Support NeoGAF

[LCfiner]

I was waiting for this to show up before starting an EDGE subscription for Zinio. I'm curious what the fallout will be.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

How are you liking the walled garden iOS fans?

 

[LCfiner]

How are you liking the walled garden iOS fans?

still the best garden out there. so pretty and easy to play around in. I'm frolicking like a mother fucker up in this garden.

 

[MilesWebber]

Bought a kindle yesterday. I'lts a lot clunkier than my iPad but offers a great reading experience with less things to attract my ADD. Loving it so far.

 

[rezuth]

How are you liking the walled garden iOS fans?

Loving it All I need from iOS to become perfect is a new notification system and thats coming.

 

[Blackhead]

Loving it All I need from iOS to become perfect is a new notification system and thats coming.

even if that doesn't come you still won't leave the walled garden

 

[SnakeXs]

How are you liking the walled garden iOS fans?

It's really a drag. Having all this awesome content is a really drain on my wallet and toilet time.

 

[Painraze]

How are you liking the walled garden iOS fans?

I'm loving it. Much better than the fractured, bloated, mess that is the alternative.

 

[kaching]

How are you liking the walled garden iOS fans?

Did you not expect this to backfire?

 

[MilesWebber]

How are you liking the walled garden iOS fans?

Not so much a "Walled Garden" with iBooks. I've sideload dozens of books to my iPad without jailbreaking...

 

[dynamitejim]

Apple getting a 30% cut for doing pretty much nothing is obscene. No way will Amazon, Sony and B&N put up with that.

 

[hyp]

Apple getting a 30% cut for doing pretty much nothing is obscene. No way will Amazon, Sony and B&N put up with that.

they're giving amazon tens of millions of customers. how is that not doing anything?

 

[Burger]

How are you liking the walled garden iOS fans?

Well obviously we miss out on those apps that aim to trick people into buying them, the ones that steal your personal information, the blatant copyright infringement apps...

Anyway, what are you on about. Google remove shit from the Android market all the time, it's hardly a free for all over there.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Its amazing how you guys don't recognize something so anti-consumer when it slaps you right in the face.

Keep on keepin on.

 

[Burger]

Its amazing how you guys don't recognize something so anti-consumer when it slaps you right in the face.

Keep on keepin on.

Do you care to elaborate, or are broad generalizations your thing?

 

[LCfiner]

Its amazing how you guys don't recognize something so anti-consumer when it slaps you right in the face.

Keep on keepin on.

You can keep trolling all you want as long as you promise never to change your avatar.

 

[sc0la]

Apple getting a 30% cut for doing pretty much nothing is obscene. No way will Amazon, Sony and B&N put up with that.

They "put up with it" when they take the same cut on their platforms. If they are smart they will mark up the in-app purchase price and put links to buy the content via the web at a "discounted" price. "Doing pretty much nothing" is a slightly unfair descriptor for providing tens of millions more potential customers to nook or kindle stores that have not yet bought an e-reader.

With that said, I am waiting on ebooks all together until they can be used across platforms and don't have an untenable DRM situation (just as I waited on MP3s not ripped from my CDs).

 

[numble]

Its amazing how you guys don't recognize something so anti-consumer when it slaps you right in the face.

Keep on keepin on.

I can still choose to buy my Netflix subscription on Netflix.com, Kindle e-books on Amazon.com, etc. It is possibly anti-developer or even anti-competitive, but I'm unsure what makes it so anti-consumer.

The anti-competitive claim would be that it forces Amazon to raise prices while the iBookstore gets cheaper rates. Not sure if it would create a cognizable anti-competitive claim though, since it brings counter-claims regarding Amazon's predatory pricing strategy using subsidies to keep prices below iBookstore prices.

 

[kaching]

Does this policy change require services to have the Apple in-app subscription mechanism if the service wasn't already providing some sort of subscribe link in-app? i.e. if a Netflix or someone else wanted to have an app just for existing subscribers to access their content could they do that?

 

[Suikoguy]

They "put up with it" when they take the same cut on their platforms. If they are smart they will mark up the in-app purchase price and put links to buy the content via the web at a "discounted" price. "Doing pretty much nothing" is a slightly unfair descriptor for providing tens of millions more potential customers to nook or kindle stores that have not yet bought an e-reader.

With that said, I am waiting on ebooks all together until they can be used across platforms and don't have an untenable DRM situation (just as I waited on MP3s not ripped from my CDs).

