Sidebar Sidebar
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

tofubeer said:
In the case of subscriptions (or any content), which this is, would you expect to go to a store, say Sears, and have people selling things inside of it without giving Sears a cut? How is it that selling apps in a virtual store is somehow magically different?
Click to expand...

When we're talking about in-app content that is not distributed by Apple (i.e. Netflix movies, Kindle books), Apple is not doing anything to earn a cut. They provider is providing the hosting, the user is paying for the bandwidth (be it wi-fi or 3G), and Apple is doing nothing. A better analogy is the manufacturer of the Sears cash register demanding a cut of the items rung up with it.

Of course, it's true that Apple is providing the hosting for the original app itself, which is often free. But Apple is getting their cut anyway, through the annual cost of the developer program, which is required to have the app in the store.
 
KnightWRX said:
I wouldn't worry too much. Remember the last time "Apple was smarter than us" with their developer terms ? Yes, I'm talking about the whole "Apps must be written in C, Obj-C, C++ or Javascript as interpreted by Safari's engine" tidbit. A few posters heres were claiming this was for the best, as any other programming language resulted in garbage. Of course, these weren't developers, they had no clue that garbage is not made with a language, but made by programmers. Garbage can be written in Obj-C as much as the next language.

Remember then the problems faced by Unity, MonoTouch and other framework providers that enabled many developers to make great iPhone apps ? Remember the outrage ?

It's all the same as this time. And you know what, I bet the conclusion will also be the same : Apple knows it needs the developers to maintain the ecosystem. Apple will make the right move in the end and will change their terms to a more friendly agreement and none of the posters you see in this thread claiming "Apple knows best, is smarter and is right in this" will come to those threads to apologize to the people they insulted here.
Click to expand...
I find it astonishing that you still (at this late date) don't realize we were talking about the browser plugin (not the pro IDE). Do you not understand the difference? Do you not realize that Adobe's browser plugin is still nonexistent on iOS? Apparently not, since it seems you feel someone should "apologize" for something.

Acknowledge your mistake and move on, like Adobe did. [even post#1 of that thread was about the plugin. just because you wanted to talk about the IDE doesn't mean everyone else had to play along.]

lulz
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Am I not getting something, or is half of Readability's function already covered by the "Reader" function of Safari?
 
Lord Bodak said:
When we're talking about in-app content that is not distributed by Apple (i.e. Netflix movies, Kindle books), Apple is not doing anything to earn a cut. They provider is providing the hosting, the user is paying for the bandwidth (be it wi-fi or 3G), and Apple is doing nothing. A better analogy is the manufacturer of the Sears cash register demanding a cut of the items rung up with it.

Of course, it's true that Apple is providing the hosting for the original app itself, which is often free. But Apple is getting their cut anyway, through the annual cost of the developer program, which is required to have the app in the store.
Click to expand...

How do you know this?? Seriously- how the hell do you have any idea of the costs of things to the point that you can equate the annual cost for the developers' program to the cost of Apple hosting a free app in the app store? And what kind of an argument are you even making about it? Are you saying that Apple should host free apps at a break-even point? Are you saying that they cannot make money?

These kind of arguments are idiotic. This "moral high ground" attitude about Apple's business practices are ridiculous.

if you want to describe the possible problems Apple might face if their policies push developers out of the app store, fine. If you want to say that the policies are draconian, or you think they are wrong, fine. But poorly conceived arguments declaring how much money Apple should be allowed to make and what they should be allowed to obtain as a return on their app store are really clouding any actual debate here....
 
Hal Itosis said:
I find it astonishing that you still (at this late date) don't realize we were talking about the browser plugin (not the pro IDE). Do you not understand the difference? Do you not realize that Adobe's browser plugin is still nonexistent on iOS? Apparently not, since it seems you feel someone should "apologize" for something. {wut a jk}

Acknowledge your mistake and move on, like Adobe did. [even post#1 of that thread was about the plugin. just because you wanted to talk about the IDE doesn't mean everyone else had to play along.]

lulz
Click to expand...

He's not talking about Adobe at all. I think you're getting mixed up.
 
*LTD* said:
Am I not getting something, or is half of Readability's function already covered by the "Reader" function of Safari?
Click to expand...

