Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Debuts App Store Subscriptions

Downhill from here...

I don't understand this move when the market is about to get flooded with Android (and other OS) tablets. This basically tells me that Amazon, Netflix, etc. will have to charge 30% more for their iOS subscription than their Android subscription.

Apple will be actively driving customers to their competitor, just like they did a few decades ago on the computer front. I believe this signals Apple's slow march back to ~10% market share for iOS. The only thing different is that this time they have a larger head start, so it will take longer. But it will happen unless Apple becomes a little less greedy and a little more consumer friendly.
 
Vizin said:
No one has been successfully able to answer this: why does is make sense that Apple get a 30% cut of services provided via iOS, but it wouldn't make sense for Microsoft to get 30% of services provided via Windows?

Why shouldn't Microsoft get 30% of my Netflix or Pandora subscription if I set up that service on Windows?
Click to expand...
You know, on a side note, I believe it's legal now for Comcast and internet providers to discriminate against Netflix and Hulu traffic vs. other traffic in order to introduce specific bandwidth caps and tiered rates.

Middlemen everywhere, and Apple is joining in the long line of people who want to reach in your pocket and grab a share.
 
neko girl said:
You know, on a side note, I believe it's legal now for Comcast and internet providers to discriminate against Netflix and Hulu traffic vs. other traffic in order to introduce specific bandwidth caps and tiered rates.

Middlemen everywhere, and Apple is joining in the long line of people who want to reach in your pocket and grab a share.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite. Discriminating based on traffic type (i.e. checking to see if it's coming from Netflix or Hulu, your competitors) is illegal. Slowing down someone's internet connection because a specific person is sucking down 16Mbps and everyone else in a neighborhood is only getting 1Mbps is not.
 
Vizin said:
No one has been successfully able to answer this: why does is make sense that Apple get a 30% cut of services provided via iOS, but it wouldn't make sense for Microsoft to get 30% of services provided via Windows?

Why shouldn't Microsoft get 30% of my Netflix or Pandora subscription if I set up that service on Windows?
Click to expand...

Exactly! It's the same thing. Both are operating systems, Apple just makes you go through their channels to load content onto your device. They've realized they can charge a ton for that "privilege" and they're not going back, it's scary.
 
Synergie said:
If this goes through, I can see Kindle, Kobo, etc all removing their apps from the App Store and heading to .........Cydia :p Now that would be too funny! :)
Click to expand...

Sadly, this is unlikely. E-Reader manufacturers aren't likely to condone iPhone jailbreaking, for fear of appearing to condone hacking of their own devices.
 
Vizin said:
No one has been successfully able to answer this: why does is make sense that Apple get a 30% cut of services provided via iOS, but it wouldn't make sense for Microsoft to get 30% of services provided via Windows?

Why shouldn't Microsoft get 30% of my Netflix or Pandora subscription if I set up that service on Windows?
Click to expand...

Because microsoft does not control the experience or the content used on devices that use its OS. For one reason they don't make the devices that use it.

Apple both makes the hardware and the software. They also control what can run on it. People pay for this process and for apple to be the gatekeeper. A lot of people are fine with it.

iPhone is not riddled with virii and hackers like Windows is... So there is a real value that Apple is providing to customers. Also they are providing several large benefits to software developers. Nobody is being forced to participate on either side. If you don't like that level of control as a consumer don't buy an IOS device. However Apple has been massively successful with that level of control. This is not some kind of new twist, Apple has always totally controlled the software going on their devices. It is one of the key reasons why they are so successful.
 
marksman said:
Because microsoft does not control the experience or the content used on devices that use its OS. For one reason they don't make the devices that use it.

Apple both makes the hardware and the software. They also control what can run on it. People pay for this process and for apple to be the gatekeeper. A lot of people are fine with it.

iPhone is not riddled with virii and hackers like Windows is... So there is a real value that Apple is providing to customers. Also they are providing several large benefits to software developers. Nobody is being forced to participate on either side. If you don't like that level of control as a consumer don't buy an IOS device. However Apple has been massively successful with that level of control. This is not some kind of new twist, Apple has always totally controlled the software going on their devices. It is one of the key reasons why they are so successful.
Click to expand...

So making the hardware and software somehow magically makes this ok? You'd be fine with them locking down OSX?

And actually, yes this is a new twist. So far their success has involved Netflix, Pandora, Skype, Kindle, etc. existing peacefully on the iOS platform. Customers are NOT going to be happy when those services start disappearing.

A walled-garden platform is one thing, but taking a huge portion of developers' profits just for the privilege of running on iOS is another thing entirely. It makes the platform very unattractive to developers offering subscription-supported products.

