Um, they do get 30% - from the Mac App Store. Also they get a big chunk, maybe more than that for software physically in their retail stores. So does Best Buy, Walmart, Target etc.
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
Um, they do get 30% - from the Mac App Store. Also they get a big chunk, maybe more than that for software physically in their retail stores. So does Best Buy, Walmart, Target etc.
Hogwash...
Readability's complaint is akin to me complaining to Apple that I can only
budget $x for a new MacBook Pro, and that most of my income is used for
bills, transportation, etc. - LIKE IT'S A GOD GIVEN RIGHT to possess a MacBook
and Apple MUST revise their business model to accommodate all important ME.
Give it a rest. Can't afford it Readability?, MOVE ALONG.
Readability's complaint is akin to me complaining to Apple that I can only
budget $x for a new MacBook Pro, and that most of my income is used for
bills, transportation, etc. - LIKE IT'S A GOD GIVEN RIGHT to possess a MacBook
and Apple MUST revise their business model to accommodate all important ME.
Give it a rest. Can't afford it Readability?, MOVE ALONG.
Good
What the hell is this board smoking? I am very glad Apple dumped these gooseberries!
Let me get this straight, a company wants to have you pay a monthly subscription for a software that doesn't change? That would be like charging for Angry birds for every day you have it. The subscription service should be used for magazines and such, not to con users.
Seriously, why do others think this is a good idea?
What the hell is this board smoking? I am very glad Apple dumped these gooseberries!
Let me get this straight, a company wants to have you pay a monthly subscription for a software that doesn't change? That would be like charging for Angry birds for every day you have it. The subscription service should be used for magazines and such, not to con users.
Seriously, why do others think this is a good idea?
Last edited by a moderator:
It will all be about timing. This is one reason for the 3.9 Billion investments in Asia for Touch Screen Production, Chip production, and manufacturing capacity.
Regardless of a companies moral stand on the Digital Age, at some point your product will need to be out there.
Apple will control close to 70% of Touch Screen Global Production in 2011. How many will wait for supply to catch up for them in 2012?
The Subscription Policy and the Capital Investment Commitments are all part of a symbiotic circle of assimilation.
Don't make the mistake that Tim will be any different than Steve. Controlling 70% of Touch Screen Production in 2011 is all Tim Cook Baby.
Regardless of the 30% cut Apple gets from purchases/subscriptions - why should not Apple get a cut of the profits generated by the apps offered for their products? As an example would be the ABC video app... if I want a one click solution to buying an episode - why should Apple not get a cut?
If I am willing to go to an external link and buy the episode - then Apple gets nothing....
That's my take on the situation, obviously I don't know with 100% certainty. Considering outside pressure and bribes it's impossible, at any point, judge what an government or agency will do.
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)
Those are some thick goggles.
satyrica said:
Those are some thick goggles.
This is my question, too. So, the DirecTV app, the Netflix app, Slingbox, etc. Those show you content via a "subscription" service. Does that qualify Apple to take 30% of the $70 DirecTV/Comcast bill? Sounds like it does, or they have to block content. (actually, DirecTV's app doesn't play content, but it does let you purchase some)
Surely, Apple will lose out, and consumers, if they take that road.
I just don't get Apple here. I completely understand taking 30% on the initial sale of an app. This is very comparable to what you would have to pay to have your software put in a physical retail store. Odds are you would even pay more than 30% for a physical store so 30% for a retail store isn't bad.
What's bad is paying 30% again for a subscription that likely doesn't have to use any of Apple's bandwidth or storage space and only has a small transaction fee for Apple to process the sale. Credit card companies charge 1.5%-4% for most businesses and maybe up to 5% for a really small, highly risky business to process payments. Why Apple doesn't charge 5% and avoid all this bad PR and bad developer mojo is beyond me. They would easily find enough developers who would understand and feel it is a fair price, plus would be enough to encourage people to push subscriptions making plenty of regular revenue for Apple.
I have to admit, when Apple introduced The Daily I had high hopes the subscription pricing would be much lower. I think they are shooting themselves in the digital foot and hope they quickly change course.
