this announcement does nothing but help Apple
Rhapsody offers their app for free and allows people to get their music through a Rhapsody subscription instead of using the iTunes 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.
Apple Debuts App Store Subscriptions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
this announcement does nothing but help Apple
Rhapsody offers their app for free and allows people to get their music through a Rhapsody subscription instead of using the iTunes store
Not yet, wait for another press release announcing this. Right now they are basing their applied rules on this published developer rule:
Physical goods are neither content nor functionality nor services. But if you buy an airline ticket that could be construed as a service. But I think right now they mean services consumed via an app. But naturally things like Skype and Dropbox clearly are required to offer in-app purchasing if you follow the letter of section 11.2. The Skype app offers a system to buy Skype credit (by opening a web view within the app) which clearly bypasses Apple's store, thus technically it should have rejected. But Apple knows to picks its fights one by one, and even Apple might not have the balls to kick out Skype.
How can you seriously ask this question? I mean...really, how can you actually ask that with a straight face?
This isn't Apple selling things in iBooks. It's Amazon selling things for the Kindle platform, then Apple taking a 30% cut off the top of that just because they can. Show me where Amazon is offering an iBooks program for the Kindle, and then charging Apple 30% of everything people read in it, and you'll have a point.
This isn't standard business practice!
I can't remember anyone trying to do something like this before. There are probably examples, but this is just pure abuse of monopoly. It's extortion plain and simple.Gee, how magnanimous.
Dude, IT'S NOT THE SAME THING. Amazon does not charge Apple 30% for the privilege of putting their content on the Kindle.
It's debatable, but Amazon and publishers, etc. are providing a real service. Apple is coming along and demanding 30% off of THAT just because they say so.
Once again, you're completely failing to grasp the difference. Besides that, anyone CAN sell books on their own for the Kindle without Amazon taking a cut. I've bought several that way.
It's amazing the amount of heat Apple gets when they do exactly what other major companies have been doing for years.
This is NOT THE SAME THING. I can't think of ANYONE trying to do something as outrageous as that. Your examples aren't remotely similar, I have no idea why you don't know that.
These aren't services the third party necessarily wants. Amazon doesn't want or need that. Netflix doesn't want or need that. This is a classic extortion racket.
It's EXACTLY the same thing. Windows, Mac OS/OS X, Linux-all of them you bought the hardware/software, and then were free to buy whatever you wanted for them. Buy programs, buy media, whatever. And yet somehow despite this freedom, they still exist.
What other company has tried to impose something like this? I'm sure there are examples, but it's an astonishing abuse of their monopoly position. Google's not doing it. Amazon's not doing it. Microsoft's not doing it. This is Apple.
The iOS store is a disaster, and yeah, I think the Android store is even worse (which is saying something), but this is completely irrelevant because there's no need for a store at all. Windows, DOS, MacOS, OS X, Linux, PalmOS among others all did quite nicely without a monopolistic "app store".
For WHAT? Netflix doesn't need Apple. Amazon doesn't need Apple. Microsoft doesn't need Apple. Google doesn't need Apple. Even little developers don't need them. Apple's created a monopoly position for themselves, and now decided to take 30% off the top of what content providers are already doing, based on nothing. Apple hasn't done any work to earn that, save for setting themselves up as a monopoly to begin with.
The only bad thing with 3 is I'm worried they won't be able to push the tech any harder (or maybe even as hard) because they're wasting processing power on this "3D". Looking forward to it (but not the "3D"). The current 45nm Xbox is actually pretty quiet too when games are installed. It's got to be many times quieter than the original model. The current Playstation is even quieter though I think (quieter than the Wii too).
If Apple is going to charge a cut of in-app subscriptions they should allow publishers of digital subscriptions, whatever format they come in, to allow to store their subscription on apple's servers.
Also one thing that worries me, is that apple is trying to get a death grip on a customer base's billing information so that they can hold app developers hostage in terms of complying with IOS developer rules. Imagine hundreds of people with their Apple itunes store logins being denied access to a app just at a flip of the switch. Many customers naively would blame the developer (without any research) for the disruption in service.
This will end in a lawsuit or more likely combined price hike by many popular subscription based service apps to incentivize not using apple's inapp purchasing method.
I think Apple was afraid of developers being able to abuse having in app purchasing to be commission free. So developers wouldn't be able to sell the initial installation of the app for free and then charge users for important content to use the app, thus bypassing Apple's "justified" and established practice for taking 30 percent for the initial purchase of paid apps.
