Sidebar Sidebar
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

tatonka said:
Apple is not entitled to anything up til June when the new rule go into effect. Apple offered the possibility to create free apps and many people did so and in the end Apple approve every single one of those.
Click to expand...

Actually these rules have been in place for ages. If you've been buying comics from Marvel, you will have used the in-app purchasing. Buying Wired? same thing.

Everyone knew the rules. Some just decided to work around them.

Apple's giving them till June to put their houses in order.

C.
 
MacNewsFix said:
+1

It's probably already been said, but just in case, where was all this rancor when Amazon was charging publishers 70% to be on the Kindle until iBooks forced them down to 30%? Or how about this gem:

Since December, Amazon has been pushing publishers to sign a new round of legal agreements that would guarantee that the Kindle price for their content is always the same or lower than the price on other electronic reading devices, such as the iPad or the Sony Reader. The clause, a variation of a legal concept known as “most favored nation,” would guarantee that Amazon’s customers would always get the best price for electronic versions of magazines, newspapers and books. Link

To me this seems much more likely to pose any real type of threat to competition and, thereby, consumers. I'm not saying it is an "Amazon is worse" case. I really don't see Apple's move can possibly hurt customers but is only a risk to itself by publishers flocking to competing platforms like Google's Android (who obviously timed their 10% offer based on Apple's move).

Apple is not a non-profit. If people want to sell their wares through the iTunes Store, why is Apple supposed to do it for free?

P.S. LOL on the avatar, Marksman. Fantastic!
Click to expand...

Not saying that Amazons pressure on the publishers is any better than what Apple is doing here, but you got some of your facts wrong.

Before Apple entered the market, Amazon's deal with publishers was $x for a copy of book y. In order to push the Kindle plattform into the market, Amazon would often sell the books with little to no profit. The publishers still got the same amout $x, but the book was often priced to cheap for the publishers taste. With Apple coming into the market, the publishers forced Amazon into the same 70/30 deal, but the publishers got to set the prices. So per book Amazon now actually earns more money, but of course that makes it a lot more difficult to them to push the Kindle plattform forward now. In that light one should look at the article you linked.

T.
 
Carniphage said:
Everyone with some content to sell is used to paying 30%, 40% or even 50% to gain access to market.

When Electronic Arts puts a boxed game on the shelves of GameStation how much do you think they get from the sale price?

For any content owner, a 30/70 split is a good deal. The only people who are set to lose out are middlemen outfits who sell other people's content and literally cannot afford to pay for access to market.



Which is fairest? To ban them outright, or simply charge them the same as everyone else?

C.
Click to expand...

Fairest? That would have been rejecting them from day one (The Kindle Way), or demanding the AppleTax from day one.

Now, why did Apple do neither...?
 
Rodimus Prime said:
In the link it even explains it just requires enough power to influence the market or exclude competitors. Both of which apple has. Apple is abusing its power to squeeze out competitors and prevent them from even playing.
Click to expand...

If having enough power to influence the market is an antitrust violation, Delta Airlines would be found guilty for raising their fares last week as a catalyst of the increases that soon followed among its competitors.

As for excluding competitors, what competitors were excluded? If by competitors you are referring to Android, Symbian, WebOS, all Apple did by asking for a 30% cut is hand them a gift. Google is already racing to capitalize on this move.

As for Apple asking for a cut with subscriptions now, I think it has been clear from the start that Apple has frowned on any attempts to circumvent their 30% share. Link

Furthermore, this is one consumer happy that Apple has stood firm against publishers collecting data about me as long as it has.
 
Carniphage said:
Everyone with some content to sell is used to paying 30%, 40% or even 50% to gain access to market.

When Electronic Arts puts a boxed game on the shelves of GameStation how much do you think they get from the sale price?

For any content owner, a 30/70 split is a good deal. The only people who are set to lose out are middlemen outfits who sell other people's content and literally cannot afford to pay for access to market.



Which is fairest? To ban them outright, or simply charge them the same as everyone else?

C.
Click to expand...

there already getting 30% for the sales of apps, this is something fair different this is additional content you need to make the distinction.
yes i think if they want to push there own apps over theses ie ibooks over kindle ban then,
the fairest way would be to take a percent of profit that way those who operate on thin margins wouldnt be forced out and if as others have claimed the app stores is this wonderful money maker apple will get far more.
 
Carniphage said:
Actually these rules have been in place for ages. If you've been buying comics from Marvel, you will have used the in-app purchasing. Buying Wired? same thing.

Everyone knew the rules. Some just decided to work around them.

Apple's giving them till June to put their houses in order.

C.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know .. but by not enforcing the rule, Apple in some sense gave their blessings. It is not like Apple didn't know what was going on or it was a hidden feature or anything. Every App was checked and approved.

T.
 
MacNewsFix said:
If having enough power to influence the market is an antitrust violation, Delta Airlines would be found guilty for raising their fares last week as a catalyst of the increases that soon followed among its competitors.

As for excluding competitors, what competitors were excluded? If by competitors you are referring to Android, Symbian, WebOS, all Apple did by asking for a 30% cut is hand them a gift. Google is already racing to capitalize on this move.

As for Apple asking for a cut with subscriptions now, I think it has been clear from the start that Apple has frowned on any attempts to circumvent their 30% share. Link

Furthermore, this is one consumer happy that Apple has stood firm against publishers collecting data about me as long as it has.
Click to expand...

what do you believe apple does with your data ? burn it ? or sell it for top dollar like every other company in there position ?
 
