If you check consumer complaints on match.com the whole enterprise sounds like a rip-off with hidden fees and fake profiles.
Good riddance!
Good riddance!
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 Pulls Match.com iOS App over External Subscription Links
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think that comparison is not correct. I see iTunes as a mall and Match (or whoever) as a tenant that should be able to use the space within certain rules. A 30% turnover cut (turnover cut, not profit cut!) seems high, specially considering that iTunes has zero risks.
I guess Match could afford it since they sell a service, but if you sell physical goods, were often profit margins well below 10% then a 30% cut is simply unworkable.
That is a terrible analogy. Match.com and Apple don't make competing products.
This would be a better analogy:
Match.com wants a spot in Apple's food court and thus they have to pay rent (30% of every sale of the app). But Apple is demanding that in addition to that, they must also pay 30% of all of their sales (subscriptions) as well. Could you imagine if McDonald's had to give the mall 30% of their hamburger sales? Haha, as if.
Of course it's easy to say "well they can just choose to not do business with Apple," except that Apple's "App Store" is the ONLY way you can get apps on your iPhone. And yes, there are other phones and operating systems out there, but Apple is dominating the app market and obviously they want their application to be available to as wide an audience as possible. It's like saying "well they don't have to be in the food court in the one mall everyone shops at - they could choose to set up shop in the gas station down the road."
A free market is a good thing, yes, but simply saying "don't play by their rules if you don't like it" doesn't mean there are reasonable alternatives.
I honestly wish Amazon was the one to their foot down and forced Apple to act. It nice to see some companies start doing it pointing out how insane Apple's demands are.
Reading the 1st page, can't explain it, but something about really shows me how annoying fanboys are. How defensive they get over a corporation, almost as if they were afraid that someone might criticize their child.
Why so mad? I'm just stating that I don't agree with what they do and didn't insult anyone. If it makes you feel like a man to insult people then go ahead.
I don't think ANYONE wants to fill out a dating profile on a mobile device. Match.com requires a good bit of info... you'd be running for a computer anyway. Really a non-issue.
Exactly, how dare Apple tell me I can only use nails with their hammer if I pay Apple a 30% surcharge on each nail.
It's so not like that. Apple is saying they offer the nails, bring your own hammer... or you can buy one next door. Next door is that Safari icon on your IOS device... it's so painful to click one extra button, isn't it?
You only sign up for a service 1 fracking time. If this is such an issue for you, don't hold your breath about getting a second date with someone, if you get one at all filling out a profile with an IOS device.
I can only imagine the damnyouautocorrect.com postings now.
And it's not about being a fanboy. This is business. Apple need to be consistent with their policies. Let a dating site go, then a publisher pulls their app in protest. If Apple just banned these apps all together that would be a totally different story.
Also, they not only gave developers like half a year to get their apps in compliance, they gave them another extension on top of it... at this point, it's just laziness on match.com's part.
My car can go 180 mph, how dare they tell me there is a speed limit on this road! How dare they tax me for driving on this road, tax my car, and tell me to follow a speed limit! The nerve!
----------
All the time? So you don't have any success with keeping one? So who is doing the walk of shame the next day?
Yes, beer can lend a helping hand... but without it, you only have your own hand.
LOL Amazon?
http://shiftyjelly.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/amazon-app-store-rotten-to-the-core/
or the same Amazon that pulled 3rd party access to their API which screwed over products like Delicious Library (basically killed their iOS app) and others?
http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/07/delicious-library-for-iphone-runs-afoul-of-amazons-api-terms-p/
Keep vilifying Apple if you wish but companies are in this business to make money and not necessarily friends.
An IOS developers business model would be the app store, so you need to explain the logic of the question. Developers make money either on in app advertising, or the retail price.
Match.com is not a developer anyway. Their app is an extension of an existing service, so again doesn't make a lick of sense.
To your second point about alternatives: Apple is doing quite a bit for that 30% cut: they are hosting all the web traffic to your product (it costs money to have people looking at your web page you know), they store your files and host them, handle all the credit card fees, etc. They also give you a marketing boost you can't get on your own. For a small developer, that's striking gold. For a company like match.com, maybe not as much, but that's why it's an option for them to offer or not offer in app subscriptions.
Lots of developers only came toe exist because of the app store.
What would Game Loft be doing without mobile apps? Google takes that same cut you know. It's a revenue stream, plain and simple. They don't price their games that way because of the 30%. They price them because that is the average sweet spot people will pay for apps that are not given away. Very few apps survive a retail price higher than $6.99, very few!
