6 ms·

RIP Pandora, Kindle on the iPhone

27 points by abraham 16y ago

mellinwood 16y ago
Fair/unfair, whatever. This move immediately makes many subscription billing models that touch iOS uneconomical. You can't give up 30% of what you bill your customers in perpetuity. The long-established economic model for customer acquisition is to pay a cost of customer acquisition, and then you have a calculation to determine time to customer profitability. You have to have some astonishing margins to be able to give away 30% FOREVER to Apple and make that work. I can't imagine it works for Netflix--I think they are paying ~$60 per customer and probably seeing profitability in 6-12 months. Can they really have margins great enough for them to justify participating in a market with rents like this? I suppose another way to see it is that these customers shared with Apple will be MUCH LESS valuable to companies. I'd be interested to see what the numbers look like for Dropbox, Tumblr, LinkedIn, etc. Everyone with a lower-margin model is hosed. Does anyone have some real-world acquisition costs they've run against this change?
Tichy 16y ago
This makes me think, is there a way to play music on the iPhone's browser? I suppose not - but ultimately this move could strengthen the mobile web apps approach to things.
- lukifer 16y ago
  There is, but it's crippled. Only the simplest of controls are exposed to Javascript, and the music stops playing when the app closes or the device locks.
  - chrismiller 16y ago
    Not true. I'm working on a music webapp for iOS and the audio keeps playing if you exit Safari/lock the device. It's actually quite annoying as the only way to stop the music is to open Safari and pause the audio.
    - lukifer 16y ago
      Huh. That must have changed since I last tried to play a podcast through Safari. Thanks for the info.
- jrk 16y ago
  Yes, MobileSafari plays music (with <audio> and direct links to MP3/M4A, etc.) quite well. The biggest issue with this as a path to replace native audio playback apps is how the browser manages resources for background tasks (tabs): they are thrown into a single pool and garbage collected when resources become constrained. This directly mirrors how the OS manages suspended/background apps, but with the critical difference that the OS specially treats apps which are registered for different background services, like background audio playback, avoiding eviction for things like this which are effectively under active use, even when they are not on-screen. The solution, I'd argue, is for Apple (and the web working groups, in general) to bring the same sorts of OS design concerns to browsers—in this case, richer interfaces for more intelligent handling of background tasks by both the runtime and the tasks, themselves.
  - Tichy 16y ago
    I was only thinking recently that "background tasks" might be a missing ingredient for HTML 5. They probably don't make sense with traditional desktop browsers, as it is sufficient to keep a tab open with the app. But on mobile browsers it is a different story.
    - jrk 16y ago
      They aren't as essential for desktop browsers (now), since the relative resource constraints on a given tab are so much smaller, but just as relevant as "desktop" runtimes scale down in power/up in efficiency demands, and as the apps run within them scale up in resource demands. Just look to how much RAM your 25 browser tabs burn, and how warm a single tab with Flash ads can keep your MacBook Air.
      - Tichy 16y ago
        Sure, but Background tasks wouldn't alleviate the problem, I think? The tasks would still have to be coded in a "nice" way.
lukifer 16y ago
I'm gonna take a wild guess at what's going to happen: - If you're an existing, popular service on iOS, you get grandfathered in, and you get to keep your current way of doing things so long as you don't rock the boat. - If you are a new application/service, you have to pay 30%. No workarounds, no exceptions. My theory is this: if Apple tightly enforces the policy on services customers already know and love, at least some will be forced to remove their offerings from iOS. Existing users are disappointed, and are now (a) upset with Apple, and (b) incentivized to go buy an Android. On the other hand, if a service is small and not yet widespread, most users won't be disappointed if that service can't afford to put itself on the iPhone, and there are plenty of other apps/services to choose from, so no incentive to leave the iOS walled garden.
- baddox 16y ago
  You're probably right, and boy is that evil.
- randall 16y ago
  Yeah, I had been semi-ok with it till now. Now, I realize a lot of these companies really can't make the 30% work. I wonder if they could just make it as a "consumption only" device... like don't have a link to get a new customer, only allow people to subscribe through the web.
  - lukifer 16y ago
    > only allow people to subscribe through the web My understanding is that the terms of the App Store explicitly forbid this.
- timmaah 16y ago
  Exactly.. how does Apple ban the Netflix app?
svlla 16y ago
Amazon will open up Kindle for the web and then whatever value-add Apple supposes they are adding will simply vanish.
- teilo 16y ago
  Sorry, but you don't realize how many of us use our iPads to read when there is no Wifi connection around. We can't do that with a web app. I am outraged, fuming really. I read my Kindle books on my iPad all the time. If they do not reverse this, this will all but guarantee that I am switching to an Android tablet as soon as it becomes a viable contender. Honeycomb can't get here soon enough.
  - lukifer 16y ago
    If it's coded properly, a web app can absolutely store books, as well as its own code, offline.
  - blinkingled 16y ago
    HTML5 localStorage / cache manifest / Offline Web Apps can deal with that perhaps? http://developer.apple.com/library/safari/#documentation/iPhone/Conceptual/SafariJSDatabaseGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html http://developer.apple.com/library/safari/#documentation/iPh...
    - teilo 16y ago
      I did not know about that. Well, let's just hope, then. Still pisses me off.
  - pedalpete 16y ago
    safari supports HTML 5 Storage and apparently there is a 5 mb limitation per url. Looks like most of my kindle books are under 500kb, so that shouldn't be an issue.
w1ntermute 16y ago
