Updated iOS App Store Guidelines Clarify 'Cheating', Address In-App Subscriptions

[aristotle]

The relevant change isn't about the subscriptions for Kindle.

It is the fact that any purchased media to be used within the app must now be sold through In App Purchase (for the same price) -as well as- any outside source. That's the issue- can/will Amazon afford to give up already razor thin margins to give 30% to Apple? Probably not.

Please learn to read more slowly. The changes apply to providing "in app" purchase of "subscriptions". It does not apply to item individual items purchased outside of the app.

Please correct me if I am wrong by providing the proper citation.

 

[SerenityInt]

I don't think you really thought that through. As a developer, I'm fine with 30%, considering all the headaches I don't have to deal with because Apple takes care of it all. At the time, 30% was unusual because normally developers got a lot less than 70%, and it was only enough to run the App Store at break-even (they make actual profits off hardware). My only suggestion is that maybe the 30% should scale down somewhat with higher prices; 30% is a good deal for a $.99 app, but not so much with a $99 app.

--Eric

That is a really intriguing idea. This could even help with the race to the bottom on app prices. $0.99 apps just aren't sustainable for the vast majority of developers.

 

[manu chao]

My only suggestion is that maybe the 30% should scale down somewhat with higher prices; 30% is a good deal for a $.99 app, but not so much with a $99 app.

Same for subscriptions, 30% for your first subscription, less for the renewal of subscriptions. Right now, Apple would get its 30% cut forever.

 

[341328]

I like rules but...

I use the Kindle app more than iBookstore. Apple's store particularly in Australia is rubbish.

I don't mind Apple enforcing this however, at the "same (or cheaper)" price point? I don't think so. 30% is too high! Users who want convenience should pay a higher price (ie. additional 30%).

I will purchase a Kindle reader if Amazon discontinues its Kindle app.

 

[RollTide1017]

So, does this mean that Oceanhouse Media cannot produce more of those Dr. Suess apps? The functionality of those apps cannot be reproduced in iBooks and would be a real shame if they are not aloud to make more. My daughter loves those interactive boom apps. There are sound effects and animations plus the words highlight as a narrator reads the books to her. They are great apps.

 

[travishill]

Please learn to read more slowly. The changes apply to providing "in app" purchase of "subscriptions". It does not apply to item individual items purchased outside of the app.

Please correct me if I am wrong by providing the proper citation.

The detail is all in the updated guidelines which are developer only and protected by NDA. However this article explains it pretty well:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...re_rules_affect_Amazon_s_Kindle?taxonomyId=12

In /addition/ to the subscription rules, Apple has today made explicit their in-app content rules which include no browser launch purchases from an app, and require in app purchasing that must be as cheap or cheaper than external fees. This is likely why the Sony Reader app was rejected.

I think that part is much worse than subscription part, and I hope it doesn't go through. Otherwise Nook/Kindle are going to leave iOS behind- there's just no way they can come up with the extra 30% in their already thin margins.

 

[Synergie]

The detail is all in the updated guidelines which are developer only and protected by NDA. However this article explains it pretty well:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...re_rules_affect_Amazon_s_Kindle?taxonomyId=12

In /addition/ to the subscription rules, Apple has today made explicit their in-app content rules which include no browser launch purchases from an app, and require in app purchasing that must be as cheap or cheaper than external fees. This is likely why the Sony Reader app was rejected.

I think that part is much worse than subscription part, and I hope it doesn't go through. Otherwise Nook/Kindle are going to leave iOS behind- there's just no way they can come up with the extra 30% in their already thin margins.

The way I read it, you'd still be able to view purchased content in the Kindle app... it just wouldn't be allowed to launch the browser from within the Kindle app itself to purchase a new book. So you'd have to manually open Safari and log on to your Kindle account, make the purchase and then manually go back to your kindle app to download and read it. That wouldn't be so bad that Kindle/Kobo etc would leave iOS I don't think.

 

[travishill]

The way I read it, you'd still be able to view purchased content in the Kindle app... it just wouldn't be allowed to launch the browser from within the Kindle app itself to purchase a new book. So you'd have to manually open Safari and log on to your Kindle account, make the purchase and then manually go back to your kindle app to download and read it. That wouldn't be so bad that Kindle/Kobo etc would leave iOS I don't think.

