Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Their argument doesn't make sense.

They charge $5 a month for people to access the content via an IPhone application.

Of course they have to share that with Apple. Those are the rules.

We are going to hear all kinds of invalid excuses as to why this doesn't apply to this app or that app, but at the end of the day it is going to apply to most apps.

The free ride is over app developers. Having a "free" app on the app store where you charge money outside the app to make all your money, while utilizing all of Apple's valuable support, service, and exposure is over.

Either these people do this or Apple starts requiring every App int he App Store costs $10.00. Personally I prefer the route they are taking. It still allows for REAL free apps to exist, and not the massive number of faux apps that exist that cost Apple a substantial amount of expense with no revenue to offset those costs.
 
That's disappointing because this app would finally let you make text readable on iOS devices. Android browsers reflow the text so you can keep zooming it but on my iPod touch you have to scroll if you zoom in too far. Annoying.
 
I have said it before and I will say it again, there is a simple solution for this:
Jack up the price 30%, offer in-app purchasing, then offer coupon codes for 30% off when purchased through your site directly.
 
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.

These cable companies should really stop whining about Netflix and Google streaming video to end users without paying. These companies have spent billions of dollars developing and marketing these products, and then everyone gets to make money off the internet for free. No. It makes perfect sense for Comcast to ask for a small amount of compensation from Youtube or Netflix. Comcast went through all the work to put broadband in a customer's house, and it's because of them you have access to content.

See how it's turned around?

If you support this decision by Apple yet you have demanded net neutrality you are a hypocrite or a short-sighted fanboy.
 
The market decides ...

Apple is a company built on greed, as far back as the overpriced hack known as the Apple II. And greed will be Apple's undoing.

Yes ... Apple's undoing ... gee, that's only been suggested a million times.

If people don't like Apple's policy or products, then people can make a choice.

The market decides, and so far, Apple is doing just fine.
 
I have said it before and I will say it again, there is a simple solution for this:
Jack up the price 30%, offer in-app purchasing, then offer coupon codes for 30% off when purchased through your site directly.

And why would you think that Apple wouldn't call that a terms violation and yank the App? And it's not like Apple will tell you in advance; they'll wait until you implement and *then* pull the rug out. This is the fundamental problem with the way the whole App Store is managed.
 
Their argument doesn't make sense.
Of course they have to share that with Apple. Those are the rules.

And the rules are what people have a problem with.

Developers should be able to write their programs without Apple's approval.
I (the user) should be able to use any program without Apple's approval.

I already paid Apple for their "services" years ago when I bought the iOS device.
 
If they could get away with that then every single app in the app store would be free but come with hidden subscription fee :rolleyes:

This is what people don't understand. The free application ability was never intended for people who want to charge money, and in some cases a lot of money, creating free apps to circumvent the cost of doing business with apple. It was intended for people who wanted to make Free applications that were actually free, or at worst case advertising supported.

It was never intended for these companies to make "free" apps then charge people $5-$500 a month to make a ton of money off of Apple's back.

All these companies doing this and complaining about it are being disingenuous.
 
The free ride is over app developers. Having a "free" app on the app store where you charge money outside the app to make all your money, while utilizing all of Apple's valuable support, service, and exposure is over..
+1

This is EXACTLY what retail stores have been doing for ages. Exposure has a monetary value in the physical world. Why not in the virtual one? Do you honestly think companies don't pay for endcap placement? You bet they do and it ain't cheap!
 
And why would you think that Apple wouldn't call that a terms violation and yank the App? And it's not like Apple will tell you in advance; they'll wait until you implement and *then* pull the rug out. This is the fundamental problem with the way the whole App Store is managed.

Speculation based on conjuncture we don't know how Apple would react to such an action.
 
Looks like apple have now clarified their position. Services like dropbox, evernote will also be chucked out of the app store unless they give up 30%.
Apple taking 30% off them when apple doesn't provide server space, bandwidth? This is an awful awful move that will see many services leave the app store and the iOS platform become a POS.

I'm really hoping that most of these developers simply don't update their app. When apple finds themselves having to delete 99% of the good apps from the app store come June 30th, maybe they'll re-think.

And I really don't see the difference between apple spending billions developing OS X and billions developing iOS. It's a platform they are selling, the app store is a selling point of the iPhone, bringing in value from developers bring customers to the device.
 
Yeah it's a novel concept that Apple should get paid for selling subscriptions for publishers. :rolleyes:

Aye, they should be paid when a developer/content provider decides to use the IAP service they give. Is 30% too much ? Maybe, maybe not. Not up to us to say.

The novel concept is that Apple is forcing IAP on people that don't need it nor want to implement it. Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Readability are just fine doing their own payment processing and account management, they don't need Apple to do it for them. Why should they be forced to use Apple's service and subsequently have to pay fees that they might not agree with ?

That's the rub right there. If the IAP service was optional, as it should be, Apple could charge whatever they want for it and no one would care (it was a complete non-issue after all until this "forced IAP" came along).
 
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.

The problem here is that Readability is actually pretty close to what the App Store subscription service was aimed at. Instead of the content being produced by Readability, they deliver it to readers while stripping the content of it's ability to earn it's creator money via ads and instead offers them some of the subscription money in return. It is effectively a carrot and stick method to try to stop readers being the product and instead make the content the product.

Apple and Readability are both trying to do the same thing. Apple is trying by coercion and Readability is trying by asking nicely (with a bit of coercion as far as holding the money until the content producer opts-in). And if you are wondering, yes I do like the concept of Readability (even have a subscription). I just think it was kind of naive to think when the two met that Apple wouldn't hit Readability over the head with the 30%. I can honestly see Apple making a service a lot like Readability except they couldn't because everyone in the press would scream about how the evil Apple is stealing from them (it happened once already when Apple introduced the Reader feature). So instead Apple just adapted what they already had.

