So by this logic, everytime I fill up at Chevron, the gas station needs to give 30% of its profits to Lotus because I have an Elise and without that Elise I never would have needed to get gas?
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
So by this logic, everytime I fill up at Chevron, the gas station needs to give 30% of its profits to Lotus because I have an Elise and without that Elise I never would have needed to get gas?
Train tickets
I use an app called thetrainline to buy my train tickets in the UK.
Would this then mean that the train company would have to pay Apple 30% because I am purchasing the ticket through my iPhone?
I use an app called thetrainline to buy my train tickets in the UK.
Would this then mean that the train company would have to pay Apple 30% because I am purchasing the ticket through my iPhone?
For real?
I guess if you can afford an iPad...
In today's Economy, it's all definitely become all about money and who can take their share...
shame, really...
Not sure why so many of you are concerned about content providers like Netflix, Pandora, Amazon that are in fact just resellers and not content creators. It's not like the content is going to disappear, the content creators that don't want their content out of the very big iOS platform just need to make it available in iBook, iTunes and App Stores.
This Apple move is just cutting out an unnecessary middle man. But it's also a double edge sword: on one side is basically putting a stop to a distorted commercial reality where a reseller (the like of Netflix, Pandora, Amazon) can sell utilizing another reseller infrastructure and success (iOS and Apple); on the other side, Apple as reseller has now to compete against other resellers services and prices. And I'm free to choose the one I prefer. Competition is good, right?
This Apple move is just cutting out an unnecessary middle man. But it's also a double edge sword: on one side is basically putting a stop to a distorted commercial reality where a reseller (the like of Netflix, Pandora, Amazon) can sell utilizing another reseller infrastructure and success (iOS and Apple); on the other side, Apple as reseller has now to compete against other resellers services and prices. And I'm free to choose the one I prefer. Competition is good, right?
I haven't missed anything. The fact that Apple wants to be the middleman was exactly what I was talking about, so you didn't read very closely.
Your "factual record" is ridiculous, "for the factual record". Opinions are opinions no matter what you call them.
If you expected to be able to run anything you want on iOS, then you didn't pay much attention before you bought it.
Why are you so excited to let Amazon keep bending over the actual content creators to the point where those people can't make any money, rather than letting Apple be somewhat less onerous and maybe let a writer actually eat some red meat once in a while?
Anyone who thinks Amazon is some friendly champion of consumers and creators is in full-bore denial.
Whether or not you or I (or anyone agrees), I think the answer is because they think they CAN get a cut. I think it's as simple as that. I think the reason Samsung doesn't get a cut of Netflix subs from their bluray players is because they don't think they can get away with it. I think Apple believes (right or wrong) that their device and their ecosystem is valuable enough that they can do this.
I don't necessarily like what they're doing... but if companies go along with it and the content remains and the prices stays the same (which none of us KNOW at this point.. everyone is talking like they're 100% sure what will happen in either direction) then it doesn't matter if I like it or not because if nothing changes, then it doesn't affect consumers. I'd rather "wait and see" before I decide if it's good or not.
Negative affect on Consumers
If we can shop around and purchase musical content outside iTunes and use it on our devices, why can't we purchase app content outside of the App Store and use it on our devices?
Seems like a double standard that will hinder competitive pricing.
If we can shop around and purchase musical content outside iTunes and use it on our devices, why can't we purchase app content outside of the App Store and use it on our devices?
Seems like a double standard that will hinder competitive pricing.
My point exactly. There are a billion scenarios where you buy A because you have B, but A doesn't give a cut of the sales to B. Apple isn't special and doesn't deserve this 30% any more than Lotus would in this scenario.
And you really have an Elise? *jealous*
Could not have put it better myself!
Actually one of the reason I have not used my amazon app since downloading it two months ago is because I cant really be bothered to sign up with amazon.
In all purchases will change that completely! I will be downloading all the time!
What is so hard about this? You aren't buying gas just because Lotus created the car (because, obviously, they didn't). Lotus is not delivering customers to the gas station--that person would have been filling up anyway, one way or another.
Cars are commodities. Televisions are commodities. iOS is not, yet, a commodity. Comparing them is just irrelevant and silly.
Well said. What's next? Only music purchased through iTunes will be allowed on your IOS device?
Well, yeah, Apple can do it. What's amazing to me is that people here are actually defending and supporting Apple on this. Would these same people support Samsung, Sony, VW, etc, demanding a cut? No, they would call them greedy corporate bastards or something like that.
Apple gets a cut if a Netflix gets a new subscriber thru iOS. Not that hard to understand considering iOS is the median thru which Netflix is making their money. Its the same thing if an App is sold in the store.
My problem is 30% cut is to high and I think over time its going to come down a lot. As there is more competition from Google and other platforms Apple will have to change their policy or they will start losing customers.
If Netflix, Hulu, Amazon etc jump ship you will see Apple change their tune real quick because that will be a huge influence when people go out to buy a device like a tablet.
That's the problem. Folks who are already middlemen, like Amazon, Netflix, etc.. have already set their margins to take into account the fact that they are selling digital media. i.e. low. Most of their revenue is passed on to the content provider and to pay for the infrastructure needed to deliver it.
If Apple is providing the infrastructure to deliver said content to the devices, they are entitled to a large-ish cut ~30%, but if all they are bringing to the party is the eyeballs I would agree with others that a 10% or < 10% cut like Google or something more like the 1-5% credit card companies get would seem more appropriate.
B
I have trouble following comparisons because there's usually something that doesn't quite match up with the situation it's being compared to.. but for discussion's sake, if Lotus demanded 30% of the sales for gas going to their cars it would be up to Chevron to decide if they wanted to keep selling gas to Lotus cars, right? (maybe I'm not following).