Frustrating when some people don't have access to the developer guidelines where this is spelled out more clearly 🙂 From the article- which gets pretty close:

"Amazon must also implement Apple's single-click in-app purchasing of content; Apple would skim 30% off the top of all such purchases, however."

This is the key issue- developers will now have to offer in app purchase as an option. That was not an [enforced] requirement before. Not only that- but they must offer in app purchase for the same price, or lower, than is available elsewhere. So they can't just raise the price to make up the difference- they'd lose 30% on every sale made through in app purchase. Kindle/Kobo/etc don't have that kind of margin to sacrifice.

 

[Synergie]

Frustrating when some people don't have access to the developer guidelines where this is spelled out more clearly 🙂 From the article- which gets pretty close:

"Amazon must also implement Apple's single-click in-app purchasing of content; Apple would skim 30% off the top of all such purchases, however."

This is the key issue- developers will now have to offer in app purchase as an option. That was not an [enforced] requirement before. Not only that- but they must offer in app purchase for the same price, or lower, than is available elsewhere. So they can't just raise the price to make up the difference- they'd lose 30% on every sale made through in app purchase. Kindle/Kobo/etc don't have that kind of margin to sacrifice.

They could still offer in app purchasing and just charge 30% more if its purchased in app. I am sure there is some way they can do this, but still offer the regular price if it's purchased outside the app. They can call the in-app 30% markup 'Jobs Tax' LOL and have a popup that alerts the user that there will be a 30% tax imposed on in-app purchases. So the actual price of the book would be the same but the tax would be an extra charge...

That way they are still offering in app purchasing that Apple gets 30% of and satisfies Apple's new rules if it's purchased that way, but people still have the option to buy outside the app at the regular price (through Safari, or on their laptop etc)

 

[admanimal]

They could still offer in app purchasing and just charge 30% more if its purchased in app.

Except the rule specifically states that the price must be the same or less.

 

[Synergie]

Except the rule specifically states that the price must be the same or less.

The price WOULD be the same... the 30% could be added as an extra charge 🙂 SO a book 14.99 outside would still be 14.99 in-app. But then a 30% tax would be added as a separate charge 🙂

 

[StrudelTurnover]

For each bird, you touch a button and yell things like "You C&#T!!! I'LL F&@* @#&* YOUR FACE!" or some such nonsense, and depending on how good your swearing and general pissed-off-ness (the Pissedoffometer) is, you destroy the proportional amount of pigs and buildings!!

Your swearing and anger powers the birds!!! 😀

I think you're better off trademarking "Tourette Toucans". 🙄

 

[Cybbe]

I don't think you really thought that through. As a developer, I'm fine with 30%, considering all the headaches I don't have to deal with because Apple takes care of it all. At the time, 30% was unusual because normally developers got a lot less than 70%, and it was only enough to run the App Store at break-even (they make actual profits off hardware). My only suggestion is that maybe the 30% should scale down somewhat with higher prices; 30% is a good deal for a $.99 app, but not so much with a $99 app.

--Eric

You might be fine with it. However, the point still stands: Apple is forcing everyone to adopt a business model that entitles them a 30% cut. This is not about covering their costs: content owners today deliver this outside of the App Store, at no server cost to Apple.

What about a service like Spotify? Do you think they have the margins to give 30% of their revenue to Apple at current prices? And Amazon, there's no way they have a 30% margin on their Kindle books.

For all those content providers who don't have these margins to play with, or are uncomfortable with paying Apple tithe, they cannot even raise the price on the iOS platform to cover the extra cost, as Apple demands that prices are equal or better in the App Store.

A company like Amazon has these options:
* Accept a dramatic loss, as Apple takes 30% of their already thin margins.
* Raise prices by 43% to have the same margins (1/0.7).
* Leave the App Store.

While I like Apple products, I hope a sufficient amount of content owners decide that enough is enough, and leave the App Store, which might force Apple to adopt less evil business practices.

PS: The option to go to an external website will not be real, as Apple bans any kind of price incentive a content provider can offer, and most consumers wont care whether Apple takes a cut or not.

 

[Ssn!]

Great

I think the part about cheating with ratings/reviews is great news.

