Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
reuters.com
Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
1–10 of 79 posts
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#2Fully recognizing that Apple's 30% is highway robbery, isn't Google's "only 10%" still fairly outrageous? This seems like more a 5% feature, since the app providers still have to provide all their own infrastructure to actually support the subscription.
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#3Apple's problem is it's company name doesn't end in AA, they are the only industries that can get away with 30% without investigation.
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#4Fully recognizing that Apple's 30% is highway robbery, isn't Google's "only 10%" still fairly outrageous? This seems like more a 5% feature, since the app providers still have to provide all their own infrastructure to actually support the subscription.
No, Since with Google there is no lock-in. iOS device owner have no option other than using Apple app-store/itunes.
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#5Fully recognizing that Apple's 30% is highway robbery, isn't Google's "only 10%" still fairly outrageous? This seems like more a 5% feature, since the app providers still have to provide all their own infrastructure to actually support the subscription.
This isn't a "processing" fee. This is a new kind of fee. It's a "platform access" fee. Apple sees value in the fact that they've cultivated a mass of users who are more than willing to repeatedly spend small amounts of money on content. I don't think that point can be overstated. iOS users buy a ton of content, and anyone with content to push wants access to them.
Hence, the standard rules of supply and demand apply. If you control 100% of the supply, you are a monopoly, so the question will become one of defining the supply. Is it iOS users? Is it mobile device owners? Is it media consumers? Where the definition falls on that continuum will define the outcome of the investigation.
I'd be very surprised if the regulatory agencies defined the supply as iOS users, so I think Apple will get away with this. Not that it matters much. I believe Apple has crossed the critical tipping point where sustainability exists only in niches, and will ultimately push away so many content distributors that the actual creators (those with the room to sell at a 30% markdown) won't be able to fill in the gaps fast enough. There will be volumes of content available on other platforms, and the attractiveness of iOS devices (and platform) will diminish. This will have the effect of accelerating competing platforms' growth lead. At that point, Apple will either react to the market, or relegate themselves to a small portion of the market that they will happily turn a huge profit on.
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#6Fully recognizing that Apple's 30% is highway robbery, isn't Google's "only 10%" still fairly outrageous? This seems like more a 5% feature, since the app providers still have to provide all their own infrastructure to actually support the subscription.
It's not highway robbery.
It's the cost of doing business on the App Store. You always have the option to serve your customers on their iOS devices over the web. If you want the convenience of the App Store and a native app, then 30% is the going rate.
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#7Fully recognizing that Apple's 30% is highway robbery, isn't Google's "only 10%" still fairly outrageous? This seems like more a 5% feature, since the app providers still have to provide all their own infrastructure to actually support the subscription.
Does google require you to use their service the same way apple does? Or is their service just there for developers that want to use it(at a 10% cost?)
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#8Fully recognizing that Apple's 30% is highway robbery, isn't Google's "only 10%" still fairly outrageous? This seems like more a 5% feature, since the app providers still have to provide all their own infrastructure to actually support the subscription.
10% does seem a bit high, but it is also unclear what the terms actually are. Google's system is pretty vague at the moment and seems much more varied than the Apple plan to the point I can't imagine a straight 10% off the top is the deal.
Of course, as far as regulators are concerned, the big difference is Google isn't railroading publishers into using it on Android or enforcing price matching.
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#9Fully recognizing that Apple's 30% is highway robbery, isn't Google's "only 10%" still fairly outrageous? This seems like more a 5% feature, since the app providers still have to provide all their own infrastructure to actually support the subscription.
> the app providers still have to provide all their own infrastructure
Like the credit card processing, the hardware manufacturing facilities in China, the software libraries, the industrial designers...
Apple has made it absurdly convenient to consume rich content. They have built fucking science fiction. 30% to get delivered to someone anywhere, any time is a bargain. You're paying to be part of the gut wrenchingly difficult channel Apple has created from scratch, which no one else had the foresight to predict or the balls to put money behind.
Apple bet the damn farm on this crazy iDevice shit and they get to charge whatever they like for it now that it works. Anyone who doesn't like it can go build their own fully integrated platform.
Re: Regulators probe Apple 30% subscription plan
#10Apple spent millions of dollars promoting the concept that iPhone/iPad apps should not necessarily be free. How many times did you see a print ad where they showed a bunch of cool apps AND their prices? This 30% fee is simply a return on that investment. Paid apps don't sell on other platforms (e.g. Android) because these platforms never marketed this idea to consumers. 70% of something is better than 100% of nothing. It's the same story with iTunes -- Apple is the only company that convinced consumers to pay for music, and they charge exorbitant fees to the record labels.