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

[hexx]

Funny, I don't recall saying Amazon owed Apple anything. Maybe you should read what I wrote again.

Don't be under any illusions that Amazon would not be doing the same exact thing to Apple. Amazon had a much higher split for Kindle before Apple showed up.

exactly, if i remember correctly it was 70% and nobody complained. BTW these rules regarding in-app price - the same rules are for sellers on Amazon market place, exactly the same. you can sell your items elsewehere but if you do, offer on amazon market place the same or lower price.

people should just get over it.

my impression from all these comments is that ppl complaining about these things simply haven't come across similar conditions somewhere else or couldn't be bothered to read terms somewhere else. this isn't anything unique, it's pretty much standard terms

 

[i hate phones]

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.

lol so your solution is to screw the content creator? nice

readability already existed outside the app store so their "model" was created before apple initiated this 30% crap.

 

[spritelyjim]

Who are "all these" developers that Apple is losing?

It's not who they are losing now, it's who they will lose when the dam breaks. You know, like in Egypt? It just happened all of the sudden. If Apple continues in this direction, it will happen.

 

[mrpither]

...

And Netflix...And Amazon..And Hulu...And Pandora...And 10s of millions of others who will then switch to another OS in a few years.

Have fun with that .

In a few years? My 3GS is eligible for upgrade in a few months. If this garbage continues as speculated here, I'm gone in July.

 

[fishmoose]

Yet kind of hard and add in the fact that Apple is VERY untrustworthy and more than likely would ban unless it offers it in both. Apple is good at screwing over its partners at a drop of the hate. Readability is just the latest.

Publishers can give me a chance to win something on their site etc and Apple would not have any issue with that.

Also goes back to for example Kindle. How is Amazon to make any money on sells that go threw Apple. 30% straight revenue is more than Amazon makes off the sale. Amazon only gets 30% and Amazon has to pay for hosting, submitting of the books. Apple does what processes the payment and Apple gets more money.

Amazon took 70% from authors before iBooks came and Apple started to take 30%...

 

[Bubba Satori]

Modus operandi. Who is shocked?

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

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.

well I work in a retail environment (photo gear) that we could only wish for a 30% margin for the initial purchase.... As it is a surprise to anyone; but it t is the add-ons that keep businesses open...

Apple may need to lower their margins for developers that offer them a chance for "add-on" purchases...

 

[iStudentUK]

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)

I really don't understand what's wrong with this. So Apple should change their business model to suit their needs? Shouldn't it be the other way around that if you wan to be part of a business you play by the rules of the business you'd like to be part of?

Doesn't make any sense to me.

If you don't like the rules, shove off or comply.

The problem is that iPhone/iPad is a huge chunk if the app market (along with Google). Developers may not have a choice but to continue with Apple, either saying goodbye to some profit or passing it on to buyers.

This kind of pressure can be an abuse of Apple's position which is anti-competitive and may fall foul of EU/US law. It will be interesting to watch the investigations.

I think some of the most contentious issues are rules such as the one preventing apps providing links to websites for lower subscriptions.

I think the view that developers "owe" Apple is quite wrong, rather good quality apps are a major insentive for consumers to buy iOS devices in the first place.

 

[deadkennedy]

One fact only stands as correct: Single iOS subscription model does not meet all of the real world subscription business model.

Apple knows that and wants to shut out all the "middle man" subscription models like Spotify, Pandora, Netflix, etc... just so they can fill the void with iTunes, iBooks, etc. It's a risky and unpopular move from them, let's see how it turns out.

 

[j-Phone]

Maybe I'm crazy but....

I'm a business owner myself and if someone wanted to produce apps for my platform, then tell me how I should charge it, I would be pissed. It's very easy to pick on the big guy, but if you were a business owner, you wouldn't want your customers telling you how much to charge and what to do with your business.

It's very simple! If you don't like Apple, then don't develop for the iOS. Take your talents to South Beach and go to Android and see how much money you will make there!

 

[KnightWRX]

Publishers can give me a chance to win something on their site etc and Apple would not have any issue with that.

But how do they let you know when Apple refuses to let them link to their own site from within the App now ?

Your mind is made up here. You think this is a boon to consumers. That's fine. But please don't ignore how much of a pain this is to content providers/publishers/developers. Empathy goes a long way on both sides.

Also, this short term boon might end up being a real problem later on if the solution becomes "leaving iOS behind". As an iOS user, I wouldn't want my favority apps/services to go away because Apple refused to offer IAP as an option rather than as a strict requirement.

 

[hexx]

well I work in a retail environment (photo gear) that we could only wish for a 30% margin for the initial purchase.... As it is a surprise to anyone; but it t is the add-ons that keep businesses open...

Apple may need to lower their margins for developers that offer them a chance for "add-on" purchases...

if you work in authorised dealer retail shop you would easily see margins exceeding 30%. I used to work with hi-fi and our margins were starting at 33% - that's the beauty of having authorised dealership and the only one in the country, certain products have had 100%+ margins

 

[Atheistpaladin]

And Netflix...And Amazon..And Hulu...And Pandora...And 10s of millions of others who will then switch to another OS in a few years.

Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Pandora: none of these people actually do anything other than take cuts from contents created by others. The cuts you are so against.

