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

karsten said:
srsly. its our own freaking property. why should apple say what should run on it?
Click to expand...

Because they can make more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, and the backlash isn't that bad (so far).

It's one thing for XBOX/PS3/Nintendo to have this type of closed system..but the iOS devices are COMPUTERS. Users should be able to do whatever the heck they want with them.

I wonder if Google is going to lock down the Amazon App Store or the PlayStation App Store?

I don't fault Apple for the corporate Greed (everyone does it), but it's up to us (the consumer / developers ) to call them out for it. If enough people pull their apps, or buy into other ecosystems they will do a 180.
 
Apple's decisions will hurt the consumers.

It's obvious Apple is taking a hard line against applications that offer content.

Prepare to say goodbye to Netflix, Pandora, Slacker, Sirius XM, Kindle, Hulu, Napster, Rhapsody, Runkeeper, or any other similar application.

I can just hope the publishers play hardball and remove their app. I'd hate to be a Netflix subscriber who owns no Apple products at all that has to pay higher prices due to Apple's greed.
 
Why would they change the rules just for this app? Suggesting that is stupid from the developers part. If 30% is too much or not is another discussion in itself.
 
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.
 
notabadname said:
If you want to sell your product or service in the physical "Mall" that is the iPad, you have to pay to have access to the tens of millions of customers that shop and buy services there.
Click to expand...

Close, but you're wrong :).

The iPad is not the mall. The iPad is already 100% paid for. You own it. You should be able to do with it as you want.

The "Mall" is the APP STORE.

So why can't I shop at another "mall?" Why can't Amazon have an AppStore for iOS? Why can't google have the Android market for iOS?

Why is Apple locking down devices you already own?????????
 
How could Apple possibly think of a 30% cut as a good idea?? A lot of content providers simply CANNOT make money when Apple does this without jacking up prices! If they can't make money, then they won't make apps and will put them out for Android instead, thus giving the competition another leg up.

What an idiotic, shortsighted, self-destructive policy this is.
 
topmounter said:
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 :D
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha ha, this will be funny indeed. Especially after all the TV commercials they invested in lately, the cost of which alone is surely around 10M.
 
topmounter said:
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 :D
Click to expand...

That actually wouldn't be affected (it would seem?), because developers are allowed to offer subscription outside the Apple infrastructure as well. However, for me, as a non-Comcast subscriber, if I bought a movie via an iPad, then a cut of that sale would go to Apple. But, without the iPad, Comcast would never have sold me a movie on Xfinity since I am a Direct TV guy. So the question would be, is it fair for Apple to get a cut of a movie Comcast sells to me if I would otherwise not have bought from Comcast. I don't know the answer, but isn't that the angle Apple is working? If you already have a right to Comcast content as a subscriber, that you pay through an external cable bill, Apple wouldn't be getting a cut of that, would they?

Certainly confusing. And again, this is more a question. I certainly don't pretend to understand the language of the new rules.
 
My take is that Apple is saying that if a developer wants to offer in app subscription services - all is good as long as they are willing to pay Apple 30% - developers are still free to offer web based subscription offers.

This arrangement works fine for me.... One from the fact I have a decent amount of iTunes credits available. And that subscribing through iTunes may give me better consumer protections than buying on the web.

There has been lots of posts and news about anti-trust and Apple's "clarification" of subscriptions within an app.... As I have read things all is good with Apple as long as a developer that wants web based subscriptions; as long as they also offer in-app subscriptions as well.

As to this app and their developers; if they don't want a web based subscription option - that is their option. But then they need to follow Apple's requirements. As a unabashed liberal - I fail to see how this arrangement even comes close to ant-trust! As long as we are given a clear choice....
 
Dumbledorelives said:
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.
Click to expand...

Didn't we compensate Apple when we bought the iPad, iPhone, iPod?

Should Apple get 30% off of MAC OS X software too?
 
Dumbledorelives said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about. People already paid Apple to develop apps. They pay $99/year to do it. If the app is sold and not free, Apple makes more money. More apps and more content = more phones sold, which means more money for Apple.

Did you read what developers are saying about this cut? Many of them CANNOT make money without jacking up the prices of subscriptions, period. Apple is already making money hand over fist just by selling the phones and raking in money from app sales, where the 30% cut actually makes sense as Apple is hosting the app and giving developers a way to sell their software on a centralized market. What's the justification for the 30% subscription fee? There really isn't one. This is Apple saying, "Pay up for the privilege of selling content in an app on our phone!"

It WILL hurt Apple in the long run. If developers can't make money on subscriptions because of this, they'll just sell this stuff on Android instead.
 
Wow. I'm not a developer, but if I were, I don't know if I'd be wanting to do anything subscription based with them. I understand that Apple is a company trying to run a business, but it sure seems a touch greedy.

I realize that Apple wants a piece of every 'pie', but it shouldn't be gouging at that %.

Every competitor right now is licking their chops hoping apple continues this cutt throat tactic so they can reap the developers.

Those competitors may not have the number of devices Apple has floating around, but I sense change will be a-comin' if they keep this crap up.
 
thetexan said:
Apple's decisions will hurt the consumers.

It's obvious Apple is taking a hard line against applications that offer content.

Prepare to say goodbye to Netflix, Pandora, Slacker, Sirius XM, Kindle, Hulu, Napster, Rhapsody, Runkeeper, or any other similar application.

