Support NeoGAF

[LCfiner]

Your second bold is pretty hilarious.

not for me, it isn't. This decision does make things easier for consumers. to subscribe. to unsubscribe. to keep their info private. that makes me happy.

But it's a major pain for publishers and they could tell Apple to get bent, reducing the amount of available content on the ipad/iphone, thus making me less happy, potentially.

it's a dick move, to be sure, but not in regards to ease of use for the consumer. it's a dick move to the publishers.

edit: saw your edit. nvm x 2, i guess!

 

[Ulairi]

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.

There should be intervention to spin off iTunes from Apple. THey hold monopolistic powers and are engaging in anti-competitive behavior that is a determent to Apple shareholders.

 

[Burger]

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

Lol. Translation:

"While our service remains completely compatible with iOS through the web browser, we are no longer able to leverage subscriptions and profits through the App Store and pay Apple nothing for it, and are preparing a legal response"

 

[Jamesfrom818]

not for me, it isn't. This decision does make things easier for consumers. to subscribe. to unsubscribe. to keep their info private. that makes me happy.

But it's a major pain for publishers and they could tell Apple to get bent, reducing the amount of available content on the ipad/iphone, this making me less happy, potentially.

it's a dick move, to be sure, but not in regards to ease of use for the consumer. it's a dick move to the publishers.

edit: saw your edit. nvm x 2, i guess!

If this leads to pulled apps, this would be a dick move to consumers as well.

 

[LCfiner]

If this leads to pulled apps, this would be a dick move to consumers as well.

that's the risk Apple is taking. that's the gamble. but their intent is not to make consumers upset

If it does result in pulled apps -- Big name pulled apps, then they may change course. but, right now, we get mad only if publishers get mad enough to leave iOS.

so, yeah, it's a big move on Apple's part. not sure how I feel about it yet. I'll have a better grip on things once we see the fallout in the App Store

 

[numble]

If this leads to pulled apps, this would be a dick move to consumers as well.

If Amazon's predatory pricing scheme leads to competition pulling out of the market, and later increased prices, it's bad for consumers as well, but it is good for consumers right now. Amazon also requires Apple and B&N to pay them for using the 1-click system, which is bad for competition, but good for consumers. It's too hard to judge systemic consequences before they happen.

 

[krypt0nian]

There should be intervention to spin off iTunes from Apple. THey hold monopolistic powers and are engaging in anti-competitive behavior that is a determent to Apple shareholders.

Lol

 

[teiresias]

Where it is a major dick move on Apple's part is requiring the app-store option, but then NOT allowing the app to have a link in the app to the external purchasing option. Apple is the one artificially making the external process more difficult than it has to be with their arbitrary restriction on external links.

 

[Zombie James]

How possible or viable would it be for these effected apps to transition from native apps to web apps?

 

[Mrbob]

Damn. Apple needs to have its feet put to the fire for this one. If companies want to charge more for the in app version to cover the fee they should be allowed to do so. Apple saying you can't be more expensive but you can be cheaper is a joke. If consumers want to pay more to own the in app product then it is well within their right. Isn't there a joke to be made about an Apple fan and paying more anyway?

 

[numble]

Damn. Apple needs to have its feet put to the fire for this one. If companies want to charge more for the itunes version to cover the fee they should be allowed to do so. If consumers want to pay more to own the itunes product then it is well within their right. Isn't there a joke to be made about an Apple fan and paying more anyway?

Yes, the only problem I think is the stupid "same price or better" restriction. They don't require that on the Mac App Store. And is Apple going to hire a ton of reviewers to go to websites and search and compare every e-book, newspaper, magazine, etc. price?

 

[Burger]

Where it is a major dick move on Apple's part is requiring the app-store option, but then NOT allowing the app to have a link in the app to the external purchasing option. Apple is the one artificially making the external process more difficult than it has to be with their arbitrary restriction on external links.

Why would Apple allow them to have a link to the same product except Apple receives no cut?

How on Gods green earth does that make sense for Apple to allow?