It is unfortunate that the two apparently can't be allies because they're really trying to do the same thing (reduce the middlemen of advertisers and try to elevate consumers as customers rather than as products). Readability is just a tad too close to that middleman, unfortunately (even though they're the direct opposite kind of middleman).
 
Molehill mountain

Since the first iPhone, Apple has been very clear about the 30 percent fee. Attribute it to marketing, advertising, maintaining a store front, providing leads, whatever. Yet developers continue to argue that there products should be prominently placed on this premium shelf space for free (and Apple graciously complies for free apps). Then developers go a step further and want to sell the apps (or embedded services) without compensating Apple.

Readability looks like a GREAT app though it seems to rely on custom css classes. I might be inclined to buy it for a reasonable fee. But I would not subscribe to it for $60 per year. The model is flawed. If you know Apple charges 30 percent, why promise 70 percent to content providers and cry foul? Get off the soapbox, adjust the compensation and determine a flat fee to charge for the app. It's the cost of doing business.

P.S. Readability appears to be an enhanced version of the Reader button already within desktop Safari.
 
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....

Well, that's a poor example. ABC offers content for free, with the worst quality of any USA network. But, I digress.....
 
Actually there are like 3 apps in the App Store that I actually like, of which 2 crash too often to be useable and 1 that requires an internet connection so it's useless on an iPod Touch. I think the App Store is overrated! It should be about quality, not quantity. As for games, I can find you 100 good games anywhere on the net (Newgrounds, etc...) that aren't matched by anything in the App Store... And they're 100% free.
 
Aye, they should be paid when a developer/content provider decides to use the IAP service they give. Is 30% too much ? Maybe, maybe not. Not up to us to say.

The novel concept is that Apple is forcing IAP on people that don't need it nor want to implement it. Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Readability are just fine doing their own payment processing and account management, they don't need Apple to do it for them. Why should they be forced to use Apple's service and subsequently have to pay fees that they might not agree with ?

That's the rub right there. If the IAP service was optional, as it should be, Apple could charge whatever they want for it and no one would care (it was a complete non-issue after all until this "forced IAP" came along).

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.
 
This is what people don't understand. The free application ability was never intended for people who want to charge money, and in some cases a lot of money, creating free apps to circumvent the cost of doing business with apple. It was intended for people who wanted to make Free applications that were actually free, or at worst case advertising supported.

It was never intended for these companies to make "free" apps then charge people $5-$500 a month to make a ton of money off of Apple's back.

All these companies doing this and complaining about it are being disingenuous.

How about this....

Apple "unlocks" the Iphone. Do with it as you please. Download other AppStores from Amazon, Google if you want. Go to a website, any website, and download a native iOS app if you want.

This removes Apple as a "Partner"

Of course the official AppStore will be the first stop for most users, so they would WANT to use it......but what's wrong with having a choice?

I already paid for the damn iPhone....why is it still "locked down?"
 
That's disappointing because this app would finally let you make text readable on iOS devices. Android browsers reflow the text so you can keep zooming it but on my iPod touch you have to scroll if you zoom in too far. Annoying.

You can still use their webapp and bookmarklets. This is just about a native app (think Instapaper). I use the new Readability bookmarklets all the time on my iPhone and they work great. There just isn't any offline reading.
 
Since the first iPhone, Apple has been very clear about the 30 percent fee.
No, they haven't. Not about in-app purchases. Not consistent with applying it, either. Hence their recent comments about beginning to be more consistent.

This isn't about the purchase price of apps, it is about in-app purchases. Which come with a variety of issues, not simple: Appstore $.99.
 
So they charge 5 bucks a month for something that is available for free online? Besides this sounding like a silly app, doesn't it go against the don't charge less for the content outside the app store policy?

Couldn't they simply create a website that offers the content for 5 bucks and be done with it? Then people could buy the subscription outside the app store. It's been working for netflix, pandora, & slacker.

I really don't see what the big deal is with this policy. Sure you will loose some profit margin per in app subscription sales but you will be getting a lot more sales. Readability just seems to be in a unique position since it's service is actually freely available out side the app store.
 
Most subscription apps are offered by publishes to consumers as a convenience to the consumer. Netflix's bread and butter is the home TV, but they made an app for iOS if anyone wanted to access their content on the go. Same with Kindle, Pandora, or Sirius XM. iOS is not their primary market, so they'll just pull out.

Apple might have developed the infrastructure but it's kept alive by third-party publishers. If Apple gets too out of hand they'll just go elsewhere and then what do you have left?

The iOS platform isn't jack without third party developers.
 
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.

Which is rarely the discussion that comes up. I see is people complaining, nobody is saying, well they could pay 25% or 20%.

People who think Apple should provide all these valuable services that allow developers to make money for free are crazy. If that was the case the entire App Store would go away, as ultimately everyone would just make their apps free and charge outside the app itself.

I am not sure why so many people don't understand this very basic principle. It would only be a matter of time before one-off game developers were doing the same thing.

Then Apple would have to remove the entire ability for free or low priced apps altogether or close the app store down.

It is like most of you want Apple to fail because these other companies do not want to pay for the VALUABLE services Apple provides. It is ridiculous.
 
+1

This is EXACTLY what retail stores have been doing for ages. Exposure has a monetary value in the physical world. Why not in the virtual one? Do you honestly think companies don't pay for endcap placement? You bet they do and it ain't cheap!

Fine, then I'll take my business to another store or sell directly!

The apple AppStore is the store, not the iOS device itself.

I went to the AppStore to download Netflix because that was my ONLY means to do so. Otherwise I would have just downloaded it from netflix.com ;)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.