Apple Planning to Change 30/70 Pricing Formula for In-App Media Subscriptions

[SuperNova2150]

They can also give away free iPhones to all their customers, guess they should

No. Hardware is how Apple makes its money. However, they could lower the price of their more expensive items. (Just enough to become reasonable, but not loose the "premium" status.)

When Apple makes billions off hardware, they should "give back" to the community that has made them those billions.

 

[HenryDJP]

You don't quite get what competition means. Sure, developers can make apps for android and windows, but those would be separate apps in separate OSs. Within iOS, all you have is the appstore so no, there is no competition. Because of this, Apple can charge whatever they want and the price Apple charges for subscriptions is highway robbery. And don't give me the BS about Apple deserving 30% for hosting apps that are less than 50 MB (I as a consumer can get 100GB for less than $10), and doing POS which banks do for 2-3%, and advertising which Apple doesn't even do. People find new apps from user recommendations and ratings.

I expected this type of post from you. Not surprised one bit. If you're not a developer don't worry about it. And once again, if the developer can't handle the commission terms he/she can respectfully decline. Simple as that. It IS their right after all. Chill. You're getting worked up and putting so much effort into someone else's business.

 

[Judas1]

I expected this type of post from you. Not surprised one bit. If you're not a developer don't worry about it. And once again, if the developer can't handle the commission terms he/she can respectfully decline. Simple as that. It IS their right after all. Chill. You're getting worked up and putting so much effort into someone else's business.

This article is about subscription prices. Even Apple acknowledges that its too high, so thats why they are changing it. You still don't understand. Its not their right. Everything is decided by the people. A long time ago, Microsoft tried to ship Windows with Internet Explorer as the default web browser with no other options. They were sued, fined, and forced to change. Sure it was their OS, but that doesn't mean they can do whatever they wanted. Same thing here. iOS is Apple's but we determine whats reasonable and fair. You need to understand the concept of commonwealth.

 

[HenryDJP]

This article is about subscription prices. Even Apple acknowledges that its too high, so thats why they are changing it. You still don't understand. Its not their right. Everything is decided by the people. A long time ago, Microsoft tried to ship Windows with Internet Explorer as the default web browser with no other options. They were sued, fined, and forced to change. Sure it was their OS, but that doesn't mean they can do whatever they wanted. Same thing here. iOS is Apple's but we determine whats reasonable and fair. You need to understand the concept of commonwealth.

Maybe if you learned to read properly you would see that I was referring to it being the Developer's right to respectfully decline the commission terms. I said nothing about it being Apple's right. That wouldn't even make sense based on what I wrote.
And Apple deciding to "Change" their current 30/70 split is not acknowledging it's too high. It may be perhaps but that's not what the article said so don't make stuff up. The article said it's being altered to benefit subscription-based apps. Wow, some of you guys can't stand Apple so much that you will say anything negative about them even if it's wrong.

And you need to understand more about business. It's 100% the company's right to charge what they want. This is not the consumer or developer's decision. I have no idea where you got such twisted logic. As I said earlier, the developer has a right to respectfully decline Apple's terms and go develop for other platforms.

And think about it, if Apple's commission terms were highway robbery the App store wouldn't be so successful as it has been and there have been quite a few developers that have made a great deal of money, so they have not been too upset by the commission terms.

 

[Judas1]

Maybe if you learned to read properly you would see that I was referring to it being the Developer's right to respectfully decline the commission terms. I said nothing about it being Apple's right. That wouldn't even make sense based on what I wrote.
And Apple deciding to "Change" their current 30/70 split is not acknowledging it's too high. It may be perhaps but that's not what the article said so don't make stuff up. The article said it's being altered to benefit subscription-based apps. Wow, some of you guys can't stand Apple so much that you will say anything negative about them even if it's wrong.

And you need to understand more about business. It's 100% the company's right to charge what they want. This is not the consumer or developer's decision. I have no idea where you got such twisted logic. As I said earlier, the developer has a right to respectfully decline Apple's terms and go develop for other platforms.

You're being silly. You're supporting a position that Apple isn't even supporting anymore. Apple's price was too high. They're changing it to the benefit of Apple, consumers, and developers. But I guess its not good enough for HenryDJP.