Apple has this childish mindset that developers owe them something for creating a great platform. iOS would be much less popular without big-name apps like Facebook, Pandora, Netflix, Skype, and Kindle. If all these devs abandoned iOS and stuck with Android, you'd see a big market share shift.
 
Wolfpup said:
I'm not a fan of these closed platforms, but there's still a huge difference here-iOS isn't closed for any particularly good reason (the consoles are at least subsidized) and Apple is taking a cut they didn't earn from other companies aside from just taking money from the program sale itself.
Click to expand...

Are you saying they don't or shouldn't have the right to run a closed platform, while the console makers do? Does Microsoft deserve a cut of a Rock Band song's price? After all, didn't they get their cut already? Everything that moves in that space line's Microsoft's wallet. Difference is, Microsoft is smart enough to know a provider like Netflix is beneficial to them even if they don't provide a cut of their revenues. And that's really the only difference.

Amazon is not demanding a 30% cut from Apple for iBooks sales. This is not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Amazon isn't providing an environment within which anyone else can do business. There is no equivalent in this space. I don't think it's right, and I don't even think it's the same, but I do comprehend the argument and I was only trying to spell it out.

Only immediate plan is I'm not buying an iPad 2.
Click to expand...

You should expend a little bit of the energy you're using to rebut every comment you don't like here to put a bug in Apple's ear.

That they're abusing their monopoly is a simple, factual statement, not an overwrought screed. They have an absolute monopoly on iOS software distribution, and are abusing it to attempt to steal 30% off what other companies get for their products.
Click to expand...

Your impassioned tone, the fact that you've gone for miles and that you use the word "stealing" suggests otherwise. I totally agree with your sentiment.. this sucks. But it's Apples platform to ruin as they see fit until such time as they're the only tablet or smartphone in town. That's when antitrust laws could come into play. Until then, they have as much of a monopoly as any other device that plays only content allowed by its creator.

They have a monopoly. They're abusing it. Not sure that "we have a right to the monopoly we've artificially imposed" is much of a legal defense. Maybe it is, but it's certainly not ethical.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree there.
 
Vizin said:
Sadly, this is unlikely. E-Reader manufacturers aren't likely to condone iPhone jailbreaking, for fear of appearing to condone hacking of their own devices.
Click to expand...

That doesn't really make sense, since the very act of providing the app on Cydia means that people will be viewing content they PURCHASED from them! By extension, those people would not be rushing out to hack their Kindle or Kobo device just because the iOS version is being offered on Cydia! It will only help to keep their customers.

And besides, having an app on Cydia does not mean you condone hacking, it just means you were either not approved by Apple to sell your app on there, ...or choose not to.
 
wolfpup

boy, you are really on this. Lets recap all the things you are incorrect about. Forget the analogy junk.

1. It is not possible to have a monopoly on your own product or service. By definition it IS yours.

2. Apple, the store, taking a 30% cut on all sales that happen through it is the same as a real store taking a 30% cut on all sales

I understand that you view that once you buy an App, it is yours. The store, or game, or whatever now exists on your phone. But thats not how Apple sees it. They own what goes on that app. They made the app possible. The app is part of their store, forever. They just can't take it away from you. You don't buy the app and make it all yours. You buy the app in iOS, where it lives and you have a right to access it whenever you want.

3. Apples changes are in the users best interest: one click, at the same price or less, no information given out. This isn't even debateable IMO. The pricing is a gray area.

4. Apple is providing 2 services; in app and in store sales. It has provided these services for a long time and now it is charging for both services instead of one.

5. I understand how one can say it is not really fair to charge 30% just so Amazon can sell a product via 1 click on iOS and then Amazon does all the work. I get that POV.

But the keyphrase is "sell a product on iOS". Amazon makes money off iOS, whether you believe it or not. You know how much stuff I buy because I have Amazon on my phone? A lot. Is netflix on my iphone/ipad a selling point for people? Yes. Amazon wouldn't make those impulse sales if they didn't have the iOS app, netflix might lose customers if they didnt have this function. So yes, iOS is making Amazon money, and iOS is being used as a "store" for Amazon to have a store. iOS stores are stores within a store (iOS). Want to have your store in Apple's store/Apple's land? Pay up. They made it possible for people to buy things with one click while taking a dump at work.

Netflix is debateable if 30% is worth it; I don't stream to my phone often.

