Support NeoGAF

[Gallbaro]

And finally, there’s the related notion that anyone who doesn’t like Apple’s rules can pick up and move to another platform, like Android. Which is ridiculous. Android and iOS share many similarities, but they’re loaded with subtle (and not-so-subtle) UI differences that intimidate ‘normal’ people. Not to mention the fact that users have built up libraries of dozens of applications and DRM-laden content that won’t transfer between devices. This lock-in effect is only going to become more pronounced as Apple shifts content ownership to the cloud and has users stream the movies they ‘own’ from its own servers.

First of all this is why Apple's business model is doomed to repeat their PC business,

Second of all, the switching cost at this point in time of this immature market is still relatively small. How many $$$ in apps has the average user actually spent?

 

[Somnid]

why defend any corporation? they all want our money and time.

No matter what you'd have to side with a corporation here. It's either Apple or those selling things through apps.

 

[numble]

First of all this is why Apple's business model is doomed to repeat their PC business,

Second of all, the switching cost at this point in time of this immature market is still relatively small. How many $$$ in apps has the average user actually spent?

A year ago, the average user spent $4.37 per month, according to Flurry.
http://gigaom.com/2010/01/12/the-apple-app-store-economy/

Probably higher now with the iPad release, and it's higher priced apps.

This also doesn't include iTunes store video purchases, which are locked to Apple devices.

 

[hyp]

No matter what you'd have to side with a corporation here. It's either Apple or those selling things through apps.

right, so i'll have less money either way.

 

[Gallbaro]

A year ago, the average user spent $4.37 per month, according to Flurry.
http://gigaom.com/2010/01/12/the-apple-app-store-economy/

Probably higher now with the iPad release, and it's higher priced apps.

This also doesn't include iTunes store video purchases, which are locked to Apple devices.

I would prefer median rather than average. Even then I would say the mean is lower as the iProducts have continued to move away from the "hardcore" user base.

 

[numble]

I would prefer median rather than average. Even then I would say the mean is lower as the iProducts have continued to move away from the "hardcore" user base.

You can try to calculate average from these numbers (dividing by number of devices), and then assume lower median.

 

[scorcho]

shock and awe - MG Siegler uses words to actually criticize Apple's inflexible 30% 'tax'.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/readability-app-rejection/

there's dark humor in Readability's app getting rejected considering its (open-source) inclusion in Safari.

 

[zou]

Comparison of subscription services:

http://www.appleinsider.com/print/1...ipad_vs_google_one_pass_vs_amazon_kindle.html

That comparison is rather useless, it conveniently focuses only on a market where the pricing is in line with everyone else and not causing major headaches for the content providers.

 

[numble]

That comparison is disingenuous, the 70% is for magazine and other content that Amazon sells, which is similar to what Apple charges and is interestingly enough excluded from the chart.

Apple only charges 30%. Magazines are sold as apps on the App Store.

 

[teiresias]

shock and awe - MG Siegler uses words to actually criticize Apple's inflexible 30% 'tax'.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/readability-app-rejection/

there's dark humor in Readability's app getting rejected considering its (open-source) inclusion in Safari.

As I've said, for the most part using this model for actual content subscriptions would work fine. Where this is policy is completely going awry is in trying to use it for one-off content purchases, and Software-As-A-Service providers where Apple provides no infrastructure support at all beyond the initial app download.

 

[AndyD]

As I've said, for the most part using this model for actual content subscriptions would work fine. Where this is policy is completely going awry is in trying to use it for one-off content purchases, and Software-As-A-Service providers where Apple provides no infrastructure support at all beyond the initial app download.

Right.

People would not mind if it was for actual keep content, Itunes and newspaper app style. But for streaming Netflix, Rhapsody and other such software? Apple spends nothing on licensing, bandwidth or anything, it would be a simple 30% profit scheme for them.

I just hope the streaming services don't accept this and spread the extra cost to non iOS.

 

[Burger]

John Gruber calls out Readability.

I can see how many people, including content providers like Readability, wish that Apple had not instituted these new rules. But, given these rules, how can anyone be surprised by this rejection? Readability’s business model is to charge a subscription fee, keep 30 percent, and pass 70 percent along to the writers/publishers of the articles being read by Readability users. Sound familiar?