 

[HenryDJP]

You're being silly. You're supporting a position that Apple isn't even supporting anymore. Apple's price was too high. They're changing it to the benefit of Apple, consumers, and developers. But I guess its not good enough for HenryDJP.

Oh my bad. Silly me. Yeah, you're absolutely right about the whole thing. How could you possibly be wrong? Your opinion is the only one that counts. I shouldn't have doubted you. Thanks so much judas.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

No. Hardware is how Apple makes its money. However, they could lower the price of their more expensive items. (Just enough to become reasonable, but not loose the "premium" status.)

When Apple makes billions off hardware, they should "give back" to the community that has made them those billions.

It's called becoming a shareholder.

 

[linuxcooldude]

This article is about subscription prices. Even Apple acknowledges that its too high, so thats why they are changing it. You still don't understand. Its not their right. Everything is decided by the people. A long time ago, Microsoft tried to ship Windows with Internet Explorer as the default web browser with no other options. They were sued, fined, and forced to change. Sure it was their OS, but that doesn't mean they can do whatever they wanted. Same thing here. iOS is Apple's but we determine whats reasonable and fair. You need to understand the concept of commonwealth.

Everything is decided by the people?...yeah, right. The Microsoft incident had to do with being a monopoly, doesn't apply here. Apple could charge the same 30% and do it legally.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Developers have little choice, since Apple has ensured that theirs is the only official store from which apps can be purchased.

Developers have lots of choices, even though you seem to limit them as much as you claim Apple does. I don't see developers flocking to Android & Windows in droves, as they go where the money is. That is the choice they made.

If Apple allowed more than one app store, then we'd see competition based on royalties, versus actual service and how much each app store advertises.

Limiting apps only on their platform, is not only for the revenue. Controlling the quality of applications, malicious malware ( Quite a problem on Android as you can side load applications ) compatibility, security & fragmentation.

Another common mis-argument is that developers "owe" Apple. That's a two way street. Apple owes many / most of their smartphone sales to the fact that developers have created apps. Without third party developers, the iPhone would be just a feature phone. So one could argue that Apple should share their own profits with developers, instead of the other way around

They have a symbiotic relationship that benefits both Apple and the developer. Anyone who would claim or defend either side has their own agenda.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Developers have lots of choices, even though you seem to limit them as much as you claim Apple does. I don't see developers flocking to Android & Windows in droves, as they go where the money is. That is the choice they made.

Kdarling was talking about store choices, not platform choices. If you want to sell software for iOS you're only choice is Apple's App Store. Compare that to selling software for OS X where you have many of sales avenues (Mac App Store, direct from dev/publisher website, multitude of retail stores/websites, etc.,). I imagine there would be a bit of an uproar if Apple said all software for OS X can only be sold and installed via the Mac App Store.

Even with console video games, which are a closed ecosystem too, there are multiple avenues for software sales. Console gaming is shifting towards a download-only model and that has many gamers worried because of the consolidation of power and loss of choices and rights that would go along with that. The only reason people accept the single store model is because Jobs said it was the best way. And it certainly is the best way for Apple, though not necessarily for devs or consumers. The same is true in general for all file based content (be it books, games, movies or applications). Consumers have more rights, and more choices, with physical media than with file based media.

They have a symbiotic relationship that benefits both Apple and the developer. Anyone who would claim or defend either side has their own agenda.

I 100% agree that the relationship and is symbiotic and will just add to that the upper hand in the relationship depends on who needs who more. Small devs have little leverage because, individually speaking, they need Apple more than Apple needs them, but when it comes to larger devs (or large business partners such as the music labels or 'Hollywood') the balance of power is not so one sided.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Kdarling was talking about store choices, not platform choices. If you want to sell software for iOS you're only choice is Apple's App Store. Compare that to selling software for OS X where you have many of sales avenues (Mac App Store, direct from dev/publisher website, multitude of retail stores/websites, etc.,). I imagine there would be a bit of an uproar if Apple said all software for OS X can only be sold and installed via the Mac App Store.