What's bad is paying 30% again for a subscription that likely doesn't have to use any of Apple's bandwidth or storage space and only has a small transaction fee for Apple to process the sale. Credit card companies charge 1.5%-4% for most businesses and maybe up to 5% for a really small, highly risky business to process payments. Why Apple doesn't charge 5% and avoid all this bad PR and bad developer mojo is beyond me. They would easily find enough developers who would understand and feel it is a fair price, plus would be enough to encourage people to push subscriptions making plenty of regular revenue for Apple.
I have to admit, when Apple introduced The Daily I had high hopes the subscription pricing would be much lower. I think they are shooting themselves in the digital foot and hope they quickly change course.
"He who has the Gold makes the Rules".
No gold? Work harder, make a better product, manage you work flow.
Stop whining like a bunch of of PSY Majors for Pete's sake.
No gold? Work harder, make a better product, manage you work flow.
Stop whining like a bunch of of PSY Majors for Pete's sake.
Not getting an iPad2
I'm not getting an iPad2 until this thing works itself out.
This 30% is stupid, money-grubbing, and overly restrictive. Apple, I've purchased 2 laptops, an iPad, an iPhone and a mini for my home in the last 18 months, and 1 mini and 2 laptops for my relatives, and am now sitting on a quote for a 10 laptop roll-cart for our school.
I am not spending another dime on Apple until they wise up.
I'm not getting an iPad2 until this thing works itself out.
This 30% is stupid, money-grubbing, and overly restrictive. Apple, I've purchased 2 laptops, an iPad, an iPhone and a mini for my home in the last 18 months, and 1 mini and 2 laptops for my relatives, and am now sitting on a quote for a 10 laptop roll-cart for our school.
I am not spending another dime on Apple until they wise up.
There is also the possibility that the new Apple terms might be breaking the law.
You don't know and nor do I. Let's wait and see before passing judgement.
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.
This is why I'm happy that Google and Android exist. I'm this close to jumping ship over to them. iOS isn't THAT MUCH better than Android that I need to stay loyal to Apple.
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.
This is why I'm happy that Google and Android exist. I'm this close to jumping ship over to them. iOS isn't THAT MUCH better than Android that I need to stay loyal to Apple.
How do we know this was Steve's idea? People are assuming that he is the instigator, but there are other people who have a say in how Apple functions.
1. readability is a service.
2. readability removes ads but pays content publishers.
3. 30% is a whole lot for content that apple isn't really helping at all with. they do not host content. They did 'make it possible' but developers made it popular.
Apple's pattern with regard to the App Store seems to be: start off with very restrictive rules, and then relax them just a bit here and there as needed. In doing this, they routinely subject themselves to a storm of negative PR, and piss off their developers and content providers.
I find it absolutely amazing that they are so secure in their market position that they can afford to do this, over and over. Could any other company get away with it, without suffering irrecoverable loss of reputation and/or market good will?
Speaking as someone with a house full of Macs and iOS devices, I feel Apple's whole philosophy of managing the App Store needs an overhaul. I expect them to preserve user experience and their own revenue sources, but they need to do it in a way to not make developers and content providers the enemies. After all, they use the size of the app store as one of their prime marketing messages. Why threaten that?
Oh, and the merits (or lack thereof) of the Readability service are not relevant here. This is about whether Apple's policy is reasonable.
I find it absolutely amazing that they are so secure in their market position that they can afford to do this, over and over. Could any other company get away with it, without suffering irrecoverable loss of reputation and/or market good will?
Speaking as someone with a house full of Macs and iOS devices, I feel Apple's whole philosophy of managing the App Store needs an overhaul. I expect them to preserve user experience and their own revenue sources, but they need to do it in a way to not make developers and content providers the enemies. After all, they use the size of the app store as one of their prime marketing messages. Why threaten that?
Oh, and the merits (or lack thereof) of the Readability service are not relevant here. This is about whether Apple's policy is reasonable.
But the Mac App Store is just one "mall" for shop from.
