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

Oletros said:
So, they must force Toodledo, Remember the Milk, Evernote et al pay this 30%, no?
Click to expand...

I don't think so, because the app doesn't display content purchased from those sites. It displays user created content. As long as they don't sell the subscription in the app, they should be fine. I could be wrong. And, of course, the 30% only applies to subscriptions purchased with IAP.
 
BaldiMac said:
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.
Click to expand...


ive no issue with them expecting a cut, if they going to be doing in app purchases which is easier for the avg ios user then yes getting paid for that is fine.
they will have a cost to doing this probably between 1-5 % depending on the card type.
as for access to customers it works both ways, apple are getting access to netflix kindle etc customers they may own an ios device but they are spending with other companies so apple will from june get to see how much something theyve not had access to. this type of information will be extremely valuable to apple.

but i agree this discussion should be about the amount they wish to receive rather than if they should get a fee
 
BaldiMac said:
I don't think so, because the app doesn't display content purchased from those sites. It displays user created content. As long as they don't sell the subscription in the app, they should be fine. I could be wrong. And, of course, the 30% only applies to subscriptions purchased with IAP.
Click to expand...

The argument he is doing for forcing the 30% cut is that is access to the market and consuming content or paid service inside an Apple device.

Toodledo or flickr case is not different from Netflix or Kindle case if the cut is for accessing the market or consuming a paid service.
 
Oletros said:
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
Click to expand...

That argument is overstating things a whole bunch. There's nothing nefarious about Apple making this requirement.
 
Oletros said:
The argument he is doing for forcing the 30% cut is that is access to the market and consuming content or paid service inside an Apple device.

Toodledo or flickr case is not different from Netflix or Kindle case if the cut is for accessing the market or consuming a paid service.
Click to expand...

I wasn't commenting on the argument. I was commenting based on the rules. I read them and didn't see anything that requires a service like ToodleDo to offer IAP unless they sell the service in the app.
 
RalfTheDog said:
Don't forget, many of the people on this board are developers. Many of the people on this board are seeing a years worth of work and seven digits of development expenses disappear in a flash over this.
Click to expand...

Most developers/companies already knew it was a massive gamble building for Apple's platform. They almost make the rules up as they go along; seemingly changing the terms on a whim at anytime. They can always reject your applications for the most superficial reasons. So I don't think anyone should be very surprised by these latest moves.

I'm sure this move will drive more talent and innovation away from iOS. There are many business models that just don't work having to give a flat 30% fee to Apple for every transaction. Whether you agree Apple is within their rights or not, you will lose access to certain types of content and services on iOS if Apple holds firm and regulators turn a blind eye. And you'll see a lot less developer innovation as a result.

The good news is this market is still very much in its infancy. Apple is quite capable of blowing their early lead, just as they did when the computer industry started to explode in growth. Microsoft and Google are both aggressively trying to compete with Apple. And that is good for consumers who want choice, and good news for companies and developers who want more freedom to innovate.
 
slattery69 said:
ive no issue with them expecting a cut, if they going to be doing in app purchases which is easier for the avg ios user then yes getting paid for that is fine.
they will have a cost to doing this probably between 1-5 % depending on the card type.
Click to expand...

So Amazon charges book publishers 30% to get to its Kindle reader customers. And that's okay.
Microsoft charges game publishers 70% to get access to its XBox Live customers, and that's okay.
But Apple should only be allowed to charge 1-5%?

How did you arrive at that number?

C.
 
Carniphage said:
So Amazon charges book publishers 30% to get to its Kindle reader customers. And that's okay.
Microsoft charges game publishers 70% to get access to its XBox Live customers, and that's okay.
But Apple should only be allowed to charge 1-5%?

How did you arrive at that number?

C.
Click to expand...

as thats how much it cost to do a debt or credit card payment which is all apple are doing
amazon sell the books on behalf of the publishers and get 30% mircosoft the same
apple takes 30% from the apps again no problem, under the new system apple plans to go live with they are asking for 30% for processing the payment i dont see what else there doing for the 30%

you seem to be confusing two systems.
current system apple sell developer licenses this allows you to write apps and have them submitted to apple for approval for this you pay $99 a year. if accepted and sold on the app store apple keep 30% . this is the same as amazon and microsoft do with there platform. noone is saying there is anything wrong with this at all


can you give an example of were microsoft or amazon charge a further 30% for subscriptions that they dont store on there sytems or do anything other than take card payment ?
 
Last edited:
Carniphage said:
So Amazon charges book publishers 30% to get to its Kindle reader customers. And that's okay.
Microsoft charges game publishers 70% to get access to its XBox Live customers, and that's okay.
But Apple should only be allowed to charge 1-5%?

How did you arrive at that number?

C.
Click to expand...

And again and again the same wrong argument.
 
Carniphage said:
So Amazon charges book publishers 30% to get to its Kindle reader customers. And that's okay.
Microsoft charges game publishers 70% to get access to its XBox Live customers, and that's okay.
But Apple should only be allowed to charge 1-5%?

How did you arrive at that number?

C.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in principle, but I think the 30% fee is a "one size fits all" kind of problem. Sure, Apple has the right to charge it. But I'm sure that there are some innovative services that developers could offer that wouldn't thrive with that kind of fee. I personally don't care if Amazon can't offer Kindle books. But an innovative service that would benefit the consumer should be able to negotiate a different split with Apple. Of course, there's no reason to think that Apple won't do this.
 
slattery69 said:
apple takes 30% from the apps again no problem,
Click to expand...
Cool.

But there really is no difference between apps and other content.

Imagine if I gave away a game app for free, but the game content was unlocked when the user went to my website and paid on paypal.

