Apple to Crack Down on Newspaper, Magazine App Payments

[thetexan]

Developers of magazine and newspaper apps have received notice from Apple Inc. that beginning on March 31, any app that does not take payments through its iTunes store will be rejected.

The move could have major implications for a number of vendors that live on iTunes but route customers through their own billing systems. By circumventing Apple’s payment platform, those vendors avoid having to share 30% of sales with Apple.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/02/02/apple-to-crack-down-on-newspaper-magazine-app-payments/

Say goodbye to the Kindle app, among a few others.

 

[prestomusic]

bad news indeed for some devs. hardly suprising though.

but can't they just migrate to Apple's in App purchase system?

 

[thetexan]

bad news indeed for some devs. hardly suprising though.

but can't they just migrate to Apple's in App purchase system?

The problem is then Apple gets 30% of the sale, even though Apple had nothing to do with the sale itself. For in-app payments like this, Apple's cut should be less than 5% which basically covers the cost of the credit-card transaction. It's still Amazon's bandwidth and property. I can't imagine Amazon agreeing to the terms as they are crazy, and they'll probably just pull the Kindle application.

If I were Amazon, I'd charge a 30% surcharge on in-app purchases and make it very clear that the price is 30% cheaper when purchased through Safari or via Amazon.com, and also make it very clear that it's an Apple tax that does not benefit Amazon.com financially at all.

 

[Zepaw]

I wonder if this affects The Economist. By subscribing to print you can access the iPhone and iPad apps.

Seriously **** apple on this one. The wall on this garden is creeping inward.

If I were Amazon, I'd charge a 30% surcharge on in-app purchases and make it very clear that the price is 30% cheaper when purchased through Safari or via Amazon.com, and also make it very clear that it's an Apple tax that does not benefit Amazon.com financially at all.

+1

 

[seajay96]

The problem is then Apple gets 30% of the sale, even though Apple had nothing to do with the sale itself. For in-app payments like this, Apple's cut should be less than 5% which basically covers the cost of the credit-card transaction. It's still Amazon's bandwidth and property. I can't imagine Amazon agreeing to the terms as they are crazy, and they'll probably just pull the Kindle application.

If I were Amazon, I'd charge a 30% surcharge on in-app purchases and make it very clear that the price is 30% cheaper when purchased through Safari or via Amazon.com, and also make it very clear that it's an Apple tax that does not benefit Amazon.com financially at all.

X2

I love my iPad and iPhone, but a move like this is drastic enough to make me consider leaving the entire ecosystem and moving to Android.

 

[Michael CM1]

We've been hashing this thing out for two days now. All Apple is requiring is both in-app availability and out-of-app if you do outside purchases. I think Apple is going to have to go way down on its price for such things if it wants to have people use it. It's not housing that data, so it's not as expensive. I think Amazon, Sony, et. al wouldn't mind some fee comparable to a credit card fee, like Macworld wrote in an opinion piece today, but no way is Amazon going to do that for 30 percent off the top.

 

[prestomusic]

I wonder if Apple's terms will allow devs to set different prices, I doubt it. yeah the 30% cut seems a bit rough.