 

[Meus Renaissance]

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

Is it strange that I want this to escalate even though I as a consumer could potentially be affected by it all? Imagine every subscription based app being pulled by the developers and leaving iOS? Yeah, this is where my all the excitement in my life comes from; tech-wars

 

[Blackhead]

that's the risk Apple is taking. that's the gamble. but their intent is not to make consumers upset

If it does result in pulled apps -- Big name pulled apps, then they may change course. but, right now, we get mad only if publishers get mad enough to leave iOS.

so, yeah, it's a big move on Apple's part. not sure how I feel about it yet. I'll have a better grip on things once we see the fallout in the App Store

And what about those customers who don't own apple products but see increases in price by publishers to account for Apple's cut? Oh yeah, fuck 'em because iOs customers are the only ones that matter.

I'm laughing at people trying to compare this to Amazon's Kindle or Microsoft's Xbox or B&N's Nook. Ignore for a bit that Apple fans like to say their company is better and how ironic it now is to see them justify Apple's moves by claiming Microsoft does the same, it's just not the same. I'd like to see y'all link to the relevant part of Amazon's merchant agreement where they demand that content provider who makes an app for their platform should offer digital subscriptions through their cut as well.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Maybe I've been watching too much Godfather on AMC but this reeks of Don Fanucci squeezing Vito Corleone and friends for making money in his territory.

Apple just wants enough to wet its beak a little.

Fanucci got what was coming to him. Will Apple?

 

[Technosteve]

nah apple just being a like a console manufacture, need to get a piece of the pie if you want on my ipadz

 

[LCfiner]

And what about those customers who don't own apple products but see increases in price by publishers to account for Apple's cut? Oh yeah, fuck 'em because iOs customers are the only ones that matter.

I'm laughing at people trying to compare this to Amazon's Kindle or Microsoft's Xbox or B&N's Nook. Ignore for a bit that Apple fans like to say their company is better and how ironic it now is to see them justify Apple's moves by claiming Microsoft does the same, it's just not the same. I'd like to see y'all link to the relevant part of Amazon's merchant agreement where they demand that content provider who makes an app for their platform should offer digital subscriptions through their cut as well.

this would be an interesting development but I'd bet that it doesn't happen. that's why I hadn't thought about it. (not because I think I'm the only one who matters

if it does happen, then, yes, it's obviously bad for consumers if prices go up across the board like that.

 

[teiresias]

Why would Apple allow them to have a link to the same product except Apple get's no cut?

How on gods green earth does that make sense for Apple to allow?

From a business perspective it's perfect for them, obviously, but I've yet to hear a good argument as to why Apple deserves recurring monetary compensation for subscription services they don't provide any bandwidth or infrastructure to support outside of a one-time charge for the initial download of the client app. Apple could get around this if they forced client apps of subscription services to have an actual application price rather than being free.

this would be an interesting development but I'd bet that it doesn't happen. that's why I hadn't thought about it. (not because I think I'm the only one who matters

if it does happen, then, yes, it's obviously bad for consumers if prices go up across the board like that.

Why wouldn't this happen since it's exactly what happened when Apple started the iBook store?

 

[Blackhead]

Maybe I've been watching too much Godfather on AMC but this reeks of Don Fanucci squeezing Vito Corleone and friends for making money in his territory.

Apple just wants enough to wet its beak a little.

They are making money hand over fist already. They have 32 billion in cash reserves (or some other obscene number). Why the fuck should they need to 'wet their beak'more. If I see another increase in my Netflix subscriptions price I'll burn all my Apple products.

 

[numble]

I'd like to see y'all link to the relevant part of Amazon's merchant agreement where they demand that content provider who makes an app for their platform should offer digital subscriptions through their cut as well.

https://kdk.amazon.com/gp/vendor/si...ingURI=/gp/vendor/members/kindlepubs/kdk/home

Amazon gets 30% cut of subscriptions and fees of 0.15/mb are charged per download.

 

[LCfiner]

They are making money hand over fist already. They have 32 billion in cash reserves (or some other obscene number). Why the fuck should they need more to 'wet their beak'. If I see another increase in my Netflix subscriptions price I'll burning all my Apple products.

