U.S. and European Regulators 'Looking At' Apple's App Store Subscriptions Program

[logandzwon]

I hope they do investigate, mostly to clear these misunderstandings.

Apple IS acting in the consumer's best interest. They are using their weight to force a level playing field for everyone.

The people complaining either can't understand they rules, or are just greedy.

 

[Stridder44]

Good. This is getting a bit out of hand.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

I think it is a good idea to look into it.

For some reason, people think investigations are only warranted if the result is obvious. Otherwise it is "offensive". That sounds like a show trial mentality to me. Just do it openly and fairly. Take a look at it and decide if it should be allowed or not.

 

[deadkennedy]

Google "One Pass". Nuff said.

When's that Honeycomb coming?

 

[logandzwon]

This has been discussed before, but I don't really get how this could work for subscription services like Rhapsody and Netflix where you pay a flat rate every month that is automatically processed without any intervention--at least for those who have a credit card on file. There is no regular buying of anything.

They remove the link that says "Not a Rhapsody member?" from the front page of the app.

 

[logandzwon]

You got it wrong, here's a simpler example for you. Apple has to pay 30% for to Microsoft for every iTunes purchase made from Windows machine. Oh and add 30% to the manufacturer like Sony.

Be fair though, in your example MS would also have handle all the customer info, billing, customer service, and hosting the content. (iTunes profits for Apple are much less then 70% of sales.)

 

[deadkennedy]

Be fair though, in your example MS would also have handle all the customer info, billing, customer service, and hosting the content. (iTunes profits for Apple are much less then 70% of sales.)

Not true, Netflix hosts their own content as does the customer service. In this case the only thing Apple provides is billing. Which is fair to demand something for, let's say 0.5% or something.

 

[spazzcat]

Oh man, please go and research how much does a payment gateway usually cost. You've probably heard of Google Checkout, Paypal, etc.. You're not that immature to try and justify the 30% margin with a payment gateway.

I use payment gateways, I know how much they cost, but again another point your not getting, what if would have signed up for your service, but don't trust you, well, now I don't have to give you m cc#. I already trust Apple with it...

 

[logandzwon]

Where does it end?

What about fandango and other apps which allow you to buy tickets? Groupon? Lots of apps either allow you to make purchases or launch to a website to make purchases. Does Apple really expect to take 30% of a movie ticket purchase? Groupon purchases? It's a very slippery slope they've created as to keeping thing "fair" for all of their developers, etc...

Of course not. Apple can't charge 30% for a service they don't offer. (you can't use in-app purchasing for tangible goods.)

 

[hitekalex]

People here seem to be assuming that Apple made these decisions without any reason whatsoever, totally oblivious to the consequences, with no long-term plan to make it all work together as perfectly as nearly everything they've touched so far.

I love it when the perpetually out-of-touch underestimate this company.

Oh Really? How about Apple previously banning Google Voice services on iOS, only to reverse their stance a while later, after a huge backlash and threats of anti-trust investigation? Or them banning 3rd-party dev tools for iOS apps, only to reverse that decision a few months later for the same reasons?

Apple is notorious for over-reaching, WITHOUT much consideration for possible legal consequences or just the amount of bad press and lost user goodwill. That such a generally brilliant company can so often act as its own worst enemy is simply mind boggling to me.

I can only hope that this latest mess they created will end up in the same category of Apple's blunders that will eventually be reversed when cooler heads inside the company prevail over Job's arrogance, greed and thirst for 100% control.

 

[spazzcat]

Not true, Netflix hosts their own content as does the customer service. In this case the only thing Apple provides is billing. Which is fair to demand something for, let's say 0.5% or something.

I am willing to bet it cost Apple more then 0.5% to handle the transaction. You seem to forget Apple has a cost here to...

 

[logandzwon]

Not true, Netflix hosts their own content as does the customer service. In this case the only thing Apple provides is billing. Which is fair to demand something for, let's say 0.5% or something.

Netflix is a great example. They will probably need to remove the link of the front of the app that says "Click here if your not a member." Then they are fine.

 

[samcraig]

I hope they do investigate, mostly to clear these misunderstandings.

Apple IS acting in the consumer's best interest. They are using their weight to force a level playing field for everyone.

The people complaining either can't understand they rules, or are just greedy.

Say what? Force a LEVEL playing field? No - they want a piece of the action. It has nothing to do with leveling the playing field. The people complaining are greedy? Yeah... ok... Apple isn't?

 

[spazzcat]

Oh Really? How about Apple previously banning Google Voice services on iOS, only to reverse their stance a while later, after a huge backlash and threats of anti-trust investigation? Or them banning 3rd-party dev tools for iOS apps, only to reverse that decision a few months later for the same reasons?

Apple is notorious for over-reaching, WITHOUT much consideration for possible legal consequences or just the amount of bad press and lost user goodwill. That such a generally brilliant company can so often act as its own worst enemy is simply mind boggling to me.

I can only hope that this latest mess they created will end up in the same category of Apple's blunders that will eventually be reversed when cooler heads inside the company prevail over Job's arrogance, greed and thirst for 100% control.

They banned it the first time because it used private APIs and took over the phone's voice and text apps. Apple will banned anyone for doing that...

 

[spazzcat]

Netflix is a great example. They will probably need to remove the link of the front of the app that says "Click here if your not a member." Then they are fine.

That or have an iOS only plan that is $4.99. With the plan you can't watch movies outside of iOS.

 

[hitekalex]

They banned it the first time because it used private APIs and took over the phone's voice and text apps. Apple will banned anyone for doing that...

