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

[Ianblackburn]

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

Or demand the UK Government gives them 30% of the TV License fee because of the BBC iPlayer app LOL. That would be interesting....(http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/licencefee/)

 

[saxamoophone]

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.

LOL. What "Valuable" service? Companies only have to go through the AppStore because Apple LOCKED your device down to give the consumer only ONE choice: the Apple App Store.

 

[fishmoose]

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.

Right, the rules by themselves are brilliant both for Apple and consumers. 30% may very well be too much but it's hard to find a decent discussion about that.

 

[mdatwood]

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.

Have you actually thought this through?

First, I paid upwards of $600 for a retail iPhone. Did that money not pay for the marketing?

Second, just having cool apps drives more sales. Trying to milk each app for additional revenue will drive out the content. How does Apple think their ecosystem is created? Ecosystem does not mean Apple only apps.

Third, the logic you're (and other supporters) using is flawed at best and idiotic at worst. You could easily say MS spend billions creating and marketing Windows, and since most people use Windows to run ITMS on and connect their iDevices to that MS should be getting a cut from Apple. Are you okay with MS asking 'for a little money in return?' I mean, without MS where would all these people run ITMS? How would they sync their iDevices?

 

[marksman]

I totally second this now. There needs to be a control; I don't understand why Apple is being so cocky about this.

Regulatory agencies would not find anything to regulate regarding this.

This. There is nothing to regulate here. Apple is not required to carry any products in their retail store they do not wish to carry, and they can pretty much set any conditions or prices on it that they desire.

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

Should Apple get 30% off of MAC OS X software too?

Yeah if they sell the software from the Mac APP Store.

People need to understand that the App store is a RETAIL STORE. All retail stores make money on products they sell, otherwise they would not exist.

In this case Apple is asking for 30% margin, essentially. For some retail stores, that is high, for others it is actually very low. A retailer making 30% margin on something is not out of line. So there is nothing wrong with what Apple is doing here. They are making money as a retail store. Sellers do not have a right to be in the Apple App Store, and Apple can charge them whatever they want to be in that store.

Nobody has the right to sell their products in Wal-Mart, and if Wal-Mart demands that Oscar Mayer sells them a 12oz package of bologna for 89 cents so they can resell it for $1.19 then that is Wal-Mart's right. Oscar Mayer is free to not sell it to them for that price, it is on them.

These are negotiations between two companies. One side being the supplier/distributor the other being the retailer. It is insane so many people feel Apple is being greedy by wanting to make money in their retail store. It is absurd. Half of you wouldn't have jobs if this is how things worked.

 

[fishmoose]

LOL. What "Valuable" service? Companies only have to go through the AppStore because Apple LOCKED your device down to give the consumer only ONE choice: the Apple App Store.

And that's great for consumers and developers because consumers can find apps easily and they can trust them. Developers get's free PR because there's only one place to find apps.

 

[KnightWRX]

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.

Yes, they can still do their own payment processing. Again, what you seem to be misunderstanding, is that the problem is not IAP, the problem is not not being able to manage your own outside the App.

It's the fact that IAP is not optional anymore, especially if you offer subscription or payments outside of iTunes.

Please, wrap your head around this. IAP is not optional. It's either you don't offer DLC/subscriptions or you have to implement IAP side by side with any kind of payment processing you already have.

Even worse, you say you just have to make your own solution more compelling than the IAP. That's kind of hard when Apple will reject your App for including links to your site or any kind of information trying to convince users not to use the IAP.

Again, the simplest solution to this for Apple is to make IAP completely optional, like it used to be before all these rules came to light. If it is, no one will care how much Apple charges for the service since no one will be forced to use it.

And that's great for consumers, developers and Apple because consumers can find apps easily and they can trust them. Developers get's free PR because there's only one place to find apps. Apple gets to tout their platform has having the most apps and thus a lot of utility for consumers, "There's an app for that"

FTFY.

But that's besides the point. IAP has nothing to do with giving developers anything but payment processing.

 

[AllanMarcus]

Why not just charge more?

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.

 

[NAG]

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.

Your questions can all be easily answered if you go and visit the Readability website.

The main question of couldn't they create a website is kind of silly considering it is a website (really, go visit it).

 

[leroypants]

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.

Microsoft should have made that argument in the 90s.

 

[fishmoose]

Yes, they can still do their own payment processing. Again, what you seem to be misunderstanding, is that the problem is not IAP, it's not being able to manage your own outside the App.

It's the fact that IAP is not optional anymore, especially if you offer subscription or payments outside of iTunes.

Please, wrap your head around this. IAP is not optional. It's either you don't offer DLC/subscriptions or you have to implement IAP side by side with any kind of payment processing you already have.

Even worse, you say you just have to make your own solution more compelling than the IAP. That's kind of hard when Apple will reject your App for including links to your site or any kind of information trying to convince users not to use the IAP.

Again, the simplest solution to this for Apple is to make IAP completely optional, like it used to be before all these rules came to light. If it is, no one will care how much Apple charges for the service since no one will be forced to use it.

It’s not Apple’s fault the publishing industry is screwed up

 

[Popeye206]

Ugh.... Not again! Another out of control thread about the 30%!

Take a breath... I'm sure companies affected by this policy will make their issues known and I'm sure in the long run, Apple will respond.

Seems as though they may not have a choice if too many Apps, companies and services are affected.