60 billion in cash, actually.

and, dude, seriously, no way your netflix price goes up. (well, it won't go up based on Apple's moves, anyway)

 

[teiresias]

https://kdk.amazon.com/gp/vendor/si...ingURI=/gp/vendor/members/kindlepubs/kdk/home

The main difference with this arrangement is that Amazon is essentially footing the bill for the bandwidth costs of the recurring subscription applications on the 3G versions of the Kindle device since there is no monthly service fee to the end-user for the bandwidth after the initial Kindle device purchase. So there is on-going maintenance cost for Amazon to keep up the 3G infrastructure of the Kindles enabled for that.

Something like Rhapsody doesn't use any Apple infrastructure to actually provide their streaming service to the device, and the user is footing the bill for the bandwidth needs.

 

[Blackhead]

https://kdk.amazon.com/gp/vendor/si...ingURI=/gp/vendor/members/kindlepubs/kdk/home

That's the same as Apple's development agreement for selling apps. I don't see anything there deamanding that if you sell digital content elsewhere, you must also sell it through Amazon. Let me know so I can get up in arms about Amazon too

 

[numble]

The main difference with this arrangement is that Amazon is essentially footing the bill for the bandwidth costs of the recurring subscription applications on the 3G versions of the Kindle device since there is no monthly service fee to the end-user for the bandwidth after the initial Kindle device purchase. So there is on-going maintenance cost for Amazon to keep up the 3G infrastructure of the Kindles enabled for that.

No, they charge separately 0.15/mb, I think.

User revenue will be split 70% to the developer and 30% to Amazon net of delivery fees of $0.15 / MB.

 

[Burger]

From a business perspective it's perfect for them, obviously, but I've yet to hear a good argument as to why Apple deserves recurring monetary compensation for subscription services they don't provide any bandwidth or infrastructure to support outside of a one-time charge for the initial download of the client app. Apple could get around this if they forced client apps of subscription services to have an actual application price rather than being free.

Why wouldn't this happen since it's exactly what happened when Apple started the iBook store?

Apple does provide the bandwidth? If I buy the latest issue of Project, which is 400 odd megs, that bandwidth is provided by Apple is it not?

Clearly this is a bold move by Apple, unprecedented maybe. Content publishers on one hand are going to balk at the 30%, but salivate at the same time at the prospect of 100 million credit card holding customers. It's their move.

Like John Gruber said today:

"You’ll seldom go wrong betting on Apple doing something that’s good for Apple and good for its users — no matter what the ramifications for everyone else."

 

[Blackhead]

Apple does provide the bandwidth? If I buy the latest issue of Project, which is 400 odd megs, that bandwidth is provided by Apple is it not?

Clearly this is a bold move by Apple, unprecedented maybe. Content publishers on one hand are going to balk at the 30%, but salivate at the same time at the prospect of 100 million credit card holding customers. It's their move.

Like John Gruber said today:

"You’ll seldom go wrong betting on Apple doing something that’s good for Apple and good for its users — no matter what the ramifications for everyone else."

Except when the ramifications for everybody else is that they go bankrupt.

 

[numble]

That's the same as Apple's development agreement for selling apps. I don't see anything there deamanding that if you sell digital content elsewhere, you must also sell it through Amazon. Let me know so I can get up in arms about Amazon too

You asked about seeing a part where they demand they get a cut of digital subscriptions, that basically says they get 30% of subscriptions.

They require people to charge for content after 100k/month, so it's likely that any app that gets outside content at a rate higher than 100k/month is going to impose a subscription fee.

 

[Zombie James]

Gruber's a shill, of course he thinks this is a great idea.

 

[teiresias]

Apple does provide the bandwidth? If I buy the latest issue of Project, which is 400 odd megs, that bandwidth is provided by Apple is it not?

Clearly this is a bold move by Apple, unprecedented maybe. Content publishers on one hand are going to balk at the 30%, but salivate at the same time at the prospect of 100 million credit card holding customers. It's their move.

Like John Gruber said today:

"You’ll seldom go wrong betting on Apple doing something that’s good for Apple and good for its users — no matter what the ramifications for everyone else."

I'm not arguing that this is a bad situation for something like a magazine app. As you said, the content is actually being delivered via Apple infrastructure in that case.