You're really wrong, see my post above about what that 30% covers. Apple is acting like an Amazon or a Target, being the retailer, the developers are technically vendors. Apple is lucky to net even 10% at times on an app store purchase, and they take a hit on free apps. Welcome to business 101.
And the developer has no part in uploading the content to the new device. You lost all cred with me with that comment. That's what the app store is for and does! ROFLMAO. All the developer is responsible for is developing the app, and uploading it to Apple 1 time. From there on, they're role is done unless they decide to provide updates to their app.
I agree with you, but a few things to point out more value in what you said:
The transportation of good accounts for one of the largest expenses in the supply chain. All raw materials to make a good (right down to a manual) carry a transportation expense to them, and then again when a product is assembled and shipped back out, often going from a plant to a warehouse to the end sellers warehouse who then ships to a store. By the time a product arrives in a store, it's in part and it's whole been shipped over 10 times, at least. Not even counting manufacturing expenses alone.
Payroll is every companies BIGGEST expense. If you are a company dealing in virtual goods, your payroll is now rooted exclusively in development, support staff, and some minor positions. Do you know how much money it costs to operate even a small distribution center? This is why game downloads are being pushed so hard by every game company out there. It saves them millions of dollars at a clip, even having existing distribution. Imagine taking that all away.
If developers had to sell apps on their own, or via a physical delivery system, they would see well over 30% in over head bite them in the butt.
Subscription based apps get into a very different beast though. Periodicals are funded by advertising. That news stand price is often below the cost of printing and shipping, and then there is the unsold copies. Places like Netflix and such price as low as they can afford to already... these are the companies who get wounded by a 30% cut. Conde Naste is experimenting heavily, but that 30% will kill them if they don't see a large rise in subscribers, which increases their ad rates.
I think Apple only needs to revise it's policy for periodical companies. Do 10% like Google is doing. Everyone else, pay up.
different topic. Thanks for the moving of goal post.
Besides on Android there are multiple options for selling Apps. Take your pick.
You really should read the requirements for in app purchases.
Read it and you will see for in app purchases the only thing Apple function as is a credit card processor.
But that would require you not going ooo Apple is great and looking at it.
I am not talking about selling Apps at all. it for IN APP purchases only.
Yes, a mall is one correct analogy. Another is simply as a consignment retailer. Anyway, I don't hear you saying that Ebay is too high? Or Kindle? Or Nook?
At the end of the day I don't see why people spend the time to discuss it. Apple has a history of charging and keeping far more money than others in the tech sector. They've cultivated the skill to manipulate, influence, and sell to a massive number of people.
There's nothing new here. Apple does what Apple wants. How they want, when they want, and they've got legions of excuse makers that stand behind them to brag if the result is good, or put up smoke screens to cover up Apples mistakes. It is what it is.
Many find it very easy to get sucked into Apples web, stop thinking for themselves & become somewhat of a zealot as modeled by the former CEO. Its the crowd mentality (iFans vs...) that attracts a certain type. It's a charismatic ego centric leader they seek & worship.
Again there's nothing wrong with that, it is what it is. Apples done a brilliant job of turning mere devices into cash cows that are the envy of any money loving person. In fact that's why I find it so humorous that the Android hating Apple lovers get so worked up over their competition even though Apples already won. It's having Apple to covet, worship & belong to that draws them in.
There's nothing new here. Apple does what Apple wants. How they want, when they want, and they've got legions of excuse makers that stand behind them to brag if the result is good, or put up smoke screens to cover up Apples mistakes. It is what it is.
Many find it very easy to get sucked into Apples web, stop thinking for themselves & become somewhat of a zealot as modeled by the former CEO. Its the crowd mentality (iFans vs...) that attracts a certain type. It's a charismatic ego centric leader they seek & worship.
Again there's nothing wrong with that, it is what it is. Apples done a brilliant job of turning mere devices into cash cows that are the envy of any money loving person. In fact that's why I find it so humorous that the Android hating Apple lovers get so worked up over their competition even though Apples already won. It's having Apple to covet, worship & belong to that draws them in.
Not really moving the goal posts but rather speaking to the credibility or lack thereof of Amazon. They too have their issues where they become the bully. They could stand up to Apple but they have not power...Apple doesn't rely on Amazon services and frankly would rather you use them instead.
