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

Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 74 posts

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#41

Post by donohoe »

mrud wrote: post #14
pixdamix wrote: post #8

"All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app." "Apple's announcement went on to emphasize that publishers are not limited to using the App Store for subscriptions; they're allowed to use their own websites to sell subs." So purchase can be made in Safa…

safari is not inside the app

In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#42

Post by c2 »

nomurrcy wrote: post #24

Full disclosure: I generally like apple products and have used NeXT / apple products for a long time. I don't see how Apple's stance here is defensible or honest. They using their position as a large platform provider to steal from 3rd party developers. To me this is akin to me writing a program for OSX that allows users to sign up for a subscription service, and apple taking a 30% cut of my cash flows just because I…

I think we are going to start to see Apple pull more and more moves like this. They are basically where Microsoft was at their peak. Apple's share price is sky high, their growth and margins are phenomenal, and at this point to continue to deliver shareholder value, they need to grab money from more and more sources - that means squeezing their position for every possible dime. What's next after the iPad? What comes after the app store? Well, why not tighten up monetization of the app store by directly tying revenue with publishers.

I'm eager and a little weary of seeing Apple's next moves over the next couple years.

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#43

Post by invertd »

wmeredith wrote: post #37
kbutler wrote: post #35

In related news, the US Interstate Highway system will now require a 30% cut of the purchase price of every vehicle purchased in the United States. "Our philosophy is simple—when US Highways bring a new driver to the car company, US Highways earn a 30 percent share." The US Postal Service considered a similar regulation, but found that customers would simply divert shipments to competitors UPS, DHL, and Fedex, and is…

Apples and Oranges, my friend. The highway and the USPS are funded by tax dollars. The App Store is a culmination of Steve Jobs and co busting their collective asses for decades on their own time without any mandatory help from you. Now they're going to charge you an arm and a leg for the privilege of using it. If you don't like it, you're free to take a stand with your dollars and go elsewhere.

Using Apple products is not mandatory, of course...but the real question is whether a 30% cut is a fair number or the methodology itself is fair to being with?

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#44

Post by armandososa »

enjo wrote: post #18
brisance wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get heavy promotion. Look at how Angry Birds and all the other games did by being featured on "New and Noteworthy" or "Staff Picks" or "Top Grossing Apps". It's a two-way street; don't make it sound like Apple is taking advantage of your efforts.

That works for a hugely small subset of apps. Each (well written) app creates a lot of value for iOs, most of those won't get anything at all from Apple. So again, why isn't the inverse true? If I'm building something that helps sell an iOs device, why shouldn't I get a cut? Of course I shouldn't, but that's the problem in Apples logic here.

    So again, why isn't the inverse true? If I'm building something that helps sell an iOs device, why shouldn't I get a cut?
Maybe you are right, maybe you should leave apple and help Microsoft sell WP7 devices. They will be grateful.

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#45

Post by drawkbox »

nomurrcy wrote: post #24

Full disclosure: I generally like apple products and have used NeXT / apple products for a long time. I don't see how Apple's stance here is defensible or honest. They using their position as a large platform provider to steal from 3rd party developers. To me this is akin to me writing a program for OSX that allows users to sign up for a subscription service, and apple taking a 30% cut of my cash flows just because I…

I also mirror your sentiment. I think that this will lead to lost hardware sales (I may have to buy a Kindle now) and may as well develop for that if I have one.

When did Apple turn from a hardware focused company to a software company/platform company only? It seems their platform is taking precedence to their hardware now.

Then again you can't buy iBooks on Kindle or Nook but the point of an iOS device is a bit of a smart phone singularity. I want all my stuff on that device.

This will not get me to buy more iBooks, it may make be buy a Kindle though instead of using my iPads for reading books.

Let's hope they all go PDF.

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#48

Post by sethg »

Apple is trying to prevent the following maneuver:

¶ FooPub Inc. publishes FooMag through the App Store, at a price of $1/year.

¶ Each issue of FooMag contains some small amount of content and a link: “To read more, go to foopub.example.com and subscribe to FooMag Deluxe for $20/year!”

¶ Users download FooMag Deluxe through FooPub’s own servers, bypassing the App Store completely.

¶ Scads of people discover FooMag through the App Store, subscribe to it (giving Apple 30¢ out of each $1 subscription), and a significant fraction of them upgrade to the deluxe version (giving Apple nothing).

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#49

Post by kbutler »

wmeredith wrote: post #37
kbutler wrote: post #35

In related news, the US Interstate Highway system will now require a 30% cut of the purchase price of every vehicle purchased in the United States. "Our philosophy is simple—when US Highways bring a new driver to the car company, US Highways earn a 30 percent share." The US Postal Service considered a similar regulation, but found that customers would simply divert shipments to competitors UPS, DHL, and Fedex, and is…

Apples and Oranges, my friend. The highway and the USPS are funded by tax dollars. The App Store is a culmination of Steve Jobs and co busting their collective asses for decades on their own time without any mandatory help from you. Now they're going to charge you an arm and a leg for the privilege of using it. If you don't like it, you're free to take a stand with your dollars and go elsewhere.

Oh, that's why I didn't have to pay for my iPhone, then.

Re: Apple: if we get you subscribers, we deserve a cut

#50

Post by sethg »

kbutler wrote: post #35

In related news, the US Interstate Highway system will now require a 30% cut of the purchase price of every vehicle purchased in the United States. "Our philosophy is simple—when US Highways bring a new driver to the car company, US Highways earn a 30 percent share." The US Postal Service considered a similar regulation, but found that customers would simply divert shipments to competitors UPS, DHL, and Fedex, and is…

In the private sector, it’s not uncommon for the party that controls a distribution channel to extract rent from both ends.

For example: I know a guy who worked for a startup that made a new kind of low-fat mayonnaise. They had trouble getting their mayo into grocery stores, because the grocery chains charge fees (something in the five figures, IIRC) for giving new products shelf space, and the company didn’t have enough cash on hand to pay those fees.

η http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slotting_fee

Post reply on HN