12 ms·

Why are you people defending Apple?

233 points by Andrex 16y ago

Bossman 16y ago
And people wonder why I hate the walled approach Apple takes. The article makes another great point about people not being able to leave iOS devices for a competitor because all their music, movies, apps, etc are in Apple's DRM format and won't transfer to other devices. Apple deserves to have control over their own platform, but this is getting a little crazy. The extra fee wouldn't be so bad if developers could increase fees through apps to offset it, but Apple is forcing them into a horrible position. They can't say the reason for higher prices is Apple charging them. They have to eat that cost for the customer and aren't even allowed to post links to their site in the app anymore.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  Now everyone should know, if they didn't before, why Apple is no Microsoft. Apple isn't content to create a platform, they want to own everything. They want a walled garden, they want captive users, they want to be able to demand exorbitant profit margins in perpetuity. Mostly benign monarchies may seem very attractive at first glance, but over time abuse of power is inevitable and then it's too late.
  - coffeedrinker 16y ago
    I wonder how much content will end up simply as web apps and web sites and then it won't matter what platform the end user chooses. I've changed my focus from iOS to web because of Apple's policies.
    - chc 16y ago
      I wish that were practical, but Web apps just don't measure up for a lot of domains. Personal example: I was recently toying with the idea of porting a design program to be a Web app, but even just getting very simple typography right is pretty intractable.
      - coffeedrinker 16y ago
        Sure, not everything can be a web app, but a lot of the subscription world can easily be ported to web app, since the content will likely be delivered in HTML.
        chc 16y ago
        If you're talking desktop, I agree, since the browser has become so pre-eminent there. But for mobile, Web apps are distinctly second-tier citizens. Just installing one on your home screen is voodoo beyond the ken of most iPhone users.
        Bossman 16y ago
        It's not so bad on Android. And Google is very good at Web Apps. Try viewing the web app versions of gmail and such on your phone. They're not as full featured as the dedicated apps, but they work damn well. The big thing is making them look like real apps to the end user. No one wants to have to remember a bunch of web addresses. Something like what Chrome does on the PC is good...instead of a classic link shortcut for your desktop, it makes an "app" out of it. Giving it its own icon and name like any other program on the computer.
        mryall 16y ago
        Interestingly, serving e-books over HTML would destroy the DRM models that Amazon and others have developed to "protect" their content. I can't see there being a Kindle web-based reader unless Amazon takes the same road as Apple with regard to DRM [1], and tells all their content providers to get on board. [1] http://www.apple.com/fr/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ http://www.apple.com/fr/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
        fpgeek 16y ago
        http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000579091 http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000...
        16y ago
    - mkramlich 16y ago
      > I've changed my focus from iOS to web because of Apple's policies. Bingo! I leaned that way before as well. recent events just reinforced my decision to do the same. i've got one iOS native app in the pipeline for a startup client now. but it will hopefully be my last. there are just too many business ideas, too many features and experiences I can deliver quite satisfactorily as a desktop-friendly & mobile-friendly website, or on Android, to have to put up with this Nazi behavior on Apple's part anymore. i demand the ability to have whatever features I want, whatever content I want, do billing however I want, design my UI whatever way I think best, use whatever tools I want, and make new releases when and how I want, with no more bureaucracy, rituals or dumbass XCode quirks and mole-whacking. No more.
    - andyman1080 16y ago
      good luck with that.
  - bonch 16y ago
    Apple doesn't want to own everything. They're happy being the BMW of tech and generate massive profits. Comparing this situation to monarchies and abuses of power is stupid. It's just an in-app subscription model for a mobile OS that nobody is being forced to use.
    - InclinedPlane 16y ago
      Not all monarchies are bad, but most eventually turn worse. That's where the comparison to the iPhone platform is relevant. Apple has a lot of control over the platform, and so far people haven't been overly concerned about that. But over time people may start to realize that Apple is not as benevolent a company as they've been led to believe. Yes, people can go elsewhere. And I think that's precisely what will happen. Apple has had the lead in mobile app development as a platform up until now, but their restrictive and short-sighted rules and policies may very well sap much of that momentum.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- cletus 16y ago
  What the article actually says is: > 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. What you say is (emphasis added): > The article makes another great point about people not being able to leave iOS devices for a competitor because all their music, movies, apps, etc are in Apple's DRM format and won't transfer to other devices. Music is DRM-free on iTunes and has been for some time. TV shows and movies are another matter and have other issues (such as only one download), which is why I won't buy them from there. But it's not Apple demanding DRM. It's the content producers, who are still until the woeful delusion that DRM prevents copying. In reality it simply annoys customers. The only reason music is DRM-free on iTunes is because Apple extracted that concession as part of a deal that gave the RIAA three pricing bands for songs ($0.69, $0.99 and $1.29, which basically means $1.29 for anything new) over the previous model, which was $0.99 for everything.
  - Bossman 16y ago
    I get what you mean, but it still locks you into Apple's devices. Also, Amazon is able to produce content without DRM. Mp3 format music, etc.
    - Pooter 16y ago
      1) You're not locked into Apple's devices. ITunes is standard mp4 audio and plays on a variety of platforms; the DRMed video plays through itunes on windows too. 2) Amazon's VOD service provides DRMed video, too. Then what's the issue?
      - Bossman 16y ago
        > the DRMed video plays through itunes on windows too That's the problem. The DRM locks it to Apple only software and/or hardware.
        Pooter 16y ago
        Or RealPlayer, MediaCenter, or Songbird.
- darren_ 16y ago
  > all their music, movies, apps, etc are in Apple's DRM format and won't transfer to other devices. Music on iOS devices isn't DRMed and hasn't been for some time. If your new device can't play m4a files this is a separate issue and you can transcode them just like if you had a pile of drm-free WMAs. Apps are DRMed but even if they weren't it'd be irrelevant unless a WINE-analogue for iOS came about (and consider the time-scale this would take and performance issues, etc. UIKit is non-trivial). I can't move an Android app onto my iPhone either, despite its lack of DRM, and whether the blocker is legal or technical is irrelevant. The real problem isn't that a user can't move their 99c iOS whatever-app to their new android phone, it's that they can't find or don't know how to find or can't be bothered finding equivalent app(s) for their new phone. Leaving aside the whole question of relative top-tier application quality on the platforms. Movies, I don't know the behaviour here. Do people collect big libraries of apple DRM-ed movies, enough to keep them stuck to a phone? TV episodes I could see, but those strike me as more disposable in any case. What is the 'etc' in "music, movies, apps, etc"? It's not your photos. It's not your emails. It's not your calendars or your contacts. It's not even the data saved in your applications - there's a trivial API now for transferring files from an application to your desktop via iTunes; if you can't export the data from your favourite applications to transfer to a different platform, that's on the application developers, not Apple. I suppose it could be your alarms, preferred weather cities and stocks app choices. Or your SMS database, which I bet most people don't even consider as something that should easily transfer from phone to phone (though obviously it should).
  - Bossman 16y ago
    Valid points. You're right. Maybe I went a bit overboard. But you can't deny that Apple is continuously trying to prevent people from using anything but their services and goods. I don't blame them for that. What I blame them for is pushing everyone else out just because they control enough of the market to do so. > I suppose it could be your alarms, preferred weather cities and stocks app choices. Or your SMS database, which I bet most people don't even consider as something that should easily transfer from phone to phone (though obviously it should). Absolutely. However, those things aren't huge. Different platforms have equivelants anyway. If I go from iOS to Android (or the other way around), I have plenty to take the place of those. Setting them up again may take a little time, but not much.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- mkramlich 16y ago
  > and aren't even allowed to post links to their site in the app anymore. whoa. first time I heard this. if this is true, it's probably straws[final+5] for me. goodbye native iOS app development, hello mobile multi-platform web apps and Android apps.
coffeedrinker 16y ago
They are trying to force content producers to work exclusively with Apple. I can up the cost to the end user _as long as I stay only with Apple_. Once I move my product to a second competing device, then it really hurts profit because the price has to stay the same. Once they become the exclusive provider, then they continue to dominate the market, regardless of what other tablets and operating systems come along.
- myhf 16y ago
  Why does the price have to stay the same between platforms?
  - coffeedrinker 16y ago
    That is one of Apple's requirements. Whatever you sell somewhere else, it has to be the same price or cheaper at Apple. You cannot charge more on iOS to compensate for Apple's 30% cut (which I think is rather high for subscriptions).
    - halostatue 16y ago
      Aside from the subscription model involved, this is identical to (but with a better producer margin at 70%) what Handango and other PalmOS app distributors offered. I remember developers being up in arms because (a) Handango wanted a 60% cut, (b) you had to offer the same pricing on the Handango store as anywhere else, and (c) you couldn't direct people out of the Handango store. The clause you're talking about is pretty standard in reseller contracts everywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if there were one in the distributor contract for selling software in boxes at Apple stores, where the manufacturer makes 10% or less of the retail price. Also, Amazon has to make certain deep discount prices only visible after clicking or putting into the customer's cart because while they can sell for less than the MSRP, they aren't allowed to advertise (or let searches advertise) at that deep discount price. Edit: Added (c) as I remembered it while rereading this.