Pandora and Kindle both duplicate Apple services (iTunes & iBooks, respecitvely) to some degree. It's not particularly surprising that Apple wants to kick them out now. They've probably had this planned all along and ready to put into action once they got big enough. What do you think your average iPhone or iPad owner is going to do in response to this change - buy a Kindle or Android device so they can keep using Pandora/Kindle, or just buy stuff from Apple's services instead?
- avree 16y ago
  iBooks maybe, but iTunes? There's absolutely no functionality cross-over between the two, with the exception of the broad category of providing a way to listen to music...
  - Qz 16y ago
    iBooks doesn't even make any sense, considering Kindle came first by a longshot. iBooks is only there to turn the iPad into a (poor) Kindle substitute.
    - cgranade 16y ago
      Exactly. If duplicating a service is grounds for rejection and expulsion, then what is a company to do when Apple moves into a new market? Should the New York Times not have a newspaper app now that The Daily has been endorsed by Apple? Should Google Maps close up shop when Apple gets around to implementing navigation? Maybe Foursquare should pack it up once Apple adds check-in support to the base OS. All snark aside, it's never a sound business model to hand a possible competitor the "off" switch for your business.
- zarify 16y ago
  If I were a serious book reader on my idevice, then I definitely would buy a Kindle. The markup on books in the iBookstore compared to the Amazon store is enough to pay off the Kindle in less than a year's worth of reading. (Hell, it'd pay off my -iPad- in a couple of years, assuming I converted all my paper reading to ereading)
Flemlord 16y ago
Coming soon: Kindle for the Web (Beta) http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000579091 http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000... Looks like it was made for touch devices. I wonder if Amazon's about to pull their Kindle app.
- j2d2j2d2 16y ago
  That would destroy its portability.
  - bryanlarsen 16y ago
    They'd just use HTML5 caching to provide the portability.
    - j2d2j2d2 16y ago
      If the plan is indeed to ditch the app approach, I would be very surprised. Html5 does not offer the same reliability as a native app at this time. It could happen down the line with a solid web experience as the starting point.
teilo 16y ago
Sirius is also going to have a real problem with this. I subscribe to Sirius-XM Online, and use their iOS app all the time.
teilo 16y ago
I really think there is some valid anti-trust possibilities here. It is one thing to require apps to be vetted - but to demand that 100% of all content is subject to an Apple Tax, even though it never touches any Apple assets at all? One could argue that since Apple must provide storage, infrastructure, and man-hours for all the apps that are purchased for iOS devices, that they are well within their rights to take a cut of App purchases. But what justification do they have for demanding the same regarding content consumed by said apps? They do not store the content. They do not filter the content. They do not provide the bandwidth that delivers the content. They are not liable for what the content itself is. What possible justification could they have for doing this? This is very nearly the same as saying that Sony should get a cut of all ad revenue for anything viewed on their TVs.
- cgranade 16y ago
  The only justification I've heard, and it's a very weak one, is that Apple provides the customers. That is, if Apple weren't around to run the App Store, then customers would be too stupid to find anything interesting to read, listen to or watch. Surely, they can justify some amount for payment processing overhead, but requiring all apps to use Apple's payment processing terms is beyond ridiculous.
- rhygar 16y ago
  Anti-trust applies here just as much as it applies to theaters who don't allow customers to bring in their own food.
- w1ntermute 16y ago
  > I really think there is some valid anti-trust possibilities here. Except Apple doesn't have anywhere near the market share needed for the legal definition of "trust".
  - cgranade 16y ago
    Not in general, no, but they do have quite enough market share in some niche markets, such as smartphone apps. I think that is sufficient to spark anti-trust suits in many jurisdictions.
rhygar 16y ago
There is a basic lack of understanding here. This is not "unfair" in any way. Apple owns the platform, period. They have a right to do whatever they want with the platform and set any terms they want. Developers are free to choose whether or not they like the terms of the platform.
- cgranade 16y ago
  It's not so simple as that. Not at all. For one thing, a platform is a concept. As far as ownership is concerned, the users own their respective devices, not Apple. Moreover, it is not "fair" to exploit a monopoly (in this case, one unethically created by means of a closed platform with undisclosed and inconsistent app approval rules), and as such, many countries have laws preventing the unethical exploitation of monopoly-derived power. Anyway, I find it very odd to speak of Apple's "rights" whilst simultaneously ignoring those that actually have rights: the users. The philosophy that organizations can have rights independent of and greater in extent than any of its constituent persons is, to say the least, bizarre to me. Oh, and as for liking the terms of the platform: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080684/quotes?qt0358500 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080684/quotes?qt0358500)
  - rhygar 16y ago
    Theaters don't allow food that was purchased elsewhere to be brought inside the building. Same principle. Sorry but you're just wrong on this.
    - cgranade 16y ago
      That analogy only works if the theatre was also owned by the moviegoer. A better analogy would be a DVD player that wouldn't play movies if you ate the wrong brand of popcorn while watching in your living room. If you're going to call someone out as "just wrong" by using an analogy, please make sure your analogy says what you want it to say first.
    - runevault 16y ago
      Maybe if you spent $500 dollars for rights to use the theater while being told you could bring your own food in, then the rules changed it'd be comparable. Otherwise not even close.
hackerku 16y ago
If Kindle and Netflix app gets removed, it will touch a nerve with lot of Apple customers. Hope Apple understands that.

