Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans

technologizer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 94 posts

Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans

#71

Post by loewenskind »

cageface wrote: post #3

It's deeply disturbing that the people at Apple feel entitled to radically change the rules of the game whenever it suits them. This is like an extortion racket. Submit to their demands today only to find out what new whim strikes them tomorrow. How can iOS legitimately be called a "platform" when Apple pulls a leg out from under it every six months? Thank god Android scares them. I can only imagine what they'd dare…

>It's deeply disturbing that the people at Apple feel entitled to radically change the rules of the game whenever it suits them.

What makes you think that's what they're doing? It could also be that they never intended for their platform to be used this way but didn't explicitly deny it because they didn't see this coming. I don't have any way of knowing that is the case, but I don't think you have anyway of knowing your opinion is right either.

Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans

#72

Post by loewenskind »

joe_the_user wrote: post #60
cosmicray wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple owns a very fertile piece of soil. You can grow 10x the crop there that you can grown any where else. Where do you want to farm your crop ?

Ah yes... "Apple owns a very fertile piece of soil. You can grow 10x the crop there that you can grown any where else." And they can change your rent to 11x normal - just before you sell your crops... "Where do you want to farm your crop ?" Go question but it is actually a real question, not a rhetorical question... Do you want to a golden share cropper or do you want to be independent. There may be no easy answer...

Simple solution: sell your crops where it is most profitable. Maybe with 11x normal it's still worth it. As soon as it's not, you switch.

Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans

#73

Post by loewenskind »

I can understand Apple wanting to cut out middle men. I've never been a big fan of middle men myself, for the most part. But the biggest thing that bugs me about this is: iBooks doesn't have any books where I am! I buy all my stuff on Kindle because it's the only place I can legally buy a book at all. They can't try to shove everyone off the platform when they don't have any viable alternative themselves.

Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans

#74

Post by saturdaysaint »

rst wrote: post #40
saturdaysaint wrote: post #12

I'm not happy to have predicted this in comments early today: (some slight paraphrasing) The current state of affairs - where Apple provides a nice sales channel (marketing in a sense) on their already highly profitable devices and where service providers bring attractive service to the platform - is a fairly even trade. Apple is asking for such a drastic renegotiation of this "trade balance" that I predict services…

They're not allowed to reprice for iOS, unless they also reprice for all their other platforms. Quoting the Apple announcement[1], "we require ... that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app." [1] http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html

I think it would follow the letter of these rules if service-providers made "with iOS" versions of their services available - both on their website and in-app. So Rhapsody could say their service is $10/mo for everybody... except if you want iOS access, in which case you pay $13/mo.

Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans

#75

Post by saturdaysaint »

ghshephard wrote: post #41

I've just realized what Apple is up to here - it took me a day, and some of the excellent comments on HN - but I now get it. My inability to see what was going on, was that I couldn't see how Netflix/Amazon/Rhapsody/etc... could operate, profitably, under this plan. The 30% cut would eat their entire margin (and more). And the plan is brutally straightforward and honest, if you just mediate on it for a few days. Appl…

The thought of moving from Netflix, Rdio and Kindle to iTunes strikes me as akin to moving from Gmail and Facebook for photos to MobileMe. I love(d) Apple, but their web services are afterthoughts that can't hold a candle to specialized (or, in Google's case, just brilliant) competition.

Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans

#76

Post by joel_ms »

cheald wrote: post #51
jaaron wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you'd follow the press releases or read the updated app store guidelines, you'd learn that Apple has changed the rules and is enforcing old ones in new ways that will affect Rhapsody, Amazon Kindle, Rdio, Netflix, and so on. The new rules would require Rhapsody to allow new cusomters to optionally sign up via in-app purchase with an ongoing 30% fee to Apple. The rules stipulate rhapsody _must_ make this offer if t…

I'm sure it wouldn't get past the Apple Censor Board, but that's about the point that I would put in the in-app purchase button (for the item at 130% of my base price) right next to a "Click here for 30% off!" link. All of a sudden, your full retail price is heavily discounted and a lot more attractive!

The guidelines stipulate that the in-app price must be the same or less than your regular offer.

(You could possibly have a separate offer with iOS availability at a price that compensates for Apple's cut, which means you would get Apple's cut from everyone buying iOS availability outside the app.)

Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans

#77

Post by SPOTINT »

ghshephard wrote: post #41

I've just realized what Apple is up to here - it took me a day, and some of the excellent comments on HN - but I now get it. My inability to see what was going on, was that I couldn't see how Netflix/Amazon/Rhapsody/etc... could operate, profitably, under this plan. The 30% cut would eat their entire margin (and more). And the plan is brutally straightforward and honest, if you just mediate on it for a few days. Appl…

isn't this how you kill innovation?

The problem with apple is that it thinks it can out-innovate everyone in everything. E.g. Processor - Check Hardware - Check OS - Check Store - Check Content Distribution - Check Content Discovery - Check

And even If someone tries to compete with them, they end up getting 30%.

Also is there any alternative for App store???

No!

Welcome my friend to Apple life, Apple now owns you. unless you break from this jail.

Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans

#78

Post by sudont »

eavc wrote: post #45
sudont wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there was the iPod accessory rings to jump through, but that’s fairly standard. What’s seen as evil here is really a preference for the user over the content provider, and it’s the content providers who are whining about not getting everything their way. You never hear any users complaining about subscription plans not automatically giving away their information.

How is effectively booting popular services from their devices in the interest of their customers?

Don't try and sell it like that. The "services" you obliquely reference (name one) are most likely intended be used at the OS level, which is against the way the platform is built.

The entire model of iOS is a node that downloads from several sources, which 3-rd party content providers are calling foul about. The platform is effectively binary: it either works or it doesnt, out of the box. There aren't any drivers or codecs to install.

If you don't like it, build your service for some other platform. I hear there's one that's got more marketshare.

Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans

#79

Post by sh4na »

joel_ms wrote: post #76
cheald wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure it wouldn't get past the Apple Censor Board, but that's about the point that I would put in the in-app purchase button (for the item at 130% of my base price) right next to a "Click here for 30% off!" link. All of a sudden, your full retail price is heavily discounted and a lot more attractive!

The guidelines stipulate that the in-app price must be the same or less than your regular offer. (You could possibly have a separate offer with iOS availability at a price that compensates for Apple's cut, which means you would get Apple's cut from everyone buying iOS availability outside the app.)

Technically, they state you must have the same or better offer. Better isn't the same as cheaper, it can mean more expensive with more features, so an "premium iOS offer with added features" for 30% more could be justified :P

Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans

#80

Post by [deleted] »

ghshephard wrote: post #41

I've just realized what Apple is up to here - it took me a day, and some of the excellent comments on HN - but I now get it. My inability to see what was going on, was that I couldn't see how Netflix/Amazon/Rhapsody/etc... could operate, profitably, under this plan. The 30% cut would eat their entire margin (and more). And the plan is brutally straightforward and honest, if you just mediate on it for a few days. Appl…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN