4 ms·

As I added in the content section, I think that SaaS providers have the leeway to pass along the "Apple tax" to iOS users and thus embarrass Apple a little bit

As I added in the content section, I think that SaaS providers have the leeway to pass along the "Apple tax" to iOS users and thus embarrass Apple a little bit here. I'd like to see a service at least try to make an "iOS plan" - if a service is normally $10/mo, create a separate plan (that would be the only way of accessing the content for iOS users) that costs enough to offset Apple's take. This plan would cost the same both on the service provider's website and in the app, and would be the only way of accessing the service's content in the app, meeting Apple's rules... it would just be conspicuously more expensive than the version for all other platforms. I'm not normally the self-promoting or blogging type, but since I'm an enthusiastic user of many of these iOS services (Rdio, Netflix, Audible, The Economist...), I expounded a little bit here: http://www.thetechbastard.com/post/3326771970/a-hypothetical-netflix-ios-plan http://www.thetechbastard.com/post/3326771970/a-hypothetical...

dazzla 16y ago
What about Apple's rule that the in app subscription needs to be the same or better than available elsewhere?
- wmeredith 16y ago
  You could just offer them both in both places. It would be an interesting to see the conversion rates in both environments.
  - LiveTheDream 16y ago
    This plan relies on consumers being dumb enough to choose a plan with identical access, but a higher price.
    - estel 16y ago
      Not necessarily. They'd presumably need to pay the higher price (or some sort of premium) to access the content on their iDevice.
      - LiveTheDream 16y ago
        I understood that Apple required that the app and service offer the same subscription plans, so you could not force a consumer to pay a premium (even to cover the 30% fee to Apple). I suppose one could create both plans and prominently feature the iOS one in the app, and the regular plan on the website.
        akashs 16y ago
        Don't think you need the same plans, just need to make sure that whatever plan is made available through Apple is the same rate as the plan made available through any other channel and that any plan that grants iOS access is made available through Apple. Doesn't mean you can't charge extra for iOS access or have a set of plans that has nothing to do with iOS.
- shade 16y ago
  It seems to me that the simple way is pretty much what the grandparent described. Classify API/mobile access as a value-add and charge extra for it. For a web-based SaaS, I could see them doing something like "Web-only access including mobile web, $10/mo" and "Web + native mobile/API access: $15/mo" -- then only offer the latter option in-app. I suppose you could try to classify Android and iOS API access differently, but I suspect that might be a little over the line in terms of trying to slip it through the app store review process. I do still wonder how third party apps to hit a subscription API are going to work, though. I suppose a lot of those will be for-pay so Apple gets their vig from that anyway, but it's always possible someone will decide to release a free one...
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Another way: have entirely separate accounts for mobile access. If you have access to both a web-interface app account and a mobile app account, they can be "linked" such that the data is synchronized between the two. This would also be the only way mobile accounts could share data with non-mobile accounts. This would work for apps where the mobile UI is only an adjunct for doing real work on the desktop version.
    - bane 16y ago
      Keep your high-priced mobile access plan to yourself buddy! Or at least keep it with iDevice users. Us Android folks have gone with a corporate parent that doesn't abuse us or our vendor friends.
      - stcredzero 16y ago
        Keep your high-priced mobile access plan to yourself buddy! All of my apps are planned to be free, ad-supported, with in-app purchases.
akashs 16y ago
That's an interesting way to get around Apple. I wonder if it will hold. You're basically saying that if you want iOS accessibility, you pay 43% more. So maybe WSJ has a newspaper version, a newspaper plus digital (including android, any non iOS device), and then a newspaper plus digital plus iOS plan. Wonder if there's also another way to get around it, maybe by just jacking up the rate 43% everywhere to please Apple, but maybe giving some other type of promotion (loyalty points, coupons, free stuff) for people that don't use iOS. Maybe you could give 3 months free or something as a credit for anyone who doesn't use iOS? Given the level of detail Apple has provided, it sounds like either option could work. Edit: changed 30% to 43%
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  42% more, not 30% more.
  - akashs 16y ago
    err yes. or closer to 43, but yes.
kbutler 16y ago
> I think that SaaS providers have the leeway to pass along the "Apple tax" to iOS users and thus embarrass Apple a little bit here And why exactly would Apple choose to allow this?

dazzla 16y ago

What about Apple's rule that the in app subscription needs to be the same or better than available elsewhere?

wmeredith 16y ago
You could just offer them both in both places. It would be an interesting to see the conversion rates in both environments.
- LiveTheDream 16y ago
  This plan relies on consumers being dumb enough to choose a plan with identical access, but a higher price.
  - estel 16y ago
    Not necessarily. They'd presumably need to pay the higher price (or some sort of premium) to access the content on their iDevice.
    - LiveTheDream 16y ago
      I understood that Apple required that the app and service offer the same subscription plans, so you could not force a consumer to pay a premium (even to cover the 30% fee to Apple). I suppose one could create both plans and prominently feature the iOS one in the app, and the regular plan on the website.
      - akashs 16y ago
        Don't think you need the same plans, just need to make sure that whatever plan is made available through Apple is the same rate as the plan made available through any other channel and that any plan that grants iOS access is made available through Apple. Doesn't mean you can't charge extra for iOS access or have a set of plans that has nothing to do with iOS.
shade 16y ago
It seems to me that the simple way is pretty much what the grandparent described. Classify API/mobile access as a value-add and charge extra for it. For a web-based SaaS, I could see them doing something like "Web-only access including mobile web, $10/mo" and "Web + native mobile/API access: $15/mo" -- then only offer the latter option in-app. I suppose you could try to classify Android and iOS API access differently, but I suspect that might be a little over the line in terms of trying to slip it through the app store review process. I do still wonder how third party apps to hit a subscription API are going to work, though. I suppose a lot of those will be for-pay so Apple gets their vig from that anyway, but it's always possible someone will decide to release a free one...
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Another way: have entirely separate accounts for mobile access. If you have access to both a web-interface app account and a mobile app account, they can be "linked" such that the data is synchronized between the two. This would also be the only way mobile accounts could share data with non-mobile accounts. This would work for apps where the mobile UI is only an adjunct for doing real work on the desktop version.
  - bane 16y ago
    Keep your high-priced mobile access plan to yourself buddy! Or at least keep it with iDevice users. Us Android folks have gone with a corporate parent that doesn't abuse us or our vendor friends.
    - stcredzero 16y ago
      Keep your high-priced mobile access plan to yourself buddy! All of my apps are planned to be free, ad-supported, with in-app purchases.

akashs 16y ago

That's an interesting way to get around Apple. I wonder if it will hold. You're basically saying that if you want iOS accessibility, you pay 43% more. So maybe WSJ has a newspaper version, a newspaper plus digital (including android, any non iOS device), and then a newspaper plus digital plus iOS plan. Wonder if there's also another way to get around it, maybe by just jacking up the rate 43% everywhere to please Apple, but maybe giving some other type of promotion (loyalty points, coupons, free stuff) for people that don't use iOS. Maybe you could give 3 months free or something as a credit for anyone who doesn't use iOS? Given the level of detail Apple has provided, it sounds like either option could work. Edit: changed 30% to 43%

yummyfajitas 16y ago
42% more, not 30% more.
- akashs 16y ago
  err yes. or closer to 43, but yes.

kbutler 16y ago

> I think that SaaS providers have the leeway to pass along the "Apple tax" to iOS users and thus embarrass Apple a little bit here And why exactly would Apple choose to allow this?