Carniphage said:
But I think it might require a market that is older than a 10 months.

C.
Click to expand...

You're right, C. It is a nascent market 10 months old at best. While the app store has been around a few years, any real potential of magazines and newspapers making the jump to portables required a robust tablet market we are only now beginning to see. How many would be tempted to subscribe to a magazine for consumption on a tiny handheld device? I'm guessing not many. You need a larger form factor the likes of the iPad or at least Galaxy Tab size (and that last one is stretching it).
 
slattery69 said:
the fairest way would be to take a percent of profit that way those who operate on thin margins wouldnt be forced out
Click to expand...

How can Apple determine the profitability of an external developer?

I am trying to make a game for iOS. I could pour a hundred thousand dollars into a game and sell only 50 units. Should I whine to Apple that I didn't make any profit? They should charge me nothing.

For Apple to take a profit share, they are effectively going into business with every potential publisher. It's unworkable.

Like I have been saying 30% is cheap, IF you own the content.
If you are reselling the content of others, then you probably need to rethink your business model.

C.
 
tatonka said:
Yeah I know .. but by not enforcing the rule, Apple in some sense gave their blessings. It is not like Apple didn't know what was going on or it was a hidden feature or anything. Every App was checked and approved.
Click to expand...

I also think there were some emails that went out about circumventing the rules.

C.
 
Carniphage said:
Everyone with some content to sell is used to paying 30%, 40% or even 50% to gain access to market.

When Electronic Arts puts a boxed game on the shelves of GameStation how much do you think they get from the sale price?

For any content owner, a 30/70 split is a good deal. The only people who are set to lose out are middlemen outfits who sell other people's content and literally cannot afford to pay for access to market.
Click to expand...

Actually .. no there is the internet .. a huge market where those costs do not apply and there are many places where you could sell your content for free. Just because there is other markets (like the gaming consols) doesn't mean all markets work that way.
The big problem is that with Apples new rules, the market switches from one type market to the other type market. Something that not all business models copes with equally well.

And if you would take a quick look around the content variety offered for consols and for PC's, you would quickly find out why this is a bad move for customers. There is far less games available for consoles then there are on an open, no access fee plattform as the PC.

T.
 
Carniphage said:
How can Apple determine the profitability of an external developer?

I am trying to make a game for iOS. I could pour a hundred thousand dollars into a game and sell only 50 units. Should I whine to Apple that I didn't make any profit? They should charge me nothing.

For Apple to take a profit share, they are effectively going into business with every potential publisher. It's unworkable.

Like I have been saying 30% is cheap, IF you own the content.
If you are reselling the content of others, then you probably need to rethink your business model.

C.
Click to expand...

quite simple ask to see the books in my job i deal with small and large businesses everyday if we have to lend them money we ask to see there books , apple can quite easily write it into the app store rules.
if your found cooking the books then your banned from the app store simple .
 
Last edited:
MacNewsFix said:
It's long been known that Apple is highly protective of client data. It is one of their major tenets.
Click to expand...

well please point me to some evidence of apple not selling data to marketing companies like every other major company does as if this is the case they do deserve a massive pat on the back for been possible the only company in there position who dont do this
 
tatonka said:
Actually .. no there is the internet .. a huge market where those costs do not apply and there are many places where you could sell your content for free.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Anyone who wants a free-to-market solution can shove stuff onto the Web.
Hell, they can even get it onto the iPad! All they have to do is create a Web App. These are 100% free. Apple does not split revenues.

So why are all these companies whining?

C.
 
tatonka said:
Not saying that Amazons pressure on the publishers is any better than what Apple is doing here, but you got some of your facts wrong.

Before Apple entered the market, Amazon's deal with publishers was $x for a copy of book y. In order to push the Kindle plattform into the market, Amazon would often sell the books with little to no profit. The publishers still got the same amout $x, but the book was often priced to cheap for the publishers taste. With Apple coming into the market, the publishers forced Amazon into the same 70/30 deal, but the publishers got to set the prices. So per book Amazon now actually earns more money, but of course that makes it a lot more difficult to them to push the Kindle plattform forward now. In that light one should look at the article you linked.

T.
Click to expand...

I believe any move risks jeopardizes the transition of print journalism to a digital medium. However, Apple may be trying early to halt a precedent from getting started: that publishers can use app stores (and not just the iTunes Store) to sell their magazines and papers with zero cut to the app store owner. Judging by some people's reaction in this thread, it looks like Apple should have done it sooner.
 
Carniphage said:
Exactly!

Anyone who wants a free-to-market solution can shove stuff onto the Web.
Hell, they can even get it onto the iPad! All they have to do is create a Web App. These are 100% free. Apple does not split revenues.

So why are all these companies whining?

C.
Click to expand...

Amazon hasn't said anything public as far as I know.

And that is exactly what Amazon will have to do in order to remain on the iOS plattform. There is no way they will give up 30%. The website will be a lot less comfortable to use then and it will be the customer paying the price (in that case because of a the lesser quality).

So a website that is specifically designed to be accessed from an iPad, possibly only accessible from an iPad at all. How would that be any different from an iPad app? Why wouldn't Apple try to charge you for that as well?
Again, why ebooks .. why not ebay or the regular Amazon shopping app?
Again it will only be the customer loosing here which is why I can't understand anybody owning an iDevice defending this move.

T.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back