Also one thing that worries me, is that apple is trying to get a death grip on a customer base's billing information so that they can hold app developers hostage in terms of complying with IOS developer rules. Imagine hundreds of people with their Apple itunes store logins being denied access to a app just at a flip of the switch. Many customers naively would blame the developer (without any research) for the disruption in service.
This will end in a lawsuit or more likely combined price hike by many popular subscription based service apps to incentivize not using apple's inapp purchasing method.
I think Apple was afraid of developers being able to abuse having in app purchasing to be commission free. So developers wouldn't be able to sell the initial installation of the app for free and then charge users for important content to use the app, thus bypassing Apple's "justified" and established practice for taking 30 percent for the initial purchase of paid apps.
http://www.mobipocket.com/en/HomePage/default.asp?Language=EN
Unprotected MOBI and PRC files will work just fine on the Kindle. So you can avoid giving Amazon money if you so desire.
Yeah I don't like this at all, it's actually very troubling. I hate to say but I think Netflix, Amazon, etc. will in fact pull their apps. I mean these guys basically have two choices, they raise prices across the board or leave iOS. There's no way they're gonna take a loss on everybody that subscribes via in-app purchase because that's essentially what they'll be forced to do. Yeah this might work for magazines, but the fact that they're applying this to all content like this is very worrying. I personally love having these services on my iPhone and the fact that they are available does indeed drive many people to iOS devices.
Some have already agreed
http://www.macstories.net/news/ipad-magazines-with-subscriptions-start-showing-up-in-the-app-store/
http://www.macstories.net/news/ipad-magazines-with-subscriptions-start-showing-up-in-the-app-store/
This is HORRIBLE!
This is blatant abuse of a dominant position in the market and I for one hope Apple pays dearly for it.
I'm a big consumer of kindle books and based on how I understand the new rules (correct me if I am wrong) this means that Amazon either can't sell ebooks that can be read on the kindle app at all (which would be pointless) or they have to sell them on their site as they've been doing and through an in-app purchase where Apple gets a 30% cut at the SAME price?! That means Amazon either has to:
A) raise prices for everyone (because they can't control which users use the in-app purchase and which buy through their store)- this is important because it will affect ALL Kindle ebook users not just those using iOS devices
or
B) drop iOS support for their Kindle app which would be a shame to iOS users and probably hurt Amazon because I'm sure next to the kindle most people read kindle books on iOS devices.
This is basically saying that Apple deserves a cut of any content that can be viewed on an iOS device. I think the iphone and ipad have pdf readers. Does Apple deserve a cut of the effort I made to make the pdf just because I choose to read it on an iPad?! How does that make any sense?
The sad thing is, besides an iPod touch that I intend on selling soon, I don't even own any iOS devices, I have an android phone and a kindle to read my ebooks. But this still has the ability to negatively affect me because apple is such a huge player in these markets. If that isn't monopolistic abuse in action i don't know what is...
Does anyone know how to set up a petition against this that will be viewed by more than just macrumors viewers? I'm serious...
This is blatant abuse of a dominant position in the market and I for one hope Apple pays dearly for it.
I'm a big consumer of kindle books and based on how I understand the new rules (correct me if I am wrong) this means that Amazon either can't sell ebooks that can be read on the kindle app at all (which would be pointless) or they have to sell them on their site as they've been doing and through an in-app purchase where Apple gets a 30% cut at the SAME price?! That means Amazon either has to:
A) raise prices for everyone (because they can't control which users use the in-app purchase and which buy through their store)- this is important because it will affect ALL Kindle ebook users not just those using iOS devices
or
B) drop iOS support for their Kindle app which would be a shame to iOS users and probably hurt Amazon because I'm sure next to the kindle most people read kindle books on iOS devices.
This is basically saying that Apple deserves a cut of any content that can be viewed on an iOS device. I think the iphone and ipad have pdf readers. Does Apple deserve a cut of the effort I made to make the pdf just because I choose to read it on an iPad?! How does that make any sense?
The sad thing is, besides an iPod touch that I intend on selling soon, I don't even own any iOS devices, I have an android phone and a kindle to read my ebooks. But this still has the ability to negatively affect me because apple is such a huge player in these markets. If that isn't monopolistic abuse in action i don't know what is...
Does anyone know how to set up a petition against this that will be viewed by more than just macrumors viewers? I'm serious...
This is blatant abuse of a dominant position in the market and I for one hope Apple pays dearly for it.
