providing info to allow the customer to make a choice. The intent here is to keep the consumer in the dark. Apple isn't even trying to compete.

If you are single platform content provider this is a non issue (e.g., your content sold for Andriod doesn't also allow you to view the content on iOS). If you are a content provider and want your DRM content available to users on multiple platforms (buy once view in multiple media platforms ) then Apple is cutting themselves in and censoring informing customers of purchasing options.

Rent is going up, the app owns will have to pay the new rent or move to a new mall.

 

[mdelvecchio]

Yes, but that doesn't change Apple's monopoly status over iOS.

...better look up that word in the dictionary, son. does McDonald's have a monopoly on Big Macs? what about Ford on Mustangs?

high school fail.

 

[lilo777]

this is a fair move by apple. 30% cut.. same as itune. quit whining on that.


basically, put ur marketing in test to drive customers to subscribe out of app if you want whole 100% not 70% profit.

Same? In case of iTunes, Apple IS a context provider.

 

[mdelvecchio]

Thank you! I can't believe people are seriously thinking it's reasonable for one company to take 30% from another company that actually made the content, for...uh...the privilege of getting to display it on iOS, I guess.

...so what do you suppose Best Buy's margin is over the companies that actually make the products it sell? you know, the cables, the accesories, all that.

why is that fair but this is not?

 

[Wolfpup]

Wait, can a company have a monopoly on a product they own? I can't think of a comparison, but I'm not sure that makes ANY sense.

They have a complete monopoly on all distribution on their OS, and are abusing that monopoly in multiple ways, from rejecting programs they don't want to compete with to charging fees for doing nothing as per this thread.

If and when this white knight is released, will you be willing to add 30% to your Comcast subscription? I think Apple deserves it because "they have developed such a great platform that brings customers to content providers".

Yep, this is the exact same thing as charging Netflix or Amazon 30% for doing nothing.

Again you can't have a monopoly on your own product. They sell a phone with an OS, if they are the only company doing this then they have a monopoly...


Definitions of monopoly on the Web:

• (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller

Ironically the quote you gave I guess to try to claim this isn't a monopoly (?) exactly matches what Apple is doing. It's a market with exactly one seller.

Apple is clearly completely out of control. This isn't the first time there's been major friction with iOS. They've been blocking programs they don't want to compete against, forcing developers/publishers to host their content, now trying to skim 30% off the top for no other reason than they can because they have a monopoly.

 

[Wolfpup]

...so what do you suppose Best Buy's margin is over the companies that actually make the products it sell? you know, the cables, the accesories, all that.

why is that fair but this is not?

Because you can buy and companies can sell their products at many stores. You can not sell iOS products anywhere but through Apple. They have an absolute monopoly.

 

[MaxPower49]

um, can you sign-up and pay for netflix on an iOS device? if not then theres no change necessary -- apple's pricing model is only for in-app customers.

Thats part of this new rule... Netflix will have to add the ability to pay in app and give Apple 30% of any subscriptions purchased in the app.

 

[mdelvecchio]

They have a complete monopoly on all distribution on their OS, and are abusing that monopoly in multiple ways, from rejecting programs they don't want to compete with to charging fees for doing nothing as per this thread.
...
Ironically the quote you gave I guess to try to claim this isn't a monopoly (?) exactly matches what Apple is doing. It's a market with exactly one seller.

again, you cant have a monopoly over your own supply chain. its yours and is part of your product. its not a monopoly because companies and consumers can shop elsewhere -- i hear Android is popular these days. WebOS, RIM, WP7...etc. they are all completely viable alternatives to selling on iOS.

its a mall, dude. its a pricey, popular, affluent mall that does well. to be a merchant in it you must pay higher rent than in the ghetto strip mall.

Yep, this is the exact same thing as charging Netflix or Amazon 30% for doing nothing.

...except they arent. netflix does create & charge new accounts in-app, its purely out of app.

now trying to skim 30% off the top for no other reason than they can because they have a monopoly.

let us know when you graduate.

 

[cmaier]

Because you can buy and companies can sell their products at many stores. You can not sell iOS products anywhere but through Apple. They have an absolute monopoly.

It's not a monopoly! You cannot buy chevy cars except from chevy dealers. You cannot buy an Outback steak except at Outback steakhouse. Geez.

 

[mdelvecchio]

Because you can buy and companies can sell their products at many stores. You can not sell iOS products anywhere but through Apple. They have an absolute monopoly.

wrong. the product is the code -- the service the app provides. that knows NO BOUNDARY.

is Angry Birds on Android? yes. but, but you said...you said if its on iOS it cant be anywhere else!

do you see why youre wrong on this?

 

[spazzcat]

They have a complete monopoly on all distribution on their OS, and are abusing that monopoly in multiple ways, from rejecting programs they don't want to compete with to charging fees for doing nothing as per this thread.



Yep, this is the exact same thing as charging Netflix or Amazon 30% for doing nothing.



Ironically the quote you gave I guess to try to claim this isn't a monopoly (?) exactly matches what Apple is doing. It's a market with exactly one seller.

Apple is clearly completely out of control. This isn't the first time there's been major friction with iOS. They've been blocking programs they don't want to compete against, forcing developers/publishers to host their content, now trying to skim 30% off the top for no other reason than they can because they have a monopoly.

No, there are many many players in the cell phone app market. Apple has one store in the Mall, Google has one, Blackberry has one, Microsoft has one, the list goes on....

 

[mdelvecchio]

Thats part of this new rule... Netflix will have to add the ability to pay in app and give Apple 30% of any subscriptions purchased in the app.

wrong, wrong, wrong.

if the app wants to sell *in-app*, it must pay 30% and also honor the same prices as on their out-app website. if an app wants to sell *out-app* only, and only serve/manage content in-app, they are free to do so.

see?

 

[MaxPower49]

It's a dirty move by Apple if you ask me... you'd think that the record profits they are posting would be enough to keep them happy without rocking any boats and looking for more money right now... guess not.

It is pretty shocking the amount of people defending this move by Apple... I don't think a lot of people are really understanding what is going on here. As consumers we are likely to see higher prices for subscriptions, netflix, ebooks, etc. somewhere down the road as a result of Apple taking profits from other content providers.