Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's App Store Subscription Policies Raise Antitrust Issues as Content Providers F

Joker Eh said:
Yeah I have my XBOX but you have to be a Gold member which costs you what now days $60 a year, and I am sure Netflix paid something to MS, or MS would offer other video services on there.
Click to expand...

MS paid Netflix for the exclusive rights to have Netflix only on their console (for a short period).

Outside of that, Microsoft does not charge Netflix (or Last.fm, Sky, Canal Plus, Foxtel etc.) anything on an ongoing basis simply because it does not pay their bandwidth costs.
 
marksman said:
People act like these other businesses are opposed to making money and maximizing their profitability, so Apple is evil for doing so. The reality is these companies are currently abusing the crap out of Apple right now and making a lot of money while Apple is burdened with all the costs so they can do it. Apple is trying to make that a more equitable solution for everyone. Not just a one way street where Apple incurs lots of expenses with no revenue, while these other companies generate a lot of revenue with no expenses.
Click to expand...

Dude...what on Earth are you talking about? Please explain how Amazon and Netflix are "abusing the crap" out of Apple. Please. Tell us how Netflix and Amazon transactions go through Apple in any way once the app is loaded.

You seem to have no idea what you are even saying, or understand how these things work. iOS is just an OS, a computing platform. This is no different from MS mandating that anything that CAN be subscribed too via Windows needs an option to subscribe THROUGH Windows, with MS taking 30%, period, simply because you CAN do it on Windows, even though it doesn't involve MS whatsoever.

Ignorance in the extreme. There is nothing good about this deal, and I am considering ditching my iPhone. It's clear that when Apple gets a modicum of power, their sheer audacity will know no bounds.
 
macduke said:
(...) Is Apple honestly hurting for cash? Hell no. This is about them trying to come up with a viable way to rid their AppStore of companies that compete with them as they launch new and improved services later this year and into the future (...)
Click to expand...

I reckon there's a memo somewhere that says "catching up with Exxon Mobil guys! keep the great money spinning ideas flowing!"
 
mb2008 said:
This was true until Steve screwed it up. For most of the large publishers, Amazon must offer e-books at the publisher-set price, which is the same as the iBooks price. Amazon makes more money on best-sellers in this case, but they were so unhappy about it they refused to sell e-books from some of the publishers for weeks.
Click to expand...

It's still true if you choose to use them as the "distributor", per se. You're right that a few of the largest publishers, led by Macmillan, had an Amazon "strike" to force the option of higher prices. But that's only for those few big publishers who have the power to negotiate their own deal. Not anybody else.
 
mdelvecchio said:
so you think they get to freeload on the infrastructure because the loophole wasnt closed until now? interesting.

yes, we will watch them all movie to android, where all the great apps are.... (you cant even buy an ad-free version of Angry Birds on android)
Click to expand...

Dude, it isn't freeloading. iOS devices are nothing without the content, the are basically just expensive, pretty paperweights. Remember, the iPhone did not really take off until the iPhone 3g came out, because that was when the iPhone was opened up to external content. The fact that Apple required that the content come through the app store helped the fart apps of the world, but the content providers did not and do not need it. The content sold the devices, not the other way around.

As far as Android, if all of the big third party content providers leave iOS and move to Android, then the answer to your question about where all the great apps are will be Android, not iOS.
 
Last edited:
Cybbe said:
They are apparently bringing this to Mac OS X as well. All purchases that are conducted through Safari, i.e. brought to shop owners by Apple, will have to go through iTunes and will be subject to 30% Apple tithe. Simple. If you purchase over the phone, shop owners will get 100%. This is fair.
Click to expand...

I find it disturbing that I'm not 100% sure you're joking
 
redscience said:
Revenue share is calculated as (revenue - delivery costs) x 70%.
Click to expand...
So Amazon at least has a relatively easy out. Apple's 30% becomes defined as part of the delivery charges and a $9.99 book sold via Apple generates $2.99 for Apple, $2.10 for Amazon and $4.90 for the actual content provider. If sold directly via Amazon they might get closer to $6.75.