No, you're right. Much of Readability's functionality has been incorporated into Safari on OS X. What's your point?
 
lilo777 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, that should make you happy.
Lord Bodak said:
When we're talking about in-app content that is not distributed by Apple (i.e. Netflix movies, Kindle books), Apple is not doing anything to earn a cut. They provider is providing the hosting, the user is paying for the bandwidth (be it wi-fi or 3G), and Apple is doing nothing. A better analogy is the manufacturer of the Sears cash register demanding a cut of the items rung up with it.
Click to expand...
AmEx charges 3.5%. Visa charges over 4% on bankcards/debit cards, 2.7 or some other percents on true credit cards. Apple pays that. That isn't 30%, which is why I think Apple may need to adjust this policy for certain app types, but there is no reason to get rid of it completely.
*LTD* said:
Am I not getting something, or is half of Readability's function already covered by the "Reader" function of Safari?
Click to expand...
Yes, perhaps you didn't read other parts of the thread. Portions of their software is in desktop versions of Safari and other apps. Hardly matters to the issue, though.
 
Eventually, all apps can be free in App Store if apple allows outside subscription. What will happen if Apple is not make any money from App Store? Come on, apple need to be awarded for providing such a great distributing channel for developers by cash. No one force you to stay in Apple's platform. Any developer is free to choose Andriod, windows, WebOS or whatever platform out there. Just stop bitching please!
 
scotty321 said:
Apple is completely out of control here.

Apple's new policy is the equivalent of Microsoft charging Apple a 30% fee for every song that Apple sells through iTunes for Windows, simply because Apple's iTunes runs on Microsoft's platform.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agreed, great analogy.
 
How Apple makes money:

  1. Create the Mac OS X -> iTunes -> iOS -> App Store (Mac App Store) platform
  2. Sell the iPhone, iPad, iTouch for $$$ to consumers
  3. To develop for Apple
    1. Developers need to purchase iPhone, iPad, iTouch (or use built-in emulator)
    2. Developers need to purchase a Mac OS X computer (to develop with Xcode)
    3. Apple charges developers $99/year for the development service (placing apps on App Store, marketing, etc...)
    4. Apple charges 30% for each app sold through App Store $$$ (transaction fee I suppose)
    5. Apple, now, charges an additional 30% for in-app subscription/paid services and contents by making the app to provide mandatory in-app option to purchase contents via the App Store, in addition to the app's built-in store. External link to said content cannot be included.
The services and contents rendered by the apps are not served or stored on Apple's servers. Any transaction fees Apple collected should already be covered in the sub-bullet # 3 & 4 above.

Total: Priceless
 
Lord Bodak said:
When we're talking about in-app content that is not distributed by Apple (i.e. Netflix movies, Kindle books), Apple is not doing anything to earn a cut. They provider is providing the hosting, the user is paying for the bandwidth (be it wi-fi or 3G), and Apple is doing nothing. A better analogy is the manufacturer of the Sears cash register demanding a cut of the items rung up with it.

Of course, it's true that Apple is providing the hosting for the original app itself, which is often free. But Apple is getting their cut anyway, through the annual cost of the developer program, which is required to have the app in the store.
Click to expand...

Goes back to the original part abut app developers pricing it at zero. Developers doing that with the intent of pricing the outside of the app (essentially making it a non-free app) is the origin of this "problem". If developers charged up front then there is no issue.

So, in this case, the developer charges zero at the app store but $5 outside of the app store to make the app functional.

The problem here is that they are using the app store a free distribution mechanism to make a profit off of. Apples point is that they are making a profit from giving away their in the app store then Apple wants the cut they would get from them selling the app in the app store.

Seems pretty simple to me. Developers are trying to get around paying Apple by making the apps free, so Apple is closing the loop hole. The main problem is that developers (and publishers), in many of these cases, are trying to game the system.
 
tofubeer said:
Goes back to the original part abut app developers pricing it at zero. Developers doing that with the intent of pricing the outside of the app (essentially making it a non-free app) is the origin of this "problem". If developers charged up front then there is no issue.

So, in this case, the developer charges zero at the app store but $5 outside of the app store to make the app functional.

The problem here is that they are using the app store a free distribution mechanism to make a profit off of. Apples point is that they are making a profit from giving away their in the app store then Apple wants the cut they would get from them selling the app in the app store.

Seems pretty simple to me. Developers are trying to get around paying Apple by making the apps free, so Apple is closing the loop hole. The main problem is that developers (and publishers), in many of these cases, are trying to game the system.
Click to expand...