Every platform/store/device has its own terms of service and restrictions. A developer can put the same software on multiple platforms/stores/devices and they often do.

I 100% agree that the relationship and is symbiotic and will just add to that the upper hand in the relationship depends on who needs who more. Small devs have little leverage because, individually speaking, they need Apple more than Apple needs them, but when it comes to larger devs (or large business partners such as the music labels or 'Hollywood') the balance of power is not so one sided.

Places like the Apple App store actually allow the small developers a much better chance to compete against larger more well established companies who have more manpower, resources and money then small single developers. Flappy Bird anyone?

Leverage will happen regardless inside the app store or on some website.

 

[wovel]

So how about 0%, what they deserve for services that run completely independently from them?

Because Apple still allows the program to be downloaded from their store free of charge and also processes the payment for the purchase. Neither of those things is free.

 

[wovel]

People here constantly whine about Spotify supposedly screwing over artists. Apple has been doing it to content providers for years.

Well I think it depends on the provider. Someone like The Economist providing original content is a content provider. Amazon is just another content reseller. I would like to see it lowered enough so The Economist charges the same price for an in-app subscription as they do for one purchased on their web site. I would also like to be able to see Amazon be able to sell books, videos, and Audible content directly in their apps. I think the Amazon one is more problematic because their margins are not that great to begin with. I have always been supportive of Apple's position on this because it is easy to abuse them with free apps and selling content. However, as a customer I want everything to be as convenient as possible.

 

[Mackker]

To all of you that say "commonwealth", "should give back to community" and so on I have a few questions for you:

Are you serious? This is called communism (trust me, I know what I'm saying since I'm from an ex-communist country) and a very negative point of view.

Did any of you helped Apple to become what it is today? And by help, I mean have you worked side by side with Apple's employees and have you helped with your own money to pay for salaries, investments and so on?

I would like to see you change your business model because some "dudes" somewhere on a forum would like you to drop your prices, do things differently than you want (or can) just because they said so.

Sure, a company can change its way of doing business when it sees fit (it happens all the time) but that's the job of its management team in correlation with their respective market.

It's their business people! Apple Inc. is a public company with a private management and workforce. There're no volunteers working there!

Even if you own a few shares, that doesn't put you in charge of deciding what's best for the company! And by the way, all you should be interested in, is that Apple is making more money for you and other shareholders, so it doesn't make any sense what you're saying.

If you don't like their products, don't buy them!
If you can't afford them, don't buy them!
If you as a developer don't like their cut or their rules, then don't do business with them!
It's that simple!

But starting to trash them for their own terms is pure madness! Why should I open a business if I can't impose my own terms? You don't like me or you can't afford me? That's fine, please go to the competition, but don't trash me just because you do not agree with my terms or my price on my work.

Regarding Microsoft's monopoly with IE, this is a completely different story and even there I do not agree with you. Windows and IE are their products and they should be able to do whatever they please with them (sure, as long as they respect their users rights).

It's something like you running a business of making sandwiches (lots of them) and you also have your own factory producing your own packaging while you allow your customers to use their own packages. Then, someday someone comes to you and says: hey as*hole, you're not allowed to package your sandwiches with your packaging anymore! Does that sounds fair to you?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Every platform/store/device has its own terms of service and restrictions. A developer can put the same software on multiple platforms/stores/devices and they often do.

I don't understand what all the dancing around is for. What 'multiple stores' exist for iOS? The iOS App Store is the only place to buy/sell iOS apps.

Flappy Bird anyone?

Minecraft anyone?

Apple having its own, integrated store front can certainly help products appear front and center to users (though the curation and ranking approach has been overhauled many times to try and combat people gaming the system) but that functionality (rankings, staff picks, etc.,) is not dependent on Apple providing the only store front. For example, just look over at the music section. There's Recent Release, Hot Albums, Top Songs, New Artists... all manner of curation yet the iTMS is not a mandatory gateway to get music into my Apple ecosystem. Maybe I'll but from iTMS, maybe I'll buy from Amazon. Maybe I want higher fidelity so I'll buy the CD from Target or Best Buy or Fry's and rip it myself at a higher bit rate and/or better codec. Same thing for the Mac App Store. I can buy ScreenFlow from the App Store, I can buy it from Amazon or I can buy it directly from Telestream.

