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

[BaldiMac]

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

Well, Oletros has definitely suggested that Apple should not be allowed to charge anything.

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

When people pay Apple for IAP, and Apple forwards their money to another company to supply the content, I would consider this transaction a referral. One part that you seem to be underestimating is the value of IAP as opposed to having to go to another website to make a purchase. I would bet that IAP increases the purchase rate dramatically.

 

[BaldiMac]

But which store? There is no stores.

Is that a "there is no spoon" kind of thing?

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

Through IAP.

Does Google the right to have the 30% cut from Netflix or Kindle books?

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. But Google gets paid by Netflix or Amazon if someone click on a paid link even if they don't purchase anything. Sounds like Apple is offering a better deal!

 

[Oletros]

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.

Readability app has been rejected

http://blog.arc90.com/2011/02/21/an-open-letter-to-apple-reprint/

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/re...ed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Techcrunch+(TechCrunch)

 

[slattery69]

Well, Oletros has definitely suggested that Apple should not be allowed to charge anything.



When people pay Apple for IAP, and Apple forwards their money to another company to supply the content, I would consider this transaction a referral. One part that you seem to be underestimating is the value of IAP as opposed to having to go to another website to make a purchase. I would bet that IAP increases the purchase rate dramatically.

i wouldnt say it was a referral its just part of the transaction processes a referral would be like a third party activaly looking for business that been employed for that purpose , this isnt the case here. apple arent looking to sell this content as its already selling there just looking to take a cut of it.

i dont disagree that iap has a value to it and for that apple do deserve a cut youll not see me argue against that.my arguement is about the level, apple wont be re writting the apps for this that will be a cost to amazon netflix etc. they are just taking a part of the cream

 

[Oletros]

Is that a "there is no spoon" kind of thing?

No, I'm asking wich store is using Netflix or Nook to sell they content.

Through IAP.

The same IAP Apple is FORCING to use?

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. But Google gets paid by Netflix or Amazon if someone click on a paid link even if they don't purchase anything. Sounds like Apple is offering a better deal!

No, I'm asking if Google or RIM have right to get a 30% cut from Netflix, Hulu or Kindle apps on their devices?

 

[BaldiMac]

Readability app has been rejected

http://blog.arc90.com/2011/02/21/an-open-letter-to-apple-reprint/

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/re...ed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Techcrunch+(TechCrunch)

Yeah. That doesn't contradict anything that I said. And highlights my main argument that 30% is too much for some innovative services.

 

[Oletros]

Well, Oletros has definitely suggested that Apple should not be allowed to charge anything.

No, I'm saying that Apple has no right to FORCE anyone to implement their system. If some developer wants to use in-app system, Apple has all the right to charge for its use.

 

[BaldiMac]

No, I'm asking wich store is using Netflix or Nook to sell they content.

Well, the netflix or Nook app is the store that is selling content in the iOS mall.

The same IAP Apple is FORCING to use?

Yep.

No, I'm asking if Google or RIM have right to get a 30% cut from Netflix, Hulu or Kindle apps on their devices?

Of course. They have the same rights as Apple.

 

[slattery69]

ill ask this if i may, you own your own business and you employ a team of people whos job it is to get leads for your sales team to go and sell product A. you pay this team $2 for every referral that the sales team makes a sale on.
one person in the office just answers the phone and takes card payments from people who are buying product A anyway. would you pay him the referral bonus for just taking the card payment ?

 

[BaldiMac]

No, I'm saying that Apple has no right to FORCE anyone to implement their system. If some developer wants to use in-app system, Apple has all the right to charge for its use.

That's where you are confused. Apple does have that right. Just like Best Buy has the right to bar Apple from setting up their own payment system in the Apple mini-stores within Best Buy. Or Best Buy could refuse to sell a mobile phone without getting a commission on the service contract.

 

[deadkennedy]

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.

Some facts must be trying to avoid you. Or you're being deliberately selective in trying to justify the unprecedented taxing.