Since Amazon doesn't pay the credit card processing fee or actually handle the payments, they might actually make about the same amount of money either way. It's the content providers that lose out on revenue per sale, but gain access to a lot more eyeballs so their net revenue may still be higher.

B
 
Daveoc64 said:
Some people are interpreting the rules to mean that if an App makes use of a subscription (obtained outside of the App - e.g. on a web site) then it MUST ALSO offer the ability to get the same subscription using IAP.
Click to expand...

what is it though? who has the true interpretation.

I'd like a clear answer from someone who has actually read the agreement.

1. Do developers have to offer IAPs if the app is based on an external subscription, no matter if there is an external subscription link or not within the app?

2. Or can the app not have any options for purchases and only function based on an external subscription... this is like the netflix app.
 
coleridge78 said:
It's still true if you choose to use them as the "distributor", per se. You're right that a few of the largest publishers, led by Macmillan, had an Amazon "strike" to force the option of higher prices. But that's only for those few big publishers who have the power to negotiate their own deal. Not anybody else.
Click to expand...

Since those publishers are more than 75% of the market, what's your point?
 
Deliverator007 said:
Dude, it isn't freeloading. iOS devices are nothing without the content, the are basically just expensive, pretty paperweights. Remember, the iPhone did not really take off until the iPhone 3g came out, because that was when the iPhone was opened up to external content. The fact that Apple required that the content come through the app store helped the fart apps of the world, but the content providers did not and do not need it. The content sold the devices, not the other way around.

As far as Android, if all of the big third party content providers leave iOS and move to Android, then your question about where all the great apps are will be Android, not iOS.
Click to expand...

Very true. We can all go back in time to read about Jobs describing the App Store as "a vehicle to sell more iPhones", along with claims that the App Store was not put there as an income generator for Apple but as a service for users and developers - and that's why it worked.

The 30% that Apple takes from app sales is to cover the cost of running the App Store. The fact that the App Store has since gone on to generate decent profits leaves no room for mis-interpretation: Apple doesn't need to charge more to keep the App Store going.

Subscriptions are complicated things, they're not as straightforward as a simple sale of goods. For Apple to think they can just lump everything under one set of rules and a single "tax" is a sign of primitive thinking.

They can make great gear, but they showing that know squat about other peoples' businesses.

ooh I'm feeling all ranty tonight. (almost a freudian!)

Google agrees that 30% is a p-take:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/16/google_one_pass/
 
Daveoc64 said:
Some people are interpreting the rules to mean that if an App makes use of a subscription (obtained outside of the App - e.g. on a web site) then it MUST ALSO offer the ability to get the same subscription using IAP.
Click to expand...

"Apple's made no change to its App Store Guidlines, it's simply enforcing a rule that's been in them all along: apps that offer purchases elsewhere must support in-app purchases as well. “We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines," company spokesperson Trudy Miller told me. "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase.""
source

Apps like Netflix don't offer the actual subscription, they are just a means of accessing Netflix's content. The app itself does not offer a subscription, so based on the quote above from Apple themselves, Netflix and such aren't affected.
 
florio said:
what is it though? who has the true interpretation.

I'd like a clear answer from someone who has actually read the agreement.

1. Do developers have to offer IAPs if the app is based on an external subscription, no matter if there is an external subscription link or not within the app?

2. Or can the app not have any options for purchases and only function based on an external subscription... this is like the netflix app.
Click to expand...

Nobody knows.

It's ultimately up to Apple how they will interpret the rules.
 
florio said:
I'd like a clear answer from someone who has actually read the agreement.
Click to expand...
All that is public is the press release, and it says:
Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app.
Click to expand...

This is why many interpret this as saying that publisher's are required to allow for in-app subscriptions after June 30.

B
 
monoskier said:
"Apple's made no change to its App Store Guidlines, it's simply enforcing a rule that's been in them all along: apps that offer purchases elsewhere must support in-app purchases as well. “We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines," company spokesperson Trudy Miller told me. "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase.""
source

Apps like Netflix don't offer the actual subscription, they are just a means of accessing Netflix's content. The app itself does not offer a subscription, so based on the quote above from Apple themselves, Netflix and such aren't affected.
Click to expand...