Leverage will happen regardless inside the app store or on some website.

Leverage does happen everywhere though it's far easier for Apple, in this case, to take a 'my way or the highway' approach when they control the only store for iOS apps. For example, Panic software pulled one of their apps (Coda) from the Mac App store because they felt they could better serve their customers by selling directly to them. The result was bug fixes and new features getting to users faster and an increase in revenue (even though total sales dropped slightly). (LINK) If we were talking about iOS, Panic would've just had to resign themselves to making less money and delivering what they believe to be substandard customer service.

Basically, I think having choices makes for a better, more competitive marketplace.

I would like to see you change your business model because some "dudes" somewhere on a forum would like you to drop your prices, do things differently than you want just because they said so.

I fail to see the problem as companies adjust their businesses all the time due to customer complaints/suggestions. Apple even has a system setup specifically so people can send feedback to them. Usually a boycott would be the next step, not the first step. If someone doesn't like the work I do (or some other aspect of my business) I'd rather them tell me what they don't like as opposed to just stop hiring me out of the blue. If they raise a valid point I'll change what I do if possible but if their complaint is just ridiculous then I won't and we'll probably go our separate ways.

 

[Mackker]

I fail to see the problem as companies adjust their businesses all the time due to customer complaints/suggestions. Apple even has a system setup specifically so people can send feedback to them. Usually a boycott would be the next step, not the first step. If someone doesn't like the work I do (or some other aspect of my business) I'd rather them tell me what they don't like as opposed to just stop hiring me out of the blue. If they raise a valid point I'll change what I do if possible but if their complaint is just ridiculous then I won't and we'll probably go our separate ways.

The problem is that all of a sudden, some people commenting here are considering themselves upper-management at Apple and are making some trashy, no backed up, statements.

Sure, it's democracy but democracy doesn't mean you should trash someone or something without any facts or any common sense.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Basically, I think having choices makes for a better, more competitive marketplace.

Just because iPhone apps are only sold in the App store does not mean consumers don't have choices. Consumers base their choices on many factors. Service provider, type of phone, customer service, price and so on. Ask anyone what choices they make in what they buy, I doubt "The ability to buy iOS apps from multiple sources" is going to be one of them.

Deciding to only sell in the app store was a business decision that not only protects Apples interests but the customers as well. Anything that could devalue their product and make it more difficult for the customer: Malware, security, ease of use, fragmentation ect.

 

[LethalWolfe]

The problem is that all of a sudden, some people commenting here are considering themselves upper-management at Apple and are making some trashy, no backed up, statements.

Sure, it's democracy but democracy doesn't mean you should trash someone or something without any facts or any common sense.

Eh, it's the Internet. Armchair quarterbacks are a dime a dozen and sometimes you just have to ignore things that are from left field.

Just because iPhone apps are only sold in the App store does not mean consumers don't have choices.

What choices do consumers and devs have when it comes to buying and selling iOS apps?

I doubt "The ability to buy iOS apps from multiple sources" is going to be one of them.

It probably won't because users have been conditioned to believe that this way is the only way to go even though if the same restrictions were applied to music sales or software for OS X I'm sure most consumers wouldn't be to happy about it. The only difference is what consumers have been conditioned to accept as 'normal'.

Malware, security, ease of use, fragmentation ect.

Android is fragmented because Google gives its partners flexibility when it comes to hardware specs and OS customization. Neither of which have anything to with an app store.

Malware, security, ease of use, etc., are also not inherently tied to Apple having the one and only point of sale for iOS apps. Apple could do a similar 'trusted apps' thing for iOS that it currently does for OS X apps that are not purchased through the Mac App Store. Another option could be for Apple to still require all iOS apps to pass through their QC but not require them to be sold in the Apple App Store. Same basic concept as console video games where only 'official' games will play on the consoles, but the game itself can be purchased from a variety of stores. Just charge a flat license fee or a different percentage for apps that don't get sold through the app store. For example, maybe for apps that sell through the app store it's the 30/70 split because of the extra convenience and exposure the App Store can provide but for apps that sell outside of the app store it's a 25/75 or 20/80 split. Or maybe Apple does the opposite and gives devs that sell through the App Store a slightly better deal to encourage devs to offer their titles in the App Store.