- nooneelse 16y ago
  Actually having the same content/product sold through both Apple and somewhere else is an interesting case. Between the two distribution channels, in which do you put your R&D or advertising dollar when channel Apple returns 30% less per customer gained there versus channel other?
jokermatt999 16y ago
This articulated a lot of my issues with Apple better than I could. I tend to steer clear of TC, but I think this is the best article I've seen on this issue of the 30% cut.
neutronicus 16y ago
"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." What? Ridiculous how? This claim is ridiculous. Suck it up and use Android. You'll live. I did.
- chc 16y ago
  Abandoning your users and moving to a platform where there's little money to be made is a questionable proposition for producers. And a lot of users will have second thoughts about moving to a platform they perceive to be distinctly inferior just because Apple are being dicks. Also, as a reminder in case you live in a country where it isn't so: Contracts prevent most of Apple's customers from jumping platforms, and sunk costs in iOS apps tighten the lock-in.
  - neutronicus 16y ago
    > Abandoning your users and moving to a platform where there's no money to be made is a questionable proposition for producers. And a lot of users will have second thoughts about moving to a platform they perceive to be distinctly inferior just because Apple are being dicks. It sounds like being on iOS as opposed to Android is worth money to you. That's what Apple thinks too. Either prove them wrong or pay the piper.
    - chc 16y ago
      Yes, fighting a monopoly is often a losing proposition. This is already well-known. Ask Netscape. Does the fact that Apple's appeal comes from its monopoly position somehow make its actions less of a shakedown?
      - neutronicus 16y ago
        Yes, fighting a monopoly is often a losing proposition. This is already well-known Ask Netscape. Does its resemblance to Microsoft in the '90s make Apple's actions more justifiable somehow? You know who Apple doesn't resemble? Sun. Sun let everyone besides themselves get rich off of Java, and look where they are today. And, monopoly, what? Having the best product doesn't make you a monopoly.
GHFigs 16y ago
I’m sure this post will invite a throng of Apple advocates to poke holes in my logic ...as if that were not transparently the intent of an article entitled "Why are you people defending Apple?"
davidu 16y ago
Comments all removed. The parent asked why I defend apple and I laid out my argument. Clearly people cared enough to respond and react. And yet I'm being downvoted for sharing my perspective just because it might be contrarian? Maybe that's /not/ why I'm being downvoted, but that's what it feels like to me. So no thanks. I'm content to keep my opinions to myself.
- chc 16y ago
  You defend Apple because Apple is good at generating profits for large, entrenched industries at the expense of users? That's an unusual stance. Also, which industries are you thinking of where the employees do not use some Google service or another every day? Even industries where I hear people constantly cursing Google often get a lot of value from their offerings.
- daleharvey 16y ago
  Apart from some of those examples being incredibly tenuous (personal computing), and the concept of defending companies position on one thing because you like its decisions elsewhere being kinda scary. But Google has had that impact on the entire web, both by providing visibility and a revenue stream via advertising.
  - davidu 16y ago
    Comments all removed.
    - burgerbrain 16y ago
      Make judgment calls in each case. Don't like or dislike a company, that's just senseless. Rather, like or dislike what a company does. Appreciate IBM's Watson, and dislike IBM's European business dealings in the 30's and 40's. Appreciate contributions Apple has made to personal computing, disliking their control-freak attitude. Use your brain, don't make sweeping generalizations by sweep shit under the carpet.
      - 16y ago
lotusleaf1987 16y ago
Zach said it best yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2224469 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2224469 Of course Rhapsody can't sell their stuff for a 30% margin. It's not their own stuff! They're trying to be the last link in a chain of 90/10 (or more) splits. They repackage record labels' repackaging of artists' content. Do you think the artists would find 30% economically untenable? The App Store is 70/30 because Apple can take things straight from content producer to customer. When the Apple takes the place of publishing, distribution, inventory, sales, payments and shipping, there's real value for that 30%. When all someone wants out of Apple is merely to process the payment and send things down the pipe, gee, who do they think they are? But that's not what Apple is actually holding themselves out as. Apple doesn't want to be in that kind of commodity market anyway. Seems reasonable to me.
- imichael 16y ago
  So ideally they publish music from the artists directly, eliminating the other intermediaries and effectively making them the... the... the record label.
  - danik 16y ago
    Another Apple Records? Isn't that a trademark issue? hehe...
    - wtn 16y ago
      Sosumi
  - cmoscoso 16y ago
    For iDevices, yes.