You're quoting OLD guidelines. They have introduced NEW guidelines which specifically cover subscriptions.

To quote Steve Jobs:

"All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app"
 
Microsoft announced a new feature today for Windows 8:

All Windows based web browsers must have a "Pay with Microsoft" button on check-out pages. This feature is necessary since we feel customers are too lazy to fill out their billing information. Any customer who clicks "Pay with Microsoft" will require a 30% surcharge for processing the billing of whatever they purchased.

It's fair because whatever you purchased would not of appeared on your web browser if not for Microsoft's hard work in bringing you Windows.

In other news Comcast announced the "Pay with Comcast" initiative. Comcast will filter all websites that do not offer a "Pay with Comcast" button for easy, safe, and secure payment processing. This is justified since Comcast brought the internet into your home.

Finally, TV maker Samsung is suing Dish Network due to Dish Network's refusal to engage in revenue sharing. Samsung's position is that if they didn't sell TVs, there would be no reason for Dish Network to exist. It's only fair.
 
thetexan said:
Microsoft announced a new feature today for Windows 8:

All Windows based web browsers must have a "Pay with Microsoft" button on check-out pages. This feature is necessary since we feel customers are too lazy to fill out their billing information. Any customer who clicks "Pay with Microsoft" will require a 30% surcharge for processing the billing of whatever they purchased.

It's fair because whatever you purchased would not of appeared on your web browser if not for Microsoft's hard work in bringing you Windows.

In other news Comcast announced the "Pay with Comcast" initiative. Comcast will filter all websites that do not offer a "Pay with Comcast" button for easy, safe, and secure payment processing. This is justified since Comcast brought the internet into your home.

Finally, TV maker Samsung is suing Dish Network due to Dish Network's refusal to engage in revenue sharing. Samsung's position is that if they didn't sell TVs, there would be no reason for Dish Network to exist. It's only fair.
Click to expand...

Thats so horrible! THEY COPIED APPLE!
 
Daveoc64 said:
You're quoting OLD guidelines. They have introduced NEW guidelines which specifically cover subscriptions.

To quote Steve Jobs:

"All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app"
Click to expand...

Got ya. Didn't realize it changed that much in the past 2 weeks.

A key word here though might be publisher. Netflix, Hulu, etc aren't exactly publishers, they are providers. (right?) That is, Netflix isn't making or publishing the movies they stream. The same argument could go for Amazon also, but I think one of their divisions does involve actually printing/publishing of books.
 
People need to realize, Apple is offering a channel to reach customers, not just providing a payment service.

With traditional newspaper and magazines, the channel often costs 90%. For example, you can often get magazine subscription for 50 cents per issue (or even free) even though the newsstand price is $4 to $5. Same with newspaper. And that's the cost to consumers - think how much the publisher would get?

The 30% pays for the channel. If you don't want the channel, nobody forces you to. Comparing to the channels for traditional magazines and newspapers, 30% is damn cheap.
 
Thank god we can still jailbreak... for now.

Some of the best apps are on cydia's store, or repos you can connect to via cydia. I honestly think if amazon or spotify etc no longer find apples itunes ecosystem viable, they should release their apps to the jailbreak market and be done with it.
 
Oh Please! Retail outfits charge about 30 percent markups. One of the biggest costs in software distribution is shipping and publishing (print or web). To access a service like this and pay 30 percent is not a big deal. If they don't like it, spend that 30 percent or more and do their own distribution system. There's a good article in a recent Forbes magazine about this concept.
 
My only question is, if I buy a Kindle book via in-app purchasing, will I be able to get access to that book on a non-iOS device?
 
biggreydog said:
Oh Please! Retail outfits charge about 30 percent markups. One of the biggest costs in software distribution is shipping and publishing (print or web). To access a service like this and pay 30 percent is not a big deal. If they don't like it, spend that 30 percent or more and do their own distribution system. There's a good article in a recent Forbes magazine about this concept.
Click to expand...

They don't though. A lot of the big ticket hardware items have small if any margin. The margin is all the accessories. Thats why when you buy a computer they want to sell you cables and a warranty. Thats how they make money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back