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

[saxamoophone]

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.

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.

Mark, you're mission my point. If Apple wants to set rules for their App Store that's great! But then they shouldn't lock down the iOS to require a "Jailbreak" to use alternative AppStores.

All I want is for Apple to follow the same policy they do with MAC OS X devices. There is an app store if you want, or you could skip the "middle man" (Apple) and go straight to the content provider.

It's funny how Steve Jobs was all against DRM (remember his "open letter"), was one of the first to let you to let you rip CDs to MP3s, but then years later pulls dick moves like this!

Let the content be open!

 

[rwilliams]

On the subject of Readability - doesn't Instapaper already do this for free, or for a one time fee for the paid app?

 

[marksman]

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.

The directv app does not show you any content, and there is no subscription with slingbox, you actually have to pay for the app.

These are two examples of companies who did things right. Directv's app is simply useful addon to their service, but does not provide the actual service itself, so it is not part of the subscription. Slingbox charged for the App so Apple gets its cut, and there is no subscription in any case.

My problem with most people here is they act like these companies should not required to pay ANYTHING to Apple.

It is like the old joke where the guy asks the lady if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. She considers it and says yes. He responds, "Well now we know you are a whore, all we need to do is negotiate price."

It is one thing to say Apple might be charging too much, but that is ultimately for Apple and the content suppliers to work out, it is another thing to just say Apple is wrong to want a piece of the pie that is being served and eaten in their restaurant.

 

[KnightWRX]

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

Yes you can, you can complain about that to the publisher.

How is that Apple's job to fix ? If you don't trust a publisher with your CC or paypal, just vote with your wallet. If the publishers see enough customers going away because of lack of IAP from Apple as a reason, they'll make it work.

Again, options. If it was all optional there wouldn't be 5 threads about it or investigations by the US and EU.

 

[thunderclap]

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.

By the new rules they can't. Apple requires the price in the App Store match the developers web store or be cheaper. It can not be higher.

 

[NAG]

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

This is a great example of another misunderstanding. Developers aren't Apple's customers. They never really have been. The point of mandating this is not just to get money but also to try to create a streamlined customer experience.

The Kindle app is a great example of how absurd the loophole was. If you wanted a book you had to go to amazon.com and go to the kindle store then have the kindle store send the book to your device and then go back to the kindle app and let it download the book. Completely ridiculous set of requirements and all because Apple didn't want to give Amazon something for free and Amazon didn't want to give Apple any money.

Remember, Apple > User > Developer in Apple's eyes.

 

[Cabbit]

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/)

That would be lovely at least we would know some of the money was going to a good use.

 

[jmmo20]

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 makes it compulsory to have the same price both in-app or through the developer's website.

So I pay 99$ a year to dropbox for their service.. now if dropbox wants to keep offering the iOS app, they will have to choose between earning jsut 66$ or pulling the app from the store.

And the funny thing is that apple only spends a few bucks on VISA fees..

 

[mdatwood]

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.

OMG, they are not making money off 'Apple's back.' Do you think Adobe is making money off Apple's and MSs back? No. Having Adobe products on your platform makes your platform more competitive. This is the same thing here. Having NF, Kindle, Pandora, etc... makes the iPhone more competitive with other smart phone offerings. The app store and ecosystem is one of the primary reasons that people love iDevices, so just having those apps available sells devices. If Apple wants to drive away all the content that they have nothing to do with delivering then so be it, but they and the fanboys better realize that at the same time Apple is killing their ecosystem.

 

[QuarterSwede]

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.

You also won't find a free TV or Fridge in Walmart. Just pointing that out.

 

[Andy-V]

Many of these free apps give access to services that have existed outside of the App Store before the App Store even existed. It doesn't seem right somehow that Apple is demanding a cut of these subscriptions just because their service can be accessed by their hardware/software.

Spotify for example has to pay a certain amount of money to the record companies. If Apple's taking away 30% of that, they need to recuperate that loss. They're not allowed to charge more in the app store so this means increasing the price for all users. We lose. And that's why we as consumers have the right to be complaining about this situation. It affects more than just the App Store.

 

[KnightWRX]

This is a great example of another misunderstanding. Developers aren't Apple's customers. They never really have been. The point of mandating this is not just to get money but also to try to create a streamlined customer experience.

Then customers and Apple shouldn't be surprised when publishers/content providers/developers walk away from iOS because of this. Are you so much into getting a streamlined customer experience that you're ready to sacrifice many services that does not fit into your propose mold ?

That's the question that's before Apple and its customers that agree with this move need to ask themselves.

 

[QuarterSwede]

OMG, they are not making money off 'Apple's back.' Do you think Adobe is making money off Apple's and MSs back? No. Having Adobe products on your platform makes your platform more competitive. This is the same thing here. Having NF, Kindle, Pandora, etc... makes the iPhone more competitive with other smart phone offerings. The app store and ecosystem is one of the primary reasons that people love iDevices, so just having those apps available sells devices. If Apple wants to drive away all the content that they have nothing to do with delivering then so be it, but they and the fanboys better realize that at the same time Apple is killing their ecosystem.

Only for the large companies people know about but most of the apps in the App Store are from small devs and a lot of them are on the map (ie. Rovio) because of Apple.

 

[Oletros]

This is a great example of another misunderstanding. Developers aren't Apple's customers. They never really have been. The point of mandating this is not just to get money but also to try to create a streamlined customer experience.