I usually find myself wondering if the comments in a given app in App Store are real or bogus positive reviews. Especially when there are a lot of negative reviews, and a couple of 5 star posts saying it's the best app in the whole App Store. Not cool having to doubt possibly legit reviews... 😡

 

[ehoui]

The price WOULD be the same... the 30% could be added as an extra charge 🙂 SO a book 14.99 outside would still be 14.99 in-app. But then a 30% tax would be added as a separate charge 🙂

Except a tax is levied by a government, not a company. A company would be sued and perhaps individuals would spend time in jail for levying a fake tax.

Your diabolical plan would require something like Amazon offering an "App Store" only version of the book, for which there is no price outside the store, and then therefore could, presumably, charge a different price from the "standard version" (available outside the store).

 

[Sargiel]

Well Lugaru HD was already 'stolen' and sold on the App store... It's good that Apple are recognising that there are cases it would be better if they acted on.

http://gamezblog.com/developer-of-lugaru-hd-victim-of-plagiarism/


Incidently the developer also gave legal keys to all those who'd bought the stolen version after the event. Just hope they didn't lose out too badly!

 

[NickFalk]

You might be fine with it. However, the point still stands: Apple is forcing everyone to adopt a business model that entitles them a 30% cut. This is not about covering their costs: content owners today deliver this outside of the App Store, at no server cost to Apple.

What about a service like Spotify? Do you think they have the margins to give 30% of their revenue to Apple at current prices? And Amazon, there's no way they have a 30% margin on their Kindle books.

For all those content providers who don't have these margins to play with, or are uncomfortable with paying Apple tithe, they cannot even raise the price on the iOS platform to cover the extra cost, as Apple demands that prices are equal or better in the App Store.

A company like Amazon has these options:
* Accept a dramatic loss, as Apple takes 30% of their already thin margins.
* Raise prices by 43% to have the same margins (1/0.7).
* Leave the App Store.

While I like Apple products, I hope a sufficient amount of content owners decide that enough is enough, and leave the App Store, which might force Apple to adopt less evil business practices.

PS: The option to go to an external website will not be real, as Apple bans any kind of price incentive a content provider can offer, and most consumers wont care whether Apple takes a cut or not.

Amazon/Kindle is a mute point. Amazon does not sell subscriptions through the iOs devices today, nor to they link directly to their store.

They can just keep on selling e-books through Amazon.com and the users will be able to download them on their iDevices like they have been since the app was released.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

coding is easy, you can find one for $30/hr on craigslist. it's the art dept that's hard... the world will never have shortage of coder for it's an acquired skill reflecting market demand. art is a gift that few could master. try creating the scene, animation, icon and sound effect u will know u dont even know where to start!

$30/hr gets very expensive, very fast. I really hope a wannabe indie iPhone developer would never go this route. Consider a 1-month development cycle for a very simple game app and you can do the math.

Most games created with that amount of development time will never earn enough to justify the $99 annual dev program fee.

 

[junkster]

For this, there will be only one Flashlight app because all others copied the first one. There will be only one poker app because all others copied the first one.

That's stating things too harshly. It's like saying "there are only seven story plots so nothing is original" and using that as justification for ripping off whatever you want.

 

[ciTiger]

This was a long time coming especially because of the hidden Easter eggs...

 

[melgross]

i agree with you that rules are needed and that some things – like stealing data – should be avoided. on the other side i think that there still is a high risk that apple is misusing their position. remember the guy that used the "volume buttons" as a shutter button for his cam app? violation. and about easter eggs: if they are harmless, then where is the problem?

even operating systems or video games have easter eggs and they actually make the programs more human.

I don't understand the Easter egg thing either. I do understand that when a developer has an Easter egg that allows something not otherwise allowed in the app store, that Apple would cut the app out. But in general? What does that mean? Possibly, we're not understanding what Apple is doing with this.

 

[firewood]

Amazon/Kindle is a mute point. Amazon does not sell subscriptions through the iOs devices today, nor to they link directly to their store.

They can just keep on selling e-books through Amazon.com and the users will be able to download them on their iDevices like they have been since the app was released.

When reading a sample book excerpt from Amazon, using the Kindle app on iPhone/iPad, the app shows you a link to the Amazon web page for that book at the end of the sample.

They might have to remove those links. But like you wrote, no big deal.