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

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)

All of you on this post sound like babbies, cool down don't wet yourself, we'll see what Apple does and the response of the company's , they'll change I'd they need to the only thing that effects us is when people pull there apps.
 
Kenrik said:
Question is... ? why don't they go after Sony for the PS3 or Microsoft for the Xbox not allowing ANY SERVICE/APP/FEATURE. Will Sony Allow iTunes on the PS3?? Nope. It would hurt their PSstore.

I don't think they can pick and choose who they go after.
Click to expand...

It's a little different that that. The Playstation Store is for the Playstation only. Same with the Xbox Live content, it's for Xbox only.

No one has a problem with Apple taking 30% from content that is iOS only. If someone comes out with an App for iOS only and they want to add a subscription, and Apple takes 30%, that's fine.

The problem is that Apple wants to take 30% extra from companies that are publishing for more than iOS. Amazon has the Kindle hardware to read Kindle books on, and they also have an app for Blackberry, Android, Windows, and OSX. Apple really has no business telling Amazon how much they can sell an ebook for, or taking any of the profits from a sale. I really can't see RIM trying to force Amazon to give them ebook profits because people are reading ebooks on a Blackberry.

Like I've said in other threads, this is the equivelant of Microsoft saying that Apple has to give them a 30% cut of all iTunes sales made on a Windows PC.
 
The Phazer said:
Apple's level of market control for mobile application distribution is 84%, not 50%. More than enough in Europe to qualify for having monopoly level market power
Click to expand...

84% for the iPad (possibly). Not for iOS as a whole, and that number is dropping not rising. It's also a nascent market which regulators tend to leave alone.

84% of less than 20% of the possible ten year market size is really not that big of an issue.

Remember that the reason that applications built using Flash were allowed into the App Store was because Apple U-turned when threatened with a European anti-competition case over it. Apple don't seem to be nearly as confident as you are that they are in the clear monopoly wise.
Click to expand...

Apple had to back down there as they weren't enforcing the rules fairly. They couldn't slap Lua down as too many big games companies rely on it, and they couldn't legally block just one interpreted language. If they'd stuck with the 'no interpreted code and no abstract frameworks' line, they'd probably have been good, but they didn't.

Also remember that monopoly market power in other areas makes regulators more inclined to act. The EU already found Apple had monopoly market power in digital music distribution during it's price fixing investigation into iTunes. Hence this issue will not be looked at upon kindly, especially given the angle that these terms make it impossible to run a music subsciption service on the platform, opening the market up for Apple to launch one to build on their existing music sales monopoly. That is the sort of thing that makes constructing an anti-trust case very easy indeed.
Click to expand...

Agreed but that monopoly applies only to their music business. Apple may be forced to treat music subscriptions differently to other parts of their business, but I don't think Amazon for example are going to be granted a pass to build a monopoly on the back of iOS and Android.
 
adbe said:
That's a close analogy, and you're right: "It's a question as to what 'market' is."

The key point is that in many cases, content can equally be delivered by the web, or bundled as part of an external subscription (print news offer free digital subscriptions are allowed).

Moreover, you may not care about Android, but the market does, and if Apple prices itself out of the market, then this discussion becomes moot.
Click to expand...

Good point - newspapers can also sell their publications via the web. The market for content isn't the same as the market for Apps.

But I stand by my point for Apps - for customers who have an iPhone, they are only interested in iPhone Apps, thus iPhone Apps is a market. If I have to buy another $1,000 phone (which is the non-subscription cost, right?) then it's safe to say that there's a bit of lock-in.

It's not like iTunes - if you don't like the iTunes store you can buy and rip CDs, download from other online stores, etc.

Phone companies have often made walled gardens, and I don't think regulators have really clamped down on this, but it hasn't been really relevant before as very few people installed Apps. Phones are becoming a lot more like personal computers, so they deserve more flexibility. It's up to regulators to push for this.
 
I own AAPL. I want them to succeed. Their success equals money in my pocket.

HOWEVER... I don't like the way this is going. If they get TOO greedy, it will backfire. If iOS loses Kindle and Netflix, there will be a major backlash against Apple. And you KNOW Amazon and Netflix will explain exactly why their products are no longer available. The blame is squarely on Apple.

Apple needs to go about this a different way. Either DON'T mandate that in-app purchases be possible at the same price, or charge the SAME for in-app purchases as credit card issuers charge Amazon and Netflix. Perhaps a *tiny* bit more due to the convenience factor, but the key word here is *tiny*. MAYBE another half percent.

This way everyone is on an even, level playing field.

I like a lot of the things AAPL does. However, they do a few things, like this, that make me want to grab Steve by the collar, shake him and yell "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING, DUDE?"
 
