They already gave money to Apple to cover the free app when they signed up to be a developer. Beyond the app itself (which has already been paid for), it doesn't cost Apple a single dime to get Kindle books or Netflix movies to an iOS device.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They already gave money to Apple to cover the free app when they signed up to be a developer. Beyond the app itself (which has already been paid for), it doesn't cost Apple a single dime to get Kindle books or Netflix movies to an iOS device.
If publishers need to raise prices 43%, so be it? As I said before, I'd be perfectly willing to pay $20/year for Wired, which is 100% more than what a year's subscription to the paper version costs.
Their iPad edition has multimedia features their paper magazine does not, making it a separate product. So I assume they can charge whatever they want and not have to match rates with the paper edition.
Their iPad edition has multimedia features their paper magazine does not, making it a separate product. So I assume they can charge whatever they want and not have to match rates with the paper edition.
Of course they are. The are providing a customer and the physical viewing portal to Netflix content. As has been said. Netflix didn't created the content you are viewing, none of it. Same for Google, as if Apple is trying to steal from Google. What a joke. Stephen King wrote his novel, why is Google so deserving to get a 30% cut over Apple who created the content consumer by selling a digital reader. You think King is concerned that Google isn't getting enough of a cut of his work? It all comes down to who is creating the customer, and who should get the lion's share of profit margin from the sale. Google and Netflix are not loosing money on the creation of their content, nor are the true creators.
So apple is not being a "predatory middleman who is destroying the content owners with their onerous distribution terms"?
This could just lead to Rhapsody and NetFlix (love film in the uk) leaving and apple being the middleman for content providers.
Or having a separate app for each movie/tv show, music content provider.
Now what label was that singer I heard on the radio apart off?...
Actual content creators, like someone's earlier example of ESPN the Mag, will love this. They will swoon for someone offering them distribution and millions of eyeballs at 30%. Traditional distribution usually runs minimum 40%, very often 50% or more in the end. And it carries a much lower likely user base.
The people that can't make this work economically are middlemen like Amazon who are mostly malicious towards the actual content creators and have a... "complex" relationship to the consumer, so I have to ask... why do you care? Are you a big fan of (supposed)-value-add middlemen? Is one of them your mother?
Its you who are brainwashed. Apple taking a 30% cut is going to raise prices for you, the consumer. Further, it seems very likely that this move is prefacing new streaming music and video services from Apple directly. They don't want anyone to compete with them on their own platform. But iOS is a computing platform, and all computing platforms, even Mac OS, have a strong tradition of openness and competitiveness. Open platforms are in the interest of the consumer and long term progress. If this internet wasn't open, if your ISP charged you by feature, we way never have had this message board, for example, because Comcast would never have thought to implement it. Thats what Apple wants for its own platform. It will be iTunes streaming services or bust, even if other competitors are trying to provide a better product at a better price.
And that, my misguided friend, is the definition of anticompetitive.
I don't agree with Apple on this one.
Look, 30% is very high. Amazon, Hulu, Netflix -- they are ALREADY channels. This will be a 2nd markup. The won't be able to do this, and maybe that's fine for Apple. It's not fine for me.
All this will do is further frag the market. Apple has a chance to consolidate it, and really drive their platform. If they further frag the market, then the providers will go elsewhere, and so will the users.
I buy a lot via AMZ and Netflix. Apple doesn't have agreements with all content providers, so you need choices (e.g. I found a movie rental through Amazon the other day, where I could only buy the movie from Netflix or Apple. I didn't want to buy -- only rent. So, AMZ got the business).
If Apple keeps the content providers, then their platforms (iPad, iOS, Macs) become one-stop shops, and I'll be doing a lot of business on Apple platforms. If they ask for greedy margins and the other players flee, I'll follow the other players. I won't NOT watch a movie or rent a book on my preferred platform, just because it's not on iOS. The iPad just isn't that dominant yet (in fact, I sold mine because the value prop was too low. This will make it even lower). Apple should be happy with 5 or 10% (or whatever) of something, rather than 30% of nothing.
C'mon Apple -- stick to your vision. You sell fantastic HW platforms. Don't pull a Sony and go chasing dreams of being the only content channel. That vision has never worked for anyone, and it won't work for you, either!