You can only get a Southwest ticket from Southwest.com
You can only get HULU from HULU.com
You can only buy Amazon books from Amazon.com
On a MAC OS X you have the RIGHT to shop whereever you would like, including the OS X App Store.
Why isn't it the same for iOS devices?
Heck, why do you have to "root" Android devices too?
I'm really tired off all these mobile devices being locked.
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
See this is the part I don`t understand.
There`s no way Apple will apply this policy consistently as there is no way Netflix, Kindle, Xfinity, or any other quality subscription app is going to pay Apples gouging.
They`ll simply pull from iOS and then all those iOS devices out there will become useless as handhelds.
What they are doing is screwing the little guy (intentionally or not) because once users realize Netflix, Kindle, etc. are still on their iOS devices yet not paying Apples 30% they`ll see and understand the depth of Apples hypocrisy.
Android sales will skyrocket.
Fair enough.. they deserve a cut, right so.
When they sell an app through the App Store.. the 30% cut pays for bandwidth, distribution, online storage, transaction fees, etc, all of which is very expensive for the avarage developer.
BUT.. a 30% cut for a subscription which Apple spends zero money hosting, delivering, handling, distributing, is NOT fair at all. I don't know any subscription service that delivers content stored at Apple's servers. The same can be said of applications like Amazon Kindle for iPhone..
In these cases.. a 5-10 % could be more appropriate, taking into account the 5% or so that companies spend in credit card fees. Anything higher is pure greed and deleterious for Apple's bussiness in the long run.
I can see a lot of companies leaving the app store because of this. Skype, Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, SPOTIFY just to mention a few.
Clearly Readability is the greedy one here. They made an app with almost no functionality and want to take 30% cut themselves from people reading contents provided by other publishers while they piggyback on Apple's hardware and distribution system without paying a dime. There is no reason a simple app like this needs a subscription model to be viable unless they want to spawn into some proxy publisher on top of the content provider's effort. Unlike Apple they don't even host any contents or serve to advertise. It makes no difference to the consumer, and it makes little difference to the content providers to be distributed directly by Apple's system.
If this could be allowed then every tiny app and game on the store will appear to be free while they redirect you to a hundred different websites for "subscription" payment to screw you later. This is really the same situation as the in-app purchase 30% cut that is necessary so developers will state upfront how much they want the consumers to pay instead of creating all these loopholes.
All this outcry are simply from publishers who have been leeching on content providers for years but now find that they no longer have any reasons to exist because all contents can be easily sent to every consumer's hands by apple's system. And somehow people join in even though the publishers have been screwing them forever.
What the hell is this board smoking? I am very glad Apple dumped these gooseberries!
Let me get this straight, a company wants to have you pay a monthly subscription for a software that doesn't change? That would be like charging for Angry birds for every day you have it. The subscription service should be used for magazines and such, not to con users.
Seriously, why do others think this is a good idea?
Yeah! Why should you pay subscription to cable guy if you purchased the STB?
Who is creating the customer, and what share should they get, could be part of the question. Netflix is clearly creating a customer for the Movie studio, so they get a cut of the sale of a "rental". But I don't have Netflix, yet am considering getting the App on my iPad. Otherwise, I would not have Netflix. So should Apple get some of the profit? (ultimately it is the Studio who is trying to move movies - Netflix didn't create the content). It would seem, again, just an opinion here, that Apple is saying they are creating a customer for the content creator, so deserve a cut, like Netflix, for moving sales. Netflix still gets way more than Apple, but Apple seems to think it deserves part of the market too. Arguably, if there wasn't a lot of money to be made in Apple's infrastructure, Netflix wouldn't make an App for it. So as a result, should Apple get less than a third of that profit for opening a new market for both Netflix, and ultimately the studio?
You can shop at other malls
You can shop at other malls so long as you buy devices that allow you access to those other malls.
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?????????
You can shop at other malls so long as you buy devices that allow you access to those other malls.
Readibility is also a bit greedy, yes. Although I see it more as Spotify, they deliver music, and Readibility delivers words. Although Spotify margin is way lower than 30%.