Rhapsody, though, has their own bandwidth and streaming infrastructure for their service. The only time Apple provides any bandwidth is when the user initially downloads the app from the app store. Requiring the in-app subscription also means Apple provides (more like forces) a payment service for the subscription - hardly something that usually gets a 30% cut. Apple provides no infrastructure for the usage of the actual Rhapsody service since Rhapsody handles its own infrastructure and the end-user is paying for their own bandwidth, making it ridiculous that they should get 30% for a subscription fee that supports that infrastructure.

This is a substantial difference from constantly getting new magazine content from Apple infrastructure.

This also becomes dicy, to go back to the topic title, for Amazon/Kindle, because why should they have any interest in sending users ebooks through Apple's infrastructure in the first place? I'm not sure we know how this will, if at all, impact single one-by-one content sales like ebooks, that aren't subscription based yet.

 

[Burger]

Except when the ramifications for everybody else is that they go bankrupt.

Old media is doing a fine job of that already.

Amazon already offer traditional newspapers at the same 70/30 split. Printing, binding, distribution and selling of newspapers and magazines isn't a zero cost exercise.

Gruber's a shill, of course he thinks this is a great idea.

Where does he say he thinks it's a great idea?

 

[Burger]

Rhapsody, though, has their own bandwidth and streaming infrastructure for their service. The only time Apple provides any bandwidth is when the user initially downloads the app from the app store. Requiring the in-app subscription also means Apple provides (more like forces) a payment service for the subscription - hardly something that usually gets a 30% cut. Apple provides no infrastructure for the usage of the actual Rhapsody service since Rhapsody handles its own infrastructure and the end-user is paying for their own bandwidth, making it ridiculous that they should get 30% for a subscription fee that supports that infrastructure.

The Rhapsody application is free. So aside from paying a developer licence fee of $99 per year, Apple receives nothing from Rhapsody. No costs to cover bandwidth, App Store guideline reviews, all that junk. Nothing.

So like I said before, Rhapsody leverage the App Store for profits, and Apple receives no cut. Apple just changed those rules.

 

[Zombie James]

Where does he say he thinks it's a great idea?

In the line you quoted:

"You’ll seldom go wrong betting on Apple doing something that’s good for Apple and good for its users — no matter what the ramifications for everyone else."

Trying to spin this as a benefit for users is a crock of shit. The only thing users are going to see are either some of their apps disappear completely, or some of their apps/subscriptions get a 30% price hike.

 

[Burger]

Trying to spin this as a benefit for users is a crock of shit. The only thing users are going to see are either some of their apps disappear completely, or some of their apps/subscriptions get a 30% price hike.

I think he's just recounting lessons learned from history, rather than announcing "This is awesome!"

This is a gamble for Apple, but I suspect it's been well thought out. I disagree with your predictions, but only time will tell.

 

[numble]

In the line you quoted:



Trying to spin this as a benefit for users is a crock of shit. The only thing users are going to see are either some of their apps disappear completely, or some of their apps/subscriptions get a 30% price hike.

Eh, he's been critical of how the 70/30 split would hit publishers/developers in the past (when it was just a rumor).
http://daringfireball.net/2011/02/oceania_in_app_purchases

He's commenting on Siegler's view about why it's good for Apple and Apple customers but bad for publishers--his comment is more along the lines of "Siegler, you say Apple is ignoring third parties and focusing on itself and its customers? Apple does this a lot."

 

[teiresias]

The Rhapsody application is free. So aside from paying a developer licence fee of $99 per year, Apple receives nothing from Rhapsody. No costs to cover bandwidth, App Store guideline reviews, all that junk. Nothing.

So like I said before, Rhapsody leverage the App Store for profits, and Apple receives no cut. Apple just changed those rules.

If Apple was concerned about the costs to cover app download bandwidth, App store guideline reviews, and "all that junk", then Apple should have disallowed free apps in the first place.

Does Apple only allow iAds in apps now? I can't remember. If so, then any app that has non iAd apps (and hence provides revenue for those devs) should no longer be allowed to be free.