That is complete nonsense. Google did nothing of the kind (and it's technically impossible on non-jailbroken iOS device). And neither did GV Mobile and other 3rd-party Google Voice apps that got pulled.

 

[logandzwon]

Oh Really? How about Apple previously banning Google Voice services on iOS, only to reverse their stance a while later, after a huge backlash and threats of anti-trust investigation? Or them banning 3rd-party dev tools for iOS apps, only to reverse that decision a few months later for the same reasons?

Apple is notorious for over-reaching, WITHOUT much consideration for possible legal consequences or just the amount of bad press and lost user goodwill. That such a generally brilliant company can so often act as its own worst enemy is simply mind boggling to me.

I can only hope that this latest mess they created will end up in the same category of Apple's blunders that will eventually be reversed when cooler heads inside the company prevail over Job's arrogance, greed and thirst for 100% control.

Google Voice wasn't allowed because the only career at the time AT&T explicitly would not allow it on their network. AT&T changed their minds and shortly after Apple was approving those type of apps. Google made a show of it to sell their own competing phone.

3rd party dev tools? You mean Adobe's cross-compiler? It took almost 3 years for them allow it. To date nothing useful has come out of it.

 

[Popeye206]

Google "One Pass". Nuff said.

When's that Honeycomb coming?

Could care less about Honeycomb... I don't want a dead end device and I love my iOS.

But... One Pass... this is going to put pressure on Apple to revisit the strategy. One pass is sort of offering a similar single click purchase feature for 10% cost to the Publishers.

 

[samcraig]

That or have an iOS only plan that is $4.99. With the plan you can't watch movies outside of iOS.

It's a slippery slope. A bookstore doesn't dictate what size a book can be. Or how many pages. Or what colors can be used. It doesn't say what materials can be used for the cover, etc.

Yet apple wants to control every aspect it can. It doesn't sit well with content creators for obvious reasons.

Apple tried to dictate iAds - and by dictate I don't mean the technology - I also mean the editorial/creative. And that's failed them.

I don't discount the fact that Apple should be compensated for the purchase transaction - but 30 percent is ridiculous and a dangerous precedent.

I'd almost be in favor of (and I'm ready to be flamed for this) of any app that is going to have a subscription/offer content to NOT be a free app and let apple get a piece of the purchase price.

IE - The Amazon App costs 1.99. Let Apple get it's share for the transaction of hosting the IPA/people accessing it and be done with it. Apple isn't entitled to every book I buy from Amazon as Apple is NOT paying for those transactions to be processed.

 

[hitekalex]

Google Voice wasn't allowed because the only career at the time AT&T explicitly would not allow it on their network. AT&T changed their minds and shortly after Apple was approving those type of apps. Google made a show of it to sell their own competing app.

3rd party dev tools? You mean Adobe's cross-compiler? It took almost 3 years for them allow it. To date nothing useful has come out of it.

Another person posting without a clue.

AT&T had nothing to do with dis-allowing or allowing Google Voice. They said so publicly when FCC issued an inquiry. Google never "sold" anything related to Google Voice - both their app and the service are free.

3rd-party dev tools were banned in April 2010, and that decision was reversed in September 2010, about 5 months later.

 

[deadkennedy]

I am willing to bet it cost Apple more then 0.5% to handle the transaction. You seem to forget Apple has a cost here to...

Ok, so let them have 1.7%, this seems reasonable and it can amount to a lot of money for them.

And just to be clear, if I was create my own comic book I'm more than willing to give 30% to Apple and 10% to Google (One Pass), but if I'm editing and reselling comic book subscriptions with content from others and having 3% out of every sale, then you know what this means to my business. I can still somehow re-negotiate with content suppliers and adapt for Google's 10%, but Apple's 30% is a deal breaker. That's almost half of everything for a payment gateway.

 

[logandzwon]

That is complete nonsense. Google did nothing of the kind (and it's technically impossible on non-jailbroken iOS device). And neither did GV Mobile and other 3rd-party Google Voice apps that got pulled.

actually if you want to read the information Apple gave the FCC; http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/

Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. For example, on an iPhone, the “Phone” icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple’s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature. In addition, the iPhone user’s entire Contacts database is transferred to Google’s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.

 

[WiiDSmoker]

It's a slippery slope. A bookstore doesn't dictate what size a book can be. Or how many pages. Or what colors can be used. It doesn't say what materials can be used for the cover, etc.

Yet apple wants to control every aspect it can. It doesn't sit well with content creators for obvious reasons.

Apple tried to dictate iAds - and by dictate I don't mean the technology - I also mean the editorial/creative. And that's failed them.

I don't discount the fact that Apple should be compensated for the purchase transaction - but 30 percent is ridiculous and a dangerous precedent.

I'd almost be in favor of (and I'm ready to be flamed for this) of any app that is going to have a subscription/offer content to NOT be a free app and let apple get a piece of the purchase price.

IE - The Amazon App costs 1.99. Let Apple get it's share for the transaction of hosting the IPA/people accessing it and be done with it. Apple isn't entitled to every book I buy from Amazon as Apple is NOT paying for those transactions to be processed.

Logical fail. That Amazon app will be free on Android, WMP7, Blackberry, WebOS. That will look bad on iOS.

 

[Popeye206]

BTW....

This whole thread looks like it's turned into a virtual brawl of couch lawyers and geeks.

Mac Rumors Rumble!

 

[WiiDSmoker]

actually if you want to read the information Apple gave the FCC; http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/

Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. For example, on an iPhone, the “Phone” icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple’s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature. In addition, the iPhone user’s entire Contacts database is transferred to Google’s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.

Not very smart are we?