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

[Thunderhawks]

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.

LOL No free stuff waaaaah, how sad.

We want it all and we want it now AND we want it for FREE!

If nobody is allowed to make money, what is the incentive to create stuff and sell it?

The entitlement generation needs to grow up.

I bet, if that was your business you'd have a different viewpoint.

 

[WiiDSmoker]

This thread is a genuine example of how some people will blindly follow and agree with everything that Apple does. It's truly pathetic and disgusting.

 

[Phil A.]

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.

Personally, I'd rather companies such as netflix and spotify did this than abandon the platform completely: I have a lot of money invested in iOS devices and content (all my DRM protected movies and TV shows from iTunes, plus all the apps I've bought) and would probably eat up the extra rather than switch platforms. However, if the providers do pull out, it could be a different story over the long term...

 

[*LTD*]

People here seem to be assuming that Apple made these decisions without any reason whatsoever, totally oblivious to the consequences, with no long-term plan to make it all work together as perfectly as nearly everything they've touched so far.

I love it when the perpetually out-of-touch underestimate this company.

 

[alent1234]

Personally, I'd rather companies such as netflix and spotify did this than abandon the platform completely: I have a lot of money invested in iOS devices and content (all my DRM protected movies and TV shows from iTunes, plus all the apps I've bought) and would probably eat up the extra rather than switch platforms. However, if the providers do pull out, it could be a different story over the long term...

and what is the point in paying a higher price for the same service just because it's iOS. apple already gets $600 or so per iphone, why should i pay them more when smartphones are becoming commodities and getting cheaper?

 

[mdatwood]

+1

all you arguing about "eyeballs" I'm sure a lot of itunes purchases would be lost if itunes wasn't on Windows OS.

Apple should also be giving MS a cut of most ipod/ipad/iphone sales because the majority of users are using Windows to access and set up their devices. Lets carry the Apple way of wanting to do business to it's final conclusion.

 

[deadkennedy]

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 state given 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 the neighborhood everyone wants to live in, but suddenly no one thinks it's fair that Apple shouldn't reap the benefit that is there. 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?

You were being fooled by someone. Say Pandora gets 1% margin, and now Apple wants 30%. That for Pandora means 30x more money for the same neighbourhood overnight. What if in Manhattan your landlord would increase your rate from $1000/ room to $30.000 / room?

 

[Oletros]

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 state given 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 the neighborhood everyone wants to live in, but suddenly no one thinks it's fair that Apple shouldn't reap the benefit that is there. 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?

I still don't understand why Apple deserves a whooping 30% of a Spotify subscription. Does Google deserves the same? And Nokia?

 

[mdatwood]

LOL No free stuff waaaaah, how sad.

We want it all and we want it now AND we want it for FREE!

If nobody is allowed to make money, what is the incentive to create stuff and sell it?

The entitlement generation needs to grow up.

I bet, if that was your business you'd have a different viewpoint.

I'm confused who is wanting something for free? I paid for an iPhone and I pay for NF. NF paid for an Apple developer account (probably more than one). Why should I have to pay more in order to us NF on my iPhone?

Apple should be busting it's ass to get more content on iOS instead of working hard to push content off the device.

 

[i hate phones]

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 the neighborhood everyone wants to live in, but suddenly no one thinks it's fair that Apple shouldn't reap the benefit that is there. 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?

I don't think anyone believes apple doesn't deserve a "cut"... what you're leaving out in your 300k vs 700k example is that the developer isn't getting a 700k profit... for some companies out of that 1m revenue only 300k of it is profit. apple in turn is then taking ALL of their profit. sure apple deserves a cut of the PROFITS... and in some cases their 30% of revenue might do just that, but in other cases its totally raping the developers.

 

[GroundLoop]

I haven't read the entire thread...so excuse me if this has already been stated.

I don't think that the government will force Apple to make any changes to the policy. As I see it, App Developers have several choices :

1. Do not sell at all within the app. For subscription type services (Rhapsody, Spotify, etc), the developer would only need to discuss that the app's requirement for a "bring your own account" model in the app description in iTunes. Apple only requires IAP if you are already selling within the app (via a link to an external site).

2. Begin selling iOS-specific subscriptions with a 43% premium inside AND outside of the app. Example - Netflix can update their iOS app to require iOS users to sign-up for a new plan if they plan on using iOS devices. This way, non-iOS users would not have to see a price increase.

3. Produce an HTML 5 Web-distributed subscription content service. This way you wouldn't need a presence in the AppStore but you would still be available to users of iOS devices. Of course, you will have fewer users as they will not see you in the AppStore. That's the price of "freedom".

4. Tell Apple to ******* Off and stop developing for the platform.

I love my iOS devices, but I am hoping that we see a lot of option 4 so that Apple backs down on their own when users start to drift to other devices (Android, WP7, WebOS).

GL

 

[*LTD*]

It's a privilege and a boon to have your publication/services on iOS devices. Partly because iOS users actually don't mind PAYING for them. And partly because iOS is and will likely remain the highest iteration of a mobile OS. It's an OS done right, offering the best user experience. No exceptions. And iOS devices overall outnumber anything else out there, regardless of cost.

In the long run Apple's partners and consumers win.

 

[Dr McKay]

Apple should now be forced to pay Microsoft 30%, after all, I bought the App from Windows.

Or should they pay Sony? They made my laptop.

What I find plain wrong, is they are demanding money on something they dont hold, nor manage. The infrastructure that delivers the data from Kindle is on their servers. When I get music on Spotify, and renew my subscription, the data comes from their servers.

 

[deadkennedy]

LOL No free stuff waaaaah, how sad.

We want it all and we want it now AND we want it for FREE!