27 points by abraham 16y ago

Fair/unfair, whatever. This move immediately makes many subscription billing models that touch iOS uneconomical. You can't give up 30% of what you bill your customers in perpetuity. The long-established economic model for customer acquisition is to pay a cost of customer acquisition, and then you have a calculation to determine time to customer profitability. You have to have some astonishing margins to be able to give away 30% FOREVER to Apple and make that work. I can't imagine it works for Netflix--I think they are paying ~$60 per customer and probably seeing profitability in 6-12 months. Can they really have margins great enough for them to justify participating in a market with rents like this? I suppose another way to see it is that these customers shared with Apple will be MUCH LESS valuable to companies. I'd be interested to see what the numbers look like for Dropbox, Tumblr, LinkedIn, etc. Everyone with a lower-margin model is hosed. Does anyone have some real-world acquisition costs they've run against this change?

Tichy 16y ago

This makes me think, is there a way to play music on the iPhone's browser? I suppose not - but ultimately this move could strengthen the mobile web apps approach to things.

lukifer 16y ago
There is, but it's crippled. Only the simplest of controls are exposed to Javascript, and the music stops playing when the app closes or the device locks.
- chrismiller 16y ago
  Not true. I'm working on a music webapp for iOS and the audio keeps playing if you exit Safari/lock the device. It's actually quite annoying as the only way to stop the music is to open Safari and pause the audio.
  - lukifer 16y ago
    Huh. That must have changed since I last tried to play a podcast through Safari. Thanks for the info.
jrk 16y ago
Yes, MobileSafari plays music (with <audio> and direct links to MP3/M4A, etc.) quite well. The biggest issue with this as a path to replace native audio playback apps is how the browser manages resources for background tasks (tabs): they are thrown into a single pool and garbage collected when resources become constrained. This directly mirrors how the OS manages suspended/background apps, but with the critical difference that the OS specially treats apps which are registered for different background services, like background audio playback, avoiding eviction for things like this which are effectively under active use, even when they are not on-screen. The solution, I'd argue, is for Apple (and the web working groups, in general) to bring the same sorts of OS design concerns to browsers—in this case, richer interfaces for more intelligent handling of background tasks by both the runtime and the tasks, themselves.
- Tichy 16y ago
  I was only thinking recently that "background tasks" might be a missing ingredient for HTML 5. They probably don't make sense with traditional desktop browsers, as it is sufficient to keep a tab open with the app. But on mobile browsers it is a different story.
  - jrk 16y ago
    They aren't as essential for desktop browsers (now), since the relative resource constraints on a given tab are so much smaller, but just as relevant as "desktop" runtimes scale down in power/up in efficiency demands, and as the apps run within them scale up in resource demands. Just look to how much RAM your 25 browser tabs burn, and how warm a single tab with Flash ads can keep your MacBook Air.
    - Tichy 16y ago
      Sure, but Background tasks wouldn't alleviate the problem, I think? The tasks would still have to be coded in a "nice" way.

