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
I think that is a reasonable concern.
And intuitively it makes sense. If someone is taking money out, prices will have to rise to compensate.
But I don't think that will happen in practice in most cases.
Digital content, unlike books and tins of beans have no intrinsic value. Publishers can set any price they want for content. So they will set the price which maximises the best return for themselves.
They can set it higher, and crush demand. Or lower and get more sales but less return. So raising prices (to offset Apple's share) might actually leave them poorer.
What seems to happen is this kind of market increases volume, reduces prices and increases choice.
We shall see!
C.
Having paid the developer fee and Apple's review process. There was NO other fee or tax.
But in the short term we could also see companies with popular apps being forced to withdraw from iOS, prices increasing and less choice.
We shall see!
$99 does not even cover the costs of reviewing an app.
If you think $99 is the right cost for access to a multi-billion dollar market, then you might try buying a Ferrari with a penny.
C.
Apple have thought soi since the App Store beginning. Or do you know better than them?
What? Apple put the price to enter the market, $99/year.
$99 is an admin charge.
The price to businesses is a 70/30 revenue split. Has been since the beginning.
C.
I repeat for a thousand times, which revenue? None of those apps are using Apple Store to make purchases. As best Buy, eBay or Amazon (not Kindle) app are not using the App Store to make purchases.
You can repeat all the times you want, you still be wrong.
What do you think should happen with the eBay app?
Do you want Apple to take 30% of any transactions that are made using iOS?
People go on their iPad.
Fire up the Kindle reader app on the iPad.
Press Buy books button on the iPad.
Buy a book.
Read it on the iPad app.
Tell you what, get on a train. Go someplace, and then when the guy asks you for a ticket, you say "I kept jumping, I never sat down, so technically I am not on the train". I don't have to pay!
See how far that argument gets you.
C.
No.
If the user consumes the media or service ON the iPad. Then the revenue share applies. If it's for a plane ticket or a 1982 VHS deck then it does not.
C.
Last edited:
You forgot the Safari steps, I have corrected. You're welcome.
Train analogy is totally incorrect.
So Toodledo, Remember the Milk, paid google accounts, paid flickr accounts, evernote, etc must pay 30% to Apple.
if they are consumed on a Xoom tablet, Google must be paid?
your analogy is quite off the mark. your saying the person in question didnt buy a ticket.
in this case would be the same as a guy buys a ticket from a company like seat61 and the ticket inspector wants to know why he didnt buy it direct from virgin trains but the ticket is still valid to travel
No he has a bus ticket. Not valid on this train mate!
Your analogy is much better!
C.
No, it is not predatory pricing. Predatory pricing is lowering prices to exclude others from a market. It is not lowering prices to gain market share. But we've already been over this.
Or things stay relatively the same. Or Apple changes the policy after seeing the actual results.
And now they've changed the price. I really can't figure out the point to these kind of arguments.
No, they haven't changed the prices, they are forcing a to use their system for things htat aren't sold through Apple.
And the argument was that this policy was set at the start of the Apple Store, when it's not true
i think the key is what is this 30% for exactly ? yes we know its for in app purchases and keeping everything within the apple medium (bar the actually files that is )
i guess what im asking is what are apple doing in return for the 30% theyre not going to be storing the files there not going to be promoting the apps so what is it for ?
i guess what im asking is what are apple doing in return for the 30% theyre not going to be storing the files there not going to be promoting the apps so what is it for ?
That's just semantics. They've added additional costs for developers. I think that the amount Apple is charging is too high for some types of content. We'll see how if affects the market this summer. Hopefully, Apple will adapt these policies before we lose valuable apps if all the doom and gloom is true.
I agree. I think both sides of the argument are irrelevant. Why does it matter if it was set from the beginning or not?
So, they must force Toodledo, Remember the Milk, Evernote et al pay this 30%, no?
Does Apple charge 30% for all the revenue the apps with are making?
Think of it as a referral fee. Also, I'd bet that Apple is promoting the idea that IAP makes a customer more likely to purchase content.
It also includes the transaction fee, of course. Which is why I think this should be more about how much Apple is charging rather than the fact that they are charging at all.
Not only the quantity, but the requirement to implement with them, it's not a "referral", it's pay for "protection" or you will have problems