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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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?
Click to expand...


Greed as I see it is charging a lot for nearly nothing in return, but Apple goes even further. They force you to take nearly nothing for which they charge a lot.

And please don't start preaching about how big the iOS market is. If I don't want to sell something through it, I should be forced into it.
 
deadkennedy said:
Greed as I see it is charging a lot for nearly nothing in return, but Apple goes even further. They force you to take nearly nothing for which they charge a lot.
Click to expand...

The companies that choose to accept Apple's terms obviously think it's worth it.

And please don't start preaching about how big the iOS market is. If I don't want to sell something through it, I should be forced into it.
Click to expand...

Ironically, my argument would be how small the iOS market is. You are not forced into it. You have other options. But you should acknowledge that if you don't accept Apple's terms, they shouldn't be forced to carry your app.
 
deadkennedy said:
Yeah, those two.
Click to expand...

This is a new market. Stuff hasn't calmed down yet.
Apple's strategy is aggressive. It could be a disaster for them. Or it could secure them a commanding role in a the way publishing evolves.

It's for the market to decide. Not governments or lawyers.

If this strategy is damaging and counter productive, then it will surely fail.

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



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?
Click to expand...

If Kindle isn't selling anything through the App then what cut of the content is there to get? Apple doesn't want a cut of profits from the current content, considering their is none. They're trying to create some by forcing anybody that provides any sort of content to iOS users to monetize their apps in a way that didn't exist before.

And there are different levels of greed. Obviously all successful companies are greedy to some extent. Greed isn't necessarily a bad thing either. However, when it unfairly harms the customer, I tend to look at it with harsher terms. Apple not letting customers read books they were previously allowed to read on their personal computer without paying, theoretically, 30 percent more, is one of those situations.
 
josephw said:
If Kindle isn't selling anything through the App then what cut of the content is there to get? Apple doesn't want a cut of profits from the current content, considering their is none. They're trying to create some by forcing anybody that provides any sort of content to iOS users to monetize their apps in a way that didn't exist before.
Click to expand...

It existed before. It just circumvented the App Store. Which used to be perfectly fine. Now it's not.

And there are different levels of greed. Obviously all successful companies are greedy to some extent. Greed isn't necessarily a bad thing either. However, when it unfairly harms the customer, I tend to look at it with harsher terms. Apple not letting customers read books they were previously allowed to read on their personal computer without paying, theoretically, 30 percent more, is one of those situations.
Click to expand...

Theoretically. In reality, we will have to see how the market responds.

It would help your greed argument if you could prove that the App Store adds anything more than a few percentage points to Apple's net profits. The only number I've seen ($189 million gross profit in the first two years estimated by Gartner (maybe?)) is relatively insignificant. (Compared to $6 billion in net profits last quarter.)
 
Last edited:
BaldiMac said:
It existed before. It just circumvented the App Store. Which used to be perfectly fine. Now it's not.



Theoretically. In reality, we will have to see how the market responds.
Click to expand...

Yea, and if that's the issue, then why wouldn't Apple be fine with Amazon providing no links or references to purchasing books from the App? No referrals, just allowing already existing customers to read books they already purchased. If the iPad is supposed to be the future of personal computing, shouldn't I be able to access my personal files without paying apple a toll or tax for that privilege? That's the problem with these guidelines. They want to charge content providers and customers for viewing content they already own on their devices.

And you're right, a lot of the arguments being thrown out are theoretical, but that's the point of arguments. We could just wait to see what happens, and not talk about it at all, but where would be the fun in that? But it very well could work out in Apple's favor in the long run.
 
The first victim.

We're obviously disappointed by this decision, and surprised by the broad language. By including "functionality, or services," it's clear that you intend to pursue any subscription-based apps, not merely those of services serving up content. Readability's model is unique in that 70% of our service fees go directly to writers and publishers. If we implemented In App purchasing, your 30% cut drastically undermines a key premise of how Readability works.
Click to expand...
 
BaldiMac said:
What point are you trying to make? You don't know what content Netflix and Nook are selling?
...

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

If you know what I'm talking as you have responded to other person, why do you act like you don't understand?

So you agree that before the new rules, no one of them was selling anything though the app store. Well, this is one step
 
josephw said:
Yea, and if that's the issue, then why wouldn't Apple be fine with Amazon providing no links or references to purchasing books from the App?
Click to expand...

That's one option. I don't know why they didn't choose it. Just a wild theory, but maybe they are seeing a move to free apps with paid content that is undermining the ability of the App Store to operate above break even.

No referrals, just allowing already existing customers to read books they already purchased. If the iPad is supposed to be the future of personal computing, shouldn't I be able to access my personal files without paying apple a toll or tax for that privilege? That's the problem with these guidelines. They want to charge content providers and customers for viewing content they already own on their devices.
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. You can read books that you already purchased. You can access your personal files without paying Apple. You do not have to pay Apple a penny to purchase additional content.