If Lotus thinks they're responsible for enough of Chevron's sales that they deserve a cut, they should probably ask for that cut.
If Chevron feels that Lotus is bringing them enough customers that it's worth losing out on 30% of gas that goes to their cars, they'll go along with it. If they don't think Lotus brings in enough customers, they'll just stop selling gas to Lotus customers.
Again, comparisons are tough, hopefully I followed correctly. I'm not trying to justify why Apple is doing this, just trying to understand it.
Saying content providers have to raise their prices 43% to keep their income the same is dumb.
Dumb dumb dumb. it is not correct, it is not accurate, and it is completely ignorant of how businesses work.
I don't think you understand how much money Netflix spends on customer acquisition. it is a huge number.
This is not that complicated. Nobody is forcing these content providers to do this. They have the choice not to be involved in the Apple Ecosystem. A lot of companies will participate because it will make them tons of money. For those who can't see that, or for those who don't make money from it, it is not for them.
What people fail to realize is many of these companies are making a killing by participating in the Apple EcoSystem which Apple maintains and controls and manages, and is the existence these customers are there for them to plunder. If they don't want to pay for that very valuable access, then they do not have to, but it will be up to them as a business decision, nothing more, nothing less. It will either be financially viable for them or it will not. It will be for most.
Dumb dumb dumb. it is not correct, it is not accurate, and it is completely ignorant of how businesses work.
I don't think you understand how much money Netflix spends on customer acquisition. it is a huge number.
This is not that complicated. Nobody is forcing these content providers to do this. They have the choice not to be involved in the Apple Ecosystem. A lot of companies will participate because it will make them tons of money. For those who can't see that, or for those who don't make money from it, it is not for them.
What people fail to realize is many of these companies are making a killing by participating in the Apple EcoSystem which Apple maintains and controls and manages, and is the existence these customers are there for them to plunder. If they don't want to pay for that very valuable access, then they do not have to, but it will be up to them as a business decision, nothing more, nothing less. It will either be financially viable for them or it will not. It will be for most.
Last edited:
Ah, but the 8.99 is for DVD+Streaming to computer or other approved devices. iOS is an add-on. If I don't want to watch on my iPhone, I save. If I decide that I'd want to stream I could easily sign up in app for the 99 cent add on.
What's absurd is no iBooks on Kindle or Nook. What is Apples due for your eyeballs on a platform Amazon and others are using to advance their marketshare against the very company that is providing them the eyeballs in the first place.
30% is high until it is the same thing they have had since the beginning & the same thing Amazon is charging publishers.
The same/same pricing policy is future insurance against paying more to see content on iDevices over platform switching options.
Finally, think about your privacy in all this. When opting to a non-iOS pay scheme, do you rely on Apple privacy policies to protect you? Not spam you, not sell you? Not sell your phoneID? Protect your CC# All when using an off-site payment scheme for content?
Apple already got thier cut when amazon, Netflix, hulu, and pandora paid thier $100.00 to get into the developer program. Apple made $400 off these companies already. Are you saying Apple deserves more than that?
What about Apple TV?
The big question in my mind is Apple TV.
One of it's main selling points is as a Netflix streamer. Will Netflix have to enable in-app subscriptions there too?
B
The big question in my mind is Apple TV.
One of it's main selling points is as a Netflix streamer. Will Netflix have to enable in-app subscriptions there too?
B
I can only speak for myself, not other people, but if I liked the product enough I would stick with it until the negatives outweighed the positives. Similarly, Apple feels they can get away with the walled garden approach. As a consumer, the positives provided by the iOS ecosystem (for ME) far outweigh any restrictions Apple has put in place. On top of that, I am able to get around those restrictions and jailbreak the device. For some people that either don't want to, aren't able to or don't think they should have to do that they feel it's not worth being on iOS and will switch to another OS.
Similarly, if any other company tried to pull this move and it affected me (which again, no one knows how customers will be affected by this, we're all guessing) then I would have to evaluate the impact. I probably won't ever buy subscriptions on my iPad anyways so this likely won't directly impact me. I do subscribe to Netflix though. If they pull support for iOS then I have to figure out how important netflix is to me. I could still watch on my computer and likely keep iOS. If they stay on iOS but raise their prices I might have to cancel it all together? There's so much still up in there air that it's hard to really have a strong opinion.
Where does "deserves" enter into it?
Hulu and Apple are both middlemen between the content creator and the end user. At least Apple can say they put in the work of creating a new delivery medium that has been wildly popular and is stimulating content sales. If we're going to get into "deserves", which is silly to begin with, most objective observers would have to say that Apples "deserves" more than Hulu.
Information is a commodity. iOS is just another method of obtaining information.
They aren't just bringing eyeballs they are bringing people with charge cards on file or credit from gift cards that want spend. I keep a credit in iTunes just incase I want something. So if I want a book and can buy it within iTunes I'm more likely to hit buy then having to go to amazon and having credit there or using a card there
When you buy the car, in order to keep it running you have to maintain it and for that you have to pay out of your own pocket instead of the gas pump paying 30% of it to keep that specific car running.
Similar in Apple's case except your not paying yearly maintenance, instead it is being taken out of the books you buy.
Apple is simply taking a cut of the profit in order to keep its system running. Would you rather pay a yearly fee so you can access the app store and ibooks?
The fact is, apple cant simply allow publishers to use their system for free, they are providing a service, they are providing publishers a huge market of people that otherwise they would not have access too. And with all things there is a cost to it.
Yes 30% seems steep, but if publishers are providing a magazine on an ipad they are able to add more content that would justify increasing the price. They are saving their money on this 'expensive paper'