False alternate analogy. You entered into a contract where you agreed to continue paying Target along the way, and Target continues to offer services in-house, at their cost. Now you somehow don't like this. Don't sell at Target, but certainly don't expect Target to provide all these things for free because they somehow owe you for some unknown reason.
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.
Major U.S. Publishers Join Coalition for App Fairness
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As spokesman for the Coalition for Lobby Fairness, I demand the right to put free newsstands in the lobby of the AP, The New York Times, NPR, ESPN, Vox, The Washington Post, Meredith, Bloomberg, NBCU, and Financial Times buildings.
Saying dishonest media is kind of redundant. You can just say media. It’s all dishonest.
It’s not false though. The fact that developers don’t like this has nothing to do with whether they agreed to it (as it is all or nothing). They agreed because there are only 2 options, but they don’t like all the options. There’s no contradiction here. Furthermore, they are paying what they agreed - 30/15% of subscriptions - they just think it’s stupid.
Secondly, if it’s not fair to Target to use their store without paying, then how is it fair to you (the merchant selling cell service) to have to to pay Target for the cell service you provide? It’s not Target’s cell towers or cell technology, so how is it fair that they get paid for your customers using their cell phones?
You aren’t even being rational. Who is claiming that Apple owes them anything? No one.
A rational persons answer in that analogy is exactly what you see developers do in the App Store. They either don’t offer subscriptions through the app, or they charge customers more money through the iOS than you can get it anywhere else.
All this does is punish you, the customer. Why? Because you either pay more out of ignorance (by subscribing through iOS apps), or it inconveniences you by obligating you to sign up outside the app. That results in a worse user experience that is more cumbersome.
And here you are actually fighting for this on behalf of the most valuable company in the world, of which you contributed nothing to and receive nothing from - abandoning rationality in the process. It’s mind-boggling.
The solution is very simple - Apple should stop hosting apps for free. They can charge a fair price for the services they provide (those aptly summarized in the original Target analogy) - and not demand payment for the services that they don’t provide.
Obviously stupidity is communicable. These companies need to put more effort into having compelling media anyone wants. I also hear newsstands used to get magazines and newspapers for less than cover price, and sold them for more! (Being a smarta** here). It’s called business...
I don't know.. my feeling on it is more about the free market and choices. People who want an open unregulated environment on their phone have the option to use Android. I don't want iOS to turn into Android and basically open the floodgates to malware and scams and ********. I know now that any app I get on my phone has been vetted/tested and will not hijack my life and even my finances. I do too much, even pay my credit cards, on my phone so I really don't want iOS to go open-source with all the backdoors and **** that opens up to hackers and malware.
Likewise, app developers who think Apple's system is unfair could pull their apps. Most people on the planet have Androids, anyway, so the idea that Apple somehow has a monopoly is obviously false. Apple has a particular style of curating/vetting/safety-checking what goes on their phones and that's WHY I choose to use their phones. If it comes down to it, the developer could make Apple version of things more expensive to make up for the Apple tax and consumers would then know that apps are cheaper on Android and maybe that'll even give an edge to Android for some.
As for the News app, now they're just being silly. That's a niche app, not a monopoly, and no news org HAS TO be on it if they don't want to be. Most people probably don't use it, and it's moot for anyone not on iOS. The NY Times found that their interests were better served by having their own app and their own subscription model rather than be on Apple News. Maybe there are others who feel that way. I actually subscribe to Apple News+, and the New York Times, and Washington Post, so it's not like the Times is suffering for not being on A.N.
Except that there is no real "diversity of premise" in the options currently available. They all have the same political bent and their "news" is all the same. Seriously, it's all the same, and real, TRULY DIFFERENT ideologies are not represented at all.
Customers almost NEVER win when the regulators get in on the action. "We're from the government and we're here to "help" you". Yeah, right. What was the price of that bridge you're selling again?
You're right about this. But again, back to my first comment. It's all the same carp. No real diversity. Show me the Washington Times, Right Side Broadcast Network (RSBN) or One America News (OAN) in the app and then we can talk.