lukifer 16y ago

I'm gonna take a wild guess at what's going to happen: - If you're an existing, popular service on iOS, you get grandfathered in, and you get to keep your current way of doing things so long as you don't rock the boat. - If you are a new application/service, you have to pay 30%. No workarounds, no exceptions. My theory is this: if Apple tightly enforces the policy on services customers already know and love, at least some will be forced to remove their offerings from iOS. Existing users are disappointed, and are now (a) upset with Apple, and (b) incentivized to go buy an Android. On the other hand, if a service is small and not yet widespread, most users won't be disappointed if that service can't afford to put itself on the iPhone, and there are plenty of other apps/services to choose from, so no incentive to leave the iOS walled garden.

baddox 16y ago
You're probably right, and boy is that evil.
randall 16y ago
Yeah, I had been semi-ok with it till now. Now, I realize a lot of these companies really can't make the 30% work. I wonder if they could just make it as a "consumption only" device... like don't have a link to get a new customer, only allow people to subscribe through the web.
- lukifer 16y ago
  > only allow people to subscribe through the web My understanding is that the terms of the App Store explicitly forbid this.
timmaah 16y ago
Exactly.. how does Apple ban the Netflix app?

svlla 16y ago

Amazon will open up Kindle for the web and then whatever value-add Apple supposes they are adding will simply vanish.

teilo 16y ago
Sorry, but you don't realize how many of us use our iPads to read when there is no Wifi connection around. We can't do that with a web app. I am outraged, fuming really. I read my Kindle books on my iPad all the time. If they do not reverse this, this will all but guarantee that I am switching to an Android tablet as soon as it becomes a viable contender. Honeycomb can't get here soon enough.
- lukifer 16y ago
  If it's coded properly, a web app can absolutely store books, as well as its own code, offline.
- blinkingled 16y ago
  HTML5 localStorage / cache manifest / Offline Web Apps can deal with that perhaps? http://developer.apple.com/library/safari/#documentation/iPhone/Conceptual/SafariJSDatabaseGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html http://developer.apple.com/library/safari/#documentation/iPh...
  - teilo 16y ago
    I did not know about that. Well, let's just hope, then. Still pisses me off.
- pedalpete 16y ago
  safari supports HTML 5 Storage and apparently there is a 5 mb limitation per url. Looks like most of my kindle books are under 500kb, so that shouldn't be an issue.

w1ntermute 16y ago

Pandora and Kindle both duplicate Apple services (iTunes & iBooks, respecitvely) to some degree. It's not particularly surprising that Apple wants to kick them out now. They've probably had this planned all along and ready to put into action once they got big enough. What do you think your average iPhone or iPad owner is going to do in response to this change - buy a Kindle or Android device so they can keep using Pandora/Kindle, or just buy stuff from Apple's services instead?

avree 16y ago
iBooks maybe, but iTunes? There's absolutely no functionality cross-over between the two, with the exception of the broad category of providing a way to listen to music...
- Qz 16y ago
  iBooks doesn't even make any sense, considering Kindle came first by a longshot. iBooks is only there to turn the iPad into a (poor) Kindle substitute.
  - cgranade 16y ago
    Exactly. If duplicating a service is grounds for rejection and expulsion, then what is a company to do when Apple moves into a new market? Should the New York Times not have a newspaper app now that The Daily has been endorsed by Apple? Should Google Maps close up shop when Apple gets around to implementing navigation? Maybe Foursquare should pack it up once Apple adds check-in support to the base OS. All snark aside, it's never a sound business model to hand a possible competitor the "off" switch for your business.
zarify 16y ago
If I were a serious book reader on my idevice, then I definitely would buy a Kindle. The markup on books in the iBookstore compared to the Amazon store is enough to pay off the Kindle in less than a year's worth of reading. (Hell, it'd pay off my -iPad- in a couple of years, assuming I converted all my paper reading to ereading)

