How's Rhapsody affected, if they don't offer in-app purchases?? quote: "Today, Rhapsody subscriptions are available for purchase exclusively via Rhapsody.com"
If you'd follow the press releases or read the updated app store guidelines, you'd learn that Apple has changed the rules and is enforcing old ones in new ways that will affect Rhapsody, Amazon Kindle, Rdio, Netflix, and so on. The new rules would require Rhapsody to allow new cusomters to optionally sign up via in-app purchase with an ongoing 30% fee to Apple. The rules stipulate rhapsody _must_ make this offer if t…
Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans
51–60 of 94 posts
Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's customer centric, and, if they pull it off (With a good streaming, book reading, and content delivery platform) - brilliant." I don't see how this is customer-centric in the traditional idea of the term at all. Customers want to be able to listen to Pandora and sync with their Kindle. Customers do not want restrictive DRM and policies that lock them into a given company for eternity. I thought we were headed in…
We want to be able to listen to Pandora and sync with our Kindle to read e-books. The vast majority of the iOS userbase just want to listen to music and read e-books and do not care as much about what delivery mechanism provides the content. As much as I hate to admit it, they are not really going to miss Pandora or the Kindle app as much as we might like to hope. [For future reference, try not to use the Kindle as a…
"My friend showed me how to use Pandora. I love it, but you probably wouldn't like it because its all my music."
Point being, I think you're drastically underestimating Pandora/Netflix accessibility and market penetration.
Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans
#53Apologists: I don't care that Apple created something this profitable--that is not the issue. Desiring complete control over the mere act of computing on your own machine* is the problem. Apple is doing a wonderful job of absorbing a large swath of the marketshare and turning it into a closed ecosystem for developers, content providers, service providers, and owners. Apple should not have the authority to control everything one does with their devices. Why is this happening?
Maybe I worry too much, but I don't want to see our electronic freedoms erode.
Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans
#54Why hasn't a massive antitrust case against Apple been launched? Their behavior strikes me as far more anticompetitive than that of Microsoft during the "Browser Wars". Apologists: I don't care that Apple created something this profitable--that is not the issue. Desiring complete control over the mere act of computing on your own machine* is the problem. Apple is doing a wonderful job of absorbing a large swath of th…
Microsoft most certainly did have one during the browser wars, and were leveraging it to get people to increase IE marketshare.
With Windows on the desktop, you didn't really have much of a choice but Windows if you were going to use pre-package software, play games, or do business. With the iPhone, you've got tons of competition - Android, RIM, and WP7. If you don't want to work in that model, nothing forces you to, either as end user or VAR.
Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans
#55Eurozone based content rights holders such as Spotify, Vivendi and Amazon should take this to the Directorate General for Competition. iTunes music enjoys a dominant position in online music sales. ITMS operates on only ~15% net margins [1] the other ~15% attributed to marketing, R&D, bandwidth, support etc. App store or video margins should be even lower due to increased bandwidth, hosting costs, editorial review, etc. Clearly Apple's own content businesses would be unsustainable or would constitute dumping if forced to pay their public rate card for the payment platform.
Traditional remedies like content divestiture or substantial regulatory oversight could stifle innovation and raise consumer costs.
Instead:
- Allow end-users to specify an alternative root trust authority.
- Unbundle application signing from packaging, allowing N signers per binary
- Allow application side loading.
Effectively this would allow a competitor like Amazon to sidestep Apple requirements but only if they were willing to provide the entire infrastructure - payments, app store, bandwidth, support etc. Other root authorities could potentially be an open industry alliance, a privacy organizations like EFF, FOSS signers like FSF, code auditors like OBSD, security firms like Kaspersky or Secunia etc.Apple as an apple signer would be able to continue to select and sign applications arbitrarily to maintain a high user experience, mandate platform changes, provide preferential payment terms to in house content businesses and avoid breaking out detailed incomes and revenues in public.
Competitors would gain a plan of last resort to split from the ecosystem if the only alternative is exiting the platform entirely.
Consumers would gain from competition driving down margins and overhead, alternative signing would discourage consumer unfriendly behavior by trust authorities.
Simple to enforce, easy to implement, solves competition concerns even in markets that haven't developed yet.
[1] http://seekingalpha.com/article/90735-how-much-will-the-app-...
Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans
#56What's going to get really interesting is seeing where Apple draw the line with "subscription apps". The Rhapsody and Magazine apps of this world seem fairly clear cut. Kindle is somewhat less so (since books aren't a subscription service - something most blogs seem to miss). But what about these "Go to my PC", Salesforce.com, or other SaaS sites that basically provide free iOS apps for expensive subscription plans?…
amazon offers magazine subscription for kindle. Besides, I think Apple has been known to ignore or allow exceptions. For these SAAS companies, I imagine Apple will allow them to slide, but by their own terms.. it sounds like they shouldn't. I think their only main concerns are profiting from companies that compete directly with Apple revenue streams, music, movies, and books.
Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans
#57I've just realized what Apple is up to here - it took me a day, and some of the excellent comments on HN - but I now get it. My inability to see what was going on, was that I couldn't see how Netflix/Amazon/Rhapsody/etc... could operate, profitably, under this plan. The 30% cut would eat their entire margin (and more). And the plan is brutally straightforward and honest, if you just mediate on it for a few days. Appl…
It's unclear that apple really wants to enter the pooled subscription content markets. Clearly the main, first target here is Amazon Ebooks and their exclusive content deals. Elsewhere, everything they've done so far indicates that they'd prefer to sell or rent individual content this gives them reliable margins, no large upfront licensing costs and lower bandwidth costs. Instead, they may see services like Pandora and netflix weakening the demand for the music and video stores.
Purchased DRM content provides a long term platform lock-in, monthly subscription all you can eat has lower margins and provides less advantages to the platform.
Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans
#58Just curious: shouldn't Netflix be worried? This entitles Apple, Inc. to not only Rhapsody's income, but also to 30% of the income from Netflix's streaming only plan. Presumably, this policy would also affect Netflix's hybrid distribution model. I think Rhapsody's got a friend in Netflix. This will be interesting, given how much Apple has promoted Netflix in recent store advertisements, and integrated Netflix with Ap…
I would be surprised if the thought of using in-app purchasing for subscriptions even moved their needle of interest at Netflix. Again, if you're just providing a conduit for your subscription service, all this means is that you can't provide a direct call to action in your app. They seem like the prototypical example of an company that couldn't care less about using the App Store as an app-based advertisement or pur…
Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans
#59Why hasn't a massive antitrust case against Apple been launched? Their behavior strikes me as far more anticompetitive than that of Microsoft during the "Browser Wars". Apologists: I don't care that Apple created something this profitable--that is not the issue. Desiring complete control over the mere act of computing on your own machine* is the problem. Apple is doing a wonderful job of absorbing a large swath of th…
Re: Rhapsody passes on Apple's "economically untenable" sub plans
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
See Tim Bray's essay, which should be titled "Are You a Sharecropper?" http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePla... tl;dr: "[Apple] owns the ground you’re building on, and if they decide they don’t like you, or they can do something better with the ground, you’re toast." In this case, if they decide the rent covers your garden plot as well as the fields, you ante up or die.
Apple owns a very fertile piece of soil. You can grow 10x the crop there that you can grown any where else. Where do you want to farm your crop ?
"Apple owns a very fertile piece of soil. You can grow 10x the crop there that you can grown any where else."
And they can change your rent to 11x normal - just before you sell your crops...
"Where do you want to farm your crop ?"
Go question but it is actually a real question, not a rhetorical question... Do you want to a golden share cropper or do you want to be independent. There may be no easy answer...