Very concise post that sums the issue up quite well. Only the businesses involved will know whether the 30% cost will be offset by the added sales. It's the same situation with the Mac app store. They can sell the app in the app store and lose 30% of the total sale or they can sell it on their own site and lose the added sales that the app store brings. I have a feeling that most big businesses will eventually get on board because the added sales will outweigh the added cost. The small app creators on the other hand will have to weigh the costs. It's how businesses are run, you weigh the margin of profit with the potential sales and decide it it will work for your business.
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
Sigh, history lesson time. Microsoft threatened Apple with removing Office support for Mac if they didn't kill Quicktime back in the Microsoft super evil phase. Microsoft was also extorting OEMs and banning Netscape from those PCs. Apple has done nothing equivalent so referencing such cases doesn't support the Apple antitrust meme.
Already happening. Go check out it out. Since its been open some devs have complete left the iTunes Apps stores do to its policy and trying to compete there. They make more money selling only to Jail broken people.
Well already clear you will support only Apple.
In terms of PR Apple will loss this one minus the fanboys. And for fanboys most companies have already figured out that fanboys and girls of any companies opinions do not matter because the fanboys and girls of any company do not have the ability to think for themselves but they know that the general public is smarter than the average fanboy and will see it for the truth it really is.
Google
Who is to say that Google won´t have the same policy in the near future, basically leaving developers out of the game if they don´t adapt to this policies.
Who is to say that Google won´t have the same policy in the near future, basically leaving developers out of the game if they don´t adapt to this policies.
I'm not defending Apple. This in-app subscription stunt is pure greed, nothing more. I understand the 30 % if a content provider chooses to sell subscriptions in-app, but it's extremely greedy of Apple to require everybody to shell out 30 % if they sell subscriptions. Do you pay a subscription fee for BBC on a monthly basis or is it a yearly license as here in Denmark? If so, the license is more a tax than a subscription.
Last edited by a moderator:
For much less than that (having IE as the default browser) Microsoft took a lot of heat.
The outcome could very well be that Apple can be considered taking illegal non-competitive actions in a market where they are dominant (tablets) and forced to allow alternative stores. It would be interesting to see it happening
The outcome could very well be that Apple can be considered taking illegal non-competitive actions in a market where they are dominant (tablets) and forced to allow alternative stores. It would be interesting to see it happening
I believe this analogy works for purchasing the app itself. In app purchasing would be more like you buy your parents a $50 dollar olive garden gc at walmart and when they go to olive garden they end up spending $75. Walmart then charges Olive Garden 30% on the other $25 they made that night on the assumption that Olive Garden wouldn't have made that extra $25had walmart not sold the $50 gc.
Not exactly true. Because the lease in the mall is probably around 15% of their operating cost for an actual store front and may be tied to gross sales. Kiosks are cheaper. For example, in the Mall of America, a Kiosk is typically $2,300/month OR 15% of monthly sales, which ever is GREATER. It is harder to pin down a regular store and its rates, because the square footage is so variable that a leaser chooses and their contracts/arrangements generally confidential. There are many financial and entrepreneur sites you can get some of this info from
I support what's best for me as a consumer, I can't say it better than this living legend:
Jean-Louis Gassée said:
@gassee
There's many things to criticize Apple for, doing what's good for customers it's not one of them.
One thing I don't get...
RE: "Readability's model is unique in that 70% of our service fees go directly to writers and publishers."
I don't get this part... why and how are they sending back 70% of their revenue to publishers and writers?
Makes no sense why? It looks like just a reader app that removes the Adds and clutter... so why would they pay a royalty? For what? Anyone know?
RE: "Readability's model is unique in that 70% of our service fees go directly to writers and publishers."
I don't get this part... why and how are they sending back 70% of their revenue to publishers and writers?
Makes no sense why? It looks like just a reader app that removes the Adds and clutter... so why would they pay a royalty? For what? Anyone know?
Great difference, Google Android Market is not the only way to buy or install applications.
There are some terrible analogies in this thread. Some of you must not have done well on your SATs.
Ah, but everyone has choices in that scenario!
If Olive Garden was offering a "Buy $20 gift card, get $10 for yourself!" deal, I could go there
.I could go to Target to buy those too.
The problem with the AppStore is that it is the only way to purchase an App for iOS.
so content creators have another stream of revenue since this app strips their main revenue stream. as simple as that
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Exactly, nobody would be buying these devices if all of those popular services weren't available. The iPhone is great hardware and for the most part iOS is nothing but excellent, but would I pay 700 for it knowing that I could use none of these services that I use on my computer and all kinds of devices? Alternatively having all of them costing 43% more to add iOS support when I can use all the other platforms without paying this much more?
The only way I could see Apple being able to keep this up would be if this fee only applied to services that are iOS only, where you really can say that not using iap is trying to circumvent apples policies. But for a multiplatform app? It might be difficult to make a clear distinction, but for the kind of apps that are multiplatform I think Apple is overestimating their importance.
thetexan said:
Exactly, nobody would be buying these devices if all of those popular services weren't available. The iPhone is great hardware and for the most part iOS is nothing but excellent, but would I pay 700 for it knowing that I could use none of these services that I use on my computer and all kinds of devices? Alternatively having all of them costing 43% more to add iOS support when I can use all the other platforms without paying this much more?
The only way I could see Apple being able to keep this up would be if this fee only applied to services that are iOS only, where you really can say that not using iap is trying to circumvent apples policies. But for a multiplatform app? It might be difficult to make a clear distinction, but for the kind of apps that are multiplatform I think Apple is overestimating their importance.