I'm a big consumer of kindle books and based on how I understand the new rules (correct me if I am wrong) this means that Amazon either can't sell ebooks that can be read on the kindle app at all (which would be pointless) or they have to sell them on their site as they've been doing and through an in-app purchase where Apple gets a 30% cut at the SAME price?! That means Amazon either has to:
A) raise prices for everyone (because they can't control which users use the in-app purchase and which buy through their store)- this is important because it will affect ALL Kindle ebook users not just those using iOS devices
or
B) drop iOS support for their Kindle app which would be a shame to iOS users and probably hurt Amazon because I'm sure next to the kindle most people read kindle books on iOS devices.
This is basically saying that Apple deserves a cut of any content that can be viewed on an iOS device. I think the iphone and ipad have pdf readers. Does Apple deserve a cut of the effort I made to make the pdf just because I choose to read it on an iPad?! How does that make any sense?
The sad thing is, besides an iPod touch that I intend on selling soon, I don't even own any iOS devices, I have an android phone and a kindle to read my ebooks. But this still has the ability to negatively affect me because apple is such a huge player in these markets. If that isn't monopolistic abuse in action i don't know what is...
Does anyone know how to set up a petition against this that will be viewed by more than just macrumors viewers? I'm serious...
Agreed this is like Microsoft taking 30% from Netflix because you watch Netflix on Windows 7.
That's the entire problem.
Apple has two choices:
1. Enforce the rule for all applications. Skype, Netflix, Sirius XM, Rhapsody, Napster, Kindle, hell even a Pizza Hut app will have to offer in-app payment.
or
2. Selectively enforce the rules which will open Apple up to lawsuits. Why did company A get to skirt the rules while company B's application got rejected? Explain that one to a jury.
In the end the consumer is the loser.
What people don't understand is Apple sells content too. They are in direct comeptition with all the people people are worried about loosing.
Apple is protecting their own interests. If they don't then Apple will just have to get out of the content business entirely, themselves.
They don't have a choice given how these other companies have chosen to play it. It would be absurd to craft the sword your competitor will use to stab you to death. Apple is protecting themselves and their business.
Apple, rightfully so, believes most of those companies will have to come to the table because the number of customers Apple represents. At the same time they get to protect themselves as content providers.
They are not going to back off on this. They gave it some time to see how things will settle down, and the writing on the wall was clear... these other businesses were going to leverage Apple's own innovations to compete with them in the content space. Apple is now saying, there is a price to pay for that...
It seems entirely reasonable.
Apple is protecting their own interests. If they don't then Apple will just have to get out of the content business entirely, themselves.
They don't have a choice given how these other companies have chosen to play it. It would be absurd to craft the sword your competitor will use to stab you to death. Apple is protecting themselves and their business.
Apple, rightfully so, believes most of those companies will have to come to the table because the number of customers Apple represents. At the same time they get to protect themselves as content providers.
They are not going to back off on this. They gave it some time to see how things will settle down, and the writing on the wall was clear... these other businesses were going to leverage Apple's own innovations to compete with them in the content space. Apple is now saying, there is a price to pay for that...
It seems entirely reasonable.
actually using in-app purchase for Pizzahut might be kinda nice.
yeah. I bet electronic pizzas taste better than the real pizza hut product. (And of course Apple's new rules apply only to electronic products, and maybe only electronic subscription products).
yes, according to what I read, it only apply to digital content (not services) subscriptions.
So it should not apply to dropbox or skype.
After reading the agreement, it's actually not even allowed to use in-app Subscriptions for service rental or subscriptions.
Last edited:
Apple has an incredibly smart management team. It's a brilliant strategy by Apple, although I believe this was a last resort because of failed licensing negotiations with book publishers, and TV, movie, and music companies for additional iTunes Store content. Apple would like to launch their own iTunes TV, movie, and music subscription services but cannot secure the appropriate licenses from content owners.
With Rhapsody announcing they will not comply with Apple's terms, they will no longer benefit from iOS and Apple's platform. The business model for Rhapsody and other competing music subscription services will unravel and the record companies will be back at square one unless they allow Apple to license content for a streaming service.
Amazon and book publishers are benefiting from iOS users making Kindle book purchases while Apple is denied licensing rights to a larger iBooks Store catalog.
Apple will NOT sit back and watch competitors such as Rhapsody, Netflix, Amazon, movie studios, book publishers, and record companies rake in money from Apple's innovative ecosystem and massive user base while simultaneously denying Apple broader licensing rights. Not any more. Apple will make their margin one way or another.
This is going to get interesting. Who wants some popcorn?
-ITG
With Rhapsody announcing they will not comply with Apple's terms, they will no longer benefit from iOS and Apple's platform. The business model for Rhapsody and other competing music subscription services will unravel and the record companies will be back at square one unless they allow Apple to license content for a streaming service.