- statictype 16y ago
  The App Store is 70/30 because Apple can take things straight from content producer to customer. When the Apple takes the place of publishing, distribution, inventory, sales, payments and shipping, there's real value for that 30%. This was already addressed in the article. iBooks has a significantly smaller variety of books than Amazon. By becoming the sole gatekeeper for content, Apple is ruling out larger distributers. Users don't gain from this. Only Apple.
aj700 16y ago
Uhh, it's an ingrained reflex from my teens. Because they're not Microsoft. It's just the leftover bitterness of Amiga Persecution Complex. Billg killed the Amiga ...or so it is widely believed, especially in Europe.
ThomPete 16y ago
Google is the one who undercuts entire industries by making products in the field free and Apple gets the blame for charging people to get access to paying customers. What a funny ass backwards world we live in.
rauljara 16y ago
If the basic argument is that apple's margin are too high, I agree completely. They are a massively profitable company; they don't need to be charging what they're charging. If the argument is that there is something immoral about them charging people for use of their subscription service, I call bullshit. Until incredibly recently, they had no subscription service. Now they are offering the _option_ to use a subscription service. If you find the fees are too high, you are not obliged to take part in it. I think the real reason this upsets so many is that it clearly is worth it for many developers to take part in it, just like it clearly is worth it to let apple take their 30% cut for everything else sold on the app store. People are riled because they don't want to have to pay apple this fee, but hard cold business logic demands that they should, because it is profitable to do so (or less unprofitable than not doing so). It wouldn't be threatening at all if you felt like you could afford to just walk away from the ecosystem apple's built. Which seems to indicate they are adding value. Now, as to whether the value added == 30%, I direct you to the first paragraph. But what's the motivation to create such a wonderfully easy to use ecosystem if you can't derive a profit off it?
- adam_albrecht 16y ago
  From what I can tell, there is no option - any type of outside subscription or content that can be accessed through an iOS app must also be offered as an app store subscription or in-app purchase (with the 30% cut). This means that books on the Kindle app, subscriptions through Rdio or Rhapsody, and many other low-margin products and services will be subjected to Apple's ridiculous 30% take.
- whatusername 16y ago
  To me the issue is the fact that if you have any form of subscription service -- then you MUST use the IOS service and you MUST pay apple their 30%. Apple's service looks worthwhile and valid for certain use cases. But to insist that it must be used for any IOS Native app that has a monthly fee is a draconian change. Reasonably Serious Case: I've been looking at building an app for my wife to offer to her fitness bootcamp clients.. By my understanding of the new rules - I need to allow people to sign-up / renew contracts from within the app. And give Apple 30% of the $200 or so fee.
1010011010 16y ago
Apple is still better than Microsoft.
- radley 16y ago
  It's clear that changed over the past few years, starting soon after dropping "Computers" from their name...
cfontes 16y ago
Apple is just like a religion or sport team to some ppl... no matter what happens they stay on their side, I hate ppl that take things as a religion. BUT... I don't disagree with apple in this one though, they own the infra and without them there would be no place to sell the stuff so you should pay.
- elehack 16y ago
  They own the infrastructure, but they do not own the device. The customer does. They bought it. Apple comes along and says that anything you want to use on the device you bought and paid for needs to go through their infrastructure. That's where it becomes a huge problem. Not that they're charging for using their services, but because they're charging to let people do things with their property.
  - linuxhansl 16y ago
    EXACTLY. That is exactly why I only run Linux based machines and my phone is a Nexus S. When buy Apple hardware the transaction is more equivalent to a lease rather then a purchase.
  - superuser2 16y ago
    They're charging to let people do things through the iTunes store. Find me an example of them going after someone who liberated themselves from the iTunes store - Cydia still exists. Last I checked, there aren't any.
    - elehack 16y ago
      But they make it very clear that the iTunes store is the only authorized/approved means of doing things on the device, and try to make it illegal to do otherwise (although the Library of Congress put a temporary stop to that agenda). And while they don't go after the jailbreakers, they do try to diminish their experience with things like the iBooks jailbreak test. When you combine this behavior and stance with the "charging through the iTunes store" policy, it becomes effectively a mostly successful attempt to charge for doingsomething with the device. The Apple Tax in isolation, while disturbing, isn't intolerable. It's when you combine it with their other policies surrounding the platform that the real problem arises.
SPOTINT 16y ago
You own the device! Apple sell you the device! There is no place for apple in the way you experience the device once you pay the money!