Look, 30% is very high. Amazon, Hulu, Netflix -- they are ALREADY channels. This will be a 2nd markup. The won't be able to do this, and maybe that's fine for Apple. It's not fine for me.
All this will do is further frag the market. Apple has a chance to consolidate it, and really drive their platform. If they further frag the market, then the providers will go elsewhere, and so will the users.
I buy a lot via AMZ and Netflix. Apple doesn't have agreements with all content providers, so you need choices (e.g. I found a movie rental through Amazon the other day, where I could only buy the movie from Netflix or Apple. I didn't want to buy -- only rent. So, AMZ got the business).
If Apple keeps the content providers, then their platforms (iPad, iOS, Macs) become one-stop shops, and I'll be doing a lot of business on Apple platforms. If they ask for greedy margins and the other players flee, I'll follow the other players. I won't NOT watch a movie or rent a book on my preferred platform, just because it's not on iOS. The iPad just isn't that dominant yet (in fact, I sold mine because the value prop was too low. This will make it even lower). Apple should be happy with 5 or 10% (or whatever) of something, rather than 30% of nothing.
C'mon Apple -- stick to your vision. You sell fantastic HW platforms. Don't pull a Sony and go chasing dreams of being the only content channel. That vision has never worked for anyone, and it won't work for you, either!
And the customer already paid for the iPhone/iPad. Again, it's like TV manufacturers demanding a cut of Netflix subscriptions. Is that something you agree with? Should your cable company have to give 30% of your monthly fees to your TV manufacturer?
It's not about who created the content. The creators get their cut and that won't change. Netflix adds markup because it costs them money to distribute the content. Servers and bandwidth aren't cheap. But it doesn't cost Apple a damn thing to get that content from Netflix to your iOS - so why should they get a cut?
Whose to say that the other platforms won't adopt this strategy as well.
they all adopted apples idea of 30% for single app purchases.
Are they more worried that this will be come industry standard? There is no way this is antitrust. Apple does not have anywhere near close to a majority share of anything.
If you don't like the cover charge at the bar, go to the bar across the street with the lower cover charge. Prob uglier girls in that bar and worse drinks but if you want premium clientle who actually purchase apps you need to pay up.
Or Hearts and Conde Naste build your own tablet and software and setup a payment system with support and stores and a sales team with marketing and keep your 100%.
I'm actually ok with this. Times they are a changin as Bob would say.
they all adopted apples idea of 30% for single app purchases.
Are they more worried that this will be come industry standard? There is no way this is antitrust. Apple does not have anywhere near close to a majority share of anything.
If you don't like the cover charge at the bar, go to the bar across the street with the lower cover charge. Prob uglier girls in that bar and worse drinks but if you want premium clientle who actually purchase apps you need to pay up.
Or Hearts and Conde Naste build your own tablet and software and setup a payment system with support and stores and a sales team with marketing and keep your 100%.
I'm actually ok with this. Times they are a changin as Bob would say.
I understand that, and to some extent agree, but at the same time, if Amazon is taking a cut of sales from books that they're selling in their store, as a general statement, is it not reasonable for Apple to take a cut for sales that Amazon sells on their platform? Sure it doesn't cost Apple anything (or does it? I don't think anyone really knows and we're just assuming) but, at least from Apple's perspective, there are people who own iPads that may not have ever made purchases from Amazon but because of the iPad and the Kindle store are giving Amazon money. Why not get a cut of that?
For Apple, this is a win-win scenario. They are rumored to launch their own streaming services this year, and of course already have the iBook store and would prefer if people get all their content from them. That makes Amazon, Barnes&Noble, Netflix etc. competitors. If the new rules drive some of them away from iOS, good for Apple. They probably think people will then buy more from them. As for those competitors who choose to stay, they will have to fork over some serious money. Either way, Apple wins.
I don't see a good outcome for consumers. Some content providers will likely leave iOS, while others will increase their prices, both inside and outside iOS to comply with the "equal or better" pricing rule. The in-app purchasing may make things a bit more convenient, but that will come at a price.
I am not generally opposed to the idea of Apple getting a commission for bringing in new subscribers. A small processing fee for transactions and a reasonable commission for first time subscribers/customers is perfectly ok, but 30% for everything everytime? That seems out of line to me. Besides, it all goes both ways. The presence of other content providers adds value to the iOS platform and the devices. I only bought my iPad after Amazon, Netflix etc. showed up. Their presence and the freedom of choice they brought to the device was a major reason why I ultimately bought it.
