And the MAJOR problem is that apps cannot link to a webpage outside of the app to make the subscription purchase. That is against the new subscription terms.
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
And the MAJOR problem is that apps cannot link to a webpage outside of the app to make the subscription purchase. That is against the new subscription terms.
Because the new rules are not only for subscriptions, but also for one time purchases
You're right! In fact im going to go to my local bestbuy and set up a little booth and sell some stuff and they better only take a cut of what i think is reasonable. If they don't well, who do they think they are. I have every right to there customers.
You can - it links to the Kindle website which constitutes in-app purchasing under the new guidelines
Apart from anything else, it's completely impractical for Amazon to use the apple in-app purchasing framework for their books - they have over half a million titles: How the hell is that supposed to work through In-App purchasing!
In a retail store single issues added up cost more than a subscription. The retail store doesn't get a cut of a subscription... so that would be the equivelent of developers being able to sell their stuff on itunes for MORE money which apple is not allowing.
There's a lock in, and I absolutely agree with you, unless the market settles to something that most companies after comfortable with, regulators will get involved, but I think it's too early. It's absolutely possible that iOS will have ceased to be a going concern within five years. If so Apple will only have themselves to blame. No public good would have been served though by regulators chasing a dying business model through the courts to prove that it was legally wrong as well as just plain stupid.
Yet oddly, music is the one area where Apple is going to need to tread *very* carefully.
That does not work. If you sell a subscription for content provided on an iOS device, you must provide the option to purchase the subscription with Apple. You must also charge the same for Apple and content purchased on your own website.
+1
I don't understand the mentality of the Mac purists. It's either all Apple or no Apple. I used to love Apple, but got tired of some of their antics and went back to Windows. I still have an iPod, and use iTunes and would have stuck with the iPhone if it hadn't been locked to AT&T (this was back in June 2010). Apple is just another company like MS, Sony and Google. There are some things I really like about Apple, there are other things I dislike. This is one of the dislikes.
This will certainly be very interesting to see play out. This will set the standard for the industry, no matter how it is decided.
Again... wrong and right. If you link to your site so someone can sign up, then you have to have an iTunes option. If you're just a reader App... you can do whatever you want. The choice is up to the publisher what they do.
Well if they're going to be handing Apple 30% anyway, they might just as well drop a mill or so building a book store into an otherwise lightweight app.
I don't remember that being the case ... but even so... isn't that between the publisher and Apple?
What does this have to do with us as consumers?
If Apple see's this policy does not work, they will change it. Or, publishers will adapt. Simple.
My God, can you read the rules?
You're wrong
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.
You can buy a subscription for Pandora or Slacker through the app or on the web... but guess what? They are the same price. That's all Apple is requesting, that non iOS app prices are not lower.
Any why would these companies want to charge less than the in app price?
Any why would these companies want to charge less than the in app price?
But it's the manufacturer "suggesting" the price, not the distributor. Apple is the distributor here.
Apple doesn't dictate what another company charges on their own website. They only dictate the price in their own store. They are not willing to sell content that is available at a lower price somewhere else. Nothing illegal. Happens all the time with businesses that have sufficient purchasing power.
That's said, I disagree with the amount of the commission for certain types of content, and their obvious attempt to push an app like Kindle out of the App Store.
That's not how I understand it. The Kindle app searches for an delivers paid for content to the app user. Regardless of how that content was purchased (via web, on another Kindle) the issue Apple have is that it is making available content that could be brokered through their systems without actually providing a system to do so.
Rule 11.13 seems pretty clear about this.
Not the way I read the rule
Sounds like any subscription service or individual piece of property that can be purchased on a website must be offered using in-app payment.
Apple's silence on this issue is what really spells out what their plans are. If major companies like Spotify and Rhapsody were yelling for nothing Apple would have released a statement the next day clarifying the rules. However nothing from Apple which tells me they plan full well to go forward with this initiative.
I hope the content providers play hardball. Imagine iOS without Pandora, Slacker, Netflix, Kindle, Sirius XM, Rhapsody, Napster, etc. I'd prefer they leave iOS than to increase their prices.
Here is the real problem,
Many app designers have been working on low margin high volume applications. Here is an example:
Company X wants to sell pictures of marmot jugglers. They are required to pay $1 per picture sold to the marmot handlers association. They know, people who are into marmot juggler pictures will not pay more than $1.05. This is not a problem because there are billions of people who want to look at marmot jugglers on their iPhones.
Under the new rules, They must charge $1.35 for each picture. The market just dissipated in a rapidly expanding ball of marmot fluff.
Apple must make it's money from subscriptions. Making money is why every company exists. Apple can not let developers bypass the subscription system. All that said, I think Apple needs to find a better way to do this.
Many app designers have been working on low margin high volume applications. Here is an example:
Company X wants to sell pictures of marmot jugglers. They are required to pay $1 per picture sold to the marmot handlers association. They know, people who are into marmot juggler pictures will not pay more than $1.05. This is not a problem because there are billions of people who want to look at marmot jugglers on their iPhones.
Under the new rules, They must charge $1.35 for each picture. The market just dissipated in a rapidly expanding ball of marmot fluff.
Apple must make it's money from subscriptions. Making money is why every company exists. Apple can not let developers bypass the subscription system. All that said, I think Apple needs to find a better way to do this.
What's next?
As much as I dislike some of the decisions made by those in charge at Apple, they don't do anything without a reason. Since they are now starting to enforce this policy, it begs the question: What's next?
I believe we will see streaming iTunes with paid subscription, both music and video/movies, very soon. This policy enforcement is just the first step to get the competition out of the way; create a vacuum that Apple itself can step in to fill.
So Apple will either make the 30% from someone else (Rhapsody, Netflix, etc.), or they will make more from hosting it through iTunes.
As much as I dislike some of the decisions made by those in charge at Apple, they don't do anything without a reason. Since they are now starting to enforce this policy, it begs the question: What's next?
I believe we will see streaming iTunes with paid subscription, both music and video/movies, very soon. This policy enforcement is just the first step to get the competition out of the way; create a vacuum that Apple itself can step in to fill.
So Apple will either make the 30% from someone else (Rhapsody, Netflix, etc.), or they will make more from hosting it through iTunes.