Apple could say apps that utilize subscription services, but don't deliver those services through Apple (and hence Apple has no business taking a cut of a subscription fee for said service) are no longer allowed to be free in the app store. That's a far more tenable solution than Apple taking a cut for something they do nothing to provide.

 

[Burger]

If Apple was concerned about the costs to cover app download bandwidth, App store guideline reviews, and "all that junk", then Apple should have disallowed free apps in the first place.

Does Apple only allow iAds in apps now? I can't remember. If so, then any app that has non iAd apps should no longer be allowed to be free.

Apple could say apps that utilize subscription services, but don't deliver those services through Apple (and hence Apple has no business taking a cut of a subscription fee for said service) are no longer allowed to be free in the app store. That's a far more tenable solution than Apple taking a cut for something they do nothing to provide.

You don't build an App Store of over 350,000 individual applications and over 7 billion downloads by telling developers to fuck off.

Developers get to choose whether to insert iAds or not. It's a choice.

Apple does provide something though. They provide the App Store. That's not insignificant.

 

[DataStream]

Does this mean Apple gets 30% of Comcast's Cable subscription cost given Xfinity allows you to stream content? This seems like something that is going to end up with alot of preferential treatment and angry partners.

 

[teiresias]

You don't build an App Store of over 350,000 individual applications and over 7 billion downloads by telling developers to fuck off.

Developers get to choose whether to insert iAds or not. It's a choice.

Apple does provide something though. They provide the App Store. That's not insignificant.

No, I suppose it's not, but if they wish to leverage the app store they need to do it uniformly across all the apps. Trying to charge Rhapsody for using Rhapsody's own infrastructure is not the way to do it. If the app store is the commodity, then you need to charge for it across all apps that are using it.

 

[scorcho]

Why would Apple allow them to have a link to the same product except Apple receives no cut?

How on Gods green earth does that make sense for Apple to allow?

how does it not, except if this was just a money grab or purposefully inflexible position in order to eat into the dominance of other content providers like Amazon and Netflix? it goes hand in hand with their demand that pricing be at the same or better on iOS devices.

good for the consumer? hardly, if the verdict is that some pull out of Apple's ecosystem.

 

[Blackhead]

You don't build an App Store of over 350,000 individual applications and over 7 billion downloads by telling developers to fuck off.

Apple sure told developers to fuck off when they dictated what development tools they could use.

Anyway whatever, Apple has proven itself no different from any other greedy money-grubing company, in some ways Apple is actually worse. All Apple does now is make some good products but *shrug*. Sony used to make the best products 30 years ago and we all know how that turned out.

 

[kaizoku]

there's no good guys or bad guys here, its just a bunch of corporations wrestling over a giant bag of gold.

the ebook industry is still so infantile and immature, the userbase hasn't grown enough to and the user behaviour hasn't evolved to an advanced stage where consumers can start to dictate things.

much like the boom of the mp3 leading to the stagnation and massive change in the music industry, ebooks will follow a similar route. Considering libraries now offer great ebook functionality surely it's only a matter of time before ebook prices plummet as consumers get more savvy about where they get their books from.

Much like Apple did with the ipod, the mp3 industry profits are driven by hardware sales as opposed to the media itself. Sony lost its position because it didn't want mp3 to take off. It actively tried to prevent mp3s from taking over and walkman is now dead. Apple took the lead because it encouraged the mp3 format and lets face it, the ability to pirate music and beat CDs to near death.

Some savvy company could do similar with ebooks. If the behemoths are too busy trying to maintain control of this rather closed, very profitable market, they'll be caught unawares when the population suddenly swings the other way.

Although its just as likely Apple will be that company again, offering a great ereader which works well with the library ebook services. ipad isn't quite there yet. Kindle is there hardware-wise but the DRM/format is fucked up.

 

[Burger]

Anyway whatever, Apple has proven itself no different from any other greedy money-grubing company, in some ways Apple is actually worse. All Apple does now is make some good products but *shrug*. Sony used to make the best products 30 years ago and we all know how that turned out.

What were you expecting?

 

[LCfiner]

Apple sure told developers to fuck off when they dictated what development tools they could use.