SPOTINT 16y ago
You own the device! Apple sells you the device! There is no place for apple in the way you experience the device once you pay the money!
statictype 16y ago
This. More than the actual policy, what disturbs me is the number of people blindly defending it saying it's in the best interest of the users. It is not. This new subscription mechanism will effectively boot all newspaper/book/music subscription services off the App Store. This is great only if you're one of those people that believes every piece of technology you ever use should only be made by Apple. The only entity that benefits from this scheme is AAPL
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- radley 16y ago
  I disagree - they can't leave the platform since it's so dominant. I expect a couple of big players will announce they're raising their rates 50% due to the new pricing policy. Users will complain, which will put pressure on Apple. If Apple doesn't back down, over time most third party services will introduce new features that won't be made available on iOS. Considering they'll be making 2-4x as much on all other platforms, they'll naturally create incentives for people to switch.
46Bit 16y ago
I'm looking forward to Antitrust.
- sethg 16y ago
  If I understand correctly, antitrust concerns would only kick in if Apple uses its monopoly power to screw its competitors. For example, if iOS apps were required to sell content for less at the App Store than through competing channels, then Amazon et al. could rightfully cry foul. But screwing your customers is not an antitrust violation: it’s capitalism as usual. :-)
  - fpgeek 16y ago
    Given the impact of these new policies on music streaming services like Rhapsody et al and Apple's dominant share in the digital music and digital music player markets, I think antitrust will become part of the story sooner rather than later. Especially if Apple launches their own streaming service (as has been rumored).
  - Synaesthesia 16y ago
    Antitrust is about barriers to entry - the market is still wide open for anyone to compete with Apple.
jon_hendry 16y ago
I'm waiting for Apple to apply a per-MB charge for all data you access on iOS via WiFi or 3G that doesn't come from Apple.
radley 16y ago
Apple's new subscription model will cost more for end-users on all platforms. The new terms mean ~50% subscription price hikes across the board. Services can't reduce costs, and they aren't going to give away their profit. Ironically, it also creates incentives for competing platforms because the profit will be 2-5x greater than on iOS.
hughw 16y ago
Interesting to contrast Google Apps Marketplace: It charges 20% of "the total amount your customer ends up paying you for your application and related add-ons", specifically including recurring revenue but also excluding sales of items like books (unsure how they would classify e-books for this purpose). http://developer.googleapps.com/marketplace/fees http://developer.googleapps.com/marketplace/fees 20% off the top line for all revenue from a customer they acquire for you. Seems like a bargain for a one-time sale; seems costly in the out years when it's you, not Google, putting all the work into retaining the customer. Not complaining. Just contributing a data point from a similar effort in a slightly different space.
bane 16y ago
I suspect that, like most outrageous things Apple does 1) that we'll all have a big fight 2) Apple will continue with what they're doing for a while while we all get enraged and a bunch of us and the consumers jump platforms. 3) After months of fighting, Apple will relent and put a saner policy in place. 4) All will be right in the world 5) Wash, rinse, repeat. More likely than not, Apple is probably doing what they do best which is to feel out the upper ceiling of the market, do a credible job of defeating their competition, find out where a comfortable profit can be made, then screw up any path to bigger market share because the margins (and the ability to control the ecosystem) aren't there.
marze 16y ago
I imagine the decision at Apple went something like this: We can always go from 30% to 10% later, and all publicity is good publicity, so go for it.
- profitbaron 16y ago
  Additionally, it will also make the lower margin appear reasonable to developers etc, meaning Apple have given themselves a new revenue stream AND developers aren't that annoyed as they currently are at this 30% rate.
nevster 16y ago
The biggest complainers in all this will be companies like rhapsody who are middlemen.
EGreg 16y ago
I see this as a steady development towards a new era, away from copyright and patents and towards distribution-driven innovation. Look at Netflix, Apple and Google. They are discovering this model but just like the internet, I think the future will reveal itself over the next few years. People will pay for easy distribution and one-click purchasing. Some distribution networks will have a monthly fee for unlimited downloads. Others will have pay-per-download. Here's the good news: rather than relying on a government-enforced monopoly (copyright, patents, etc.) to make sure that the publishers and innovators get paid, we will rely on direct-to-consumer distribution networks, which compete with one another for publishers and users on things like ease of use and selection. In a way this is the Cable TV model. Eventually, I think everyone will move to a monthly subscription model for nearly unlimited downloads, like Netflix. That's because when torrent clients (or usenet or whatever else decentralized distribution network there will be) become as easy to use as the centralized ones (and decentralized always wins in the end), it will be just as easy and convenient to get a pirated movie as it is to get it on iTunes. But movies are expensive to make. That's why in the future, I think people will pay monthly fees instead of paying per item. At the end of the day, there will be a huge number of people subscribed to Netflix-like distribution networks just like there are people subscribed to the internet, and generating "positive externalities" for the cheapskates that get free content through decentralized means. But the system will work. Content creators will flourish!
reedF211 16y ago
I'm completely disgusted by Apple's behaviour on this topic. Apple should be ashamed of itself for gouging developers. This is like if someone has a bakery in Des Moines, IA and then wants to expand to New York, and the city of New York insists that the price of cake the bakery charges be the same or lower than the price in Des Moines where the rent and operation costs are a fraction of what they are in NYC. This kind of monopolistic behavior by Apple is worse than Microsoft at its worst in the 90s and the early 2000s.
