I didn't say that. Please don't put words in my mouth. I've never purchased a song from iTunes at all.
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
I didn't say that. Please don't put words in my mouth. I've never purchased a song from iTunes at all.
Yes it's sad. I really like Apple products more than say Android phones. But I will have to switch if this proves to be true. Sort of a like making a decision to move from your homeland because of the lack of freedom and means to live. Well, something like that.
No need to fool Apple. They say you can't have a lower price on your own website than in-app price. So be it. Jack the price up 43% across the board.
Offer every buyer on the website an instant rebate code. They enter the code at checkout and receive a whopping 43% instant rebate. They are still paying the jacked up price unless they enter the instant rebate code. Technically it's the same pricing on both platforms
Ok, so why do you think then that it's good if these companies vanish from iOS platform? I thought you like the Apple alternative better, hmm
What will probably happen is that Netflix will offer another service tier called "iOS streaming". They will price it at $13.95/month (versus $9.95 for standard streaming), and customers can sign up for it via NetFlix website or in-app subscription.
This will "technically" be within Apple guidelines, and will allow NetFlix to differentially treat iOS subscribers without raising prices across the board.
I will buy an Android tablet instead of an iPad 2 if I cannot read my Kindle books and Zinio magazines or use Netflix on the new iPad. Apps that use purchased content are what make the iPad useful.
I hope Apple and these companies come to a solution that allows consumers to use the content they want on these devices. If the iPad had these restrictions when it was released, that would be fine. I wouldn't have bought one, but to change the rules now is extremely anti-consumer.
I hope Apple and these companies come to a solution that allows consumers to use the content they want on these devices. If the iPad had these restrictions when it was released, that would be fine. I wouldn't have bought one, but to change the rules now is extremely anti-consumer.
This is the best explanation. Apple is not stupid. They have competing content lines, such as iBooks and perhaps soon streaming music, whose market share they undoubtedly want to increase. They also know that the major content providers do not have the margins to actually pay the 30% without raising prices somewhere, and if they do raise prices, they have to do it everywhere. Those content providers will either need to raise prices to pay the 30%, or pull out of iOS. Either way, competition for Apple's content is reduced, either by competing content becoming more expensive than Apple's content, or by the competing content no longer being available on iOS at all.
Agreed, so all my current subscriptions would increase for roughly $15 / mo. Which in two year period amounts for a top notch unlocked Android phone. Good deal, I get a state of the art, unlocked, open phone for free if I switch from Apple.
You didn't read the other commenter who suggested companies would introduce another product line iOS Streaming and charge that one more only.
For example:
Netflix Basic (all platforms except iOS): $10
Netflix Premium (includes iOS and longer previews): $15
Then in their iOS app they only offer the Netflix Premium subscription.
This time? How about not letting you install MAC OS X on third Party hardware? That's Anti-Trust written all over, but they got away with it.
They have the right to do what they want with their products and services, even if we don't like it. That's the Apple Tax. But it's elective. If you go with Apple, you gotta pay a higher Tax, but enjoy any benefits it provides. If you move to London, you will also have to pay a higher Tax, but will have free medical service. It's a give and take.
That sounds like a great idea. Kindle can something similar like "Kindle for iOS" and charge a 43% premium just for iOS devices, since iOS is (cough cough) a better way to read than on your boring black and white kindle device
So the end user will have to pay the consequences. Just like it happened with Hulu. A lot of free content on the PC and Mac not freely available for iOS.
That sounds like a great idea. Kindle can something similar like "Kindle for iOS" and charge a 43% premium just for iOS devices, since iOS is (cough cough) a better way to read than on your boring black and white kindle device
Kindle iOS only books, they can only sync with Kindle for iPad, iPhone or iPod
As someone who uses Spotify on the iPhone pretty much constantly (it's always running in the background when I use it), this is very upsetting.
I love my iPhone but I honestly don't know what I would do if Spotify had to pull their app...
As far as I know, they really have a low operating margin and are barely just starting to make profit.
Their only option will apparently just be to raise the subscription price across the board or to pull the app...In both cases, the customer loses
I understand the argument about complying to the terms of a platform or just taking your business elsewhere but in this case Apple changed the rules AFTER a lot of these services already developed and promoted their apps which is really a dick move likely to alienate some customers like me
So the end user will have to pay the consequences. Just like it happened with Hulu. A lot of free content on the PC and Mac not freely available for iOS.
And what else is new? Flash ban so no free games? You can still switch to Android and get more for less.
The downside is that Kindle, Netflix and other competing services have to up their prices while Apple can keep there's low. FAIL (for the consumer).
But for the iOS user, Netflix Premium will cost more than the competing Apple service (assuming they introduce a video streaming service), because one would assume that the Apple service would probably be in the $10, since they don't have to pay the 30% Apple tax, so Apple still has the price advantage.
When OSX has only 8% of worldwide market share regulators aren't going to blink. Things would be different if Apple had the marketshare that microsoft enjoys...
Unless you know the exact cost structure of Apples overhead, your statement
also qualifies for brain examination!
Seeing as how Apple is being tight lipped about this (just like antenna gate), I really wonder what will be the long term outcome- should this come to pass and Android stays w/the current price model.
Will people still pay more I.E. 13.99 for netfilx on iPhone/iPad vs. 9.99 w/Google? Multiply that by X (dependent upon how many services and apps this model applies to) and that could be pretty significant from a monthly consumer standpoint.