I really don't know what all the fuss is about, if the user is given a choice then what is the problem, if you decide to purchase in App then do it, if you want a subscription direct from the maker of the app then do that instead.

The maker probably won't care because in the case of a magazine, for example, the maker loses far more than 30% through distribution, that is why they offer those deals 'save 80% on your magazine subscription if you order directly from us'. How is losing 30% worse and you get your product out to a wider audience, Worldwide!

Apple want to make it simpler for the end user, if you have to go to a website to order your subscription, type all the details in, get your credit card out, make the order and then go back to the App and type ANOTHER user name and password in to get the subscription....or....press this button and it will download automatically!

Also I know from friends who have worked at Apple for the last 15 years that the App Store is there purely to sell hardware and the 30% is to cover the cost of reviews, processing etc..etc... they make very little from the 30%. Apple are a hardware company not software.
 
Popeye206 said:
ALL Apple says is, if you allow people to sign up for a subscription from your APP, then you MUST also have an option to sell through iTunes and that it has to be at the same price or lower in iTunes.

Is that it? Are people not reading and don't know what's been said?
Click to expand...

Sorry... Wrong. You're mis-informed.

If you allow people to sign up for a subscription from your WEBSITE you MUST have an option to sell though iTunes and you AREN'T ALLOWED to gie option to buy in the web from your app
 
The way content providers with tight margins should tackle this is to charge iOS users more than Android users and make it very clear why they are charging more.
For example, Spotify charge £9.99 for their premium service that works with mobile devices. All they have to do is bring in a new product called "Spotify Premium with iOS" (or similar) and charge £14.46 per mont for it

If you want to access Spotify on an iOS device you need the more expensive service and they can charge that amount both in-app and on their website

If you want to access Spotify on Android, WinMo, WebOS or any other platform, you just need the the Spotify Premium at £9.99

Apple can only dictate prices on their own platform and there's nothing to stop companies charging less on other platforms.

Of course, this will cause a huge backlash from consumers who will want to know why they are being charged more. The answer is then to publicise the following: Apple are taking 30% off the top for all subscriptions and without the increase, Spotify wouldn't be able to offer it at all on iOS as the £3.00 a month Apple take is more than Spotify's gross profit on each subscription at £9.99

This may eventually pressure Apple into changing their policy as they'll (hopefully) get the backlash from millions of customers rather than hundreds of providers
 
Amnak said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)

All of you on this post sound like babbies, cool down don't wet yourself, we'll see what Apple does and the response of the company's , they'll change I'd they need to the only thing that effects us is when people pull there apps.
Click to expand...

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.
 
the solution is quite simple....

If Apple upsets you this much, go to Android and leave MacRumors. Why continue to berate a company you obviously can't stand? Life's too short....Adios!
 
Oletros said:
Yes, it's different because nor the content, nor the marketing, nor the bandwith and nor the hosting is done by Apple.

The correct analogy is that AT&T gets a 30% cut from any iPhone app because this iPhone is using AT&T coverage.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There is value in the customer and Apple brings 10's of millions to the table for a publisher. And if the customer (at his own choosing) clicks on the "Buy Subscription" button within iTunes, Apple is processing the order and forwarding that onto the publisher.

Again.... what does it matter for us as consumers other than we just don't want to see any services leave iOS over this.... right?

If the policies are too strict and it causes too many companies to leave iOS, I'm sure Apple will change. This is all part of the growing process in learning how to distribute in the new digital world.

And BTW... the easy answer for any App is, don't sell from your App. If you don't sell from your App, then you don't have to provide the iTunes purchase option. Just provide a reader or viewer. Simple.
 
Madmic23 said:
It's a little different that that. The Playstation Store is for the Playstation only. Same with the Xbox Live content, it's for Xbox only.

No one has a problem with Apple taking 30% from content that is iOS only. If someone comes out with an App for iOS only and they want to add a subscription, and Apple takes 30%, that's fine.

The problem is that Apple wants to take 30% extra from companies that are publishing for more than iOS. Amazon has the Kindle hardware to read Kindle books on, and they also have an app for Blackberry, Android, Windows, and OSX. Apple really has no business telling Amazon how much they can sell an ebook for, or taking any of the profits from a sale. I really can't see RIM trying to force Amazon to give them ebook profits because people are reading ebooks on a Blackberry.

Like I've said in other threads, this is the equivelant of Microsoft saying that Apple has to give them a 30% cut of all iTunes sales made on a Windows PC.
Click to expand...
Also, XBoxes and Playstations are toys. A smartphone is becoming an essential tool for many people. That doesn't matter to the courts, but it might matter to regulators.
 
From what I understood, companies can still have options to purchase OUTSIDE of App, it just has to be the same price inside the App.

Will the Kindle App even be an issue? You can't purchase anything inside the app.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

I'm so torn. I hate gov regs but at the same time I despise the evil that now permeates Apple Consumer Electronics.
 