The Kindle app is a great example of how absurd the loophole was. If you wanted a book you had to go to amazon.com and go to the kindle store then have the kindle store send the book to your device and then go back to the kindle app and let it download the book. Completely ridiculous set of requirements and all because Apple didn't want to give Amazon something for free and Amazon didn't want to give Apple any money.

Remember, Apple > User > Developer in Apple's eyes.

And why Amazon has to give anything to Apple. Tehy're promoting their own books, they're hosting they're own books, they're processing the payment and they delivering the books.

If I buy a iBook while at a B&N store Apple has to pay anything to B&N?

 

[fishmoose]

Yes you can, you can complain about that to the publisher.

How is that Apple's job to fix ? If you don't trust a publisher with your CC or paypal, just vote with your wallet. If the publishers see enough customers going away because of lack of IAP from Apple as a reason, they'll make it work.

Again, options. If it was all optional there wouldn't be 5 threads about it or investigations by the US and EU.

In my case, Apple is creating an alternative since I don't want to use Paypal or my CC. All subscriptions I possible want will go through iTunes for me.

 

[satyrica]

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.

WiiD goggles??

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Apple is a company built on greed

And what publicly traded company isn't?

 

[TheIguana]

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

I suspect Apple is thinking longer term with there actions here. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few months Apple comes back to the table and offers to drop the 30% rate in half (if not more) because of the backlash from publishers.

But because Apple started out with such a high rate they may be able to settle on a much higher rate than they ever would have been able to get if they had tried making deals with publishers on an individual basis.

Either way, Apple's actions here do a real disservice to Apple's users. Their play here will only give other platforms a chance to catchup on the App Stores/iOS's lead by forcing users to wait to access new Apps and services.

 

[fishmoose]

And what publicly traded company isn't?

In before someone says Google and fails to realize Google sells it's users and not products.

 

[The Phazer]

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....

If Apple are so confident that this is a good deal then it can stop acting anti-competitively, let developers decide to use their payment systems/subscription mechanisms as an option and let the market decide.

But they aren't sadly, because they've gone ******* crazy.

Phazer

 

[rwilliams]

If only these companies could find a way to reach their users and let them know that signing up through their website will go further towards staying profitable and allowing them to continue offering their services than signing up through the app. And then do so in a way that doesn't piss Apple off.

 

[OptyCT]

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.

So you think a company (Apple) that has over 150 million users of its software (iTunes) shouldn't charge developers for access to those users? Should Facebook not charge advertisers for access to their 500+ million users? This is how business and marketing works. The developers create the products and Apple markets the product by putting it on iTunes. It's no different than a grocery store putting cereal on the shelves and selling it at a premium.

Let's say you make a widget and someone approaches you and says, "we'll put your widget into our store. Right now, our store has 150 million unique members...all of which will have access to buying your widget immediately. In return for our service, we will charge 30% of the total retail sales cost of each widget sold. The remaining 70% is yours to keep. By the way, we only take a fee on those widgets that are sold. So, if we don't sell any of your widgets, we won't charge you a dime."

Does this still sound like a bad deal to you?

 

[chrissnv]

OMG, they are not making money off 'Apple's back.' Do you think Adobe is making money off Apple's and MSs back? No. Having Adobe products on your platform makes your platform more competitive. This is the same thing here. Having NF, Kindle, Pandora, etc... makes the iPhone more competitive with other smart phone offerings. The app store and ecosystem is one of the primary reasons that people love iDevices, so just having those apps available sells devices. If Apple wants to drive away all the content that they have nothing to do with delivering then so be it, but they and the fanboys better realize that at the same time Apple is killing their ecosystem.

I second this, if Apple wants to go this way then they might doom themselves or maybe not. For now the iDevices are pretty much standard, but this might change, if Apple wants to keep it this way they should consider their policies. However here is the point: Have the publishers offer the subscription in app and outside of the app and let the consumers decide. Publishers could always decide to put a better advertising out for the subscription outside of the app, like you can read it on ANY device you want (some might have an iPad and and Android phone ....). There are ways ...

 

[i hate phones]

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?

couldn't you also say that all these app developers who are bringing content to idevices are creating customers for apple? who would buy the iphone or ipad if there wasn't any quality content? maybe some still would but it surely wouldn't have taken off like it has!

on another note... as for free apps that charge inside the app, maybe some are abusing the system which i agree somethign needs to be done about, but others like netflix, are bringing just as much "free advertising" to apple as the apple app store is bringing to netflix, so i believe it is a wash. I think apple should rather have it an option to allow apple to handind the billing and get a cut but i don't think it should be forced. then the developer could choose to handle it themselves at no extra cost or if they thought it would drive in more customers by having a unified billing system (what people are saying is a supposed benefit of all this) they could choose to do so.

 

[KnightWRX]

In my case, Apple is creating an alternative since I don't want to use Paypal or my CC. All subscriptions I possible want will go through iTunes for me.

And again, nothing wrong with creating an alternative service. IAP is great for people who don't have a payment infrastructure but want to offer DLC/subscriptions in their iOS apps. Heck, It would be a nice addition for indies to the Mac too.

And again, if you only trust Apple with your CC/paypal info, that's your perogative. Take it up with the developers/content providers/publishers so they do start using a payment processor that you do trust. Having payment processors force themselves unto these people is not the right course of action.