I don't think they can do that

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...-we-deserve-a-cut.ars?comments=1#comments-bar

"Our philosophy is simple—when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing," CEO Steve Jobs said in a statement. "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."

Also, companies have till June 30th to comply.

This is akin to Microsoft charging 30% to steam for sales through Windows 7. Really amazing precedent that will likely backfire.

Edit:

If I was in that situation, I would simply remove the app from the store and focus elsewhere. I'm not sure if they can remove sales from the app all together, that would be another option.

 

[Blackhead]

I can still choose to buy my Netflix subscription on Netflix.com, Kindle e-books on Amazon.com, etc. It is possibly anti-developer or even anti-competitive, but I'm unsure what makes it so anti-consumer.

If you'd prefer to get your subscriptions directly from the content providers isn't it anti-consumer that Apple stops those content deliverymen from offering that option in-app?

 

[sc0la]

I don't think they can do that

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...-we-deserve-a-cut.ars?comments=1#comments-bar

Thanks for clarification.

 

[numble]

If you'd prefer to get your subscriptions directly from the content providers isn't it anti-consumer that Apple stops those content deliverymen from offering that option in-app?

If you define it that broadly, any restriction on what an app can offer (porn, mods, etc) becomes anti-consumer, and the whole walled-garden metaphor becomes anti-consumer.

I see this as bad for developers and content providers, but in the consumer sense, I can still get what I want, via either in-app or direct website.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Do you care to elaborate, or are broad generalizations your thing?

With this update to their policy regarding subscriptions, content providers losing 30% of revenue from subscriptions started in a iOS app could increase the costs of subscriptions all across the board for people that don't even use iOS products.

I'm not sure how many people actually buy their subscriptions from their iOS app but if it proves to be a significant number, do you think content providers like Hulu and Netflix will like giving up that much money to Apple? Do they begrudgingly take it or do they take their ball home and pull their apps? I'm leaning more towards the latter than the former.

EDIT:

Whats to stop Apple from extending this policy beyond subscriptions? According to Apple's reasoning, they should get a cut because they helped Hulu, Netflix, etc... get those subscriptions by simply hosting the app. If Apple continues down this slippery slope, couldn't they say the same thing about Amazon's app? Amazon was ready to pull out of Texas when they asked for taxes. How quickly do you think Amazon would pull their app if Apple demanded 30% of all Amazon sales completed through the app?

 

[Marty Chinn]

Well obviously we miss out on those apps that aim to trick people into buying them, the ones that steal your personal information, the blatant copyright infringement apps...

Anyway, what are you on about. Google remove shit from the Android market all the time, it's hardly a free for all over there.

Sure helped here:

http://www.techeye.net/software/apple-mac-store-screws-developers-with-pirated-lugaru-download

Took over a week to get it removed but damage was done because of how slowly Apple reacted...

 

[dynamitejim]

They "put up with it" when they take the same cut on their platforms. If they are smart they will mark up the in-app purchase price and put links to buy the content via the web at a "discounted" price. "Doing pretty much nothing" is a slightly unfair descriptor for providing tens of millions more potential customers to nook or kindle stores that have not yet bought an e-reader.

Did you not read the statement? In app purchases have to be the same price or less as what the retailer charges. Meaning Apple is getting 30% for doing nothing. They didn't license the content, they didn't produce the content, they don't even store the content or transfer it. They're basically charging a 30% "processing" fee to the actual retailer.

And the "providing a platform" excuse is BS. Apple making just as much as the retailer for doing nothing is anti-consumer and anti-competitive nonsense to drive people to their own ebook store (which is worse and doing worse than Amazon's and B&N's stores).

 

[Blackhead]

If you define it that broadly, any restriction on what an app can offer (porn, mods, etc) becomes anti-consumer, and the whole walled-garden metaphor becomes anti-consumer.

I see this as bad for developers and content providers, but in the consumer sense, I can still get what I want, via either in-app or direct website.

No, you are defining it broadly. I'm referring to this particular move which you said wasn't anti-consumer. Y



(There are aspects to the wall garden that are anti-consumer and other parts that are pro-consumer and then there is the question of whether the sum total of the walled garden is anti-consumer.)

 

[LCfiner]

I would definitely be surprised if any of the big boys (neflix, hulu, amazon, etc) remove their apps from the store but it would certainly be an interesting situation if they did.

To be clear, I don't think this is a good move by Apple. I think it could backfire and I think the 70/30 split is way too high in Apple's favor for this type of content. But... let's see how this plays out. If the content suppliers start packing up and Apple gets nervous, maybe they'll blink.

