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

61–70 of 74 posts

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

#61

Post by georgemcbay »

sethg wrote: post #58
georgemcbay wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If an app publisher wants to avoid all the App-Store-related restrictions, can they just put their app on the Web and let people download and install it through the browser? I don’t have any iStuff so I don’t know the practicalities.

No, they can't do that. On iOS it is the App Store or nothing when it comes to native apps. (Of course, if users jailbreak their phones they have more freedom to install apps, but I assume we're just talking about the standard OS here).

On Android the publisher can bypass the store by distributing their own APK files. Some carriers (glancing towards AT&T) lock this down in some phones, but by default Android is happy to install new apps from anywhere as long as the user agrees to a dialog warning them of the dangers of running random code they download from the net.

This is one of many reasons I'm currently an Android user and self-described "Apple hater".

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

#62

Post by wmeredith »

kbutler wrote: post #49
wmeredith wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're precisely correct, You did not have to pay for your iPhone. You chose to.

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

#63

Post by CWuestefeld »

msbarnett wrote: post #54
drawkbox wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's a bit off-topic, but PDFs, with their fixed page size baked right into the file, make for a truly miserable eBook experience.

I couldn't agree more. I think what your parent post meant to convey was the need for a standard format for ebook files. I think MOBI or EPUB could both fill that role.

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

#64

Post by CoffeeDregs »

BigZaphod wrote: post #55

I'm a huge Apple fan, but I admit there's something about this which doesn't feel entirely... right, and that's concerning. 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…

  * there's decent and non-evil reasons
Funny, I just e-mailed some friends about how Apple was starting to get a bit of the stink of Evil about them.

As I read your comment, I was struck by how Apple does everything in a very one-size-fits-all fashion (Mac -> no window menu; iPhone -> home screen is a list of apps; subscriptions -> one revenue model). There's a rich set of monetization schemes out there and Apple might offer a range of monetization models. Apple could use an affiliate fee style model where App maker pays Apple $X for each subscription+. Then Apple could just use the eCPM or expected revenue to rank search results (App gets a lot of subscribers and pays a healthy CPA, they get ranked higher). App makers would then need to figure out how much $$$ to pay Apple for an install. This could also apply to free apps [...but we've seen the harm that causes elsewhere].

Then Apple could add simple hosting/management fees for hosting an app's content.

+ I've been fairly heavily involved in the affiliate/CPA space, so know the kind of unpleasantness the model can bring, but am fairly confident that Apple could work around it.

[ed: formatting]

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

#65

Post by OpieCunningham »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #30
c2 wrote: post #2

The flip side of course is that these apps make the iPhone/iPad more appealing to more people. I can see Apple shooting themselves in the foot with their predatory practices against app publishers. Losing a big chunk of your margin while developing apps for free for Apple's products is only going to be sustainable for so long. And more likely then not, it will drive away the big players first where each percent means…

A supermarket that sells magazines will appeal more than a supermarket that doesn't. That doesn't mean it owes its success to the magazine publishers. I very much doubt that the availability of magazine and newspaper apps like The Daily will be a primary reason for customers to buy an iPad.

Magazines in a supermarket are slotted, so the publisher is paying the supermarket to stock the magazine.

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

#66

Post by kbutler »

wmeredith wrote: post #62
kbutler wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You're precisely correct, You did not have to pay for your iPhone. You chose to.

Yes, I chose to pay for the phone. Apple chose to sell the phone at a price they felt adequate compensation for their "decades" of work.

Apple is currently seeking to leverage their monopoly[1] on the iOS platform by extracting additional rent[2] from content providers.

Their probability of success directly correlates with their pricing power.

Is this rent-seeking good for Apple customers? Unlikely. Is it legal? Depends on how the FTC views Apple's pricing power.

kb

[1]In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly)

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent

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

#67

Post by relic17 »

nomurrcy wrote: post #60
relic17 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Sure. These are 'heavy' accusations. I feel pretty strongly about seeing a company I like go down this road. They are attempting to steal, and their behavior is dishonest and anti-competitive. 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 unavo…

I understand your reasoning and completely disagree with it. The only way I can answer is to urge you to check your premises. That would mean thinking about the meaning of "equal footing" and answering why, in your view, Apple has the obligation to provide developers with any kind of footing.

You also use terms such as "unavoidable 30% tax" and "forcing application developers". Do you really think Apple has the status of a government (i.e. the ability to charge mandatory tax) and do you really think Apple is actually physically forcing anyone to do anything? And finally, since you believe their platform policy of taking 30% is "crooked", why do you think that charging for the use of your property is immoral? Or do you think that there are some "moral" boundaries that should be acceptable? What prevents the other parties from walking away if they don't like these terms?

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

#68

Post by Samuel_Michon »

OpieCunningham wrote: post #65
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A supermarket that sells magazines will appeal more than a supermarket that doesn't. That doesn't mean it owes its success to the magazine publishers. I very much doubt that the availability of magazine and newspaper apps like The Daily will be a primary reason for customers to buy an iPad.

Magazines in a supermarket are slotted, so the publisher is paying the supermarket to stock the magazine.

In a supermarket, shelf space is limited. Online retailers like Apple and Amazon have virtually unlimited shelf space. That's one of the reasons why distributing paid content online is so much cheaper than in print. Compared to print, Apple's 30% take for payment processing, marketing and distribution is a great deal. That's how News Corp can offer a daily newspaper via the App Store for only $1 a week, for which you would normally pay $1 a day.

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

#69

Post by nomurrcy »

relic17 wrote: post #67
nomurrcy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. These are 'heavy' accusations. I feel pretty strongly about seeing a company I like go down this road. They are attempting to steal, and their behavior is dishonest and anti-competitive. 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 unavo…

I understand your reasoning and completely disagree with it. The only way I can answer is to urge you to check your premises. That would mean thinking about the meaning of "equal footing" and answering why, in your view, Apple has the obligation to provide developers with any kind of footing. You also use terms such as "unavoidable 30% tax" and "forcing application developers". Do you really think Apple has the statu…

I'm not sure I follow. A lot of your thinking seems to be predicated on the fact that Apple somehow owns your phone after you purchase it. They don't - you do. That's why you give them money for it.

Apple has tried to argue that it needs to retain strict control over what software you can and can't install for your protection. The fact of the matter (now apparent) is that they want to insert themselves into a transaction between two willing parties, without creating any marginal value.

What if your TV maker tried to charge a fee to your cable company because you were watching on 'their' TV?

What if Microsoft charged amazon a 30% fee because you purchased a book through 'their' browser.

What if Kitchenaid charged your bakery a fee per cupcake as you were using 'their' mixers.

The list is endless. At some point you need to assert your rights.

Again: if apple wants to make money selling me books, let them sell me books. Don't let them get away with selling something they don't own.

"... why do you think charging for the use of your property is immoral?"

This is the fundamental problem. Apple doesn't own my phone nor do they pay for my data connection. They are charging for my property.

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

#70

Post by JoeAltmaier »

hvs wrote: post #32
josefresco wrote: post #12

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.

Does Microsoft deserve a cut of every application written for Windows?

No, they can't even put IE in a walled garden without the US Senate getting involved.

Apple walls their garden, locks everybody inside and shakes them down - and folks leap to their defense?!?

Post reply on HN