I don't see a good outcome for consumers. Some content providers will likely leave iOS, while others will increase their prices, both inside and outside iOS to comply with the "equal or better" pricing rule. The in-app purchasing may make things a bit more convenient, but that will come at a price.
I am not generally opposed to the idea of Apple getting a commission for bringing in new subscribers. A small processing fee for transactions and a reasonable commission for first time subscribers/customers is perfectly ok, but 30% for everything everytime? That seems out of line to me. Besides, it all goes both ways. The presence of other content providers adds value to the iOS platform and the devices. I only bought my iPad after Amazon, Netflix etc. showed up. Their presence and the freedom of choice they brought to the device was a major reason why I ultimately bought it.
This is the way I see it....
If you a going to buy a new book ( printed) , you could either buy it from a shop or if you wanted to buy it direct from the supplier.
Both options would proberly cost you about the same.
If you buy from a shop the supplier/publisher have to give a portion of the cost to the retailer.
If you bought direct from them, they would get most of the cost to themselves.
They sell more from the shops however , because this is a much easier option for the customer. They actually make more money from selling from shops than from themselves direct even though they need to give away some of the profit.
Apple is just acting as the shop to sell on the product. In app subscriptions will make it much easier for customers to get the content they want, which in turn will make much more sales for the content provider.
If you a going to buy a new book ( printed) , you could either buy it from a shop or if you wanted to buy it direct from the supplier.
Both options would proberly cost you about the same.
If you buy from a shop the supplier/publisher have to give a portion of the cost to the retailer.
If you bought direct from them, they would get most of the cost to themselves.
They sell more from the shops however , because this is a much easier option for the customer. They actually make more money from selling from shops than from themselves direct even though they need to give away some of the profit.
Apple is just acting as the shop to sell on the product. In app subscriptions will make it much easier for customers to get the content they want, which in turn will make much more sales for the content provider.
If you're creating iOS apps how do you know that you would make less money selling on your own since you can't sell anything outside of the app store? That's really the root of the issue here and I think Apple sees it. That's why Apple has loosened up their restrictions on apps because they have seen the more open platform grow quickly. What Apple is trying to do now if find the line that they can tip toe while not alienating the developers and content producers. If they lose those and Android keeps growing at it's current rate (and gains lots of great content) Apple will lose the war while winning a short term revenue battle.
It's sad really that hubris always seems to bring down great companies. MS at one point was great and got cocky and fell off. I can see it happening with Google and Apple appears to be heading down that same road.
No. Read again the part about this being one of, if not actually the best, distribution deals a content creator can find. Don't believe me? Go read what actual creators and small publishers have to say about Amazon, or the music cartels, or the movie cartels...
And, given that it's Apple's platform, I say "oh well." I like choice as much as anyone... and my choice is another platform. I just can't get worked up about people like Rhapsody (essentially, across the years, just a shell corporation acting for the major label cartel against the online threat of the year, whether MP3.com or iTunes or...) complaining about how their lame megacorp is threatened by some other megacorp. If you can get worked up about it and you don't have your paycheck signed by, say, Rhapsody, you might want to find a hobby. Or at least stop eating so much corporate propaganda for breakfast.
They (Netflix) will just change their subscription model to include a new offering if you want to use the iOS device and remove iOS access from other subscriptions.
Either way the customer loses.
It's simple - labels are greedy. They have to be used to share a part of the price of a magazine or newspaper with the one who actually sells it, if he sells it. Should Apple do it all for free and some love? Really why should they? If newspapers, magazines or books are sold hardcopy in a store somewhere the money share is usually much higher. And when it comes to digital content distribution, the share traditionally is also much much higher than 30%.
Time will tell if your future or my future arrives. If yours does, I will call you right. But right now the people squawking are the usual suspects who love to rip off the consumer. This tells me Apple is doing it right, or at least fairly close to right.
iOS is plenty open. Most of the books I own I got completely outside the iOS universe. Apple was fine with that.
It won't raise prices, because Apple isn't dominant enough to force these folks to play on iOS. Instead, it will keep fragmenting the market, and we'll have to continue to keep a Mac, an iOS device (I know, could be one and the same in the future), a PC, and Android tablet, etc. to get the various channels we need.