 

[Burger]

With this update to their policy regarding subscriptions, content providers losing 30% of revenue from subscriptions started in a iOS app could increase the costs of subscriptions all across the board for people that don't even use iOS products.

I'm not sure how many people actually buy their subscriptions from their iOS app but if it proves to be a significant number, do you think content providers like Hulu and Netflix will like giving up that much money to Apple? Do they begrudgingly take it or do they take their ball home and pull their apps? I'm leaning more towards the latter than the former.

I'm not sure what you are expecting from Apple. It's not as if they are not providing a service themselves, providing all the bandwidth, hosting, validation etc.

If I wanted to sell a product in a retail store I would expect similar terms (70/30 split). Besides, it's not as if iOS devices don't support the web, where you Hulu/Netflix could operate with a login system or something. But that's not what they want is it? They want the App Store, where all the eyeballs and credit cards are.

Sure helped here:

http://www.techeye.net/software/apple-mac-store-screws-developers-with-pirated-lugaru-download

Took over a week to get it removed but damage was done because of how slowly Apple reacted...

I'm not going to argue with you Marty! Sounds like a genuine mistake, though the headline is a little incendiary. Imagine what it would be like without the App Store gate keepers though? App-Spam city.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Also, companies have till June 30th to comply.

This is akin to Microsoft charging 30% to steam for sales through Windows 7. Really amazing precedent that will likely backfire.

Windows 7 is software. This is more like Microsoft charging 30% to companies that want to release games for 360, or getting a 30% cut on extras sold through Live.

 

[Suikoguy]

Not really. Windows 7 is software. This is more like Microsoft charging 30% to companies that want to release games for 360.

I thought Windows 7 was an Operating system?
Apple already charges, 30%? for apps on the app store, this in your comparison, is like Microsoft charging 30% for DLC content for games already sold and 30% for any Movie or Music content sold in anything on the 360.

Edit:

I can see the argument you are trying to make, however the line between the iOS and Windows 7 is very thin. The line between the Android OS and Windows 7 even thinner.

 

[Marty Chinn]

I'm not going to argue with you Marty! Sounds like a genuine mistake, though the headline is a little incendiary. Imagine what it would be like without the App Store gate keepers though? App-Spam city.

Genuine mistake? Sure. I believe that. Not resonding to the developer after several days and finally taking at least a week before it was pulled? Now that's not a genuine mistake IMO.

If you're going to push the walled garden and app store as a good thing, then it needs to be upheld with supposedly to the guards that monitor it as a benefit. Apple's communication skills regarding app issues have always been shitty and this was the worst offense I've seen. Apple should have responded more quickly and been in communication with the developer rather than it being days without the developer even knowing if Apple heard the request. Issue should have been resolved in 24 hours, 48 at the worst. Not 192.

So despite your claim, the damage was still done because the developer lost all those sales but they were kind enough to give them real licenses. Doesn't make it any less damaging.

 

[dynamitejim]

Windows 7 is software. This is more like Microsoft charging 30% to companies that want to release games for 360, or getting a 30% cut on extras sold through Live.

No this is more like MS making 30% off people who subscribe to Netflix through their 360 and not allowing Netflix to charge more for people who subscribe this way than doing so through their website AND not allowing them to post their web address in the Netflix player.

And the "well Apple brings in lots of customers!!11" excuse is garbage. It's a two way street. Can you imagine if Google got the Netflix, Kindle, Nook, etc. apps exclusive to the Android Marketplace? iDevice owners would be furious.

 

[Burger]

Genuine mistake? Sure. I believe that. Not resonding to the developer after several days and finally taking at least a week before it was pulled? Now that's not a genuine mistake IMO.

If you're going to push the walled garden and app store as a good thing, then it needs to be upheld with supposedly to the guards that monitor it as a benefit. Apple's communication skills regarding app issues have always been shitty and this was the worst offense I've seen. Apple should have responded more quickly and been in communication with the developer rather than it being days without the developer even knowing if Apple heard the request. Issue should have been resolved in 24 hours, 48 at the worst. Not 192.

So despite your claim, the damage was still done because the developer lost all those sales but they were kind enough to give them real licenses. Doesn't make it any less damaging.

I agree, it's terrible customer service. Apple should have done better, no excuse.

But it does swing the other way. Think of all the success stories there are out there that you never hear of because it's not scandalous enough.