 

[ciTiger]

You can say that Apple is being greedy but at the same time it's also protecting the users... Am i wrong???

 

[axual]

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?"

You do have a choice ... buy another phone and OS from another manufacturer.

 

[NAG]

Yet kind of hard and add in the fact that Apple is VERY untrustworthy and more than likely would ban unless it offers it in both. Apple is good at screwing over its partners at a drop of the hate. Readability is just the latest.

Also goes back to for example Kindle. How is Amazon to make any money on sells that go threw Apple. 30% straight revenue is more than Amazon makes off the sale. Amazon only gets 30% and Amazon has to pay for hosting, submitting of the books. Apple does what processes the payment and Apple gets more money.

You act like Google is any more trustworthy. You read the Adsense TOS? Not saying it is right or wrong, just silly that Apple is the target here when they are no more guilty than anyone else. They just have the gall to try to change things and put consumer experience before content producer profits. How dare they.

 

[KnightWRX]

Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Pandora: none of these people actually do anything other than take cuts from contents created by others. The cuts you are so against.

Actually, they offer infrastructure to stream/store the content and manage access to these infrastructures. They don't just "take a cut".

 

[Piggie]

So if I use an App to buy DATA from the app creator then Apple demands 30%

But if I use an App to buy a physical product from the app creator than Apple demands nothing?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Publishers can give me a chance to win something on their site etc and Apple would not have any issue with that.



Amazon took 70% from authors before iBooks came and Apple started to take 30%...

Amazon changed to response to iBooks not to deal with Apple taking yet another cut.

But lets get off the Amazon example and lets look at things like Netflex or Pandora. Both of which P&O is in the 10% or less range. How are they to make or even stay in business if Apple is taking a larger cut of the Revenue han their P&O are.
That P&O includes things like credit card processing. That is all part of Netflex and Pandroa overhead.

If anything this is more proof Apple is to chicken to really go head to head with any one. Apple plays dirty.

 

[marksman]

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

Very good article, and on point. Nobody is forcing any publishers to do anything. Ultimately those who see value in it will do it, those who do not will not.

The smart ones, and the well run businesses will be able to find a way to make it work, because what Apple is offering via their IOS devices is worth a lot of money to many of these companies, so they will pay it because it will mean making MORE money then if they do not pay it. That is going to be the bottom line.

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.

As a consumer that is one of the best parts about this. Again this is why the IOS environment is so valuable to the consumer side as well. Apple is actually looking out for the consumers. Instead of having publishers con people into jumping through hoops to get the best price, they make it so customers can get the best price with the least amount of headaches. These are the same companies that have been ripping off apple by providing free Apps and then charging around their back. Apple knows they would do the exact same thing here, so they cut them off at the pass.

Why people want to defend the relatively disreputable conduct of these companies over Apple, I don't get.

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.

Of all the bad loopholes people have proposed, this one actually might be feasible, outside of the fact that it would likely piss off your customers and give their competition a good reason to switch away from you.

I suspect ultimately Apple will cover all these attempted ways to get around this and not allow for it. People need to think about it though, why would you want to be a customer of a business who is trying to screw you over? Apple is trying to get value out of their services. This other company is trying to screw both apple and the consumer. Seems the vitriol is being aimed in the wrong direction.

 

[Popeye206]

Who ever said Apple CONsumer Electronics was fair? I guess they expect the providers to raise prices and/or reduce functionality to give them more money.

Makes one sick to think that some here slop this up as a 'good thing'

"Some of us" don't "slop this up as a good thing", but know that it's not something to get all wound up about either. Make silly conclusions or start screaming the sky is falling.

Electronic distribution is all new... it's being defined as it goes. Apple is trying an approach and they will probably change that approach if it's not working or competitive pressure turns up to make changes.

The companies affected I'm sure are making it known that they are affected and what they want changed. I'm sure open market capitalism will kick in and all this will find it's level.

 

[yetanotherdave]

Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Pandora: none of these people actually do anything other than take cuts from contents created by others. The cuts you are so against.

actually they provide distribution, billing, hosting, bandwidth, customer base. They are doing all the work of getting the content to the consumer and apple wants 30% of it because it's displayed on an apple branded screen.

with the app store apple is doing the distribution, billing, hosting, bandwidth, customer base for the developer, which is why they can ask 30% there and everyone was happy with it.

 

[QuarterSwede]

This kind of pressure can be an abuse of Apple's position which is anti-competitive and may fall foul of EU/US law. It will be interesting to watch the investigations.

Monopoly rules in the US are not clear which is why so many of these debates go on. It's really up to the investigators to decide. Is Apple a monopoly with the App Store or not? Is the Android marketplace a big enough competitor? Those are some of the questions the investigators will be asking.

 

[wmjbobic]

I'm wondering why comcast hasn't start demanding money from those companies who are using their services and making profit.

this move may or may not have any legal issues, but it is hurting apple in the long run.

the guy who brought up this idea should be fired.

 

[neko girl]

Actually, they offer infrastructure to stream/store the content and manage access to these infrastructures. They don't just "take a cut".

What infrastructure is Apple maintaining for Hulu, Netflix, or Pandora? The app download? Wouldn't you say Apple is forcing this on themselves and everyone else by insisting on being the only store?

Very mafia-esque. Be the reason for the problem, then extort money to solve the problem (ie: protection).