Apple doesn't host nor distribute the content and they are handling the payment because they have forced the companies to do this way. Til now, Apple wasn't handling anything
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.
U.S. and European Regulators 'Looking At' Apple's App Store Subscriptions Program
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple doesn't host nor distribute the content and they are handling the payment because they have forced the companies to do this way. Til now, Apple wasn't handling anything
I didn't say it was good. I said that I was on the fence. In some cases, we are talking about middle men that don't add any value to the content. I wouldn't be sad to see them leave. Then you have resellers like Spotify that actually do provide a unique service. I would want them on iOS.
82.7% and shrinking. Shows the market is behaving as you would expect. The first mover has a large initial advantage, and then other companies enter the market and the original company loses share. There is no need to regulate a market that is behaving as you would expect economically.
Yeah, and none of this indicates "using private APIs" or "taking over native phone/SMS functions". Google Voice app simply used an alternative dialer, just like hundreds of other APPROVED applications in the app store.
GV did not break a single written rule of App Store dev agreement - Apple simply didn't want Google Voice on the platform.. until they changed their mind.
BTW....
This whole thread looks like it's turned into a virtual brawl of couch lawyers and geeks.
Mac Rumors Rumble!
Also. But it seems more like some of the diehard fanbois are finally opening their eyes. At least that minority that doesn't use mom's credit card.
You are right about AT&T not being involved. I was wrong. also I meant to type phone, not app. They were pushing their own phone.
As for 3rd party tools, they banned non-native runtimes, not 3rd party tools. And the April 2010 was not when they released the rule, it's when they clarified no java no flash. Here is article from iOS devs from early Sept 2010 talking about the issue.
http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/the-wild-west-third-party-iphone-development-857
That's Apple's fail, not my logic fail. Many people here are arguing that these transactions cost Apple money and are therefor entitled to compensation.
I agree to a point. But only on the initial purchase. NOT on all subsequent ones. So if they want to start jerking developers and companies around demanding their share - then they can shoot themselves in the foot by having to charge for these apps to get their precious 30%.
Poor iOS for looking bad, WiiDSmoker. But that's the LOGICAL approach for companies like Amazon.
Why is Apple entitled for 30% of the revenue generated by a company just because they sold (gave away) the app?
If I buy a magazine from the store and then buy a subscription from a card inside the magazine - the store doesn't get a cut.
If I buy a DVD player from Amazon.com and the manufacturer has a catalog in the box of the dvd player with other items to purchase and I buy one directly from the manufacturer - Amazon doesn't get a cut.
Again - it's a slippery slope and I am very glad, if for no other reason, it's being investigated as to whether or not it's legal. People can criticize the investigation all they want - but be happy that we live in a world where consumer rights are protected "enough" that such investigations are done. Whatever the outcome.
Not very smart are we?
What? We were both wrong, I provided the explanation from the horse's mouth.
If you feel that disabling voicemail and sms function on my iPhone is not "taking over native phone/SMS functions" then I guess we just disagree on the matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple's infamous infamous Dev Agreement section 3.3.1 change explicitly banned 3rd-party development frameworks. This took place in April 2010.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/a-change-at-apple-causes-trouble-for-adobe/?ref=technology
They DID NOT disable SMS function or native voice mail. They just gave user a choice to use ALTERNATIVE SMS methods or optionally forward voicemail to another provider. Just like you can do with ANY other phone, or numerous other approved VoIP apps.
Seriously.. please stop posting when you have no clue of what you're talking about (or just unable to understand what's being said).
You article is about Adobe complaining Apple wouldn't play nice with them. Apple told them from the start they would not be allowed to play. The revised dev agreement spelled that out... Do you understand what a development framework is?
the original version they submitted for approval when the whole thing blew up sent all the VMs and SMS to google, and disabled the phones native ability to handle those. Or so Apple said to the FCC, according to Apple.
