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

Why are you people defending Apple?

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 228 posts

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#111

Post by [deleted] »

neutronicus wrote: post #45
chc wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, fighting a monopoly is often a losing proposition. This is already well-known. Ask Netscape. Does the fact that Apple's appeal comes from its monopoly position somehow make its actions less of a shakedown?

Yes, fighting a monopoly is often a losing proposition. This is already well-known Ask Netscape. Does its resemblance to Microsoft in the '90s make Apple's actions more justifiable somehow? You know who Apple doesn't resemble? Sun. Sun let everyone besides themselves get rich off of Java, and look where they are today. And, monopoly, what? Having the best product doesn't make you a monopoly.

[deleted]

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#112

Post by halostatue »

whatusername wrote: post #104
halostatue wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that your analysis is completely wrong. IANAL, and all. 1. Apple disallows in-app purchases for physical goods; presumably this would include services that are provided in the physical world instead of wholly electronically. 2. Apps have to be (minimally) useful to people without requiring a for-pay subscription. 3. These new rules would only kick in if you offered content (or possibly services; this is the…

In reality for the case study -- I'll likely just leave it as a web app. I'm more comfortable with the web anyway. Or if it did go IOS native -- It would just be a free service. re: 3. I worked on the worst-case assumption of SaaS Issues.. Isn't that seperate pricing though? If you have person A paying $200 for Bootcamp + App and person B paying $200 for App, isn't there a problem? I'm wouldn't be concerned about new…

No; for some other posts on this, I did some checking in the agreement and IAP is explicitly disallowed for rental content or services or for goods or services for use outside of the app.

Let's play with your case study a little more, though (it's fun!):

Because IAP cannot be used for goods or services outside of the app, your IAP subscription would have to be clear that it's for access to the premium feed only and not contracting your wife for fitness bootcamp services. What would you do if someone who lives 3,000 km from you purchased the bootcamp service through the app? You'd never be able to fulfill it (which is one reason why IAP can't be used for non-app goods or services, I suspect).

So, in reality, you might offer the premium feed a lot like the Schlock Mercenary app does (and has since it was introduced)[1]: one month for $0.99, three months for $2.99, or six months for $4.99. There's also a way to enter a subscription token, although I've never had one so I don't know exactly how it works. I would presume that they could start offering these directly for sale on the Schlock Mercenary store if people wanted to give Howard more money directly, rather than letting Apple take 30% of his definitely-worth-it $4.99.

Anyway, you'd have a nominal fee for your premium feed, and then you'd give the people who have contracts with your wife for her non-app services access codes to get at the premium feed without having to pay an extra fee.

Everybody wins, especially you and your wife, because now you're making money that you wouldn't have gotten otherwise, just for writing extra premium content.

[1] http://www.plus14.com/iphone/schlock-mercenary-for-ipad/> The in-app purchase is really cool: it gives you access to strips three days before they're published on the web. Love me some Schlock Mercenary. See als one of Howard's posts about this: " rel="nofollow">http://www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/free-schlock-for-iphone.... I have nothing to do with the app or the comic except being a satisfied reader.

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#113

Post by [deleted] »

Bossman wrote: post #77
darren_ wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all their music, movies, apps, etc are in Apple's DRM format and won't transfer to other devices. Music on iOS devices isn't DRMed and hasn't been for some time. If your new device can't play m4a files this is a separate issue and you can transcode them just like if you had a pile of drm-free WMAs. Apps are DRMed but even if they weren't it'd be irrelevant unless a WINE-analogue for iOS came about (and consider the…

Valid points. You're right. Maybe I went a bit overboard. But you can't deny that Apple is continuously trying to prevent people from using anything but their services and goods. I don't blame them for that. What I blame them for is pushing everyone else out just because they control enough of the market to do so. > I suppose it could be your alarms, preferred weather cities and stocks app choices. Or your SMS databa…

[deleted]

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#114

Post by Bossman »

__david__ wrote: post #107
Bossman wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Valid points. You're right. Maybe I went a bit overboard. But you can't deny that Apple is continuously trying to prevent people from using anything but their services and goods. I don't blame them for that. What I blame them for is pushing everyone else out just because they control enough of the market to do so. > I suppose it could be your alarms, preferred weather cities and stocks app choices. Or your SMS databa…

> But you can't deny that Apple is continuously trying to prevent people from using anything but their services and goods. I wouldn't even say that. I'd say "Apple focuses on making their services and goods work together painlessly." Being incompatible with other things is not the goal but it does end up being the end result some of the time. It's a subtle but important distinction.

I would agree with you were it not for what they're doing now with this whole in-app transaction thing. They're forcing other services out. It wouldn't be a problem except they don't let companies adjust their prices to reflect the cut Apple is taking and they don't let you advertise the fact you can get the same service outside the app.

