Apple Rejects 'Readability' iOS App, 'Software as a Service' Offerings Jeopardized

[0092762]

That's not what Apple thinks. And to clarify, he meant Dev App Store Policy not the TOS.

Where?
Apple does not control the prices of products that are NOT available on iOS.

Netflix: $8, stream from anywhere except ios. You can't watch your $8 subscription from iOS devices, it's not offered there. Therefore, it is a different product that has nothing to do with ios.
iNetflix; $11, stream from anywhere including ios devices.

This is not a violation, since it's a different product/service.

 

[QuarterSwede]

Where?
Apple does not control the prices of products that are NOT available on iOS.

Netflix: $8, stream from anywhere except ios. You can't watch your $8 subscription from iOS devices, it's not offered there. Therefore, it is a different product that has nothing to do with ios.
iNetflix; $11, stream from anywhere including ios devices.

This is not a violation, since it's a different product/service

Ah, I see what you're saying now. Sorry.

I think your example is a gray area. It's really not clear since that subscription is for the content.

 

[kuwan]

Sigh, you really have no clue what Readability is trying to accomplish, do you? Arguing the technology of it doesn't change the reasoning.

I'm not sure you have a clue on what Readability is trying to accomplish. Readability is trying to make money, that's the bottom line. Their supposed grand and noble goal of switching the industry to some other model is a smokescreen. They want to make money, period.

Readability produced and published a piece of code that anyone can download and use for free here:

http://code.google.com/p/arc90labs-readability/

Many other applications (including Safari) now use that code, and I enjoy using some of these applications. They've now decided to introduce their own "service" where they want to charge people a monthly fee to use that code. I look at that and call it lame. Am I an entitled jackass for calling it lame? I don't care. They released their code for free and I'll continue to use the applications that use it freely. If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to subscribe to their service then go right ahead.

Yes, we are all very aware of your stance on not wanting to pay for anything. Your fixation on money and screwing people over is kind of sad. You deserve everything you're entitled to, no?

I guess all of us that use the fast forward button to skip commercials are "screwing people over" and "entitled"? It's nice to know your stance on the matter.

 

[0092762]

But that's EXACTLY what they're trying to do. Searching for source.

[EDIT] Ah, here we go:

MR - U.S. and European Regulators 'Looking At' Apple's App Store Subscriptions Program

You are missing the point.

Netflix is not available on iOS or the appstore, therefore the pricing is up to the provider. It's $8/month.
However, iNetflix, a different product/subscription service, is available through iOS and in app purchases for $11/month, with 30% cut going to Apple.

 

[fabianjj]

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)

While there is some points to your 'argument, you must consider two things:

1. The developer, Netflix for example might not have a big enough margin to survive as a certain percentage still would need to go to the content creators. The only solution for this would be to jack up the prices for 'iOS supported' subscription offer by 43%.

2. It is true that being available in the app store is valuable, but they do pay a developers fee and give apple 30% if it's not a free download, but in that case apple does store the content and provide the bandwidth and also processes the payment, 30% seems to be very reasonable in that case as all of those things costs money. In the case of subscriptions, apple does not currently provide any of these services but the payment processing, the bandwidth and such must still be provided by the developer. If Netflix does gain 43% more customers through iOS, and their margins aren't high enough, these are customers that they will not want as every single one of them will make Netflix lose money.

 

[Lord Bodak]

These people should all REALLY stop whining. Apple has spent billions of dollars developing and marketing these products, and then everyone gets to make money off of it for free? No. It makes perfect sense that Apple asks a small amount of compensation. They went through all the work to put the product in the customers hands, and it's because of them that people have access to your app. They have a right to ask for a little money in return.

I'm going insane. No, Apple is not trying to take over the world, or scam anyone out of their money. What they're doing is perfectly legal and perfectly fair.

The app developers don't get anything for free. Developer licenses are required if you want to have an app in the app store, and that carries an annual fee. Apple is demanding something for nothing here-- if an app is on my phone and it is downloading content from a company (not Apple) using connectivity from my cell provider (again, not Apple), why should Apple get a cut?

 

[QuarterSwede]

You are missing the point.

Netflix is not available on iOS or the appstore, therefore the pricing is up to the provider. It's $8/month.
However, iNetflix, a different product/subscription service, is available through iOS and in app purchases for $11/month, with 30% cut going to Apple.

I already edited my post (before you posted that) now that I understand what you're saying.

My problem with that is that NO ONE will go for it. I only use Netflix on my iPhone now because it doesn't cost me extra. I damn sure won't pay more for it (especially because the UI is garbage). Maybe that's how it'll shake down. We'll see.

 

[PhoneI]

They will just start charging you $11/month for the privilege of watching Netflix on your ipad, whereas every other platform will pay $8. You won't be able to buy it from the netflix site for $8 and then use it on ios, it won't work, so Apple TOS won't be violated.

Then I will have to consider if the extra cost is worth it. Again, I wouldn't blame Netflix one bit for doing this, but there is a big chance they would lose subscribers by their counter actions.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Where?
Apple does not control the prices of products that are NOT available on iOS.