Yeah it's so open you only need to find a custom ROM from some Russian kid and root your device
They allow web app stores. Not to mention the whole issue of the tablet not really being a separate ecosystem. My iMac isn't a completely separate ecosystem when compared to my Macbook. In terms of ecosystem, Android is competitive, or at least that is what the Google supporters reiterate every chance they get.
Not sure what the July 1 part is. But yes, without a doubt, in my mind, if they offer In-App, one click purchasing for Kindle Books, Spotify subscriptions, etc... they'll sell more of them.
Not sure what the second sentence meant
The July part is the date when they will be totally effective the rules.
And the second sentence talks about what happens if your profit margins are below 30%, something not unusual
I'm not defending Apple. This in-app subscription stunt is pure greed, nothing more. I understand the 30 % if a content provider chooses to sell subscriptions in-app, but it's extremely greedy of Apple to require everybody to shell out 30 % if they sell subscriptions. Do you pay a subscription fee for BBC on a monthly basis or is it a yearly license as here in Denmark? If so, the license is more a tax than a subscription.
It's not tax, you pay subscription if you want to consume their content through TV set. In turn you get the content on web and iOS for free. Now Apple has to force them to put a SUBSCRIBE button on BBC app and you will be able to subscribe for 100 or so punds per year, out of which Apple will take 30%.
And don't forget the bait and switch apps like a certain recipe app that charged for a 'pro' version and then discontinued it to switch to a subscription based app. I am happy to see Apple doing something to reign in the scammers. I really think the whole point of this is that free apps should be free. I suspect this is more about getting rid of the plague of subscription apps than about getting the 30% cut.
To the developers out there, come up with a viable business model or go away. If your service is valuable enough to people to justify subscription fees, then a 30% cut for your sales channel shouldn't be a problem. If you're only surviving because you have no profit margins, then don't come crying to me, and don't expect Apple to keep subsidizing you. Maybe you can re-organize your 'business' as a non-profit. At least that would be more honest.
Yeah it's so open you only need to find a custom ROM from some Russian kid and root your device
Why people talk about things that doesn't know nothing and say such stupid things?
A few comments:
1 - Your parent's anniversary is coming up. Being the classy lad that you are, you decide to get them gift cards to Olive Garden and Red Lobster (oooh, fancy). You can either go to each store individually, initiate a new purchase / credit card transaction, deal with the hassle of driving, etc. Or you can go to WalMart, while you're already shopping there, and pick up the gift cards at the counter. Wal-Mart isn't doing anything for the restaurants, right? So they shouldn't receive any cut, right?
Of course not. Because that's not how business works. If you're displaying in my store, I'm going to take a cut.
2 - To the people saying "30% is too much! Publishers can't live with those rates!" It's very easy to get around this. Just get people to go to your site and sign up.
What's that you say?
People will do it in IAP because it's easier, and they already have their credit card details?
You mean, there's value to the customer in doing it from within the App?
It's more convenient for the user?
THAT'S what you're paying the 30% for.
If you think that there's not a TON of impulse buying that happens on the App Store and iOS store... well, I'm not sure what to tell you
There's a value associated with that. Just like batteries, candy bars, and magazines pay more to get into the check-out aisles at supermarkets. That "impulse-buy" exposure is a valuable commodity. Apple wants paid for that, too. (Just like every other store in existence).
Finally, having something like IAP (as well as 1-click buying on Amazon) makes people much more likely to spend money. When you're not entering your card details (or forking over cash), people have a tendency to not think of it as "real" money. It's the same reason casinos use chips. If you can have people forget that they're spending money, it's a lot easier to get it out of them. Click...boom... bought.
All of these things have value.
Plus, Apple's handling the credit card processing.
Plus, Apple's handling the customer details.
Plus, Apple's providing the customer support for billing disputes.
Plus, Apple's providing advertising in the form of App Store placement.
Plus, Apple's providing the content provider placement in an exclusive searchable listing of "approved" apps.
Every single one of these things can (and should!) be monetized.
We'll see what the market really bears. But I have a feeling it's going to turn out like the initial complaining on here about the 30% App Store sales. Non-developers were on here, yelling and screaming about how Apple was being so unfair. While the experienced developers were sitting back and licking their lips in anticipation of the money that would come rolling in. And it did come rolling in.
The difference, of course, is that in this instance, you DO have some experienced developers/agencies saying that the fee is too high. We'll see soon how it shakes out. I _still_ think that it might just be a case of a few squeaky wheels. But I'm not firm enough in that assumption to say I'd be surprised if a LOT of content providers start pulling out.
I'm honestly now sure where I fall on this -- I think Apple is definitely due a decent cut of IAP, and I think the requirement of having things available in IAP (and the price matching) are all good things for customers. Maybe the 30% is too high.
One last thought:
70% of 10 sales is equal to 100% of 7 sales. That means you need to sell 43% more product to make up the different. Do I think the convenience of IAP makes it likely that a developer will see that 43% increase in sales quantity? I do, absolutely. And that makes the 30%-- no matter how much of a bitter pill to swallow it is-- a worthwhile inverstment.
It's all good but the end result is that Android is getting another feature that iOS lacks. One can argue that Android offerings are already better than those of iOS platform but this new policy will just accelerate the demise of iOS.
Just to nit pick: Actually you can't as Target doesn't sell third party gift cards. Substitute Safeway for Target and it makes sense.
Technically that's not true. The Cydia store is out there and is completely legal in the US.
Yeah it's so open you only need to find a custom ROM from some Russian kid and root your device
That's one of the reasons I'll be selling my 5 month old donkey-slow Samsung Galaxy S on ebay and buying iPhone 5/4s/whatever in June.
The SGS is SOOOOO slow... It takes 10 seconds to open the Message app. I had to install a custom ROM to make it partly usable. I'm NOT supposed to install custom ROMs to make a 600 USD, 1GHz phone run barely smoothly. It's crap.