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
Apologists will love it until Apple gets slapped with a suit for restraint of trade.
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)
Yes, Target makes a margin off selling WoW. Whatever the cost is, that's fine. But you don't seem to get that fact that WoW at Target is not free. Match.com is free (I presume). Apple can't make a margin off of $0. As I have said before, do what Netflix does and be happy, there is a way around it.
schmidm77 said:
Yes, Target makes a margin off selling WoW. Whatever the cost is, that's fine. But you don't seem to get that fact that WoW at Target is not free. Match.com is free (I presume). Apple can't make a margin off of $0. As I have said before, do what Netflix does and be happy, there is a way around it.
Not a problem, Match.com can just build a rich web app. If built well, for *this* type of application the differences between a native and web app can be minimized.
The future will be more towards web applications than native apps. Future versions of HTML will enable more integration between the web app and phone functionality - i.e., camera etc.
Of course, not everything will be possible in a web app that is possible in a native app. But web applications have the bonus of being cheaper to develop - one web app for many devices.
The future will be more towards web applications than native apps. Future versions of HTML will enable more integration between the web app and phone functionality - i.e., camera etc.
Of course, not everything will be possible in a web app that is possible in a native app. But web applications have the bonus of being cheaper to develop - one web app for many devices.
Last edited:
You can't sign up for Netflix on your iDevice any more. You can do it from on the computer.
The Match app is apparently just a native front-end to their web site, similar to the Facebook app.
Apple has chosen to allow free application to be offered, just has it was their choice to be the only sanctioned venue for selling applications to iPhone users. Given these facts, these (relatively new) demands for 30% cut of everything or you can't even sell your software to an iPhone user are pretty onerous.
It's terrible because the consumer is the one that is harmed by all of this. Do you seriously believe any of us give a rat's hind end about this GREEDY BS? We just want the darn App!
This is why I think it's ridiculous that Apple can limit who can sell software for one of their computers. The consumer is definitely the one getting the shaft by Apple's greedy practice of both monopolizing and policing what software you are "allowed" to put on your computer (and yes, the iPad is a computer!) It is that practice in general that people should be protesting, IMO because the next step will be to do the same for your desktop/notebook as well.
@Kwill
The quality of dates you get from Match.com is certainly another area of concern...
A chance that the app gets seen because it's added to a list? That's not marketing. Marketing means actively reaching out to potential customers with information about the product. Apple does nothing like that for other developers except for the very few that Apple uses to promote the app store.
For the apps themselves yes, and this is supposed to be covered by the developer fee and 30% cut of the purchase of the app. But were talking in-app content, and Apple does not play any part in the distribution of this
Imagine if Target started making such demands and threatening to stop selling WoW if they didn't get it. What would happen?
---
The bottom line is, this affects us customers negatively. When Apple is making in-app subscriptions out of the question and prohibits any information about how to subscribe it's only making the experience worse for us.
Apple wont gain much because the majority of content providers will not use the in-app subscriptions. They simply can't because they don't have the margins.
Atleast Apple dropped the requirement that content providers can't charge more in-app than elsewhere but is it likely that they would markup the in-app subscriptions to cover Apples cut while at the same time not being allowed to inform the customers about the cheaper options? Wouldn't that cause a lot of angry customers who feel cheated when they find out later on?
Probably, the majority of content providers will simply opt out which in time could undermine the app store
That's right. Retail markup is closer to 50%.
If you had to go to Target and check out in order to buy the extras, they would take their percent. You know, like WoW add-on packs...sold in boxes...at Target.
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)
People who like to use wow as an example should realize the retailer can take 70% + in such cases.
People that don't understand business are free to not sell their non existant products in the app store. Those who actually make and sell things will continue to make lots of money working with apple despite your protests.
Please let us know when your non existant products find a better marketing channel. Someone said the app store is not marketing. That is 100% incorrect. Being able to easily go through the app store and browse and locate products is extremely valuable marketing. To be fair I just own a marketing company I don't not sell imaginary products via unknown channels like some here.
The apple app store has been a revolutionary positive devolopment for small app developers. It is worth significantly more than a 30% cut, including subscription and in app purchases. Versus traditional methods it is not even close. Without the app store 95% of the app developers would make zero dollars. It is silly for people to argue the benefit and value is not huge.
Some people do not understand how much time, energy and resources it takes for a very small business to replicate what apple provides. Add to that a lot of those things are not necessarily things programmers would be experienced at managing and it is an amazing benefit. As someone who has adaptly managed the same services for businesses I have owned, I would not hesitate to give apple their cut. It is a godsend for almost all developers.
People who like to use wow as an example should realize the retailer can take 70% + in such cases.
People that don't understand business are free to not sell their non existant products in the app store. Those who actually make and sell things will continue to make lots of money working with apple despite your protests.
Please let us know when your non existant products find a better marketing channel. Someone said the app store is not marketing. That is 100% incorrect. Being able to easily go through the app store and browse and locate products is extremely valuable marketing. To be fair I just own a marketing company I don't not sell imaginary products via unknown channels like some here.