Netflix: $8, stream from anywhere except ios. You can't watch your $8 subscription from iOS devices, it's not offered there. Therefore, it is a different product that has nothing to do with ios.
iNetflix; $11, stream from anywhere including ios devices.

This is not a violation, since it's a different product/service.

my guess is apple would never let that fly and would say it violates their TOS.

Remember Apple likes to interpret it TOS as it sees fit and I bet there is some line hidden away that gives them the right to say no they can not do that as it is unfair pricing and saying iOS requires a higher cost.

Also I do not see a company like Netflex doing that because PR wise it makes them a look a lot worse as time goes on. I would expect them to fully pull it and refuse to offer it to iOS and just repeatedly point the finger back at Apple and go on all the other devices.

 

[0092762]

Then I will have to consider if the extra cost is worth it. Again, I wouldn't blame Netflix one bit for doing this, but there is a big chance they would lose subscribers by their counter actions.

That is the scenario I'd like to see as well. We all know people rationalize the high prices for (some) Apple products with better quality hardware and software integration, and there's truth to this. However there is no rationalization for paying more for the same exact content.

 

[iansilv]

OK- can someone explain why Ia m wrong in this assessment, if I am:

Readability carves the ads out of online websites, killing their revenue.

They then bitch about Apple requiring them to give a cut to Apple of their subscription revenue...

i mean, is this hypocritical or what? Maybe I am misunderstanding Readability's business model. Please correct me if I am...

 

[QuarterSwede]

OK- can someone explain why Ia m wrong in this assessment, if I am:

Readability carves the ads out of online websites, killing their revenue.

They then bitch about Apple requiring them to give a cut to Apple of their subscription revenue...

i mean, is this hypocritical or what? Maybe I am misunderstanding Readability's business model. Please correct me if I am...

I'll only add that Readability gives content creators 70% if they register with them. So you're correct in thinking this is extremely ironic.

 

[0092762]

my guess is apple would never let that fly and would say it violates their TOS.

Remember Apple likes to interpret it TOS as it sees fit and I bet there is some line hidden away that gives them the right to say no they can not do that as it is unfair pricing and saying iOS requires a higher cost.

They are completely different products and they have no basis for rejecting a product that meets their requirements just because the company has other products that are not available on their platform. When faced between the choice of not having the app at all, Apple will backtrack. They'll also backtrack from this 30% because the market, not regulators, will force them, mark my words.

 

[QuarterSwede]

They are completely different products and they have no basis for rejecting a product that meets their requirements just because the company has other products that are not available on their platform. When faced between the choice of not having the app at all, Apple will backtrack. They'll also backtrack from this 30% because the market, not regulators, will force them, mark my words.

I'm not so sure. Retailers have been charging at least this much for decades. Magazines at the checkout aren't put there for free by the retailer. That's prime selling space and they charge through the nose for it. I realize that's a one time sale but this isn't really that far from it.

 

[pmjoe]

Apple doesn't get rich off taking 30% from apps. They get rich selling iPhones at $600 a pop. Apple didn't create iTunes to get rich off selling music. Apple created iTunes so the iPod would have a source of easily accessible content, thus selling more iPods.

You are confusing music/video with apps. Totally different. Apple is absolutely making $$$$$ off their App Store. Apple sees its App Store as a way of becoming the content providers - they are setting themselves up to be the equivalent of the recording industry.

 

[0092762]

I'm not so sure. Retailers have been charging at least this much for decades. Magazines at the checkout aren't put there for free by the retailer. That's prime selling space and they charge through the nose for it. I realize that's a one time sale but this isn't really that far from it.

Let's see how attractive AppleTV is once you don't have Netflix, or if it costs more through AppleTV than anyone else. Similar cases for iPhone and iPad as I'm sure if they didn't have Netflix, it'd put some people off of buying one.

 

[MadIvan]

Yet kind of hard and add in the fact that Apple is VERY untrustworthy and more than likely would ban unless it offers it in both. Apple is good at screwing over its partners at a drop of the hate. Readability is just the latest.

Also goes back to for example Kindle. How is Amazon to make any money on sells that go threw Apple. 30% straight revenue is more than Amazon makes off the sale. Amazon only gets 30% and Amazon has to pay for hosting, submitting of the books. Apple does what processes the payment and Apple gets more money.

These analogies are all terrible, but Amazon selling books on a Kindle app on the iPad is kind of like Walmart selling Fig Newtons at Sears.

 

[marksman]

Amazon shouldn't, but then Amazon is the problem here. They could just go sell their Kindle and let Apple sell their iPad and iBook. iBook is not on Kindle store and Amazon is already given a separate platform to profit on while offering essentially the same service of channeling books to the readers.

Many people already pointed out profits from the app purchase do little to Apple's bottom line, so I don't see how they could simultaneously argue this is down to greed. In the end Apple has little incentives to let other business sit in the middle and feed from the ecosystem.