Flemlord 16y ago

Coming soon: Kindle for the Web (Beta) http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000579091 http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000... Looks like it was made for touch devices. I wonder if Amazon's about to pull their Kindle app.

j2d2j2d2 16y ago
That would destroy its portability.
- bryanlarsen 16y ago
  They'd just use HTML5 caching to provide the portability.
  - j2d2j2d2 16y ago
    If the plan is indeed to ditch the app approach, I would be very surprised. Html5 does not offer the same reliability as a native app at this time. It could happen down the line with a solid web experience as the starting point.

teilo 16y ago

Sirius is also going to have a real problem with this. I subscribe to Sirius-XM Online, and use their iOS app all the time.

teilo 16y ago

I really think there is some valid anti-trust possibilities here. It is one thing to require apps to be vetted - but to demand that 100% of all content is subject to an Apple Tax, even though it never touches any Apple assets at all? One could argue that since Apple must provide storage, infrastructure, and man-hours for all the apps that are purchased for iOS devices, that they are well within their rights to take a cut of App purchases. But what justification do they have for demanding the same regarding content consumed by said apps? They do not store the content. They do not filter the content. They do not provide the bandwidth that delivers the content. They are not liable for what the content itself is. What possible justification could they have for doing this? This is very nearly the same as saying that Sony should get a cut of all ad revenue for anything viewed on their TVs.

cgranade 16y ago
The only justification I've heard, and it's a very weak one, is that Apple provides the customers. That is, if Apple weren't around to run the App Store, then customers would be too stupid to find anything interesting to read, listen to or watch. Surely, they can justify some amount for payment processing overhead, but requiring all apps to use Apple's payment processing terms is beyond ridiculous.
rhygar 16y ago
Anti-trust applies here just as much as it applies to theaters who don't allow customers to bring in their own food.
w1ntermute 16y ago
> I really think there is some valid anti-trust possibilities here. Except Apple doesn't have anywhere near the market share needed for the legal definition of "trust".
- cgranade 16y ago
  Not in general, no, but they do have quite enough market share in some niche markets, such as smartphone apps. I think that is sufficient to spark anti-trust suits in many jurisdictions.

rhygar 16y ago

There is a basic lack of understanding here. This is not "unfair" in any way. Apple owns the platform, period. They have a right to do whatever they want with the platform and set any terms they want. Developers are free to choose whether or not they like the terms of the platform.

cgranade 16y ago
It's not so simple as that. Not at all. For one thing, a platform is a concept. As far as ownership is concerned, the users own their respective devices, not Apple. Moreover, it is not "fair" to exploit a monopoly (in this case, one unethically created by means of a closed platform with undisclosed and inconsistent app approval rules), and as such, many countries have laws preventing the unethical exploitation of monopoly-derived power. Anyway, I find it very odd to speak of Apple's "rights" whilst simultaneously ignoring those that actually have rights: the users. The philosophy that organizations can have rights independent of and greater in extent than any of its constituent persons is, to say the least, bizarre to me. Oh, and as for liking the terms of the platform: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080684/quotes?qt0358500 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080684/quotes?qt0358500)
- rhygar 16y ago
  Theaters don't allow food that was purchased elsewhere to be brought inside the building. Same principle. Sorry but you're just wrong on this.
  - cgranade 16y ago
    That analogy only works if the theatre was also owned by the moviegoer. A better analogy would be a DVD player that wouldn't play movies if you ate the wrong brand of popcorn while watching in your living room. If you're going to call someone out as "just wrong" by using an analogy, please make sure your analogy says what you want it to say first.
  - runevault 16y ago
    Maybe if you spent $500 dollars for rights to use the theater while being told you could bring your own food in, then the rules changed it'd be comparable. Otherwise not even close.

hackerku 16y ago

If Kindle and Netflix app gets removed, it will touch a nerve with lot of Apple customers. Hope Apple understands that.