Yes there are multiple options for selling on Android. You can get screwed by Amazon as witnessed by Shifty Jelly's blog post or you can be on a number of market places. If those are better options then Match.com can peddle their flesh fantasy there.
For the App Store it's clear. Wall Gardens have won.
I've got 50GB of content across an iPhone and iPad. iCloud lets me backup both of these devices with just 4GB of data used. How is Android going to back up content as seamlessly across multiple stores?
It's not about loving or even hating Apple but realizing that there is a "reason" why they do what they do.
----------
You seem awfully young. Some of "iFans" were using Macs back in the day when Apple wasn't doing so hot. What Apple has done over the last decade is something you will not see many times in your life. It's worthy of discussion from my point of view. YMMV
Multiple stores would fall on the requirement of each of the stores used.
I know about shift Jelly post. Reason I choose amazon is they are among the few companies that have the power to stand up to Apple. Apple blocking the kindle App on iOS would hurt Apple. Currently Amazon keeps 30% of books sold threw their estore (same rate as Apple) and per Apple's requirement they would be forced to eat losses since Apple is taking 100% of their cut and per the rules Amazon could not pass on the cost to people buying threw iOS.
Right now Apple being the gate keeper for iOS is becoming more and more of a problem. They increase the gate and make it harder to be on iOS. Small devs fine but the big companies Apple's requirements are getting a little steep.
"Most people want security in this world, not liberty."
HL Mencken
In essence Humans LOVE Walled Gardens. Look at ancient architecture ...it was always about encapsulating the citizens from danger. It's time tested. Android's "Have it your way" campaign is distinctly like Burger King which has played second fiddle to McDonalds.
You guys need to step it up and find the REAL gems out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bomkgXeDkE
That one is good, too.
Your examples aren't even comparable. Target doesn't get a 30% cut of World of Warcraft subscriptions after they've sold the boxed retail copy, and they don't prevent the application from pointing to a non-Target site for subscribing.
I'm up at stupid o'clock on a Saturday for a work conference call - this cheered me up no end. She really is very funny! 10 out of 10 to her for taking the mickey out of all the online cat-loving lonely hearts!
Wrong. Apple Store has nothing to do with it. These are Apple rules applied to our iPhones.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)
Whenever these discussions come up it is always clear who has absolutely no business experience or understanding.
Some of you need to create a product or service and then try to successfully distribute or sell it. You will quickly see what a good deal Apple's 30% is.
Whenever these discussions come up it is always clear who has absolutely no business experience or understanding.
Some of you need to create a product or service and then try to successfully distribute or sell it. You will quickly see what a good deal Apple's 30% is.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
Except World of Warcraft can't put boxes in Target for free.
Why can't people get that you can't rent a mall space for free and won't expect the mall to get a 30% of the sales?
There is a way around that, just look at Netflix.
schmidm77 said:
Except World of Warcraft can't put boxes in Target for free.
Why can't people get that you can't rent a mall space for free and won't expect the mall to get a 30% of the sales?
There is a way around that, just look at Netflix.
Yes. That's how capitalism works. If Apple's App Store is so worthwhile, stop being anti-competitive and blocking other stores on people's devices, and we'll see how much the 30% is worth it in an open, proper market.
It wouldn't do well.
Apple continues to want to create a **** user experience for paying customers in order to furnish their greed.
Phazer
The point is that even though Apple owns the App Store, WE own our devices and Apple is telling us we're not allowed to certain things with them, making up rules as they go along. As long as they don't allow side-loading of apps, I think I dare say it's bordering unethical for them to deny apps for any other reasons than stability or security reasons.
----------
But how can the OWNERS of iOS devices use the apps then? It's not as much unfair to the developers being forced to allow apples rules for the iOS ecosystem, but the users that paid $600+ for their devices that are told by apple that their devices are no longer allowed to do certain things because a developer decided to add a URL to an app.
The only problem with your analogy is that malls charge rent based on square footage and, wait for it, a percentage of your sales.
Umm, you are the one who can't get the fact that the sale of the application, and any services that the app may also use are different. Apple getting a cut of the app sale is fine. Demanding a cut of all subsequent subscription revenues, and preventing the app maker from pointing to a non-Apple subscription mechanism, is, as somebody else put it, like the mob demanding protection money.
So as I originally said in my first post, Target gets whatever margin they make off selling the retail box of WoW, but they don't demand a cut of all subscription revenues thereafter. Apple is demanding both, and when the app developer provides a direct way for user subscription, Apple takes their ball and goes home like a greedy child.