Amazon and book publishers are benefiting from iOS users making Kindle book purchases while Apple is denied licensing rights to a larger iBooks Store catalog.
Apple will NOT sit back and watch competitors such as Rhapsody, Netflix, Amazon, movie studios, book publishers, and record companies rake in money from Apple's innovative ecosystem and massive user base while simultaneously denying Apple broader licensing rights. Not any more. Apple will make their margin one way or another.
This is going to get interesting. Who wants some popcorn?
-ITG
If content providers work together to pull their content off iOS, this could be Apple's first misstep of 2011. Releasing a iPhone with a physical keyboard could be the next if the rumors are true.
You're forgetting that we, the consumers, get completely screwed over by this. I want to continue using Netflix, Pandora, Kindle, etc. because Apple's alternatives are more expensive and less useful because I don't want to be locked into their ecosystem.
I for one, am rooting against Apple, because I want to continue using my iPhone and iPad as I see fit. When I paid for my iPhone and iPad I did so knowing I would be able to use Kindle, Netflix, and Pandora content on them. If these go away because of Apple's insane new policy, I will be extremely angry.
If that does happen, why would my next phone be an iPhone, when all of my favorite services will be gone?
Or choice 3-do the right thing and don't charge other companies for things they themselves are doing just because you have a monopoly.
Oh no, we all get it, that's why it's an abuse of their monopoly.
OOOOOR, they could actually just compete honestly, by trying to make software that works better. By getting lower prices. By getting a better selection.
After this, there's no way in heck I'll get a book through Apple.
What's that supposed to mean? Amazon and the like have "chosen to play it" very competently. Apple has "chosen to play it" dishonestly, abusing their monopoly on iOS software distribution. Apple's the bad guy here, not anyone else.
By abusing their monopoly. That ain't cool.
WHAT "Apple innovations" are they supposedly leveraging? The companies I've heard mentioned like Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Sony, various music services, Netflix, etc. all innovated in ways Apple either copied or ignored. The only thing they're trying to do is write software for a computer platform. Apple's got a monopoly on that platform's distribution, and is abusing it.
I can not BELIEVE that people are seriously trying to spin Apple as the good guy here, or as a neutral figure. This is black and white-Apple is the bad guy.
Yes, and that's evil. The way you compete is by making a better product or offering better prices, not by getting a monopoly and screwing over your competitors.
Sure, if you like being evil. Otherwise it's astonishingly slimy.
So this gives them the right to screw over other companies and people?
OOOOOR more and more companies will refuse to "comply" with Apple's extortion, and consumers will abandon the platform for more open ones.
So? This doesn't excuse Apple's behavior. If they can't get a larger library, its probably because they're demanding insane terms just as they are for iOS programs and this. Either way, that doesn't give them a right to be evil.
What "innovative" ecosystem? None of these are Apple's ecosystem. All of them did it on their own. Apple is being evil, and wants to take money from them with nothing in return because they think they can.
I HOPE they'll all be gone. that's actually a better outcome than all of them having to raise their prices 30%. I can't afford a 30% Netflix hike, or paying $13 instead of $10 for a book, just because Apple has decided they get to take money because they like money.
Can't Amazon get around these rules buy removing all links and abilities for purchasing books in the app? This would require you to go to amazon.com on a computer and then the app would sync with your purchases at a later time. You could still use the iPhone to buy Kindle books by opening safari and typing in amazon.com manually, the app would not be aloud to link to it.
So, you will not be able to purchase anything from within the kindle app, a little less convenient for iPhone users but, you can use any Internet browser to buy your books. I don't think that would be against the rules. The rules say that if your app provides links to purchase content, that content must also be offered as in app purchases. So just remove the ability to purchase anything from the app and trust your customers to go your website themselves.
So, you will not be able to purchase anything from within the kindle app, a little less convenient for iPhone users but, you can use any Internet browser to buy your books. I don't think that would be against the rules. The rules say that if your app provides links to purchase content, that content must also be offered as in app purchases. So just remove the ability to purchase anything from the app and trust your customers to go your website themselves.
A price increase just isn't going to happen, at least not just because of iOS. iOS simply doesn't represent a great enough percentage of these companies' customers to make that viable.
Amazon, for instance, is not going to hike their kindle book prices by 30%. They're not going to screw up the rest of their kindle business just to play on iOS, especially when they have to compete with Apple (who obviously don't have to worry about this), the B&N Nook, and the Sony eReader.
No, they cannot do this:
All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription/purchase offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe/purchase with one-click right in the app."
If you sell something outside the app that can be used inside the app, you will also have to offer it via in-app purchasing.