- rahoulb 16y ago
  It's not worse than Microsoft. Apple does not have a monopoly in mobile devices. Apple is acting as a distributor and asking for a cut for being that distributor. There are other equally viable distributors - web apps, Android, maybe even WP7. I'm sure the Angry Birds or Pixelmator people don't begrudge Apple taking a cut for giving them a massive amount of marketing and promotion - as well as an ultra-simple way of receiving payment (still a major stumbling block in the online world). The key thing is how they enforce the external restrictions. It does make sense to say you need to offer the same terms externally as inside the App Store - to the consumer. The problem is that this can appear totally unreasonable to the developer. It all depends on enforcement - if they go after 30% of Highrise revenue because 37Signals have a native client we will know things are wrong.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- wmeredith 16y ago
  Except, uh, without the monopoly.
olalonde 16y ago
[...] my colleague MG Siegler did a thorough piece talking about why this makes sense for Apple and users [...] How surprising...
Cadsby 16y ago
I'm not saying I agree with Apple's new policies, but I don't remember seeing any outrage when Amazon was taking a whopping 70% of ebook sales, while simaltenously instituting a most favored nation clause which made it impossible for publishers to sell their books cheaper via any other distribution channel. Unfortunately Apple brings out the fanboy in some, while also bringing out the rabid anti-Apple sentiment in others. I wish the hyper emotion would get toned down on both sides.
speleding 16y ago
30% is not as much as people think it is. I've been involved in billing systems that do recurring billing and it is actually surprisingly hard, a lot harder than one-off payments. Just a few examples: * Credit cards on file get stolen or expire all the time. * People forget to cancel in time and do charge backs which you then have to resolve in some other way. * People e-mail customer support a lot more than for regular payments ("I want cancel, and please refund last x month too"). Support is expensive * Apple operates in a lot of countries where credit card penetration is very low and other payment methods are required. ... and then they handle the entire operation of the app store, and they need to make a profit somewhere. When the iPhone just came out Apple claimed they were not making any money on the app store and I think that's entirely believable. Margins will have gone up as scale increased but now that they have added recurring billing those margins will be lower again.
- brown9-2 16y ago
  This is a completely subjective judgment. You don't think 30% is too much for these services.
  - speleding 16y ago
    Double faux pas: It's not subjective, because I provide quantitative arguments (Apple not making money on the app store initially) and facts (recurring billing is much more expensive than regular billing, which is common knowledge to billing experts). Also note that I did NOT say 30% wasn't too much, I said it's not as much as people think.
api 16y ago
Apple can do this because they have a monopoly on good design. Almost nobody outside Cupertino understands that design, user interface, and user experience matter.
nevinera 16y ago
Shame on you people for having opinions that don't match mine.
azar1 16y ago
YOU PEOPLE!? What's that supposed to mean?
epo 16y ago
More anti-Apple whining and double standards. Funny how when people commit theft by avoiding paying for recorded content like music and films the claim is that the world has changed and the studios and record companies should adapt their business models. Apple's marketplace, Apple's T&Cs. If you can't do business using Apple's marketplace change your business model or change your marketplace. If enough people do the latter then Apple will have fewer quality suppliers.
Spyckie 16y ago
Won't this just make consumers hurt at the end? The most reasonable option as a developer is just to mark up the prices by 30% and then say if you want it the normal price, too bad - Apple needs its cut.
juddlyon 16y ago
I don't know or care about all the particulars. This feels like pure greed, not some cool strategic play. In other news: this is the first decent thing I've read on TC in six months!

233 points by Andrex 16y ago

And people wonder why I hate the walled approach Apple takes. The article makes another great point about people not being able to leave iOS devices for a competitor because all their music, movies, apps, etc are in Apple's DRM format and won't transfer to other devices. Apple deserves to have control over their own platform, but this is getting a little crazy. The extra fee wouldn't be so bad if developers could increase fees through apps to offset it, but Apple is forcing them into a horrible position. They can't say the reason for higher prices is Apple charging them. They have to eat that cost for the customer and aren't even allowed to post links to their site in the app anymore.

