if that is how you entire argument I could easily say this.
"Blah Blah Blah" you are a blind Apple Fanboy who can not see the problem with this.
That is your argument against me saying I think Apple is evil. It is the same level of though.
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 Rejects 'Readability' iOS App, 'Software as a Service' Offerings Jeopardized
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
if that is how you entire argument I could easily say this.
"Blah Blah Blah" you are a blind Apple Fanboy who can not see the problem with this.
That is your argument against me saying I think Apple is evil. It is the same level of though.
How many of those defending apple now were also defending Microsoft in the 90's when, unlike Apple, they only made it mildly annoying for independent devolopers, not completely impossible as Apple is doing now.
which part the Antitrust part or the fact that EU has much stronger consumer protection laws than the US.
If you want the US go read up on US antitrust laws.
EU well that is more common knowledge to know that they are stronger and much more likely to strike down something than the US. Amazon is still paying a daily fine for offering free shipping over there.
Here's the crux of the problem: Because Apple wants a consistent experience on the App Store for distributing apps, that means a single source of data for the App itself. That costs money, and Apple is determined to make it so that it can pay for itself in the long run. The 30% cut pays for general operating expenses of the App Store (hosting, billing, etc).
The catch is this: You can't take 30% of nothing. If I post a free app, then I'm using Apple's generosity in paying the hosting bills. Now I monetize the app via ads, subscription fees, micro-transactions, and so on. It's a valid monetization strategy, but it completely cuts Apple out of the revenue while still putting them on the hook for hosting. So, in response you see iAd and in-app transactions in order to tap into that revenue that they were previously being left out of. And this money is funnelled into the part of the business that runs the App Store.
The big difference here is that Apple used iAd as a carrot to get developers using advertising that Apple could get a cut of. With the subscriptions, they are using the stick. People like carrots more than they like sticks.
And yes, an answer here is that you can allow side-loading of Apps and get people to use their own hosting and pay for distribution themselves. However, this also opens up the platform in a way that people are not used to. And by people, I mean carriers/etc. Think of the number of zombie PCs out there spewing spam, DDoS attacks, and trying to replicate themselves. Sideloaded apps give a similar foothold on the mobile platforms, and it is something that honestly scares the crap out of the carriers. They have been fighting open platforms on their networks tooth and nail, because these sort of zombie devices produce a ton of traffic which they just can't handle due to bottlenecks at the last mile.
Now, Apple can provide a signing service where you still have to meet X guidelines and you pay a fee for that service, but you can cut Apple out of your revenue stream in exchange for paying for all the costs of hosting yourself. The carriers might agree to this, but it will definitely fracture the iOS experience, somewhat. This is a trade-off that Apple may not be willing to make yet, although it may have to do something here in the future.
Again, one-size-fits-all is not fitting all at this point.
And will they host RTM or Toodledo data? And is Apple streaming video and audio like Spotify, Hulu or Netflix?
Are you suggeting that the ONLY provider must be Apple?
poor analogy. You don't pay the mall. you pay the store in the mall. stores in a mall pay leasing fees, but aren't required to give a cut of each sale to the owners of the mall. mall analogy = DOA
Most feeds these days do not have full text and are just snippets unless you pay a subscription (and often no subscription is available). Touting RSS as the solution here just comes across as ignorant of the problem.
I seriously doubt that. If you've been paying attention at all you'll know that Apple isn't the one in bed with the advertisers. Google is. Who used the code released originally by the people at Arc90 (Readability) as a feature in their browser? Apple in Safari and not Chrome. The problem here is that the new Readability looks like a middleman trying to make a buck in the App Store without giving Apple anything in return.
If your logic was correct there would be no free RSS readers in the App Store let alone integrated into Safari. Instead Safari has the exact same ad blocking functionality of the first (free) version of Readability built-in.
The part where you say Apple will be convicted in US court without giving any evidence. Last time I checked in the US you are assumed innocent until proven guilty with evidence. Perhaps you should brush up on that bit of the law before trying to school people.
I wonder how will NutJobs force British Government to give him 30% of BBC subscription they collect from British citizens OUTSIDE the app store.
If British Gov't can do it why not Readibility?
If British Gov't can do it why not Readibility?
The 70/30 model works with one time purchased applications where the developer can plan the price of the app around it. The 70/30 model even might work for magazine and newspaper publications where they easily had costs associated with printing that was in excess of the 30% now paid to Apple.
Where does the model fail? Everywhere, everywhere, everywhere else.