What exactly has Apple got to do with me having Pandora installed on their hardware? Why should they be entitled to 30%? Are they hosting the content? Are they participating in any way?

 

[BaldiMac]

Some facts must be trying to avoid you. Or you're being deliberately selective in trying to justify the unprecedented taxing.

If you'd go ahead a read the last few pages of the thread, you wouldn't have to ask these questions.

What exactly has Apple got to do with me having Pandora installed on their hardware?

They sold you the app.

Why should they be entitled to 30%?

Because that is the amount they chose to charge for IAP.

Are they hosting the content? Are they participating in any way?

Why does that matter? They are referring a customer and processing the payment.

 

[deadkennedy]

That's where you are confused. Apple does have that right. Just like Best Buy has the right to bar Apple from setting up their own payment system in the Apple mini-stores within Best Buy. Or Best Buy could refuse to sell a mobile phone without getting a commission on the service contract.

They can charge 100% of tax if they want but it depends if users and content producers will be as dumb to swallow it. Knowing they're swallowing Starbucks "coffee" and Taco Bell "beef", they might even go for it.

I know for myself if this forces Pandora and Spotify to move from iOS, I'm leaving as well.

Jobsian greed is nearing the levels of telcos from 2002 - 2006 when they were charging 50% if you wanted to sell ringtones or wallpapers, so users got scammed into SMS subscription deals of ~$20 per month. Producers just couldn't make the ends meet without taking a toll on consumer.

 

[Oletros]

Well, the netflix or Nook app is the store that is selling content in the iOS mall.

Really, what content are selling those apps? Or are you saying that only for existing they are selling content?

 

[Oletros]

They are referring a customer and processing the payment.

I'm amazed that "referring" can be described as you must implement in-app system, you must NOT link to any web and I will take 30% of any purchase through the system we forced you to use.

Really, I'm amazed that this can be said seriously

 

[deadkennedy]

If you'd go ahead a read the last few pages of the thread, you wouldn't have to ask these questions.



They sold you the app.



Because that is the amount they chose to charge for IAP.



Why does that matter? They are referring a customer and processing the payment.

Yes, enforced referral and payment. Big deal. LEt's see what's next, 50% of all the goods bought on ebay through Safari.

They have every right to do it like MS can decide that Apple has to pay 99% of all their iTunes revenue on Windows to MS. The point is this will hurt businesses like Pandora, Spotify, Netflix, Last.fm and they are the reason I have iPhone.

 

[josephw]

Well, the netflix or Nook app is the store that is selling content in the iOS mall.

Neither Netflix nor Nook are selling anything in Apple's "mall store." They sell the content to you online and simply allow you to read it on other devices. Continuing with the mall analogy, it'd be like buying a book in Barnes and Noble and wanting to read it while you waited in line at an Apple store but being forced to pay Apple 30 percent of the book cost for that privilege.

If Apple simply asked them to remove a link from the App directing them to purchase books online, then that'd be one thing and it would do more to validate your point. But they won't even let an the Nook or Kindle app allow you to simply view content you've already purchased on it unless they sell everything they sell outside the App using IAP at the same price. Basically Apple is now forcing you to use their store to sell stuff, even if you have no desire or need to.

Kindle doesn't need or want to sell anything in the app store. They want to offer their users the ability to read what they've already purchased. Apple's new policies won't even let them do that unless they get a cut somehow. The greed is ridiculous.

 

[BaldiMac]

They can charge 100% of tax if they want but it depends if users and content producers will be as dumb to swallow it. Knowing they're swallowing Starbucks "coffee" and Taco Bell "beef", they might even go for it.

I know for myself if this forces Pandora and Spotify to move from iOS, I'm leaving as well.

I agree completely. That was my point. Apple has the right to make these changes and charge 30%, but they should reevaluate the amount for certain types of apps that benefit consumers, but can't exist with a 30% fee.