Marco Arment sums it up:

Ode to the App Review team
I wasn’t always a fan of Apple’s requirement that all App Store submissions be reviewed by a fairly opaque process before release, which often led to confusing or unfair rejections.

But over the last year, I’ve grown to appreciate app review and the immense staff it must take to operate at its scale. We usually only see inflammatory blog posts and news articles about app review’s failures, while almost nobody ever mention its benefits. So I’m going to start.

First and foremost, the review process has created a level of consumer confidence and risk-taking that has enabled the entire iOS app market to be far bigger and healthier than anyone expected. Average people — the same people who have been yelled at for decades for clicking on the wrong button on the wrong incomprehensible dialog box and messing up their computers — can (and do) confidently buy large quantities of inexpensive apps impulsively, without having to worry that any of them will “break” their iPhones or iPads, rip them off, destroy their data, or require them to embarrassingly visit the corporate IT department, the Geek Squad, or their computer-savvy relatives (us) for help. Part of this is due to the highly sandboxed architecture enforced by the OS, but a big part is the app review process.

For software makers and trademark owners, Apple’s review process significantly cuts down on name squatters, illegal clones, piracy apps, legally risky apps (for better and for worse), and trademark infringers.1

The result of these processes is that Apple can more easily let us use their payment system without scaring their lawyers, devaluing their store’s image, or incurring high fraud and chargeback fees from their payment processors. Being in their storefront and billing system gives a lot of people an extremely easy way to pay us.

So we have a huge number of potential customers who are very comfortable installing a lot of apps and can buy ours by simply entering a password. Without app review, that market would be very different.2

Yes, they occasionally make mistakes. But these are humans — humans that, as far as I can tell, work their asses off to keep up with the massive volume of app submissions. (They seem to work a lot of overtime, too. As far as I can tell, they’re all in California, yet I’ve had apps approved late at night and on weekends regularly.)

Think of what that job must be like: plowing through an endless barrage of mostly terrible app submissions, many of which are unsuitable for the Store3, trying to evaluate people’s work against a very long list of often-subjective criteria, with the ever-present threat that an inconsistent or wrong decision might result in a shitstorm of bad press. Oh, and they only get a few minutes to decide on each app.

(And think of the email they must get.)

Despite all of that, app review gets better over time. As they’ve needed to handle ever-growing volumes of app submissions, average review times have stabilized and have actually started to get faster.

The occasional app-review mistake, in either execution or policy-making, is understandable and unavoidable. And I’d say that all of the benefits make the occasional pitfalls completely worthwhile.

App Review team: Thank you, and keep up the good work.

http://www.marco.org/3100131471

 

[Particle Physicist]

I thought Windows 7 was an Operating system?
Apple already charges, 30%? for apps on the app store, this in your comparison, is like Microsoft charging 30% for DLC content for games already sold and 30% for any Movie or Music content sold in anything on the 360.

Edit:

I can see the argument you are trying to make, however the line between the iOS and Windows 7 is very thin. The line between the Android OS and Windows 7 even thinner.

An operating system is software. The 360 has an operating system as well. iOS is linked to the hardware, in the same way that 360's operating system is linked to it's hardware. I would argue that it is exactly as if Microsoft would charge 30% for any software on their system, and 30% for any additional content bought through the marketplace.

I'm not excusing this practice, but I think this comparison makes more sense.

 

[Zombie James]

Apple might very well get in trouble for that "same price or cheaper" clause. Forcing developers to set their prices on Apple's terms sounds very, very iffy.

 

[Burger]

I thought Windows 7 was an Operating system?
Apple already charges, 30%? for apps on the app store, this in your comparison, is like Microsoft charging 30% for DLC content for games already sold and 30% for any Movie or Music content sold in anything on the 360.

If you publish an indie game on the 360 marketplace, Microsoft take 30%

As far as terms dictated to major labels, game publishers etc, I'm not sure that information is publicly available.

 

[numble]

No, you are defining it broadly. I'm referring to this particular move which you said wasn't anti-consumer. Y



(There are aspects to the wall garden that are anti-consumer and other parts that are pro-consumer and then there is the question of whether the sum total of the walled garden is anti-consumer.)

Just like your walled garden parenthetical, there are aspects to this that are anti-consumer and other parts that are pro-consumer and then there is the question of whether the sum total is anti-consumer. Many people may find purchasing with Apple's one-click solution (which they pay Amazon for the license to) to be better than the onerous subscription forms that you have to fill out when you want a digital subscription to The Economist, for example. I also can just use iTunes gift cards and don't have to use a credit card on theeconomist.com, for instance. The Economist gets my CC info and snail mail address, while Apple subscriptions only provide e-mail and zip on an opt-in basis.