InclinedPlane 16y ago
Now everyone should know, if they didn't before, why Apple is no Microsoft. Apple isn't content to create a platform, they want to own everything. They want a walled garden, they want captive users, they want to be able to demand exorbitant profit margins in perpetuity. Mostly benign monarchies may seem very attractive at first glance, but over time abuse of power is inevitable and then it's too late.
- coffeedrinker 16y ago
  I wonder how much content will end up simply as web apps and web sites and then it won't matter what platform the end user chooses. I've changed my focus from iOS to web because of Apple's policies.
  - chc 16y ago
    I wish that were practical, but Web apps just don't measure up for a lot of domains. Personal example: I was recently toying with the idea of porting a design program to be a Web app, but even just getting very simple typography right is pretty intractable.
    - coffeedrinker 16y ago
      Sure, not everything can be a web app, but a lot of the subscription world can easily be ported to web app, since the content will likely be delivered in HTML.
      - chc 16y ago
        If you're talking desktop, I agree, since the browser has become so pre-eminent there. But for mobile, Web apps are distinctly second-tier citizens. Just installing one on your home screen is voodoo beyond the ken of most iPhone users.
        Bossman 16y ago
        It's not so bad on Android. And Google is very good at Web Apps. Try viewing the web app versions of gmail and such on your phone. They're not as full featured as the dedicated apps, but they work damn well. The big thing is making them look like real apps to the end user. No one wants to have to remember a bunch of web addresses. Something like what Chrome does on the PC is good...instead of a classic link shortcut for your desktop, it makes an "app" out of it. Giving it its own icon and name like any other program on the computer.
      - mryall 16y ago
        Interestingly, serving e-books over HTML would destroy the DRM models that Amazon and others have developed to "protect" their content. I can't see there being a Kindle web-based reader unless Amazon takes the same road as Apple with regard to DRM [1], and tells all their content providers to get on board. [1] http://www.apple.com/fr/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ http://www.apple.com/fr/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
        fpgeek 16y ago
        http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000579091 http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000...
      - 16y ago
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    > I've changed my focus from iOS to web because of Apple's policies. Bingo! I leaned that way before as well. recent events just reinforced my decision to do the same. i've got one iOS native app in the pipeline for a startup client now. but it will hopefully be my last. there are just too many business ideas, too many features and experiences I can deliver quite satisfactorily as a desktop-friendly & mobile-friendly website, or on Android, to have to put up with this Nazi behavior on Apple's part anymore. i demand the ability to have whatever features I want, whatever content I want, do billing however I want, design my UI whatever way I think best, use whatever tools I want, and make new releases when and how I want, with no more bureaucracy, rituals or dumbass XCode quirks and mole-whacking. No more.
  - andyman1080 16y ago
    good luck with that.
- bonch 16y ago
  Apple doesn't want to own everything. They're happy being the BMW of tech and generate massive profits. Comparing this situation to monarchies and abuses of power is stupid. It's just an in-app subscription model for a mobile OS that nobody is being forced to use.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    Not all monarchies are bad, but most eventually turn worse. That's where the comparison to the iPhone platform is relevant. Apple has a lot of control over the platform, and so far people haven't been overly concerned about that. But over time people may start to realize that Apple is not as benevolent a company as they've been led to believe. Yes, people can go elsewhere. And I think that's precisely what will happen. Apple has had the lead in mobile app development as a platform up until now, but their restrictive and short-sighted rules and policies may very well sap much of that momentum.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
cletus 16y ago
What the article actually says is: > 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. What you say is (emphasis added): > The article makes another great point about people not being able to leave iOS devices for a competitor because all their music, movies, apps, etc are in Apple's DRM format and won't transfer to other devices. Music is DRM-free on iTunes and has been for some time. TV shows and movies are another matter and have other issues (such as only one download), which is why I won't buy them from there. But it's not Apple demanding DRM. It's the content producers, who are still until the woeful delusion that DRM prevents copying. In reality it simply annoys customers. The only reason music is DRM-free on iTunes is because Apple extracted that concession as part of a deal that gave the RIAA three pricing bands for songs ($0.69, $0.99 and $1.29, which basically means $1.29 for anything new) over the previous model, which was $0.99 for everything.
- Bossman 16y ago
  I get what you mean, but it still locks you into Apple's devices. Also, Amazon is able to produce content without DRM. Mp3 format music, etc.
  - Pooter 16y ago
    1) You're not locked into Apple's devices. ITunes is standard mp4 audio and plays on a variety of platforms; the DRMed video plays through itunes on windows too. 2) Amazon's VOD service provides DRMed video, too. Then what's the issue?
    - Bossman 16y ago
      > the DRMed video plays through itunes on windows too That's the problem. The DRM locks it to Apple only software and/or hardware.