 

[slattery69]

I agree completely. That was my point. Apple has the right to make these changes and charge 30%, but they should reevaluate the amount for certain types of apps that benefit consumers, but can't exist with a 30% fee.

or perhaps even fairer when a new account is created for the said app via the ios device, when you launch the app it asks you to put your account details in. if you dont have an account your re directed to create on said apps website a true referral from apple then they get there 30% everything else is a mere payment transaction for which they get say 10% or some more reasonable figure

 

[deadkennedy]

I agree completely. That was my point. Apple has the right to make these changes and charge 30%, but they should reevaluate the amount for certain types of apps that benefit consumers, but can't exist with a 30% fee.

I'm dead scared about this as I've been in this business prior to iPhone and it weren't pretty, it forced content producers into weird and evil subscription practices to basically cheat on consumer if they wanted to make the ends meet.

From other post of mine:
Jobsian greed is nearing the levels of telcos from 2002 - 2006 when they were charging 50% if you wanted to sell ringtones or wallpapers, so users got scammed into SMS subscription deals of ~$20 per month. Producers just couldn't make the ends meet without taking a toll on consumer.

 

[deadkennedy]

or perhaps even fairer when a new account is created for the said app via the ios device, when you launch the app it asks you to put your account details in. if you dont have an account your re directed to create on said apps website a true referral from apple then they get there 30% everything else is a mere payment transaction for which they get say 10% or some more reasonable figure

Not workable. They've stepped into a big hole of mud here. Some "content providers" are having margins of 1000's% while some of 0.01%. They've equalised all o them and demand 30%. That's just plain stupid and shortsighted and cannot mean good either for consumer of for the content producer / reseller.

 

[BaldiMac]

Really, what content are selling those apps? Or are you saying that only for existing they are selling content?

What point are you trying to make? You don't know what content Netflix and Nook are selling?

I'm amazed that "referring" can be described as you must implement in-app system, you must NOT link to any web and I will take 30% of any purchase through the system we forced you to use.

Really, I'm amazed that this can be said seriously

File under amazing but true. But it's really not that amazing once you understand that Apple does have the right to require IAP.

Neither Netflix nor Nook are selling anything in Apple's "mall store." They sell the content to you online and simply allow you to read it on other devices.

That's how it used to work. It will no longer work that way with the new requirements.

Continuing with the mall analogy, it'd be like buying a book in Barnes and Noble and wanting to read it while you waited in line at an Apple store but being forced to pay Apple 30 percent of the book cost for that privilege.

That's not really continuing my analogy, since Apple was the mall.

Basically Apple is now forcing you to use their store to sell stuff, even if you have no desire or need to.

Yep. As long as you want to participate in the App Store. Of course, there are other options.

Kindle doesn't need or want to sell anything in the app store. They want to offer their users the ability to read what they've already purchased. Apple's new policies won't even let them do that unless they get a cut somehow.

Yep, and Apple doesn't need or want to sell the Kindle app in their store without getting a cut of the content.

The greed is ridiculous.

Greed? I've never understood accusing a company of greed except for price gouging to take advantage of a disaster.

Especially considering that Apple has operated the App Store "a bit over break even" since it opened. Maybe that's changing. Who knows?

 

[thunderclap]

Two things irritate me: the 30% fee, and that they are dictating how much a developer can charge at their store. If they reduced the fee (30% is too much) and didn't tell developers how much they can and can't charge on their own site then I'd be fine with it.

 

[Carniphage]

Here's an article on this very subject.

http://www.loopinsight.com/2011/02/21/its-not-apples-fault-the-publishing-industry-is-screwed-up/

C.

 

[BaldiMac]

Two things irritate me: the 30% fee, and that they are dictating how much a developer can charge at their store. If they reduced the fee (30% is too much) and didn't tell developers how much they can and can't charge on their own site then I'd be fine with it.

A lot of retail agreements prevent the manufacturer from undercutting a retailer through direct sales. I'm not sure why it's a big deal in this case.