Maybe I’m missing something, but these guys claiming to be surprised and disappointed by Apple’s insistence on a 30 percent cut of subscriptions when their own business model is to take a 30 percent cut of subscriptions strikes me as rich. And how can they claim that Readability isn’t “serving up content”? That’s exactly what Readability does. What they’re pissed about is that Apple has the stronger hand. Readability needs Apple to publish an app in the App Store. Apple doesn’t need Readability.

Not sure I agree. Apple seemingly is doing little to deserve their 30%, but I can understand that having a separate rule for publishers (aka: they can afford it) would be unfair.

If this continues then I guess we will see more App's rejected from the App Store, and less Apps for customers to enjoy.

(that said, I'm not sure how Readability differs from Instapaper, which is non subscription).

 

[Blackhead]

(that said, I'm not sure how Readability differs from Instapaper, which is non subscription).

http://www.instapaper.com/faq
http://www.instapaper.com/subscription

 

[Burger]

http://www.instapaper.com/faq
http://www.instapaper.com/subscription

Non subscription as in it's completely optional and without benefit (except to support Instapaper).

I already purchased Instapaper and it's great. I'm not sure why publishers deserve money to make their content readable. Fuck them.

 

[numble]

Apparent Jobs email says this applies to publishing apps and not SaaS apps.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/21...riptions-dont-apply-to-software-as-a-service/

One MacRumors reader also had these questions and emailed Apple CEO Steve Jobs with these same concerns. He wrote:

Hello Steve,

As a full time iOS developer, I am concerned (and confused) withe the new App Store guideline regarding "Apps offering subscriptions" (section 11.12).

Most of the iOS apps I have developed, as a contractor for other businesses, have been free apps that had login screens to allow the user access to some amount of private data. and/or service. These businesses have all been well established companies that sell some kind of service to their customers (Software As a Service companies) and the iOS app was merely another "portal" for their users to access their data/services (in many times, in a limited i.e. "mobile" fashion).... for example; SalesForce. I am concerned that most of these businesses will choose to not develop an iOS app for their customers if the IAP & subscription policy was in place.

Would these type's of free apps be still be allowed in the App Store or will they now be expected to use IAP?
​

To this, Steve Jobs replied in his typically short and, unfortunately, somewhat vague response:

We created subscriptions for publishing apps, not SaaS apps.

Sent from my iPhone
​

On the surface, our interpretation of this response is that the new in-app subscription rules simply don't apply to Software-as-a-Service. And, if you review the new guidelines and press materials that Apple has released, all the context is specifically related to publishers of content.

Based on that interpretation, apps such as DropBox and even TinyGrab may not be subject to the new rules. Readability's rejection, however, shows there are some borderline cases where the line between publisher and service provider is a bit blurry. Hopefully, Apple will provide more clarity on this issue.

TechCrunch thinks this is Apple adjusting to market concerns:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/22/jobs-subscriptions-publishing-apps/

Apple appears to be backtracking here. As I suggested on Friday in a Fly or Die video with Rhapsody’s president Jon irwin (who offers a music streaming subscription app on the iPhone), Apple’s initial broad-stroke rule may very well have been a trial balloon. The subscription billing system was obviously designed with media apps in mind, particularly publications. Maybe Apple won’t apply it to other types of subscription apps. Indeed, this latest email from Jobs appears to signal that Apple is adjusting to the market reaction.

The stakes here are very high. Apple cannot afford to alienate the mass of developers with existing or future subscription apps. As Instapaper founder Marco Arment writes:

A broad, vague, inconsistently applied, greedy, and unjustifiable rule doesn’t make developers want to embrace the platform.

The line now seems to be drawn between publishing apps and other kinds of subscription apps that are more like software. For the most part, that does make things clearer. Salesforce probably doesn’t have to worry about pulling its app from the iPhone.

But the next question is: What exactly isa publishing app? Obviously, apps that look like traditional print publications like The Daily, magazine apps, or the New York Times app once it goes to a subscription model all fall under the new rule. So too do apps like the recently-rejected Readability, which serves up repurposed content from across the Web without ads for a subscription. By that logic, any news reader apps that charge a subscription would fall under that rule as well.