I can just hope the publishers play hardball and remove their app. I'd hate to be a Netflix subscriber who owns no Apple products at all that has to pay higher prices due to Apple's greed.
Click to expand...

Definitely.

Though, I can't imagine how long Apple will be able to stand against the backlash that is sure to follow. Especially with presumed launches of a new iPad and iPhone. This will kill sales.

And forget about Apple TV. Netflix is a HUGE selling point for it.
 
dethmaShine said:
I totally second this now. There needs to be a control; I don't understand why Apple is being so cocky about this.
Click to expand...
Or maybe apple's board of directors, or top managers need to grow a spine and learn how to say NO to steve sometimes.
 
The problem is Apple regarding the iPad as a "mall" in the first place. I understand their need for revenue, and I also acknowledge their right to set certain rules viz. the app store, but the company is keeping the iPad from becoming a truly useful tool for anything other than overly commercialized garbage.

The beauty of technology is the way it evolves in unexpected ways. Treating like a bonsai tree that is trimmed and shaped in whatever way Apple wants ruins this wonderful aspect.

Let's hope this absurd subscription issue gets sorted out before all the good stuff bails on the app store and all we're left with is crapware Smurf apps.

This business move is shortsighted at best. They'll make their 30% now at the expense of great apps that will expand iPad's usefulness to the consumer later.
 
Dumbledorelives said:
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.
Click to expand...

Billions of dollars? A small (30%) amount? Fair? Apple doesn't have to do anything more to rake in the money. Just store the app. All the rest is paid for by others already. (Bandwidth, the hosting of the content, the content itself). But you must have been joking of course. Yes, that's it, it was irony! ;)
 
Chip NoVaMac said:
My take is that Apple is saying that if a developer wants to offer in app subscription services - all is good as long as they are willing to pay Apple 30% - developers are still free to offer web based subscription offers.

This arrangement works fine for me.... One from the fact I have a decent amount of iTunes credits available. And that subscribing through iTunes may give me better consumer protections than buying on the web.

There has been lots of posts and news about anti-trust and Apple's "clarification" of subscriptions within an app.... As I have read things all is good with Apple as long as a developer that wants web based subscriptions; as long as they also offer in-app subscriptions as well.

As to this app and their developers; if they don't want a web based subscription option - that is their option. But then they need to follow Apple's requirements. As a unabashed liberal - I fail to see how this arrangement even comes close to ant-trust! As long as we are given a clear choice....
Click to expand...
And who is going to buy a subscription via a website when they can just do it in the app? Apple damned well knows this.
 
Krevnik said:
Right now the App Store pays for its own existence through that 30% cut. What Apple is doing here is trying to prevent a loophole as Atheistpaladin points out. Companies monetizing Apple's distribution platform without sharing some of the cost of distribution.

That isn't to say this isn't a bad move. But it points out the problems of a one-size-fits-all distribution method for applications and services.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. There are many levels to this. But people here will never get it. Let's just hope Apple does before devs all leave.

This policy is to protect against devs making their software free on the Appstore, but have hidden costs to run it at all. That kind of software hurts both Apple and consumers.

It is also appropriate for apps that have add-ons, like extra levels in games.

The problem is, the policy is NOT real appropriate for Kindle or other legitimate subscription-reseller apps. It should be altered to cover different types of apps. Perhaps a 5% cut for these apps, to cover the Visa fees and other costs that Apple does actually incur on such transactions. (whatever would be appropriate, I haven't added it up)
 
notabadname said:
That actually wouldn't be affected (it would seem?), because developers are allowed to offer subscription outside the Apple infrastructure as well. However, for me, as a non-Comcast subscriber, if I bought a movie via an iPad, then a cut of that sale would go to Apple. But, without the iPad, Comcast would never have sold me a movie on Xfinity since I am a Direct TV guy. So the question would be, is it fair for Apple to get a cut of a movie Comcast sells to me if I would otherwise not have bought from Comcast. I don't know the answer, but isn't that the angle Apple is working? If you already have a right to Comcast content as a subscriber, that you pay through an external cable bill, Apple wouldn't be getting a cut of that, would they?

Certainly confusing. And again, this is more a question. I certainly don't pretend to understand the language of the new rules.
Click to expand...

Take, for example, Hulu. Without the products of several companies I wouldn't be watching it (Adobe Flash. Mozilla Firefox. Dell. Time Warner Cable). Do all those companies deserve a cut of anything I buy through my computer? I love Apple but this move is just ridiculous.
 
saxamoophone said:
Close, but you're wrong :).

The iPad is not the mall. The iPad is already 100% paid for. You own it. You should be able to do with it as you want.

The "Mall" is the APP STORE.

So why can't I shop at another "mall?" Why can't Amazon have an AppStore for iOS? Why can't google have the Android market for iOS?

Why is Apple locking down devices you already own?????????
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about wrong. At least, it seems, this is Apple's stance. The iPad is a physical infrastructure. A physical "location or market" for retailers/developers to sell their products or services. The "App Store" is not physical, and it only exists as a service node for developers to get their "stores" into the physical "mall" of the iPad. Not saying that it is fair or anything. It just seems, IMO, that this is the way Apple is viewing it. And why they are saying you need to pay if you want to sell in their infrastructure. These are customers or users that otherwise would not be there to subscribe to the "Wall Street Journal" digital edition, were it not for Apple.
 
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