Consumers are currently losing, and it's unlikely that Apple will swap places with them.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
So here's what I would like to do. Write and sell apps in the Apple App store, WITHOUT anything offered for a subscription. NO SUBSCRIPTIONS! I hate them with the passion of a thousand burning suns, so why would I ever want to impose that which I hate so much upon my fellow humans?
But here's my question about that: Can a person begin to consider rowing against the current? Humans are downright ADDICTED to subscriptions, so is it even possible anymore to be a successful software author without the subscription model? I sure would like to do this, maybe as a side gig, or even as a "pay it forward" kind of effort to my fellow Apple device owners.
No, customers will lose. Customers will have their information sold, will have to go to many different places with many different privacy policies (many with no real privacy policy as the DCN members want) to make purchases, they will have to create accounts and provide information that will be disclosed in data breaches. They will have more viruses and malware, etc.
Those that want this choice already have a option, they can buy Android devices. Leave this ecosystem alone.
So many people and companies want to profit off of Apple’s ecosystem without having to pay for the privilege. The heck with them.
The answer is simple, if you are 50 mega corporations why don't you build your own OS and sell your stuff there and refuse to sell it on Apple? Apple platform= Apple rules. I heard Walmart completely refuses to put your product on the shelf just because, doesn't matter how much you pay them.
If it was a monopoly I would agree. Not only Apple is allowing you to sell on their platform, you will make profit from it how is this bad?
If it was a monopoly I would agree. Not only Apple is allowing you to sell on their platform, you will make profit from it how is this bad?
Maybe if these corrupt media companies had real journalists instead of propaganda writers they wouldn’t have a problem getting subscribers. Who wants to pay for propaganda? 🤣
No one cares about them. They can go out of business for all I care. It’s not like they are actual journalists
This will not result in lower prices for the consumer. This is simply a cash grab. Publishers should be paid fairly. Dont pretend like you would lower the price when the only reason many of us pay the allegedly higher price is due to Apple’s privacy value add and our ability to easily cancel our subscriptions and not get bombarded with emails. Businesses charge as much as the market will bear Apple or no Apple.
Last edited:
No its not better for the consumer. It never results in lower pricing. It just results in people different pocketing the money.
I think 15% should be the rate across the board simply because digital products are not the same as physical products. I am also of the belief that for iOS Apps people should be using Apples payment solution. I like the ease of cancelling my subscription. I can control how the data is being used and what’s being tracked within iOS. Additionally, I don’t have to have my CC information all over the web.
Maybe before calling someone else moronic ask them why they might prefer Apple’s payment solution to all 40 of these companies inferior payment solutions. You might learn something.
The web is available for companies wanting to data mine people and track people all over the internet.
Last edited:
I’d love to see the distribution graph of time spent on iOS specific apps vs others. I may be a minority but aside from iMessage and Safari I don’t stray too far into app land. Even my WSJ subscription makes sure of that. Darn links don’t always open in app from Apple Mail.
My browser is the app I use the most. However, for NYT I bought the subscription specifically so I could use the app.
So be it.
I consider myself an Apple customer first and foremost. If these companies want to play hardball and go down the route that Epic did, it just means that they will lose me forever as a customer.
Just don’t come crawling back when they realise their user base isn’t as loyal as they otherwise though.
They already do, they charge 15 or 30% of all the apps...which they feel is fair.
Which services do you think they do not provide that devs are paying for ?
I'm a firm believer that if an app can be served from the PWA or Plain old mobile website, thats the way it should be. Let them fight it out for customers without any App Stores being involved whatsoever.
Personally I think Apple should start removing apps that can already be served efficiently via other means like newspapers / video streaming services.
Now if the argument is that no-one would subscribe outside the App Store due to the inconvenience .. then its obviously a benefit to remain there and pay the fees that are lined out in black and white.
Proof that remaining within Apples ecosystem is worth it.