When will Apple give in?

[Pink∆Floyd]

I kinda agree, but Obama on the other hand:

 

[Maclver]

Well I don't think Apple or the iPhone or iPad will fail because of this, I just think that as Apple grows into this market they will evolve their policies and ways of doing things to better serve its developers and customers!

 

[thetexan]

Pretty tough to walk away from a market of 180 million iOS devices.

Not when you'll lose money by being on the iOS platform.

Netflix offers their iOS app as a convenience to customers, but their main market is the TV. They work with every major video game console, tivo, various DVD players to offer their product. Netflix would probably rather pull the iOS app than to lose money off those using the app and choosing to pay with in-app subscription.

Same with Sirius XM. They make money off selling satellite radio subscriptions to vehicles, they offer SXM on the iOS platform as a convenience to their customers.

If any major developers leave the platform, it's 100% Apple's fault. This argument is really no different than net neutrality and ISPs wanting to charge content providers like Netflix.

 

[drummingcraig]

Not when you'll lose money by being on the iOS platform.

Netflix offers their iOS app as a convenience to customers, but their main market is the TV. They work with every major video game console, tivo, various DVD players to offer their product. Netflix would probably rather pull the iOS app than to lose money off those using the app and choosing to pay with in-app subscription.

A larger company like Netflix is a good company to watch for an indicator of things to come in this issue. If they were to cut ties with Apple or pull out of iOS over this then you might start to see Apple rethink things. But any changes in a business model will bring some collateral damage so-to-speak, and a handful of smaller companies will fall by the wayside in lieu of "keeping up with the Jobses".

I tend to think Apple is more qualified to make decisions around what is best for their business model than members of an online fan forum. They have far more resources, information, insight and business acumen.

I find it amusing when a couple of users (the whole forum here is a drop in the bucket to Apple's overall user base) predict the imminent demise of Apple because Apple cannot see the business landscape that is so obvious to them.

According to these wise pundits
App Store = fail because it is closed and the subscription rules
iPhone = fail because no 4" screen, no lock screen, no widgets, no flash and tied to iTunes
iPad = fail because screen resolution, no flash, no camera and tied to iTunes

Every new phone that is announced is better than the iPhone and Apple HAS to compete with specs and capabilities or they will be crushed
Every new tablet that is announced is better than the iPad and Apple HAS to compete with specs and capabilities or they will be crushed

Methinks many do not understand Apple's business model and philosophy and they think theirs would work better. However, profits tell a different tale.

I for one, am glad that Apple doesn't follow the trends and demands spewed out MR and they opt instead to trust their own instincts and market research and their own business model.

Well said.

You can't please everyone and no matter what Apple does there will be some disappointed people. Apple has excelled at sticking to a given vision and developing their products they way they see fit. And their stock value shows they do that quite well.

On the other hand, they are not free from folly. It doesn't happen often, but it has happened and only time will tell if this works or winds up biting them in the rear.

 

[milani]

Looks like Jobs clarified Apple's position. It now makes MUCH more sense. Instead of defining subscription-based apps broadly (including both first-party and third party software-as-a-service apps), Jobs said that Apple was referring specifically to publishers (i.e. newspapers).

http://www.tipb.com/2011/02/22/subscription-policy-apply-software-service-steve-jobs-iphone/

The problem most developers had was two-fold:

1) Defining subscription-based apps broadly meant that virtually every app can be found in violation of the rules. Most apps are generally associated with a product being sold, and expecting all of these apps to harness IAPs was altogether unrealistic - if not outright impossible in some cases.

2) More importantly, many apps do not have the ability to process payments. For example, a third-party app that is built on an API for something like Dropbox (hypothetically) does not have access to the subscriptions of the parent app, and can't actually take subscriptions via IAP. In such cases, every third party app would violate the policy (if defined broadly).

It's a good thing that Apple clarified its position - because understood broadly the policy was draconian to say the least. While it's unfortunate that it will affect some content publishers, its very likely that those publishers can work with Apple to come to some sort of solution.

 

[nunes013]

No I did.. Im just talking about the "openness" of android... Granted I disagree with that, I feel Apple is doing just fine.. I just don't think 30% of subscriptions is worth pissing off some large developers.

Android users get a lot of their apps for free because of ios. because google makes so much off of advertising, being a developer for google is free. and because a lot of the ios developers have started developing for android they dont charge for apps because the membership is free and they are making so much off of apples app store. i think apple might change in the future when android starts catching up but for the meantime nothing will change