51–60 of 74 posts
To round the issue out from their side, not that I agree, from their point of view, it's "If we bring you subscribers via our devices, we deserve a cut"
Once you have purchased a phone from Apple - doesn't it cease to be their device? Doesn't this all seem a little wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They created the very ecosystem in which your app exists. I'd say that's a pretty important aspect of the whole app development model.
So microsoft would be within their rights to take a 30% cut of all cash flows from subscriptions made using internet explorer? What about 30% of all sales of Windows Software? Where does the ownership of the OS author end and the ownership of the 3rd party developer begin? What if Apple insisted upon 50%?
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…
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…
That said, however, there's decent and non-evil reasons for them to think like this - at least in terms of subscriptions, IMO.
One issue is that subscription-based apps are almost always free in the app store. Apple loses money on free apps that don't include iAds. If the subscription fee itself is also outside of Apple's control, they're hosting your app, getting you "shelf space", driving people to your app, etc. and they get nothing in return. With such an app, the content is basically replaced every month (or week or day or whatever) which makes the process a bit like a scheduled purchase of a new version of an app - hence the 30% cut.
On the surface, I disagree that Apple should get 30% forever for a subscription - especially if the publisher is providing all the infrastructure necessary to deliver that content. What if, though, the subscription system allowed publishers to upload the content once to Apple, and Apple hosts and distributes it to the apps and users? Now the 30% starts looking a bit more reasonable. If indeed it works this way (or will eventually work this way), you could be a very small shop and still manage to support thousands or, indeed, millions of subscriptions with virtually no support infrastructure of your own. That's certainly worth 30% IMO.
The flip side, though, is if you already have your own content delivery mechanisims in place, Apple taking 30% each billing cycle seems unfair. IMO, they should offer the subscription products in two flavors - one where they host and distribute your content, and another where you are doing that work. In the second version, Apple could easily take 30% of, say, the first billing cycle and take diminishing amounts for as long as the subscription remains in effect - perhaps even going all the way down to something like 2% just to cover the payment processing. That would seem a lot more fair to me than taking 30% forever.
Sadly, though, I haven't yet seen anything that suggests that either of these situations are even true. For all I know, Apple might not be offering any distribution or hosting services and might not even have an API to allow apps to easily take delivery of subscription content, and if that's the case, taking 30% forever seems excessive.
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…
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 th…
I always went looking for something on the App Store (or now on the Android Market) after hearing of it elsewhere. I suppose I may be in the minority there and I can't say for sure I'm not, but I'd be pretty surprised if I were.
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 th…
Is discovery via the App Store really that common? As a previous iPhone user and current Android user I don't think I ever discovered a single app for either platform via the App Store itself. I always went looking for something on the App Store (or now on the Android Market) after hearing of it elsewhere. I suppose I may be in the minority there and I can't say for sure I'm not, but I'd be pretty surprised if I were…
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 th…
Is discovery via the App Store really that common? As a previous iPhone user and current Android user I don't think I ever discovered a single app for either platform via the App Store itself. I always went looking for something on the App Store (or now on the Android Market) after hearing of it elsewhere. I suppose I may be in the minority there and I can't say for sure I'm not, but I'd be pretty surprised if I were…
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…
"Dishonest", "steal", "anti competitive" - these are some heavy accusations. In the context of Apple's relationship with developers, dishonest would mean deliberately lying, cheating, or signing a contract and then reneging on it (in which case the developer has legal recourse). "Steal" is quite irrelevant here - if Apple stole anything from anyone, it would have been sued. "Anti-competitive" - if your definition of…
If they want to make money selling books or subscription services let them try on equal footing with other companies. They are actively attempting to grow their own ebook store and at the same time charging competitors an unavoidable 30% tax to sell on their platform.
Providing a store infrastructure on the phone is fine. Forcing application developers to use your api for in-app purchases is borderline. Disallowing any subscription based content to be viewed on the phone unless you get a shot at taking 30% is crooked, especially given the fact that they are in direct competition with some of those providers.
I understand big business. Apple desires to take a piece of every cash flow associated with a iphone from cradle to grave - whether they had anything to do with creating it or not. And why not? We're talking about a lot of money and the ability to diversify into the cashflows of businesses (journalism etc) they have nothing to do with. They are actively attempting to set up a toll bridge for all content consumed on mobile devices running their OS. They will probably succeed.
This may or may not end up being seen as legal. (I believe they are in a grey zone) I'm saying I don't believe it is moral. Apple didn't do anything to earn this money; they are simply trying to take it because it is there, and they can.
Apple is one of my favorite companies, it bugs me to see them acting this way. If MSFT were doing this sort of thing you'd have grabbed your torch and pitchfork long ago.