Popeye206 said:
And BTW... the easy answer for any App is, don't sell from your App. If you don't sell from your App, then you don't have to provide the iTunes purchase option. Just provide a reader or viewer. Simple.
Click to expand...

Please, read the rules, you're wrong:

11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected

11.12 Apps offering subscriptions must do so using IAP, Apple will share the same 70/30 revenue split with developers for these purchases, as set forth in the Developer Program License Agreement.

11.13 Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions.

11.14 Apps that link to external mechanisms for purchasing content to be used in the app, such as a “buy" button that goes to a web site to purchase a digital book, will be rejected
Click to expand...
 
cublah said:
I really don't know what all the fuss is about, if the user is given a choice then what is the problem, if you decide to purchase in App then do it, if you want a subscription direct from the maker of the app then do that instead.

The maker probably won't care because in the case of a magazine, for example, the maker loses far more than 30% through distribution, that is why they offer those deals 'save 80% on your magazine subscription if you order directly from us'. How is losing 30% worse and you get your product out to a wider audience, Worldwide!

Apple want to make it simpler for the end user, if you have to go to a website to order your subscription, type all the details in, get your credit card out, make the order and then go back to the App and type ANOTHER user name and password in to get the subscription....or....press this button and it will download automatically!

Also I know from friends who have worked at Apple for the last 15 years that the App Store is there purely to sell hardware and the 30% is to cover the cost of reviews, processing etc..etc... they make very little from the 30%. Apple are a hardware company not software.
Click to expand...


If you sell a subscription service for content that is displayed on an IOS device using an app, you must pay Apple 30%, even if the only place to purchase that subscription is your own website. If an IOS device is receiving subscription content, you owe Apple 30%.
 
People are missing the point here.

Apple wants to get paid on every in-app subscription.

A publisher is allowed to sell a subscription out-of-app. But if they do all Apple is asking for is the same price in-app.

Look at the bigger picture.

This not just about in-app subscriptions, but buying individual issues. If you're leaving for a vacation, you might buy a few magazines that you don't subscribe to. These magazines are not discounted in retail. So if I opt to buy the latest Rolling Stone at cover price on my iPad, shouldn't Apple get 30%? The retail store would normally get their cut, so why shouldn't Apple.

Also like a retail store, Apple is paying the credit card companies to use their system.
 
patrickdunn said:
From what I understood, companies can still have options to purchase OUTSIDE of App, it just has to be the same price inside the App.

Will the Kindle App even be an issue? You can't purchase anything inside the app.
Click to expand...

You mis-construed the first sentence. It is really:

"if content can be purchased outside the App, it must *also* be purchasable inside the App through Apple".

In other words, yes Kindle will be affected.
 
cublah said:
I really don't know what all the fuss is about, if the user is given a choice then what is the problem, if you decide to purchase in App then do it, if you want a subscription direct from the maker of the app then do that instead.

The maker probably won't care because in the case of a magazine, for example, the maker loses far more than 30% through distribution, that is why they offer those deals 'save 80% on your magazine subscription if you order directly from us'. How is losing 30% worse and you get your product out to a wider audience, Worldwide!

Apple want to make it simpler for the end user, if you have to go to a website to order your subscription, type all the details in, get your credit card out, make the order and then go back to the App and type ANOTHER user name and password in to get the subscription....or....press this button and it will download automatically!

Also I know from friends who have worked at Apple for the last 15 years that the App Store is there purely to sell hardware and the 30% is to cover the cost of reviews, processing etc..etc... they make very little from the 30%. Apple are a hardware company not software.
Click to expand...

What a naive post. Do you really believe the non-sense you're spewing out?
 
patrickdunn said:
From what I understood, companies can still have options to purchase OUTSIDE of App, it just has to be the same price inside the App.

Will the Kindle App even be an issue? You can't purchase anything inside the app.
Click to expand...

Kindle is not a subscription. How does this effect non subscription in app purchases?
 
whatever said:
People are missing the point here.

Apple wants to get paid on every in-app subscription.

A publisher is allowed to sell a subscription out-of-app. But if they do all Apple is asking for is the same price in-app.

Look at the bigger picture.

This not just about in-app subscriptions, but buying individual issues. If you're leaving for a vacation, you might buy a few magazines that you don't subscribe to. These magazines are not discounted in retail. So if I opt to buy the latest Rolling Stone at cover price on my iPad, shouldn't Apple get 30%? The retail store would normally get their cut, so why shouldn't Apple.

Also like a retail store, Apple is paying the credit card companies to use their system.
Click to expand...

Why Apple deserves 30% of a Kindle or Nook book? Apple is not the retail store, the stores are B&N and Amazon.
 
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