I get that the difference between you and Apple supporters is that you don't see apps or iOS as an extension of the app store, you see them as separate things. Apple sees them as parts of the same thing. Most people here agree...but thats because we see iOS as a system, where you buy apps to keep on your personal store/veiwer etc and not a true OS I suppose. Is that fair to say? Its actually a good POV, I am just trying to help you articulate it so you don't have to write super long posts anymore.

And thanks to manuchau for clairfiying "publishers"
 
I wonder about the "same price" policy. Can't Amazon just break their "buy once, read everywhere policy" and just make two versions for all books? One for iPad and the second one for everything else. This way they would put the higher prices for both in-app and browser iPad store, but keep lower prices for all other versions.

because with 30% cut Amazon will be loosing money on every book sold, with no benefit in the long run for them. Big companies can take losses to increase their market position and thus get bigger profits in the future, but in this case this just won't work. Apple will never change the policy back, so it's would just be taking losses for the sake of losses and in the process strengtening the platform that causes you to take those losses. It makes no sense at all for any company.

I guess they could pull out of iOS altogether and at most offer specialized browser reader for Ipad, going around Apple's ecosystem altogether and then hope Android tablets will surpass iPad in the future making them simply not need Apple at all.
 
AdrianWerner said:
I wonder about the "same price" policy. Can't Amazon just break their "buy once, read everywhere policy" and just make two versions for all books? One for iPad and the second one for everything else. This way they would put the higher prices for both in-app and browser iPad store, but keep lower prices for all other versions.
Click to expand...

I don't want this. I use the Kindle app because I own a Kindle. I don't carry it around with me usually, so it's nice being able to hop into a book I was reading at home, especially if I suddenly find myself with some downtime.

I tried iBooks when it first came out, and I don't like reading an entire book on a backlit screen. It's nice to have the option when I just don't have my kindle, but it will never be my first choice. I would never buy an "iOS-only" eBook. (the one iBook I read through was from Gutenberg)
 
Could Kindle, Kobo, Nook etc get around this by not allowing purchases at all on an iOS device? In other words, the app would be purely a reader of content that was entirely purchased OFF device? It would mean needing to buy all your ebooks from your laptop or desktop etc.... that way the iOS app would be purely a reader only and not a digital storefront. You would only be accessing your account through kindle etc and reading content stored on your account there. That's not the same as offering the purchase of said content on device. Of course that doesn't stop people from loading the page in their mobile Safari and purchasing it that way...

An example... if I pay a website to join a mailing list, the mail app on my iphone is merely the reader of said content and not the storefront through which I purchased it.
 
Vizin said:
I don't want this.
Click to expand...

Nobody does, but Apple isn't really leaving Amazon any choice. As I've said, they could just pull out of iOS altogether and allow you to read and buy Kindle books solely through webbrowser completely bypassing any control Apple could have. It would require you to have net connection all the time when reading, but in modern world that's not a tragedy.
 
Synergie said:
Could Kindle, Kobo, Nook etc get around this by not allowing purchases at all on an iOS device? In other words, the app would be purely a reader of content that was entirely purchased OFF device? It would mean needing to buy all your ebooks from your laptop or desktop etc.... that way the iOS app would be purely a reader only and not a digital storefront. You would only be accessing your account through kindle etc and reading content stored on your account there. That's not the same as offering the purchase of said content on device. Of course that doesn't stop people from loading the page in their mobile Safari and purchasing it that way...

An example... if I pay a website to join a mailing list, the mail app on my iphone is merely the reader of said content and not the storefront through which I purchased it.
Click to expand...
Kindle app is purely a reader of content purchased OFF device. THis new guidelines are designed specificaly to prohibit apps like those from being published on Appstore.
 
Okay if this goes through... it's just in bad taste by Apple. Fine 30% on the app itself is okay. But 30% on each item purchased through said app is just wrong and I can't believe it's allowed... or that Apple is even considering that high of a toll! Seriously... one third of each and every book bought for an ereader, when often the profit on the book is less than that to begin with! There's no other motive by Apple for this other than to purposely drive other ebook readers out of the app store all together. And we all know that Apple has already broken iBooks from working in JB devices (even though it's already fixed now :) ) So what are they trying to do? This is just wrong! so very wrong!

Maybe 30% on the initial app, but not on content purchased through said app... 30% is HARDLY a fair handling fee... even though is not even handling! :( at the MOST I'd say 5% on in app purchases. But don't agree with it at all.

And really, the easiest way for this to be resolved would be for the publishers and authors who are currently selling books on iBooks, to simply pull the plug on iBooks in retaliation. Since the publishers will be losing huge amounts of money anyway by losing Kindle, Kobo, and Nook etc on iOS devices. Maybe if they boycott iBooks....