No way does Netflix or Comcast have 30% margin on their services to give to Apple and still remain profitable. Does Amazon with their Kindle service? No way. Hulu? Of course not. Readibility and other small time providers? Nope. So do all of these companies raise the price of their services 30%+ to end users to stay in buisness, to me it is doubtful as iOS users aren't worth that much yet. Either way we as end users lose, either we pay huge price increases or lose out Netflix, Hulu, Comcast, Amazon Kindle, and countless other apps.
Something is going to give.
Where does the model fail? Everywhere, everywhere, everywhere else.
No way does Netflix or Comcast have 30% margin on their services to give to Apple and still remain profitable. Does Amazon with their Kindle service? No way. Hulu? Of course not. Readibility and other small time providers? Nope. So do all of these companies raise the price of their services 30%+ to end users to stay in buisness, to me it is doubtful as iOS users aren't worth that much yet. Either way we as end users lose, either we pay huge price increases or lose out Netflix, Hulu, Comcast, Amazon Kindle, and countless other apps.
Something is going to give.
Well since both the EU and US are looking into it. Multiple different companies are complaining tells me that it will be a nasty court battle. I can easily see them getting nailed in the US but chance of them getting out from under it. EU it is more of a lock in against Apple. Much harder for Apple to win over there so I can easily see them losing big time over there. In EU the government is not bought and paid for as badly as it is in the US. The government there still represents the people.
Thank you for a moment of sanity. This is the bigger question that no one else is asking: why in the hell would anyone pay $5 a month to use Readability?
Readability can be used for free in many other apps and in many browsers. Why on earth would anyone pay a monthly fee for that? OK, I can see a scenario where people would pay a one-time fee to buy a Readability app, just like any other app. But someone over at Readability obviously saw huge $$ in his eyes in creating a subscription service for something that is already free and at best should be a one-time app purchase. If they want to blame Apple for sandbagging their lame-ass "service" then I say thank you Apple.
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)
Quite, I know little about US competition law compared to EU. I just guessed there was a possibility of Apple falling foul of it.
My impression is EU law is tougher in many respects. Apple does not need a monopoly, or even more than 50%. I hope they cone down on Apple like they did with MS.
QuarterSwede said:
Quite, I know little about US competition law compared to EU. I just guessed there was a possibility of Apple falling foul of it.
My impression is EU law is tougher in many respects. Apple does not need a monopoly, or even more than 50%. I hope they cone down on Apple like they did with MS.
And remember how the Carries tries to block Netflix, Slingbox and others from streaming videos for years over 3G?
I agree that with pure unlimited data, this could cause some serious issues, especially over 3G networks.
With 4G networks & Data Caps this should solve any concerns over abuse in my opinion.
I got the iPhone4 in June... waiting for the ETF to go down a bit before jumping off the Apple Ship
.Between Android 3.0, Windows Phone 7.2 (or will that be 8) and WebOS3 all coming out this summer/fall iOS better still have decent apps for me to consider the iPhone5!
If this unfolds in the usual way, Apple will start out hardline, like they just have, and then work out a way for things to go forward as they usually do.
It's sad that no matter what is set up that developers are trying to "game the system" or Apple is over-reacting.
It's sad that no matter what is set up that developers are trying to "game the system" or Apple is over-reacting.
+1
it's hard reading some of these posts cause (imo) the issue isn't black or white like some people are making it out to be. it seems appropriate in some instances and totally obsurd in others.
Yes, regulators tend to look at the market to make sure everything is okay. That doesn't mean there is any certainty of conviction. You might as well say the police are going to arrest someone every time they show up anywhere.
Just because there are complaints doesn't mean there will be a conviction. If that was the case every company on the planet would lose multiple class action lawsuits every month. The fact that the people complaining are competitors should make you even more wary of bias. Where is the evidence?
I can see a lot of things happening too. I like to use evidence when I make statements instead of blind speculation, though.
Yes yes yes. Apple and US bad. EU and Google good. Nokia misguided by MS. And so on and so forth.
Let me know when you have some evidence and interpretation of the law (can be a reputable link, not asking you to get a law degree just for my sake) and not just talking points.
I can't wait for Apple to demand that Comcast give them 30% of my monthly cable subscription fee when I install the Xfinity App on my iPhone
yep, that is a good one. and comcast has lawyers too.
this bad because there is a lot of applications that i can imagine will want to charge a monthly fee to keep a service up to date (movie ratings, restaurant ratings) heck if triple A would have a iPhone app should they pay 30% of my membership to apple? or the fee for my amex card if amex brings out a iPhone app? or credit monitoring services?
this goes in the direction that apple wants to get 30% of our digital lifestyle spending without providing any content. they provide just a small part of the platform. this is not sustainable and will eventuall bite them when either content providers jump ship or customers realize that digital consumption on iPhones costs 30% more than on android phones/tablets.