I'm not defending a 30% cut. I'd argue for less or flexibility But the argument that Apple needs to be justify the cut is just a red herring. Apple's statement is clear that they see the cut as a commission for a referral. Like the Amazon affiliate program or the cut that those guys that try to sell magazine subscriptions door to door get. Real estate agents get 25-35% of the total commission just for referring a client to another agent. Thousands of dollars.
I agree the amount is too much for some products or services, but the argument that Apple is not entitled to it is silly.
"Apple told them from the start they would not be allowed to play" - you just keep spouting non-sequitur nonsense.
It is not above "Adobe complaining" or Flash - it's about Apple changing dev agreement rules, to prohibit non-native development tools. Which you would have known if you took a moment to actually read the link I pointed you to:
3.3.1 Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++ or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++ and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).
I am done wasting my time responding to you.
The amount and the fact it's in perpetuity is nonsense.
A real estate agent gets a commission on that one transaction of the referral. If 5, 10, 15 years from now that same client buys or sells with the "new" agent - the original referrer isn't entitled to squat.
I'm not opposed to Apple getting its cut either. From the original transaction. But they aren't entitled to leach profits when they aren't conducting the transaction.
Charge a commission for referrals? Of course. What do you think Google's primary business model is?!
Microsoft would have to be careful with antitrust concerns on Windows.
Why is that silly .. think about how many referals to something you give or get every that nobody get a cent for. Why doesn't Apple require "their" cut when I purchase soemthing of ebay using their app? I would maybe have never bought said item if it hadn't been for Apple and there ecosystem.
Apple has absolutely no leg to stand on, forcing people to comit exclusively to their service. Apple is not entitled more to a cut of the subscriptions, then they are to a cut of anything I buy of Amazon or Ebay using MacOS and Safari.
T.
Okay? I agree with you about the amount. I don't think Apple is a stranger to people thinking they charge too much.
They are conducting each transaction. Not sure what you are trying to say here.
And how do you know Apple has been the referral? They haven't promoted the content, they only forced the provider to use their system
They're conducting the transaction because they have forced the developer to implement it
Last edited by a moderator:
It's silly, because Apple is "entitled" to whatever amount they negotiate with the companies that they do business with. If someone agrees to pay me to sit and stare out the window for 6 hours a day, I am "entitled" to that money. Apple doesn't need to justify the amount with backend costs or anything else.
And just to be clear, I'm pessimistic that this strategy will work out well for Apple or consumers. I think the amount they are charging is too much for certain types of products/services. In other words, I think they are making a bad business decision. They don't agree with me. They have a better track record than me, so who knows.
I "buy" or get the Amazon app from the app store. That's ONE transaction. Apple is entitled to a commission on THAT transaction since they brokered the transaction. They have a cost involved in processing the request and delivery.
If I buy a book on the amazon website - Apple isn't doing anything in terms of cc# processing or delivery. Amazon is handling that transaction and cost.
Why is it OK for Apple to get cuts on transactions they aren't involved with?
The real solution here - although not very customer friendly - but what Apple is going to force developers to do - is simply not have a button to go to the company website to make purchases. Instead, people will have to just open up safari or whatever on their phones/computers and make the purchases and then send them/copy them to the phone to consume.
But again - slippery slope - because where does this new "rule" end. What about a lot of apps like Fandango, Ebay, Best Buy, etc that offer ways to make purchases via their website (via their app). Where does Apple draw the line. And will they on their demand for 30%?
Why is it that people throw all logic out the window when dealing with Apple? What would you think if MS changed Windows EULA or TOS and said "any music bought on the Windows OS must go through MS payment processing system and we now get a 30% cut?" On top of that what if MS also decided they wanted some of the ipod revenue for every iPod that gets synced on a Windows machine. If you follow Apples logic to its conclusion that is what Apple is wanting to do.
Exactly. But when subsequently every month my money goes to Netflix, and their movies through ISP onto my device, what has Apple got to do with it?