And you're right, a lot of the arguments being thrown out are theoretical, but that's the point of arguments. We could just wait to see what happens, and not talk about it at all, but where would be the fun in that? But it very well could work out in Apple's favor in the long run.
Click to expand...

Yep. But there are people that throw out their theories as fact. :)
 
Oletros said:
If you know what I'm talking as you have responded to other person, why do you act like you don't understand?
Click to expand...

I apologize. I did not understand the way you phrased your comment. (I know English is not your first language.)

So you agree that before the new rules, no one of them was selling anything though the app store. Well, this is one step
Click to expand...

No really a step. I'm not sure why that point was ever up for debate. Of course, they weren't selling their content through the App Store.

Oletros said:
False, there is laws
Click to expand...

For his statement to be proven false, you would have to show that there are laws being broken.
 
slattery69 said:
no but competition law is and it covers price fixing anti competitive behaviour.
Click to expand...

Yes. There are laws about such things.

But as I understand it, Apple allows the vendor to set their own price (including free!). It's very difficult to interpret that as price fixing.

And the various markets concerned are both new and being vigorously competed for.

I might be completely wrong. But I'd be surprised if this raised an eyebrow of any US or European regulators.

C.
 
BaldiMac said:
That's one option. I don't know why they didn't choose it. Just a wild theory, but maybe they are seeing a move to free apps with paid content that is undermining the ability of the App Store to operate above break even.



That's not true at all. You can read books that you already purchased. You can access your personal files without paying Apple. You do not have to pay Apple a penny to purchase additional content.



Yep. But there are people that throw out their theories as fact. :)
Click to expand...


Very wild theory, $189 million over two years, as you quoted, is a far cry from only break-even. Who knows, maybe they're in discussions with Amazon and other big companies to try and work things out, but the guidelines as they exist now make it seem that Apple is attempting to cut competition off from iOS users. The woefully immature ibooks platform will be the only decently priced option left if the guidelines go in place.

If the guidelines exist as they do now, people who have bought kindle books will not be able to access them unless Amazon sells books through the app and pays Apple 30 percent. Seems like Apple is requiring Amazon to pay a tax, which would likely be passed on to the end user, in order to allow people to access files they already purchased. Under the guidelines, if people were to be allowed to access their ebooks from kindle, Amazon would have no choice but to allow people to purchase books in app, whether they wanted to sell on iOS or not. So it is very plausible that Apple will charge people, directly or indirectly, to access certain files they already own.

Just my thoughts on the whole situation.
 
Carniphage said:
Yes. There are laws about such things.

But as I understand it, Apple allows the vendor to set their own price (including free!). It's very difficult to interpret that as price fixing.

And the various markets concerned are both new and being vigorously competed for.

I might be completely wrong. But I'd be surprised if this raised an eyebrow of any US or European regulators.

C.
Click to expand...

competition law is quite complex and even things you think are simple can break competition law .were i work for example i sell b2b if i visit a potential customer and he tries to give me his pricing that he currently pays we are both breaking competition law and both of us and our companies can be charged with breaking competition law.
 
slattery69 said:
competition law is quite complex and even things you think are simple can break competition law .were i work for example i sell b2b if i visit a potential customer and he tries to give me his pricing that he currently pays we are both breaking competition law and both of us and our companies can be charged with breaking competition law.
Click to expand...

Although it sickens me to think it. I suspect Apple has its own lawyers who advise it on legality before creating policy.

C.
 
Here's a point. How big share had Micro$oft when they were at their top? 90%? 95%?

Did they ever try to do anything like what Apple is doing now?

Total control over what could and couldn't be installed?
Demand a cut on anything bought?
etc

Apple should be ashamed.

aurichie said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's sad that Apple is now longer the champion for freedom.

Think Differently? I think not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AaronEdwards said:
Here's a point. How big share had Micro$oft when they were at their top? 90%? 95%?

Did they ever try to do anything like what Apple is doing now?

Total control over what could and couldn't be installed?
Demand a cut on anything bought?
Click to expand...

Yeah! Microsoft would never charge a 70% slice of anything sold on their platform.
Cough!-xbla-Cough!

C.
 
Carniphage said:
Yeah! Microsoft would never charge a 70% slice of anything sold on their platform.
Cough!-xbla-Cough!

C.
Click to expand...

You've said that a couple of times now. Not a Micro$oft fan, so could you actually give us a link to a story about it, or the agreement that M$ demands companies to sign?

But really, defending Apple with what Micro$oft is doing.

We have come a long way from the 1984 Apple commercial, haven't we?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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