If nobody is allowed to make money, what is the incentive to create stuff and sell it?

The entitlement generation needs to grow up.

I bet, if that was your business you'd have a different viewpoint.

Frankly you don't know what your talking about. I purchased a Sony PS3 and Samsung TV to watch Netflix over it. Should I pay another 30% to Sony and another 30% to Samsung now? Because I used their platform to install and subscribe to Netflix service.

 

[camelsnot]

Apple has changed their T&C multiple times after threats of antitrust lawsuits. They tiptoe the line all the time to see how much money they can choke out, without getting in trouble for it.

They'll do it again. Within 3 weeks they'll throttle back their terms and shrug their shoulders with a cocky, "What? Why is everyone complaining?"

 

[JRoDDz]

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...

And how much marketshare does Apple have in the Mobile App market?

 

[Full of Win]

Apple should now be forced to pay Microsoft 30%, after all, I bought the App from Windows.

Or should they pay Sony? They made my laptop.

What I find plain wrong, is they are demanding money on something they dont hold, nor manage. The infrastructure that delivers the data from Kindle is on their servers. When I get music on Spotify, and renew my subscription, the data comes from their servers.

Exactly, the content providers are paying the licensing fees, storage fees and the delivery fees. All Apple Consumer Electronics is doing is being the gate keeps, and expect a 30% premium for doing so.

Perhaps it is time for Netflix, Amazon and others to leave. Pull Netflix from the Apple TV, pull EVERYTHING and then see who comes begging to who.

 

[CrazyMutha29]

At it's core, I think this move is about Apple trying to push competing platforms off of their devices.

In all likelihood, more users are buying and reading Kindle books on Apple devices than iBooks, so move to make it financially impossible for Amazon (or other e-book retailers) to make content available to read on iDevices and the hope is those users will start buying iBooks on their iDevices instead.

Same goes for streaming music and videos. I've no doubt Apple has plans to roll out that service. Best get the other competition out of the way and off their devices (or priced at a higher price point).

If you want users to use your product, make it better than the competitors. I use Kindle because I can read my books I've purchased on my Kindle device, on my iPhone and on my Windows PC. Looks like I'm going to have one less place where I can read because I sure as **** won't be buying all of my books again on iBooks (even if they happen to be available there)!!

 

[Stella]

And how much marketshare does Apple have in the Mobile App market?

The original poster I was replying to was about running OSX on non Apple hardware, not mobile related.

Apple's marketshare for mobile apps is actually decreasing - but this shouldn't surprise anyone - as other mobile appstores pick up traction.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20032012-37.html

 

[mm1250]

My 2 cents!

I think the real issue here is Apple is utilizing this new rule to squeeze out it's competitors out of the apps store. Plain and simple!

Why would Apple want Kindle or Barns and Noble on iPad, iPhone when they built their own iBooks store. So they throw them out and now they have exclusive rights to the store.

Why allow Pandora, and other online music services when apple has it's iTunes store (and soon to be subscription (rumored). So, they build a policy to kick them out.

Why allow NetFlix, Hulu and other movie services on platform when Apple has iTunes Movies and TV rental service.

I think Apple's goals are quite obvious. They are engaging in anti-compeitive business practices by kicking out competitors of the users's devices. As users to iPad and iPhone, iPod Touch, we only have 1 supported way to upload apps to our devices, which is iTunes and Apple is trying to CONTROL IT to benefit themselves.

They want to OWN what we buy on our devices even after we bought them.

 

[JRoDDz]

The original poster I was replying to was about running OSX on non Apple hardware, not mobile related.

Apple's marketshare for mobile apps is actually decreasing - but this shouldn't surprise anyone - as other mobile appstores pick up traction.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20032012-37.html

Apple still captured 82.7 percent of the mobile app market last year. Sounds like an Anti-trust case to me in the making.

 

[spazzcat]

Frankly you don't know what your talking about. I purchased a Sony PS3 and Samsung TV to watch Netflix over it. Should I pay another 30% to Sony and another 30% to Samsung now? Because I used their platform to install and subscribe to Netflix service.

You're not pay Apple 30%, Apple is changing the App owner 30% for the privilege of getting sales from their platform. A sale they may or may not have gotten without iOS. Apple is now asking for a cut, if someone uses your free app, that Apple is supporting for you, and someone signs up through your app.

 

[Stella]

Apple still captured 82.7 percent of the mobile app market last year. Sounds like an Anti-trust case to me in the making.

IMO, it doesn't. There are other smartphone platforms out there that are doing OK... the smartphone market is alive and well.

What determines an anti-trust case is how Apple abuses its position. Just by having 84% of mobile application marketshare doesn't instantly justify an anti-trust case.

Additionally, smartphone market isn't a one horse race like microsoft windows is / used to be.

 

[spazzcat]

Apple still captured 82.7 percent of the mobile app market last year. Sounds like an Anti-trust case to me in the making.

I don't think that 82.7% number include free apps...It isn't Apple's fault people don't want to buy apps on other systems.

 

[JRoDDz]

You're not pay Apple 30%, Apple is changing the App owner 30% for the privilege of getting sales from their platform. A sale they may or may not have gotten without iOS. Apple is now asking for a cut, if someone uses your free app, that Apple is supporting for you, and someone signs up through your app.

So Apple is renting iTunes movies on their Apple-TV's. The Apple-TV's are in turn connected to a television in order to view said rentals. Should the TV manufacturers now start charging apple a 30% cut in rentals since their device utilizes their TV's to provide the content?

On another note, your Internet Service Provider is also providing the bandwidth to Apple to provide said iTunes rental. Should the ISP also start charging Apple 30% for each rental?