 

[scorcho]

how does this work with subscription models like Dropbox?

also, not sure if it's fair to compare this to what Microsoft charges publishers for X360 purchases, or even what Apple skims off the top of the App Store an iTunes. at least in those instances they're providing the framework, storage and bandwidth. it's safe to assume that's not the case with Amazon, The Economist, etc.

 

[Particle Physicist]

how does this work with subscription models like Dropbox?

also, not sure if it's fair to compare this to what Microsoft charges publishers for X360 purchases, or even what Apple skims off the top of the App Store an iTunes. at least in those instances they're providing the framework, storage and bandwidth. it's safe to assume that's not the case with Amazon, The Economist, etc.

As I read it, the 30% charge is only for things bought through apple's services, I may be mistaken though.

 

[LCfiner]

Well, Pop Sci+ just updated to v1.60 and has an in-app subscription for 12 issues at 15 bucks. looks like they didn't waste any time to launch this, lol

I'll sign up for that. better than 3 bucks per issue (I had bought 4 issues till now).

 

[Suikoguy]

As I read it, the 30% charge is only for things bought through apple's services, I may be mistaken though.

"if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app"

Makes it pretty clear to me that if you offer it outside the app, you have to offer at inside the app for the same price or better.

 

[Tobor]

Well, Pop Sci+ just updated to v1.60 and has an in-app subscription for 12 issues at 15 bucks. looks like they didn't waste any time to launch this, lol

I'll sign up for that. better than 3 bucks per issue (I had bought 4 issues till now).

Ooh, nice. I'll be curious to see how fast The New Yorker and Wired update, and for what price.

 

[numble]

Rhapsody responds, maybe Apple will blink:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/15/rhapsody-wont-bow-to-apples-subscription-policy-issues-statem/

Rhapsody is the leading digital music subscription service in the U.S.,with 750,000 subscribers. Music fans can access the service using free apps from any Internet-connected device, be it on an Android, Sonos, Tivo, BlackBerry, iOS or personal computer. Today, Rhapsody subscriptions are available for purchase exclusively via Rhapsody.com.

Rhapsody offers a content-based subscription service that makes millions of tracks available to fans pursuant to longstanding partnerships with thousands of rights holders, all of which then distribute revenues to artists and other creators.

Our philosophy is simple too – an Apple-imposed arrangement that requires us to pay 30 percent of our revenue to Apple, in addition to content fees that we pay to the music labels, publishers and artists, is economically untenable. The bottom line is we would not be able to offer our service through the iTunes store if subjected to Apple's 30 percent monthly fee vs. a typical 2.5 percent credit card fee.

We will continue to allow consumers to sign up at www.rhapsody.com from a smartphone or any other Internet access point, including the Safari browser on the iPhone and iPad. In the meantime, we will be collaborating with our market peers in determining an appropriate legal and business response to this latest development.

 

[gcubed]

Rhapsody responds, maybe Apple will blink:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/15/rhapsody-wont-bow-to-apples-subscription-policy-issues-statem/

they'll blink when the gov't gets involved, which is bound to happen quickly

 

[Burger]

Great article by MG Siegler:

We all knew it was coming, but the details of the App Store subscription model, which Apple outlined today, are fascinating on a number of levels. Simply put: this is one of the boldest bets Apple has ever made. And it could backfire. Or it could be huge beyond belief. Either way, it’s going to be very controversial.

...

But all of this is also a double-edged sword.

Creating a system that consumers will actually want to use means that they will no longer want to use the old, archaic system made by the companies that control the content. Again, great for consumers, but bad for those companies. And so they’re going to be faced with a very real and very challenging choice: do they stick with Apple or pull their content?

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/15/apple-in-app-subscriptions/

 

[hyp]

go getUM rhapsody!

though they'll probably end up bending over when all is said and done.

 

[water_wendi]

God bless Apple, the next MS. *salute*

Apple was MS before MS was MS.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Great article by MG Siegler:



http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/15/apple-in-app-subscriptions/

Your second bold is pretty hilarious.

Edit: misread. Nvm

 

[numble]

they'll blink when the gov't gets involved, which is bound to happen quickly

Can you explain how the government gets involved?

The only way I see it is the anti-competitive angle, but Amazon opens itself even more here because of it's subsidized pricing model and locking out iBooks and Nook content on the Kindle.