61–70 of 108 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could just offer them both in both places. It would be an interesting to see the conversion rates in both environments.
This plan relies on consumers being dumb enough to choose a plan with identical access, but a higher price.
I'm starting to see a whole bunch of posts/comments about people reacting to losing 30% of their SaaS software revenue but no one seems to be calling out the Apple contract specifically lists content as defined as magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video. So I don't see where the SaaS angst is coming from. Apple can charge 30% for apps and content because the ENTIRE product is being delivered on iOS. They ca…
Yet here we are today, wondering just how the hell everyone is going to carve 30% out of their business model. Anyone who thinks that task is anything even approaching trivial has never run a business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This plan relies on consumers being dumb enough to choose a plan with identical access, but a higher price.
Not necessarily. They'd presumably need to pay the higher price (or some sort of premium) to access the content on their iDevice.
The example of SalesForce in the article sounds wrong. Apple's 30% fee on subscriptions does not apply to ALL subscription revenue of a publisher, just to the subscriptions of users who found the publisher in the App Store. Quote: "when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple…
Because of this, offering an iOS app becomes a loss leader. No, 100% of your user base will not sign up through iOS, but the 30% commission to Apple will dilute your margins on non-iOS sales. The net effect is that any company who operates a direct sales model will see a dilution of their margins, and must bet on the fact that in-app subscriptions will compensate for this in increased sales. There are many scenarios where this makes absolutely no sense.
"... they will need to give Apple 30% of their subscription revenue for all customers that want to access SalesForce via mobile." Wow, a huge post based on this flawed understanding. It isn't 30% of every customer that accesses the mobile app, it's 30% of each client that signs up via the mobile app. The rules are pretty simple. If you offer subscription service purchasing elsewhere, like your website, you also must…
...and if your profit margin is close to that 30%, as it is with many businesses, you are now required (should you choose to develop an app for iOS) to sell your product to users whom you have to support and stand a very good chance of gaining nothing from. In other words, such a business would be required to offer an option to hand off all of its profit to Apple, should it choose to offer a native iOS app. Apple get…
> I can understand if such a business would find this unacceptable.
Let's say you distribute a FREE app in the App Store and it requires a subscription at $10.00 per month (through Apple) but you provide a handy button labeled "Get subscription for $8.00 per month" that goes to your website.
Apple doesn't want this. It costs Apple to distribute (and market, and support) your App. Apple gets nothing. And now you are selling your profitable product via an inferior user experience AND making anyone who actually uses Apple's service look like a chump.
Gee, why doesn't Apple allow this?
As I added in the content section, I think that SaaS providers have the leeway to pass along the "Apple tax" to iOS users and thus embarrass Apple a little bit here. I'd like to see a service at least try to make an "iOS plan" - if a service is normally $10/mo, create a separate plan (that would be the only way of accessing the content for iOS users) that costs enough to offset Apple's take. This plan would cost the…
That's an interesting way to get around Apple. I wonder if it will hold. You're basically saying that if you want iOS accessibility, you pay 43% more. So maybe WSJ has a newspaper version, a newspaper plus digital (including android, any non iOS device), and then a newspaper plus digital plus iOS plan. Wonder if there's also another way to get around it, maybe by just jacking up the rate 43% everywhere to please Appl…
As I added in the content section, I think that SaaS providers have the leeway to pass along the "Apple tax" to iOS users and thus embarrass Apple a little bit here. I'd like to see a service at least try to make an "iOS plan" - if a service is normally $10/mo, create a separate plan (that would be the only way of accessing the content for iOS users) that costs enough to offset Apple's take. This plan would cost the…
What about Apple's rule that the in app subscription needs to be the same or better than available elsewhere?
For a web-based SaaS, I could see them doing something like "Web-only access including mobile web, $10/mo" and "Web + native mobile/API access: $15/mo" -- then only offer the latter option in-app.
I suppose you could try to classify Android and iOS API access differently, but I suspect that might be a little over the line in terms of trying to slip it through the app store review process.
I do still wonder how third party apps to hit a subscription API are going to work, though. I suppose a lot of those will be for-pay so Apple gets their vig from that anyway, but it's always possible someone will decide to release a free one...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and if your profit margin is close to that 30%, as it is with many businesses, you are now required (should you choose to develop an app for iOS) to sell your product to users whom you have to support and stand a very good chance of gaining nothing from. In other words, such a business would be required to offer an option to hand off all of its profit to Apple, should it choose to offer a native iOS app. Apple get…
No-one is _required_ to sell stuff in the App Store. Don't sell stuff in the App Store, keep all your profits. > I can understand if such a business would find this unacceptable. Let's say you distribute a FREE app in the App Store and it requires a subscription at $10.00 per month (through Apple) but you provide a handy button labeled "Get subscription for $8.00 per month" that goes to your website. Apple doesn't wa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and if your profit margin is close to that 30%, as it is with many businesses, you are now required (should you choose to develop an app for iOS) to sell your product to users whom you have to support and stand a very good chance of gaining nothing from. In other words, such a business would be required to offer an option to hand off all of its profit to Apple, should it choose to offer a native iOS app. Apple get…
No-one is _required_ to sell stuff in the App Store. Don't sell stuff in the App Store, keep all your profits. > I can understand if such a business would find this unacceptable. Let's say you distribute a FREE app in the App Store and it requires a subscription at $10.00 per month (through Apple) but you provide a handy button labeled "Get subscription for $8.00 per month" that goes to your website. Apple doesn't wa…
Give me a break. You used the weasel word "costs" which is technically truthful, because it is greater than zero. But it is not material, IMHO.
Because developers PAY $100/developer to get on the Apple developer program. They spend their own money/time to develop the app. And sell it to a user who's PAID for his phone and net access. Apple is serving as a glorified download.com (which btw also does reviews and ratings for free).
Apple "markets" apps: again a weasel word, since in your universe listing your app in their directory is "marketing". Ditto "support" (they test your app cursorily to reject things).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an interesting way to get around Apple. I wonder if it will hold. You're basically saying that if you want iOS accessibility, you pay 43% more. So maybe WSJ has a newspaper version, a newspaper plus digital (including android, any non iOS device), and then a newspaper plus digital plus iOS plan. Wonder if there's also another way to get around it, maybe by just jacking up the rate 43% everywhere to please Appl…
42% more, not 30% more.