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#115

Post by sethg »

mryall wrote: post #79
statictype wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now they are offering the _option_ to use a subscription service. Wrong. Please don't misunderstand this new policy as something that is in addition to the existing rules. The Kindle App currently in the app store (which doesn't offer in-app purchase or subscription) is now probably in violation of the app store guidelines in light of these new terms. They have forced companies that offer any subscription service out…

Yeah, this confused me a lot. The press release [1] says quite clearly: > Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which…

So under the new guidelines, can Amazon distribute an app that lets you read Kindle books you’ve already purchased in other ways, with a note “we can’t actually make a clicky link here, but open up Safari and go to amazon.com to buy more books”?

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#116

Post by mechanical_fish »

jon_hendry wrote: post #99
mechanical_fish wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iBooks has a significantly smaller variety of books than Amazon. But will this be true for long, now that this particular shoe has dropped? Apple's primary target here is probably Amazon. A company which, incidentally, is no stranger to the art of using a powerful distribution network, an existing customer base, and a DRM-locked e-reader platform as a lever to demand big shares of revenue: http://www.jeremyrossmedia.…

"But will this be true for long, now that this particular shoe has dropped?" iBooks is still an also-ran. Publishers pretty much have to work with Amazon. iBooks is easier to ignore, I should think.

We'll see. Your logic was impeccable a year ago, before any iPads were sold; that's probably why iBooks is such an also-ran today. (Contracts take time to run out, the iPad isn't even a year old, and its success has taken even the optimists by surprise.)

But ignoring the iOS market gets harder by the day. There's a lot of tasty, tasty customers out there.

We'll see what happens. Note that Apple's new, um, clarification of its policy doesn't take effect for several months. I expect there will be weeks of furious behind-the-scenes jockeying for position among Apple, Amazon, and various publishers, after which there might be more announcements.

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#117

Post by [deleted] »

Pooter wrote: post #75
statictype wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll see how it shakes out. Maybe it'll be like the "nothing but objective-c" thing. People freak out too much about this kind of stuff. I think part of the reason they rescinded on that is because people freaked out about it :)

And because they realized that it ruled out large swaths of application classes that they don't have an issue with (games, for example). Mostly, it was about keeping crappy flash apps of iOS. And from a platform perspective, that did actually make a lot of sense.

[deleted]

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#118

Post by tseabrooks »

zyb09 wrote: post #55
chc wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abandoning your users and moving to a platform where there's little money to be made is a questionable proposition for producers. And a lot of users will have second thoughts about moving to a platform they perceive to be distinctly inferior just because Apple are being dicks. Also, as a reminder in case you live in a country where it isn't so: Contracts prevent most of Apple's customers from jumping platforms, and s…

Oh that's gonna change, no doubt. Produces can't ignore iOS, true, they'll suck it up for now, but the mobile market isn't gonna stay this way forever if Apple continues to behave this way. I say 80% of all apps we do, we do now both for iOS and Android. While Android used to be a second class citizen a year or so ago - often just recieving a 'port' of the iPhone version (ok it runs, we're done) - now there's much mo…

See... I kind of agree with you but I had a different take on things... It seems to me the time is right for people to get better at making web applications that provide really rich functionality. I know right their don't seem to be web applications that are as good as native clients but if people really work towards that direction they can avoid the walled garden all together... Of course then they have to convince users to go to the webpage and 'install' it as an icon in the dashboard..

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#119

Post by potatolicious »

lotusleaf1987 wrote: post #16

Zach said it best yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2224469 Of course Rhapsody can't sell their stuff for a 30% margin. It's not their own stuff! They're trying to be the last link in a chain of 90/10 (or more) splits. They repackage record labels' repackaging of artists' content. Do you think the artists would find 30% economically untenable? The App Store is 70/30 because Apple can take things straight…

Your argument only works in the context of someone like Rhapsody, who is a pretty bare-bones wrapper on top of content.

But consider services like last.fm, Netflix, or Pandora - where there is a significant value-add on top of merely distributing content. They are providing consumers a valuable service but yet also cannot afford the steep cut that Apple is now demanding.

The "they're distributors and deserve to get cut out" argument is a fallacy, because some distributors actually do provide consumer value - and they're all getting taken to the cleaners with Apple's new move.

Besides, a diverse crop of distributors competing with each other is a far better situation to be in than exchanging all of that for a monolithic monopoly of another distributor. Make no mistake, this isn't some populist uprising where the producers make their work available to the consumer and bypass the middleman - the middleman still exists, it's now Apple, and now Apple has all the cards.

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#120

Post by potatolicious »

czhiddy wrote: post #100
Bossman wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the DRMed video plays through itunes on windows too That's the problem. The DRM locks it to Apple only software and/or hardware.

How does Amazon's VOD DRM free you of software/hardware lockin?

Amazon doesn't manufacture the device you view your content on. Amazon VOD support is available on a wide range of hardware from multiple manufacturers.

So yeah, the DRM is still there, but if you're not happy with the way Samsung is doing things, you can hop to LG or Sony just as easily.

Compare with Apple where if you bought video content on iTunes and don't like the AppleTV... well... tough.

Post reply on HN