In other words, if I have to pay premium price tiers on iOS at the tune of $12-$17/ a month/ vs the Android marketplace @ $6-$9/month; I think people may start to recognize this a little more. They can't really place blame on the developers/stores for the cost increase as long as they explain and document it on their prospective sites.
When it starts affecting consumers wallet for the exact same content but a different system there may be some significant fallout. Of course I am speculating here, but I am pretty certain for the most part people are prudent with the monthly bills (cell phone contracts/prices monthly come to mind) and at some point the few dollars in difference multiplied by a number of such services may add up to quite a significant difference.
Will people still pay more I.E. 13.99 for netfilx on iPhone/iPad vs. 9.99 w/Google? Multiply that by X (dependent upon how many services and apps this model applies to) and that could be pretty significant from a monthly consumer standpoint.
In other words, if I have to pay premium price tiers on iOS at the tune of $12-$17/ a month/ vs the Android marketplace @ $6-$9/month; I think people may start to recognize this a little more. They can't really place blame on the developers/stores for the cost increase as long as they explain and document it on their prospective sites.
When it starts affecting consumers wallet for the exact same content but a different system there may be some significant fallout. Of course I am speculating here, but I am pretty certain for the most part people are prudent with the monthly bills (cell phone contracts/prices monthly come to mind) and at some point the few dollars in difference multiplied by a number of such services may add up to quite a significant difference.
Yes, so you can either choose iTunes Streaming, Netflix Premium or switch to other phone and use Netflix Basic.
Seriously who didn't anticipate this was rather foolish. I saw this and more of it coming as soon as Flash was banned on iPad.
Check this:
http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/U...d-Services/Mobile-Phones/Motorola-ATRIX-US-EN
It's an iPhone, Apple TV and Netbook all in one
Yes, so you can either choose iTunes Streaming, Netflix Premium or switch to other phone and use Netflix Basic.
Seriously who didn't anticipate this was rather foolish. I saw this and more of it coming as soon as Flash was banned on iPad.
Check this:
http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/U...d-Services/Mobile-Phones/Motorola-ATRIX-US-EN
It's an iPhone, Apple TV and Netbook all in one
and only $150 next week at radio shack. anand has an OK review. no GPU powered GUI, crappy camera compared to the iphone 4 but it's almost twice as fast as the iphone 4 in other areas
Nothing? Really?
There are predictions that Apple could sell almost 50 million iPads and, AND... 100 million iPhones. This particular articles does not even touch on the iPod touch which I think Apple could sell 35-45 million. This is devices that are YET to be sold! That's another 200 Million iOS devices ON TOP of the 100 Million iOS devices that already been sold (June 2010 stat Jobs gave out at WWDC)... Now, even with the broken devices that exist in this 300 Million iOS device universe, I think it's safe to say that the iOS world is doing kind of alright.
So -- this is the neighborhood everyone wants to live in, but suddenly no one thinks it's fair to pay rent... it's not fair that Apple should reap the benefit for creating this incredibly large base of potential customers? It's offering (or will be offering by end of 2011) at least 200 Million devices that work with their App Store and you're saying (straight face and all) that Apple is getting "essentially money for nothing"!!!!!! OUT-*****-RAGEOUS!
If you're a developer and you sell a $1 game and you sell 1M copies, Apple keeps $300K and you get $700K. You understand that in order to be a part of this (at present) 100+ Million ecosystem of fun, you have to give up something, right?
But, let me get this straight: if you happen to be a huge conglomerate that simply wants to give away a free app so that you can sell (and get filthy rich) off of stuff you link to and sell elsewhere, then it's WRONG of Apple to want THE VERY POSSIBILITY of a cut? Who is being unreasonable now? I think the Apple-haters who are complaining without being rational are the unreasonable ones.
Apple just asked (requires) to give the customer the opportunity to decide where they'd like to buy. Outside the store, fine. Inside the store, fair. And to be fair, both prices need to be the same. That's seems like fair business to me.
Would McDonald's let Burger King come in and build a burger stand in the back and not expect BK to give them some of the profits? Some would say it was very generous of McD to even let BK in the place to begin with. But BK needs to get real and pay the price. You sell a $3 burger, get ready to give McDs almost $1 -- OR GET OUT OF THE STORE! Those are the terms.
The unreasonable here are the ones that feel like companies can sell outside their own stores AND inside Apple's store of hundreds of millions customers and not have to pay anything. How is this fair?
Last edited:
No, it's 84% for all mobile phones put together, not even just iOS as a whole. Add Android, Nokia et al sales in together with Apple and Apple still controls 84% of the market. If we're just looking at tablet apps it's more like 99%+. That market is four years old now, it's not nascent.
While regulators tend to leave nascent markets alone, there are exceptions for areas with high prominance and market effect, and especially (and especially relevant) where the company concerned also has other monopolistic offerings it could be leveraging against this new market. Apple does.
I really don't think that was the case. Adobe weren't even company complaining in the EU case.
Potential remedies tend to go much further than they have to to prevent similar infractions. Honestly, I would not be surprised to see a regulator suggest Apple should be prevented from being the only company allowed to sign iOS apps as a result, even if that's unlikely to be the final punishment. That's the sort of thing that shoudl scare people in Infinate Loop ********.
Phazer