 

[thunderclap]

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.

But that's the problem: Apple is telling the developer that they can't offer their software/subscription cheaper on their website. They have to match prices in iTunes or have them be less. And how many people browse the app store only to go to a browser to buy an app or subscription? I'd guess almost never. People are lazy and will just click "Buy" or "Subscribe" in iTunes. Apple knows this.

 

[Tones2]

This year will be the beginning of a long downturn for Apple in they don't very QUICKLY wise up. I don't think they can sustain their dictatorial attitudes of the past, or purposely hold back new features in current generations of hardware so that people will buy the next generation. They could get away with this in the past given the fanboy nature of their customer base and the relative weak competition. But even the fanniest if the fanboys are getting fed up, and the competition now have better hardware that pushes the limits of technology (4G, 4"+ screen, etc) while Apple still lags behind it.

The only advantage Apple has in terms of product in the market place is the App Store. They are now relying fully on 3rd party apps to actually sell their hardware. Every single iPhone, iPad or Touch advertisement focuses completely on APPS that Apple did not develop themselves. Yet they are still arrogant enough to piss off 3rd party developers.

Start selling you Apple stock - you heard it here first.

Tony

 

[KnightWRX]

It’s not Apple’s fault the publishing industry is screwed up

Again, this has nothing to do with it. IAP is being forced on people who don't need it. That's the issue. You don't need IAP, why should you have to use it ? It's simply a payment processor.

 

[fishmoose]

But that's the problem: Apple is telling the developer that they can't offer their software/subscription cheaper on their website. They have to match prices in iTunes or have them be less. And how many people browse the app store only to go to a browser to buy an app or subscription? I'd guess almost never. People are lazy and will just click "Buy" or "Subscribe" in iTunes. Apple knows this.

How's that's Apple's problem? The publisher will have to offer me free pizza if I sub via them or something.

 

[rwilliams]

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.

Apple's rules clearly state that you cannot offer it at a cheaper price elsewhere.

I really do not see things moving forward as they are now. Once bigger names start to come forward denouncing the absurd 30% cut, then I think you'll see Apple back off on that percentage and settle on something more reasonable, like Google's 10%. You do not want to launch a new iPad and new iPhone with major content providers publicly jumping ship from your platform.

 

[fishmoose]

Again, this has nothing to do with it. IAP is being forced on people who don't need it. That's the issue. You don't need IAP, why should you have to use it ? It's simply a payment processor.

Well, I don't want to use Paypal or my CC on a publishers site. Can I complain about that to someone?

 

[Cabbit]

Simple loophole for this charge a higher amount to download the app to begin with that covers the loss in a years worth of subscriptions, still sell the subscription and every year you bring out a new version as a separate app.

 

[QuarterSwede]

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.

They can't because Apple requires the IAP to be the same price or lower as out-of-store prices. That's the main rub people have.

 

[jmmo20]

People need to understand that the App store is a RETAIL STORE. All retail stores make money on products they sell, otherwise they would not exist.

In this case Apple is asking for 30% margin, essentially. For some retail stores, that is high, for others it is actually very low. A retailer making 30% margin on something is not out of line. So there is nothing wrong with what Apple is doing here. They are making money as a retail store. Sellers do not have a right to be in the Apple App Store, and Apple can charge them whatever they want to be in that store.

Nobody has the right to sell their products in Wal-Mart, and if Wal-Mart demands that Oscar Mayer sells them a 12oz package of bologna for 89 cents so they can resell it for $1.19 then that is Wal-Mart's right. Oscar Mayer is free to not sell it to them for that price, it is on them.

These are negotiations between two companies. One side being the supplier/distributor the other being the retailer. It is insane so many people feel Apple is being greedy by wanting to make money in their retail store. It is absurd. Half of you wouldn't have jobs if this is how things worked.

For goodness' sake!!
We're talking about IN-APP SUBSCRIPTIONS not the app sale itself!!!
now that you talking about retail stores.. how about Wal-Mart requiring Panasonic a 30% cut of your cable TV bill just because you bought the TV at Walmart?

or Walmart making your local groseries store pay 30% fee just because you bought the fridge at walmart?

30% is fair for app purchases, since Apple stores, delivers, handles the purchase of the app itself.. but with content provided by these apps?
come onnnnn.. 5-10% is more than generous.

 

[Iam9376]

What?! Why is this on the front page?

This is MacRumours and shouldn't this really be page 2 material come on!

Slow news day riding wave of new MacBook Pro's anticipations?

 

[Xenious]

What about the other greed of a company just redisplaying what is already freely available and wanting a monthly fee to do it? Why not sell the app for a flat fee at a higher cost? If it doesn't survive maybe people don't want the app anyway.

 

[fifthworld]

I see how this new subscription policy is going to hurt all content reseller, but I also see how is going to be beneficial to content creators, wich now have a tool to directly sell their content. Just imagine, for example, a small content creator like macrumors offering an ad free ipad version for .99 a month, and just cashing 70% of it without dealing with all the micro payments. It's largely like the flash issue, once the internet get adjusted to the new paradigm we will reap the benefit.

 

[charlituna]

I get the feeling Apple will have to relax this policy somewhat or this will somehow backfire once all publishers group together to give Apple a collective "take a hike".

IF they do.

Until then, I am actually pleased that Apple is enforcing the rule the same for all. Nothing is more irritating than playing favs