A lot of people are too lazy to leave the app to make the subscription. And some people are too lazy to read four posts above this one.
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.
FTC Looking Into App Store Rules Regarding Subscription Services
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A lot of people are too lazy to leave the app to make the subscription. And some people are too lazy to read four posts above this one.
In other to
I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Apple shouldn't enable circumvention of their own platform just make people like you happy.
Would Orbitz provide you a direct link to buy a ticket from the airline after you discover it on their site?
For every subscription on the app-store the customer provides and email address for confirmation. Why can't these companies alert their customers of alternative subscription methodology via emails? Don't these companies have websites? can't they advertise? send email etc
Its not bemusing: if Apple didn't charge a levy on in-app subscriptions, you can bet that, suddenly, everything in the app store would be free or 99 cents - but would turn out need a subscription to be of any use. That would make the App store non-viable for Apple. Allowing the purchase of 'tangible' goods doesn't risk that.
You have to remember that, back in the 1990s when this issue started:
(a) Microsoft had reached a near-monopoly position in the PC market - I forget what the market share figures were, but it was in the 90% range. They only got that by pulling the whole scorpion & fox thing with IBM (except in their version the scorpion learnt to swim) and hopefully we will not see its like again.
(b) It wasn't, then, common practice for a PC operating system to come with fully-featured applications software. Prior to Internet Explorer, Netscape, Opera et. al. had a business model based on supplying web browsers for Windows, which was wiped out overnight (so they claim*) by Internet Explorer. The case took so long that, by the time it was over, a web browser and email client was an expected part of any desktop operating system.
Bottom line is that Apple may be big in mobile, but they don't even have a majority in the phone market, let alone a monopoly. If they effectively kick Spotify & Google off of iOS, there are still a lot of Android phones, Chromecasts, Amazon Fire dongles, smart TVs etc. out there that people could switch to.
(*The fact that there was always plenty of good, free internet software around, including free versions of Netscape, probably spelled doom anyway, but Internet Explorer certainly delivered the coup-de-grace).
They are using Apples platform to advertise, sell and profit from yet are complaining about a fee they knew about when signing up.
Biggest news here is how this comes out as an issue just after a rival service is launched.
Biggest news here is how this comes out as an issue just after a rival service is launched.
I don't have an issue with Apple taking 30% on purchases of apps, but they need to either reduce the amount they take from monthly subscriptions or allow developers to show in apps where they can purchase the subscription 30% cheaper at the developers site.
Taking 30% per month for doing very little is a ripoff, I make a point of never ever subscribing through app store apps
Taking 30% per month for doing very little is a ripoff, I make a point of never ever subscribing through app store apps
Exactly, and brick and mortar stores do not need to pay staff, rent, provide facilities, undertake maintenance, Oh wait…………
BTW, those stores have computerised systems too for the most part so they have those costs as well.
Actually, they did not know the rules when they got in on the app store. Apple's in-app purchases were not available when Spotify introduced the app. Back then they had a sign-up button in the app. Later they had to remove it because Apple no longer allowed it.
Also, Apple initially didn't even want to allow apps to use external subscriptions at all without going through Apple, and they wanted to force apps to provide the lowest possible price through the in-app mechanism. They had to take those back after massive protests:
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/09/apple-reverses-course-on-in-app-subscriptions/
"Apple has quietly changed its guidelines on the pricing of In-App Subscriptions on the App Store. There are no longer any requirements that a subscription be the "same price or less than it is offered outside the app". There are no longer any guidelines about price at all. Apple also removed the requirement that external subscriptions must be also offered as an in-app purchase."
Me too. If I see a Mac app I like I make a point of always trying buy it outside of the App Store.
WHAT ??? Apple is taking a 30% cut on the Apple Store ? That's outrageous ! We need an investigation now !
Im' moving to Android or Windows Phone in protest.
Oh wait... Google also takes a 30% cut on their store...and Microsoft too... and ..Amazon too ..and ...Steam too... and...and..
Im' moving to Android or Windows Phone in protest.
Oh wait... Google also takes a 30% cut on their store...and Microsoft too... and ..Amazon too ..and ...Steam too... and...and..
While I don't personally think that's a huge deal, from a usability standpoint it's not great, especially if Google allows it. Wouldn't be surprised if at the end of this story Apple's concession is to open up the rules to allow for linking.