Would that be fair?

As soon as there is a difference in rates, a vendor can cheat the system.

slattery69 said:
i dont see what else they're doing for the 30%
Click to expand...
They are letting the vendor gain access to the 50 million wealthiest people on the planet. Is there a cheaper way to get to that market?

C.
 
Carniphage said:
Cool.
They are letting the vendor gain access to the 50 million wealthiest people on the planet
C.
Click to expand...

Those things are said seriously?

And yes, tehere is a difference between apps and content. No one is complaining about the 30% Apple gets on iBooks or the 30% in-app app purchases.

But Apple has nothing to do with Amazon, Netflix or Hulu content, they're not resellers, nor hosting or distributing.
 
BaldiMac said:
I agree with you in principle, but I think the 30% fee is a "one size fits all" kind of problem. Sure, Apple has the right to charge it. But I'm sure that there are some innovative services that developers could offer that wouldn't thrive with that kind of fee. I personally don't care if Amazon can't offer Kindle books. But an innovative service that would benefit the consumer should be able to negotiate a different split with Apple. Of course, there's no reason to think that Apple won't do this.
Click to expand...

I agree. I suspect Apple may secretly negotiate different rates behind closed doors. No one would ever publicly admit to it though.

C.
 
Carniphage said:
Cool.

But there really is no difference between apps and other content.

Imagine if I gave away a game app for free, but the game content was unlocked when the user went to my website and paid on paypal.

Would that be fair?

As soon as there is a difference in rates, a vendor can cheat the system.


They are letting the vendor gain access to the 50 million wealthiest people on the planet. Is there a cheaper way to get to that market?

C.
Click to expand...

yes its called apples approval process which they could make work to stop this i believe there approval process should cover this already. they can ban apps that do this, kindle is just a reader last time i checked

i wasnt aware that you had to be wealthy to own an apple device since i can get an iphone for free and pay a monthly contract of £40 for it, i didnt realise apple now means tested owners to see if they fit in the correct wealth bracket for ownership.
apple are also getting valuable data from netflix , kindle etc perhaps more valuable as it actually has a cash value in terms of spend. apple under the new system can see exactly how much you spend on books and other apps and thus target market you with other apps products and services Do you know how valuable that information is ?
 
Oletros said:
Why? Apple has the right to get ir with iBooks or iTunes music purchases, why has the right to get from Nook books or Hulu subscriptions?
Click to expand...

Because that is Apple's terms for opening a store in their mall.

Oletros said:
Those things are said seriously?

And yes, tehere is a difference between apps and content. No one is complaining about the 30% Apple gets on iBooks or the 30% in-app app purchases.

But Apple has nothing to do with Amazon, Netflix or Hulu content, they're not resellers, nor hosting or distributing.
Click to expand...

Your right. They're not resellers, nor hosting or distributing. They are referring customers. That is a valuable service. They are also processing the transaction fee.

Carniphage said:
I agree. I suspect Apple may secretly negotiate different rates behind closed doors. No one would ever publicly admit to it though.

C.
Click to expand...

I doubt is will be secret. It would probably manifest itself in official policy changes as Apple is able to discern the impact of the fees and sort out the types of apps that it would want to charge less.
 
Carniphage said:
If they are not on the train, they don't need a ticket.
If they are on the train, they have to pay.

C.
Click to expand...


noone in this thread has suggested they shouldnt pay something what people are questioning is the 30% which makes no sense for what is a card transactions. hell even 10% would be a fair figure covers there card transaction costs and still gives them about 5+% profit for doing very little plus all the data thats worth god knows how much to apple
 
slattery69 said:
so you agree its valuable yet apple still want a further 30% as well as this data doesnt seem quite right or fair to me
Click to expand...

The core of this is who is supplying the customer.
If the vendor provides the customer, Apple does not charge. Or get any data.

If Apple provides the customer, Apple charges a percentage, and protects/retains the customer data.

C.
 
BaldiMac said:
Your right. They're not resellers, nor hosting or distributing. They are referring customers. That is a valuable service. They are also processing the transaction fee.


.
Click to expand...


see this is the part of the argument im not getting as i dont see how they are refering customers to say kindle.
im sure most people are well aware of what kindle is and does and even in kindle adverts they advertise the fact that you can read its content on an i device as well as its own
im sure that less that 1% of people find out about kindle from owning an apple device
 
slattery69 said:
noone in this thread has suggested they shouldnt pay something what people are questioning is the 30% which makes no sense for what is a card transactions. hell even 10% would be a fair figure covers there card transaction costs and still gives them about 5+% profit for doing very little plus all the data thats worth god knows how much to apple
Click to expand...

It's got nothing to do with card transactions.
It's about access to customers. However you reach your customers, you have to pay for it. Some ways are a lot more expensive than 30%.

C.
 
Carniphage said:
The core of this is who is supplying the customer.
If the vendor provides the customer, Apple does not charge. Or get any data.

If Apple provides the customer, Apple charges a percentage, and protects/retains the customer data.

C.
Click to expand...


your not getting it apple arent providing the customer with anything but the ability to purchase in app, there not advertising the content either. kindle for example kindle advertise there service themselves and say that you can read our content on an i device as weve wrote an app for it . all apple have done is put the app in the app store after that its down to people to download and use if they want.
 
BaldiMac said:
Because that is Apple's terms for opening a store in their mall.
Click to expand...

But which store? There is no stores.

BaldiMac said:
They are referring customers. That is a valuable service. They are also processing the transaction fee.
Click to expand...

How they are referring customers? They're not promoting the content, they're not promoting the apps.

Does Google the right to have the 30% cut from Netflix or Kindle books?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top