Not only does Apple's subscription cut at the worst make little difference to the consumers, probably both the consumers and the content originators lose out when there are more layers of middlemen profiting from the sale in the middle, and I don't know why people are clamoring for a return to that. The 30% cut is great for actual developers, just not middleman who used to live on that cut themselves.

That is the reality of it. The only things that are going to be effected by this are middlemen businesses that are often taking more then 30% anyways. So in many cases the publishers/creators will go directly to the App Store and either make it cheaper or else at the very worst that company will make moe money.

Why so many people care about the livelyhood of middlemen distributors who offer absolutely no value being done away with, I don't really know.

exactly, if i remember correctly it was 70% and nobody complained. BTW these rules regarding in-app price - the same rules are for sellers on Amazon market place, exactly the same. you can sell your items elsewehere but if you do, offer on amazon market place the same or lower price.

Yeah I meant to bring this up recently. This is an apt analogy because it is exactly what Apple is doing here. Amazon has the same practice and conditions if you want to sell items on their store. They have millions of vendors and items that do this every day. Somehow they figure out how to make it work.

So will developers for Apple apps, if it is profitable for them they will do it. If the only way they could make money was to freeload on Apple, well that was not a business model that was going to hold up over time anyways.

The problem is that iPhone/iPad is a huge chunk if the app market (along with Google). Developers may not have a choice but to continue with Apple, either saying goodbye to some profit or passing it on to buyers.

This kind of pressure can be an abuse of Apple's position which is anti-competitive and may fall foul of EU/US law. It will be interesting to watch the investigations.

I think some of the most contentious issues are rules such as the one preventing apps providing links to websites for lower subscriptions.

I think the view that developers "owe" Apple is quite wrong, rather good quality apps are a major insentive for consumers to buy iOS devices in the first place.

EU is crazy, but in the US the Apple App Store is a retail store. They are under no obligation to carry any products they choose not to carry and they are not under any obligation to pay for any product a price they do not find agreeable to them. That is the long and short of it. There is no regulatory issue here at all in the United States.

The Government is not going to get on to Target because I went to Target and asked them to carry my fly swatter in all their stores when I offered to sell it to them for $1.89 each and said they could only sell it for $1.99. Target is totally within their rights to say get lost, as is every other retailer.

 

[QuarterSwede]

You are confusing music/video with apps. Totally different. Apple is absolutely making $$$$$ off their App Store. Apple sees its App Store as a way of becoming the content providers - they are setting themselves up to be the equivalent of the recording industry.

That's still debatable. No one really knows whether Apple is making money off the App Store or only breaking even like they are with the Music Store.

Let's see how attractive AppleTV is once you don't have Netflix, or if it costs more through AppleTV than anyone else. Similar cases for iPhone and iPad as I'm sure if they didn't have Netflix, it'd put some people off of buying one.

I'm sure it would put off some people I just don't think it would put off that many to make a difference. The AppleTV is still not a huge seller and there are plenty of other non subscription apps in the app store for iDevices to still be compelling.

 

[archipellago]

They can still offer subscription or payment outside iTunes, they simply need to make it more compelling to subscribe or pay outside iTunes instead of within iTunes. Do that and nobody will pay via iTunes.

no they can't with subscriptions... well they can but they can't link to it from the app. quote from AI

Last week, Apple unveiled subscriptions for its iOS App Store, allowing publishers of content-based applications for iOS devices to offer recurring billing. Apple's terms also prevented links to external websites to purchase content or subscriptions. In addition, fees cannot be less expensive for customers outside of the App Store.

Why not just charge 30% more for subscriptions done through in App purchases? I have to pay tons of phone fees on my phone bill, and I have to pay facilities fees at the airport. Just tack on a 30% in app purchase fee. People can pay it if they want or they can go to other places that might offer it cheaper. This is a no brainer.

not allowed under app store guidelines...

fee outside of App store cannot be cheaper or App gets pulled.

 

[0098386]

Really starting to dislike Apple at the moment.

 

[CQd44]

not allowed under app store guidelines...

fee outside of App store cannot be cheaper or App gets pulled.

This is hilarious. Absolutely hilarious.

 

[blackpond]

Really starting to dislike Apple at the moment.

Agreed. To the length that I am now considering buying another Windows machine instead of my first Mac. Sell my Apple TV, buy a non-Apple tablet this year and buy into Android or Windows powered phones.

I have supported Apple in the majority of its business decisions in the past. But I am truly disturbed by this.

There is no value add in this. Either to the consumer or the developer. It is merely a tax for purpose of a tax.

 

[ravenvii]

Readability's ethics is irrelevant here. That's Readability's business/problem, not Apple's.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Once Apple pushes it to it's logical conclusion, they will realize what a mistake they're making.

 

[lilo777]

Just like Amazon shooting themselves in the foot charging up to 70% with the Kindle right up until Apple released iBooks. Damn you evil Apple!

Simply put, the market will decide what the going rate will be in this instance because there is healthy competition.

Bogus comparison. Are you aware of any e-book publisher charging less than Amazon? Charging for subscriptions for services provided by somebody else is totally different business. Google has already offered the same service but with 10% fee. This will only accelerate the demise of iOS.