41–50 of 206 posts
What a slap to the face. Apple uses their technology then tells them they can't use it themselves without offering in app purchases?!?!
I could be wrong, but I don't think Apple actually used their technology, but rather implemented a similar feature into desktop Safari.
I like to think of Apple's side of all the negative stories, but this time, I can't come up with a cogent excuse for what they are doing - save inept App Store policies/reviewers. By this logic, flattr will never get a native iOS app. And when are Apple going to shut the Instapaper app down, when Marco decides to let his one-dollar monthly subscribers[1] receive premium benefits? Apple really hates newspapers and mag…
I think a large chunk of Instapaper's revenue comes from the iOS apps so assuming Apple continues to keep acting like a douche, Marco would probably just as soon cancel the subscription plan rather than let his app get rejected.
Instapaper is exactly the kind of app this is directed at. It is a SaaS subscription. It would be foolish to turn away all the additional sales you'd get by being able to offer subscriptions within the app (something you couldn't do previously, forcing Marco to take paypal.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get your argument. > There is no reason for the channel to be Apple's How about the reason that it is Apple's? And why would they not want to have their rules on their channel? I am also not sure about ridiculousness of the rules; and finally "losses value"—it depends. One can argue that this is true for some segment wanting to participate in Apples ecosystem, but it is offset by another, larger, segment whic…
>How about the reason that it is Apple's? And why would they not want to have their rules on their channel? The only viable channel at this point is Apple's. If there were a way to access non-Apple blessed applications without rooting your device, then people might not complain so much. Savvy consumers don't appreciate monopolies.
That said, Readability's claim that this "smacks of greed" is totally right. Apple is not acting in its users' best interest, because more than other moves, this actually affects their developers' business models, and it's going to drive high quality, innovative apps away from the App Store.
There are two viable moves Apple can make:
1) Allow subscriptions outside the app without requiring one in the app
OR
2) Lowering the 30% fee for in-app subscriptions
Both of these options keep value in the App Store while providing Apple with some benefit. If they don't adopt one of these, the long term viability of the App Store is in jeopardy.
I really don't understand Apple's moves here. They have a terrific platform, and much of the value of their platform comes from third-party apps. If app devs start leaving for WebOS or Android in droves, much of their traction is going to be lost. I think if they would have gone for 10% or 15% they wouldn't have gotten this kind of response. I predict either reversals or abandonment of their platform. I still maintai…
If you accept that the 70-30 split is acceptable for sales of apps, by logical extension you must accept that the 70-30 split is acceptable for in-app purchases, because technically one could provide a free app with an in-app purchase to make it a full app, and anything less than 30% on Apple's take would gravitate the market toward this model.
If you accept that 70-30 is fair for in-app purchases, then you must by logical extension accept that recurring in-app purchases that can be cancelled at any time would also have this split, because technically one could provide all in-app purchases at a steep discount simply as "subscriptions" that can be cancelled after the first payment.
As far as I can tell, this is Apple's reasoning and rather inescapable at that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It still doesn't beat the "Objective-C Only" fiasco..does it?
It's a strong second place then if it's not the first. Good thing is, Apple backed down on that which is why I was just today trying out Airplay SDK on Windows. Hopefully they'll back down on the subscriptions plan, too. That said, it really should require us all getting up in arms over it for Apple to stop stuff like this. They shouldn't have made such a policy to start with! Very worrying for the future of the plat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get your argument. > There is no reason for the channel to be Apple's How about the reason that it is Apple's? And why would they not want to have their rules on their channel? I am also not sure about ridiculousness of the rules; and finally "losses value"—it depends. One can argue that this is true for some segment wanting to participate in Apples ecosystem, but it is offset by another, larger, segment whic…
The issue is that Apple is artificially tying their channel to your hardware; they sold the hardware to you, but they sold it, not leased it, so its still your hardware. However, they've artificially retained control of the channel via DRM, software that doesn't allow you to install whatever you want on your own hardware. If you had the option of buying apps through another channel, this wouldn't be a problem. Most p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a large chunk of Instapaper's revenue comes from the iOS apps so assuming Apple continues to keep acting like a douche, Marco would probably just as soon cancel the subscription plan rather than let his app get rejected.
When he doesn't, and when he adds in-app subscriptions, will it cause you to revise your perspective? Instapaper is exactly the kind of app this is directed at. It is a SaaS subscription. It would be foolish to turn away all the additional sales you'd get by being able to offer subscriptions within the app (something you couldn't do previously, forcing Marco to take paypal.)
Sure, I'd be curious to see if it's economical to hand over 30% of whatever subscriptions he receives to Apple.
This may be a stupid comment to make, but one I feel should be added to the conversation. Why are people so willing to develop for Apple when Android is now the larger platform, and has a far easier barrier to entry?
This may be a stupid comment to make, but one I feel should be added to the conversation. Why are people so willing to develop for Apple when Android is now the larger platform, and has a far easier barrier to entry?
Also, Apple's tools for developing are just superior. The Android SDK is an Eclipse/Netbeans Plug-in. Apple's is an 800MB-1GB version of XCode.