I completely, 100% understand WHY Apple does it this way I just don't agree with it.

 

[Saucesome2000]

So how about 0%, what they deserve for services that run completely independently from them?

Maybe I completely misread the article, but what iOS apps run completely independent of Apple? That would infer that iOS apps run completely independent of and IOS product.

 

[linuxcooldude]

What choices do consumers and devs have when it comes to buying and selling iOS apps?

It probably won't because users have been conditioned to believe that this way is the only way to go even though if the same restrictions were applied to music sales or software for OS X I'm sure most consumers wouldn't be to happy about it. The only difference is what consumers have been conditioned to accept as 'normal'.

Conditioned? I don't believe that. I think people are much smarter then you make them out to be. If its really such a big deal on where you can get applications it would be a big problem with consumers. But its not, in the least.

I've even seen people claim Apples marketing lulls consumers into buying their products. Even though Samsung's marketing budget is exponentially higher, yet does not convince them as much.

Consumers want ease of use & convenience, readily access to applications without having to go outside sources to find them. Most developers know that default applications that come pre-installed on an operating system are the most used. Key word being most, not all applications.

There is still quite a lot of competition within the app store even though thats the only place you can go between developers. With Apple removing Google's mapping within iOS prompted Google Maps to finally use vector maps with turn by turn directions. Competition between Periscope & Meerkat. Google makes more money from iOS then its own open Android system. Only having one store does not stop competition.

Malware, security, ease of use, etc., are also not inherently tied to Apple having the one and only point of sale for iOS apps.

Its certainly for Android where users can side load applications and malware.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Conditioned? I don't believe that. If its really such a big deal on where you can get applications it would be a big problem with consumers. But its not, in the least.

The reason that it's not a big problem with consumers is because of the conditioning. For many people iOS and the iPhone is their only (or at least biggest) experience with smartphones so the fact that the only way to buy iOS apps is via the App Store is normal to them. That's just 'how it works' and they leave it at that. Apple knew that they had a big opportunity to established new norms for a virgin market (mobile devices) and they laid down their ideal scenario from the get go. Jobs had been wanting to release a sealed computing appliance that Apple would have enormous control over ever since the Apple I but the market never would have supported it until the iPhone.

If Apple had tried the same approach with the iPod or Mac (two places where different norms had already been established) it certainly would've been a big problem with consumers. For example, the DRM on music from the iTMS was a major point of contention, and the Mac App Store is one way to buy Mac software but not the only way? Microsoft, for another example, tried to change part of the dynamic of games and DRM with the XB1 and there was such a massive outcry against it that they quickly reversed course.

Consumers want ease of use & convenience, readily access to applications without having to go outside sources to find them. Most developers know that default applications that come pre-installed on an operating system are the most used. Key word being most, not all applications.

And people that want that can still use the App Store. I'm not saying the App Store shouldn't exist, I'm saying it would be nice (and there would be benefits) to have other sales channels. We have options about where we buy our OS X apps, our music, our books, etc., so it's not like I'm talking about sailing into uncharted territory.

There is still quite a lot of competition within the app store even though thats the only place you can go between developers. With Apple removing Google's mapping within iOS prompted Google Maps to finally use vector maps with turn by turn directions. Competition between Periscope & Meerkat. Google makes more money from iOS then its own open Android system. Only having one store does not stop competition.

I'm talking about competition/choices at the store level, not the app level. Right now there is no iOS app sales channel alternative to the official App Store. I'm not going to quote myself, but my previous mentioning of Panic software and their Mac App store experience is an example of what can be gained by having options.

Its certainly for Android where users can side load applications and malware.

QC and store front are not inherently linked (I covered this in my previous post). Just because a company chooses to do X doesn't mean that X is the only, or best, way to operate.

 

[Eso]

A channel is a channel. If they aren't getting value from it, they can leave. That's what a channel is all about.

You think these services pay MS? Or pay Mozilla or Google for accessing their services through a browser? Get real.