Is this already approved?? If it comes to fruition, I'll just have to convert my books to pdf or word format and read them that way on my iphone... as soon as I can find an app that word wraps properly.
 
Only an Apple apologist could support this move.

Why does Apple deserve a 30% cut of subscription fees?

Why does Apple even deserve a 30% cut off in-app purchases? They do NOT host anything and credit card transaction fees are not at 30%. At most, Apple should only take what it costs them to process the payment.

And as Gizmodo pointed out, this applies to everything now http://gizmodo.com/#!5761383/apples-new-subscription-model-is-evil not just subscription services.

Why should Amazon be forced to give Apple a 30% cut of a sale that they had nothing to do with other than processing the payment?

Why should Netflix be forced to give Apple 30% of their subscription fee when, again, Apple is doing nothing other than processing a payment?

In a situation where Apple does NOT host any content or provide bandwidth for said content, Apple DOES NOT deserve a 30% cut of the cost.

As others have said, imagine if Microsoft tried to do something like this. Some people have pointed to the Xbox 360, but thats not true either. If I don't like the price of something on Xbox Live, I can go buy it somewhere else. For example, Modern Warfare 2 is for sale on Xbox Live now. $59.99. I can go get a used copy for around $25 or a new copy for $40. Apple is not allowing that choice on top of imposing price controls by saying the in-app price has to be the same as everywhere else or cheaper.

It's truly amazing how Apple went from being the little guy everyone rooted for just a couple of years ago to being more evil than Microsoft was ever accused of being.
 
I for one will be waiting until June 30 at the latest to buy an iPad 2, to see if they backtrack on this madness. If they don't, I think it'll be goodbye iOS for me. I use Kindle and Pandora often. Losing them because of Apple's greed is going to suck. :(
 
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)

Well, when it comes to the Xbox, Microsoft gets their take whether you buy it in a box or on Live.

Not that that makes the Apple stance any better. It's expected with a game console, but you expect a little more openness for a computing device... I think if it comes down to it, some companies should walk. Not what I want, but probably the right move.
 
JamSandwich said:
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)

Well, when it comes to the Xbox, Microsoft gets their take whether you buy it in a box or on Live.

Not that that makes the Apple stance any better. It's expected with a game console, but you expect a little more openness for a computing device... I think if it comes down to it, some companies should walk. Not what I want, but probably the right move.
Click to expand...

Microsoft takes a 30% cut from indie game sales on Xbox Live after a $99 annual developer fee.

Games from the big players are negotiated on a game by game basis.

You can bet that EA, Activision, Rockstar, etc. would have a big problem with Microsoft asking for 30% of profits from Madden or Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty.

Microsoft also doesn't get anything from used game sales.

Sad that Apple takes away our right of first sale.
 
Why can't we use the old fashioned method for selling things:

I make something, and I want $20 for the item I make.

I supply the item I make to various outlets. some on-line, some shop at the end of the road and some to a major retailer in a city.

They pay me $20 for each of the items they take/buy from me.

they then set the level of profit / mark-up they wish to place on the item.

They may put 5%, 20%, 30%, 50% on the item. It's up to them.

What's wrong with this?

Of course, I may well offer a discount on my $20 for each item if they buy in bulk from me, and I'd do that on a case by case basis depending on how many they wish to order from me.

They don't tell me, how much I must charge to other people, that's up to me, and they don't tell other shops how much they can charge either. That's none of their business.
 
Can someone please, clearly clarify for me what this means, if anything, to the current Kindle App, or any similar app?

As I understand it, when you buy a book for the kindle you are redirected to Amazon's web site where the transaction takes place, once made, the kindle book you have bought appears in the kindle app on the iPad for you to read.

This 30% Apple tax has nothing to do with this does it?
 
The economics just don't work to be able to give Apple a 30% cut on sales for many digital products. Apple surely knows this they have negotiated tons of deals with rights holders to put their content in the store.

There's a reason why so many music services have failed or closed down. The labels are notoriously difficult to negotiate with, and the net result will almost always be razor thin margins on everything you do when you are dependent on licensing music. Spotify is enjoying reasonable success in Europe but it's still losing money hand over fist. I know Napster was sold as a loss maker. Last I heard Rhapsody aimed to be profitable by the end of 2010 (did they achieve it?)

I cannot imagine the music industry is about to accept a significant decrease in their royalty payments, just to allow Apple to help themselves to a 30% piece of another pie. And movie industry execs are just as difficult to deal with.

I think this is all going to end up in a messy court battle for Apple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back