The apple app store has been a revolutionary positive devolopment for small app developers. It is worth significantly more than a 30% cut, including subscription and in app purchases. Versus traditional methods it is not even close. Without the app store 95% of the app developers would make zero dollars. It is silly for people to argue the benefit and value is not huge.
Some people do not understand how much time, energy and resources it takes for a very small business to replicate what apple provides. Add to that a lot of those things are not necessarily things programmers would be experienced at managing and it is an amazing benefit. As someone who has adaptly managed the same services for businesses I have owned, I would not hesitate to give apple their cut. It is a godsend for almost all developers.
Yup. I'm sure that even today most apps could be replicated in non-native ways. Thankfully, companies are (slowly) beginning to realize that. Applications will become industry assets; the web is the platform.
The Exodus have already begun. Apple should embrace the future, looking for ways to capitalize on it, not fight it and come off as silly looking in the end as the music industry did. Heck, what they will have is what they first envisioned, so how come they haven't figured it out yet?
Yes. Noteworthy examples are Amazon, Financial Times, Google*. On the other end of things, and somewhat related, we have Facebook and Project Spartan. Just google "publisher apple html5". Should get you started if you want more.
Its simple really. If there is a viable way to not pay Apple 30%, people will not pay Apple 30%. For many, "HTML5" is a viable way. O'Reilly was right, the Web is the platform.
* after reading up, i guess this one is a bit out of context, as this was not related to in-app purchases.
Whether this was Apple or another company, of course a few will try and get around paying them. I'd hardly call it an exodus.
Using Facebook's Project Spartan as an example of an "exodus" is laughable. Facebook is a competitor of Apple. Why in the world would their strategy be anything other than competing with them?
So your "exodus" boils down to the Financial Times.
I said this was the beginning, not the end. Second, regarding Spartan i explicitly stated that it was "the other side of things" and (only) "related". Point was showing the trend toward "HTML5". Last, i don't know or have the time to find out, exactly which content providers that have opted for "HTML5" (and not) in response to Apples in-app purchase policy. I do know however that the reaction was strong enough to be taken seriously, as Apple evidently altered their position a bit. In fact, i do know that its such a common theme that i no longer save links related to it (i collect links on various it-related things, as i may eventually need them to support scientific theoretical arguments on technological trends).
(while looking at my collection, i did find another example though: http://www.slashgear.com/vudu-uses-...ce-to-avoid-sharing-loot-with-apple-10170770/)
p.s. what happened to Amazon?
Last edited:
Amazon is the same as Facebook, they are a competitor.
My point was there is no exodus from the App Store. Sure, you can find a few companies fighting Apple but the fact remains the App Store earns more for developers than any other store, by a wide margin.
Competitors or not, they - evidently - support the platform. In that sense, they are no different than anyone else. They have content. Apple have a platform for said content. Simple, really. Competitor or not, no one wants to give Apple more money than necessary. Further, no one would want to pay Apple to do X if they think they can get X done cheaper through other means.
As for your claim, it is one you cannot support - not even in theory. Yes, the App Store is dominant in terms of quantity. But as "developers" are individual entities rather than a collective, these things matter little. In fact, some evidently earn more money on platforms other than iOS. (A phenomenon that is quite easy to explain using economic theory, as saturation leads to commodization in turn creating margin-pressure making development efforts for other alternatives ever more so interesting).
Last, and once more, i am talking about the beginning of something. Im not saying that every company on earth, or even most, have abandoned the platform or the App store. What i am saying is that were seeing a trend in relation to a particular solution (mainly, in app purchases - specifically, subscription services). This is correct. This can be theoretically supported drawing on e.g. economic theory. How it'll turn out? Only time can tell. Personally, i believe Apple would be better off not fighting technological evolution, embracing it instead.
Also. just to be 100% clear:
Yes. The App store has clear value. Both for users, and for developers. Further, the back-end part offers clear value for both users, and for developers. As result, there will be people happily paying Apple for these services. However, when it comes to content, these people are often quite irrelevant. Big content is owned by big media. Big media have money and balls. Big media can attain these services at a fraction of the cost, and are not as dependent on Apples services front-end.
Keeping ownership of platforms is easier said than done. IBM thought they had things in check, BIOS being their proprietary solution and a requisite for running DOS. How that one played out should be known to all. Safe to say, BIOS today is not "the platform". At times, Apple seem to show off the same arrogance and ignorance. In doing so, they risk bringing forth a future in which their own platform becomes of lesser value (e.g. apps as industry assets; web as the platform).
It's odd that Apple don't agree with you about this if you're so right.
After all, if the App Store was such a superior model, it would cope with having competition and still win. Apple don't think it will, which is why they block other sources of software.
Some small app developers. But the point is that small app developers aren't all that exist, and it's only good for the small app developers that, say, don't develop tethering software, are told by Apple all the way through their sunk costs that it will be allowed in the store, and then have their software pulled in a fit of inconsistent panic by Apple with no other way to distribute it to that entire hardware platform.
Phazer