Anyway whatever, Apple has proven itself no different from any other greedy money-grubing company, in some ways Apple is actually worse. All Apple does now is make some good products but *shrug*. Sony used to make the best products 30 years ago and we all know how that turned out.

you seem so ...disappointed. lol.


and making great products is hardly easy. just ask everyone else. if it was so simple, someone would've made the iphone before the iphone.

 

[Blackhead]

What were you expecting?

Apple fans keep expecting something different. For example, from the MG Siegler article you praised:

Imagine if Apple started giving customer data to publishers to be used for sales calls, mass mailings, etc. The user trust that Apple relies on would start to erode. To get the publishers on board, this would be the most obvious (and seemingly small) concession to make. But Apple will not do it. Though Google might.

Uh huh.

 

[scorcho]

to be fair - i think this is a potentially good thing for content producers, like magazine publishers and the like who can absorb the 30% Apple will skim from the top with a potentially larger audience thanks to the one-click purchasing option.

this will fuck over companies like Amazon, Netflix and other distributors who might see their entire profits off a subscription/purchase on iOS eaten up once Apple claims their 30%. as far as Apple's concerned, that might be a positive side benefit of this. this could give iBooks a price advantage when it comes to ebooks, and if Apple's ready to leverage their Lala acquisition, Rhapsody.

 

[LCfiner]

Apple fans keep expecting something different. For example, from the MG Siegler article you praised:



Uh huh.

but that's the thing though. that line you quoted isn't wrong. you just think the outcome will be higher prices for you whereas some of us believe it will just create an easier way to obtain content without having to hand over data to third parties. and that the publishers will eat the costs. (hey, pop sci and News corp are already on the bandwagon, right?)

there's nothing hypocritical about any of this concerning Apple's desire to make money and Apple's desire to have happy consumers. It's consistent that Apple's move will try to make things easier for the consumer at the expense of its partners. And Apple still gets to fit the "money grubbing" mold because Apple makes money when their customers are happy. it's a very simple, direct relationship.

 

[Burger]

Apple fans keep expecting something different. For example, from the MG Siegler article you praised:

Uh huh.

Really. I'm not so jaded to think that Apple as a company is in this to make anything but money. But if you drill down to individuals within the company, it's clear they want to change the world.

 

[Blackhead]

but that's the thing though. that line you quoted isn't wrong. you just think the outcome will be higher prices for you whereas some of us believe it will just create an easier way to obtain content without having to hand over data to third parties. and that the publishers will eat the costs. (hey, pop sci and News corp are already on the bandwagon, right?)

there's nothing hypocritical about any of this concerning Apple's desire to make money and Apple's desire to have happy consumers. It's consistent that Apple's move will try to make things easier for the consumer at the expense of its partners. And Apple still gets to fit the "money grubbing" mold because Apple makes money when their customers are happy. it's a very simple, direct relationship.

That's not always true. Offering trials for purchases from the app store, or providing an easy way to see which apps have been previously purchased and reinstall them, would be helpful for the consumer--but not helpful for Apple's desire to make more money.

Really. I'm not so jaded to think that Apple as a company is in this to make anything but money. But if you drill down to individuals within the company, it's clear they want to change the world.

Change the world to what? One they control and run primarily along their vision?

 

[LCfiner]

That's not always true. Offering trials for purchases from the app store, or providing an easy way to see which apps have been previously purchased and reinstall them, would be helpful for the consumer--but not helpful for Apple's desire to make more money.

Lite apps with in app purchases to full versions are prevalent in the store. see twitteriffic or some of the new Gameloft apps. very similar to the old shareware model.

and the second point was added to the App Store last week without an update.

so... yeah

 

[DataStream]

to be fair - i think this is a potentially good thing for content producers, like magazine publishers and the like who can absorb the 30% Apple will skim from the top with a potentially larger audience thanks to the one-click purchasing option.

I think you are wrong here. Most money from magazines comes from advertisers, almost none comes from subscription (in many cases it will do little more than cover distribution cost). The reason the advertising is so valuable/expensive is because of the demographic info the magazines have on their readers. You have very targeted marketing and that makes it much more expensive to purchase.

Due to the privacy constraints of this agreement, the publishers are potentially getting fucked two ways. Unless they also give in to the iAds platform as well.