I do not see them just offering to lower the in-app subscription price. As far as I know this is industry standard, so we should not be acting like Apple is particularly greedy here.
Who do you think pays for all those servers where the app is downloaded from? Apple. When a developer submits an app and Apple's talented QA deparment reviews the app and goes back to the developer and says "you have to fix this, this, and this", who do you think pays for that? That 30% figure is not some arbitrary number they pulled out of their ass.
If I open a store and sell burgers and my uncle Bob wants to borrow a corner of it to sell pizza, he is entitled to all the profits? I shouldn't get a cut for letting him sell something in my store? Apps are stored on servers, employees maintain servers, office buildings store servers, electricity runs those buildings, etc. Just because an app is digital doesn't mean it doesn't cost anything to sell it.
The annual fee that developers have to pay?
Also, don't forget that the rich selection in the app store is just as much responsible for the iPhone's success as the app store is for developers' ...
So you are telling me Apple charges 30% because they have to process the payment? What a joke! HAHAHAHA. Sorry but Apple is wrong. Developers have to pay an annual fee to be able to have their apps in the Appstore, on top of that they have to pay 30% to Apple for every app they sell, why? Because shut up and give me money. What doesn't make any sense is for Apple to charge 30% every month for a service they don't run. That's wrong and everyone knows it.
Sorry but if I create the iPhone, iPad, millions of customers and a platform for developers to make money on, and they sell 50 million apps and make 100 million dollars, I'm not gonna sit there and charge them $100. And you wouldn't either. I created a base of 200 million customers and fans and gonna make a measly $100 while some developer will rake millions on a platform that I created? Are you insane?
1- There is no developper fee no more.
2- ALL STORES charge a fee for distributing an app, or a movie, or music, or books . ALL OF THEM. Why do you expect Apple be the only exception in the world ??
Yes it is an arbitrary number. They have always charged 30% everywhere, the Apple tax remember? A developer has to pay an annual fee already, it doesn't make sense that Apple is charging 30% for a service they don't run. What about the free apps like Facebook and Instagram? Apple doesn't charge any extra for those because they're free, they're already charging a developer annual fee anyway. Also, once you buy an app you still get lots of updates and apple doesn't charge for those. Why would Apple charge 30% every month for an app I downloaded one time several months ago?
Apple doesn't charge Facebook for distribuiting its free apps and those are ones of the most downloaded apps. Also, once you buy an app you get updates constantly and apple doesn't charge for those either. It doesn't make any sense for Apple to charge 30% evey month for a service they don't run.
Great, go FTC, finally! Their insane 30% markup for subscriptions is insane, their is no way the overhead for charging customers to use the services is 30%, Credit Card companies charge around 3%!! It's time Apple gets a smack down on this! Would love to see the FTC force Apple to allow users to set other apps as default as well. Tired into being forced to use Apple Maps, when Google Maps is 10x better. How did MS get slammed for that years ago when they even allowed people to put a different Browser as the default browser, yet Apple gets away with it now! Lets make this a level playing field for everyone!
You didn't create anything. Apple has stated lots of times that is all thanks to the developers. Without apps the iPhone would be dead today.
Apple Music is no better. Actually I think their interface is worse. You can't easily get to an album when you see a song playing. If listening to a song through the radio, you can't easily add it to a play list unless you go to the album first, which as I said is hard enough to find in itself. If you do find a song you like and want to add it to a new playlist there is no option to create a new playlist when you click add to playlist, you have to go to your playlist screen first, then create the playlist, then go back to you song and try to add it again. And don't even get me started on iTunes, that is the biggest POS ever!!
Except Apple and that's where it becomes a problem. Now that they have a streaming service they can't keep getting away with it.
In many, if not most, cases, those companies wouldn't be selling a subscription if it wasn't for Apple. Just like if you were to buy a magazine subscription through Amazon or Barnes & Noble, the store gets a cut. How is Apple taking a cut any different from the markup placed on products in brick and mortar stores? Apple is supplying an enormous customer base, as well as a means of delivery. The amount of the cut is immaterial for this case. What Apple is doing with Apple Music is no different than a grocery store selling their store brand laundry detergent next to Tide.