But what is a news publishing app? They are clearly news-reading software. And what if Twitter or a Twitter client started charging subscriptions? Are those publishing apps or a communications apps? Just think about Flipboard or Pulse, which transform Twitter and other feeds into a dynamic, realtime, personalized publication. If those apps started charging subscriptions (both are currently free), I bet they would have to go through Apple’s subscription system just like Readability.

Okay, so any app that involves reading the news is a publishing app. Maybe. What about other media apps like music (Rhapsody, Rdio, MOG) or movies (Netflix) which require a subscription? Rhapsody doesn’t “publish” music, it just streams it. Netflix doesn’t make movies, it just delivers them. Apple still hasn’t clarified how it will treat these types of media subscription apps. But in my mind those are not publishing apps and thus should not be subject to the new rules.

Finally, what about personal publishing apps delivered as a service? One example of a popular app that offers both free and subscription versions is Evernote, which could be considered a form of personal publishing. Evernote lets you publish photos, notes, Web clips and other digital detritus to your own personal stream, which can remain private or be shared. It charges a subscription for extra features such as supporting larger uploads, more file types, and better collaboration tools. Those are all software features, but the end result is a personal publication of sorts. The difference is that Evernote isn’t charging for the content, it is charging for the software features.

And maybe that is the line Jobs is drawing, but it is a line that won’t last long. The most successful publishing apps will look increasingly like other apps, with software features that take them beyond glorified PDF readers. Smart publishers might even start charging subscription fees to unlock those extra features—3D photos, social news filters, augmented reality layers—instead of for the content itself.

 

[Blackhead]

 

[LCfiner]

Very interesting. If Apple comes to their senses about some of the details and affected apps, it'll be a good move.

 

[LCfiner]

bumping because Readibility didn't actually get any guidance from Apple

We did re-submit to Apple with an explanation of why we think they should approve Readability. We did not speak to anyone at Apple. We have no idea if they’ll approve it. We just explained ourselves as best we could through the appeal process.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/23/apple-subscription-policy-readability/

so that "love letter" quote is just a hope and not based on any dialog with Apple about rules getting modified

 

[Burger]

Yeah, Apple's 30/70 revenue model was too much for Readability's 30/70 revenue model.

 

[numble]

Is this Engadget article inaccurate?

Looks like Apple isn't the only one wanting to make sure that app payments are being run through appropriate channels. The Visual VoiceMail app, which has been downloaded about a million times (literally), has just been pulled from the Android Market. When developers at PhoneFusion asked the reasonable question, "why," they were simply directed to section 3.3 of the Android Market Developer Distribution Agreement:

If you want to collect fees after the free trial expires, you must collect all fees for the full version of the Product through the Payment Processor on the Market... All fees received by Developers for Products distributed via the Market must be processed by the Market's Payment Processor.
​

http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/25/visual-voicemail-pulled-from-android-market-google-accused-of/

 

[AndyD]

Is this Engadget article inaccurate?


http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/25/visual-voicemail-pulled-from-android-market-google-accused-of/

The important thing I think is that on Android apps can also be sold outside the market.

Sony tried to do the same thing by opening a "store" of their own through an app on the Market store. Thus getting the free market advertising and infrastructure, but selling stuff fully independently. A store inside a store where they keep all the money. That was a while ago and they were told no.

 

[mAcOdIn]

The important thing I think is that on Android apps can also be sold outside the market.

Right, at least that was my understanding. So long as apps can be installed from outside the main store, whether it be Apple's store, Android's, Palm's, whomever's, I could really not care less what those companies do on their store, it's in the case of Apple that with the exception of jailbreaking you can't install stuff without their store that makes me dislike their tactics and Palm needs to make their process easier.

I mean, on the phones I don't care that much, they're phones first and foremost and I don't think most people really look at them as actual computers or devices to do true work on or really replace anything else outside maybe a mp3 player but on the tablet side it's painful, they are mini computers, I think people do expect them to replace some devices if not their computer so the closed nature of it on the tablet side really hurts.