You are forgetting you already paid for the ios device AND the app (wether its free or not that was apple's choice to offer such a system)

Now apple is in mid game changing the rules because it wants a bigger piece of the pie. If there is a lot of content people will buy ipads/iphones and ipod, eliminating the need to charge everything, except of course when you are greedy bastards .
 
macsmurf said:
He's not talking about Adobe at all.
Click to expand...
Huh? How could you miss it?

If you're really interested, then —instead of focusing just on what i wrote —carefully study the exact text i QUOTED first, to get the proper context. [ironically, you're making the same mistake he made months ago: he ASSUMED he knew what my words meant, but he didn't connect them back to the quoted text to which i was replying. He instead tried to relate them to what he was thinking at the time. [and —as with you now —i wasn't even talking to him in the first place.]

KnightWRX and i have a long history of which you're (no doubt) blissfully unaware. Probably best to leave it that way. [hint: he is a Flash dev.]


macsmurf said:
I think you're getting mixed up.
Click to expand...
Seems more like you're "mixing" into something, instead of letting KnightWRX respond for himself. I was after all addressing him about something specific he said (re: apology), not whatever it is you might be thinking about... of which i am unaware.
 
Hal Itosis said:
Huh? How could you miss it?

If you're really interested, then —instead of focusing just on what i wrote —carefully study the exact text i QUOTED first, to get the proper context. [ironically, you're making the same mistake he made months ago: he ASSUMED he knew what my words meant, but he didn't connect them back to the quoted text to which i was replying. He instead tried to relate them to what he was thinking at the time. [and —as with you now —i wasn't even talking to him in the first place.]

KnightWRX and i have a long history of which you're (no doubt) blissfully unaware. Probably best to leave it that way. [hint: he is a Flash dev.]
Click to expand...

He's clearly talking about the Apple dev policy restricting languages that were acceptable for iOS apps - a policy that has now been relaxed quite a bit because the developers spoke up.

Seems more like you're "mixing" into something, instead of letting KnightWRX respond for himself. I was after all addressing him about something specific he said (re: apology), not whatever it is you might be thinking about... of which i am unaware.
Click to expand...

If you only want specific people to respond to your posts, maybe you should use the private messaging system.
 
macsmurf said:
He's clearly talking about the Apple dev policy restricting languages that were acceptable for iOS apps - a policy that has now been relaxed quite a bit because the developers spoke up.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was talking about that exactly. It has clear parallels to what is going on here. Apple changed/applied rules that were overly restrictive and plain bad for developers, developers got mad and protested, Apple changed the rules to something more relaxed.

Apple will never change if you don't protest their moves. This is what we're seeing now from these outside companies.

macsmurf said:
If you only want specific people to respond to your posts, maybe you should use the private messaging system.
Click to expand...

Especially since I have that guy on ignore and only see his posts if someone bothers to respond to them. And (hint : I have never written a line of Flash code in my life).
 
Carniphage said:
Then that makes them the first publisher in the history of the world who does not understand the concept of net-receipts.

C.
Click to expand...

You are mixing up publishers with content providers.

No amazon doesnt get 70% on an in app sale, if you think that you have little clue how that world works.
 
k995 said:
You are mixing up publishers with content providers.

No amazon doesnt get 70% on an in app sale, if you think that you have little clue how that world works.
Click to expand...

No publisher I have ever dealt with - has defined royalties as a proportion of the sale price.

They all define royalties as a proportion of what THEY RECEIVE after costs.

Everyone works this way. But hey, a little FUD might cause some trouble.

C.
 
Carniphage said:
No publisher I have ever dealt with - has defined royalties as a proportion of the sale price.

They all define royalties as a proportion of what THEY RECEIVE after costs.

Everyone works this way. But hey, a little FUD might cause some trouble.

C.
Click to expand...

If those costs go up by 30% that proportion will be smaller.

Plenty of publishers already anounced they will relook wether or not to stay on ios and almost all have started looking at android.
 
k995 said:
If those costs go up by 30% that proportion will be smaller.

Plenty of publishers already anounced they will relook wether or not to stay on ios and almost all have started looking at android.
Click to expand...

For a publisher, it's their responsibility to exploit all revenue streams. So they certainly should go to android if it is commercially viable to do so.

But why would they abandon iOS? In what world would that make commercial sense.

C.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back