From a purely business strategy perspective, it's not surprising Apple might try this, but they are WAY to early to be this aggressive. This is going to backfire on them, unless the iPad2 is just so magical, but I can't imagine it will be that astounding.
I would've never signed up for cable TV if I didn't have a TV. I would've never signed up for Netflix if I didn't have a DVD player. I would've never bought a TV if I didn't have electricity. I would've never bought gas if I didn't have a car. I would've never _____ if I didn't have _____. I can go on all day with that.
My cable company doesn't give Samsung a cut. Netflix doesn't give Sony a cut. Samsung doesn't give my power company a cut. Shell doesn't give Volkswagen a cut. Why should Apple get a cut?
I'm all over the place on this one. If it were limited to "Subscriptions" - and even more so - to "Periodical Subscriptions", I'm fine with it.
But when the talk shifts to taking a 30% cut on things "an app helps you buy", then I have a problem. If it applied to Amazon to give a 30% cut of a book sold in-app, then it should apply that Best Buy gives a 30% cut of a TV sold in-app. If you use an app to transfer money using your bank or pay-pal, then Apple in theory would get a 30% cut.
So, is it limited to periodical subscriptions?
But when the talk shifts to taking a 30% cut on things "an app helps you buy", then I have a problem. If it applied to Amazon to give a 30% cut of a book sold in-app, then it should apply that Best Buy gives a 30% cut of a TV sold in-app. If you use an app to transfer money using your bank or pay-pal, then Apple in theory would get a 30% cut.
So, is it limited to periodical subscriptions?
You're completely missing the point: Apple doesn't want to cut out the middleman, it wants to BE the exclusive middleman on its own hardware products. What if another middleman wants to offer me a better product at a better price? What if I happen to think that Amazon and Netflix are good companies with good customer service that currently offer much better value than Apple? (which they are and they do, for the factual record)
iOS is a computing platform, on hardware that we as consumers fully pay for. I expect to be able to run whatever I want on it.
Why are you so excited to bend over and have Apple middleman you right up the ass?
the content owners don't want to set up their own retail operations. if they did then there would be no DVD's at best buy. they would rather be wholesalers and let someone else deal with the customers
Not remotely comparable. A TV is a century-old commodity that anyone can (and does) make.
iOS and its app store model is, whatever your personal opinion of it, something that is new. It is the work of a single entity, who have created a unique (and so far, uniquely successful) marketplace and delivered millions of possible new customers to anyone who would like to take advantage of it. This isn't a "television", of which there are 10,000 manufacturers. This is one company's work and offering. And they aren't being terribly welcoming to the extant middlemen, like Amazon and Rhapsody, that want something for nothing. Boy, what a shock.
I'm sorry but reading these response all I can see is people who grew up thinking stuff should be given to them. That's not how corporations work. Currently amazon, Netflix, hulu, pandora are free apps. They make the money, but apple sees nothing of this although they use the iOS hardware. They need and deserve their cut. This is good for both consumer and the seller. People are just being stubborn because they like the free ride they had gotten and now it's coming to an end.
If anything they the sellers will prolly make more money not less.
Let say 6 people want a book but they all didn't want to go thru the hassle of signing in to amazon. Then 2 people want to go thru the hassle or buy it on their computer.
Amazon sells 2 books at 10.00 out side the app. Let's say they keep 60% in profit or 12 bucks
now if all 6 can buy the book in app 6x10=60
60%=36
amazon makes 18 bucks
Apple make 18 bucks
The book has more sales and more people buy it
And since to the consumer the price has to be the same in app or out it doesn't matter to the consumer where they buy it. if all 8 buy it amazon has made 30 dollars on 8 orders instead of 12 dollars on 2.
If anything they the sellers will prolly make more money not less.
Let say 6 people want a book but they all didn't want to go thru the hassle of signing in to amazon. Then 2 people want to go thru the hassle or buy it on their computer.
Amazon sells 2 books at 10.00 out side the app. Let's say they keep 60% in profit or 12 bucks
now if all 6 can buy the book in app 6x10=60
60%=36
amazon makes 18 bucks
Apple make 18 bucks
The book has more sales and more people buy it
And since to the consumer the price has to be the same in app or out it doesn't matter to the consumer where they buy it. if all 8 buy it amazon has made 30 dollars on 8 orders instead of 12 dollars on 2.