      - Pooter 16y ago
        Or RealPlayer, MediaCenter, or Songbird.
darren_ 16y ago
> all their music, movies, apps, etc are in Apple's DRM format and won't transfer to other devices. Music on iOS devices isn't DRMed and hasn't been for some time. If your new device can't play m4a files this is a separate issue and you can transcode them just like if you had a pile of drm-free WMAs. Apps are DRMed but even if they weren't it'd be irrelevant unless a WINE-analogue for iOS came about (and consider the time-scale this would take and performance issues, etc. UIKit is non-trivial). I can't move an Android app onto my iPhone either, despite its lack of DRM, and whether the blocker is legal or technical is irrelevant. The real problem isn't that a user can't move their 99c iOS whatever-app to their new android phone, it's that they can't find or don't know how to find or can't be bothered finding equivalent app(s) for their new phone. Leaving aside the whole question of relative top-tier application quality on the platforms. Movies, I don't know the behaviour here. Do people collect big libraries of apple DRM-ed movies, enough to keep them stuck to a phone? TV episodes I could see, but those strike me as more disposable in any case. What is the 'etc' in "music, movies, apps, etc"? It's not your photos. It's not your emails. It's not your calendars or your contacts. It's not even the data saved in your applications - there's a trivial API now for transferring files from an application to your desktop via iTunes; if you can't export the data from your favourite applications to transfer to a different platform, that's on the application developers, not Apple. I suppose it could be your alarms, preferred weather cities and stocks app choices. Or your SMS database, which I bet most people don't even consider as something that should easily transfer from phone to phone (though obviously it should).
- Bossman 16y ago
  Valid points. You're right. Maybe I went a bit overboard. But you can't deny that Apple is continuously trying to prevent people from using anything but their services and goods. I don't blame them for that. What I blame them for is pushing everyone else out just because they control enough of the market to do so. > I suppose it could be your alarms, preferred weather cities and stocks app choices. Or your SMS database, which I bet most people don't even consider as something that should easily transfer from phone to phone (though obviously it should). Absolutely. However, those things aren't huge. Different platforms have equivelants anyway. If I go from iOS to Android (or the other way around), I have plenty to take the place of those. Setting them up again may take a little time, but not much.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mkramlich 16y ago
> and aren't even allowed to post links to their site in the app anymore. whoa. first time I heard this. if this is true, it's probably straws[final+5] for me. goodbye native iOS app development, hello mobile multi-platform web apps and Android apps.

coffeedrinker 16y ago

They are trying to force content producers to work exclusively with Apple. I can up the cost to the end user _as long as I stay only with Apple_. Once I move my product to a second competing device, then it really hurts profit because the price has to stay the same. Once they become the exclusive provider, then they continue to dominate the market, regardless of what other tablets and operating systems come along.

myhf 16y ago
Why does the price have to stay the same between platforms?
- coffeedrinker 16y ago
  That is one of Apple's requirements. Whatever you sell somewhere else, it has to be the same price or cheaper at Apple. You cannot charge more on iOS to compensate for Apple's 30% cut (which I think is rather high for subscriptions).
  - halostatue 16y ago
    Aside from the subscription model involved, this is identical to (but with a better producer margin at 70%) what Handango and other PalmOS app distributors offered. I remember developers being up in arms because (a) Handango wanted a 60% cut, (b) you had to offer the same pricing on the Handango store as anywhere else, and (c) you couldn't direct people out of the Handango store. The clause you're talking about is pretty standard in reseller contracts everywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if there were one in the distributor contract for selling software in boxes at Apple stores, where the manufacturer makes 10% or less of the retail price. Also, Amazon has to make certain deep discount prices only visible after clicking or putting into the customer's cart because while they can sell for less than the MSRP, they aren't allowed to advertise (or let searches advertise) at that deep discount price. Edit: Added (c) as I remembered it while rereading this.
nooneelse 16y ago
Actually having the same content/product sold through both Apple and somewhere else is an interesting case. Between the two distribution channels, in which do you put your R&D or advertising dollar when channel Apple returns 30% less per customer gained there versus channel other?

jokermatt999 16y ago

This articulated a lot of my issues with Apple better than I could. I tend to steer clear of TC, but I think this is the best article I've seen on this issue of the 30% cut.

neutronicus 16y ago

"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." What? Ridiculous how? This claim is ridiculous. Suck it up and use Android. You'll live. I did.

chc 16y ago
Abandoning your users and moving to a platform where there's little money to be made is a questionable proposition for producers. And a lot of users will have second thoughts about moving to a platform they perceive to be distinctly inferior just because Apple are being dicks. Also, as a reminder in case you live in a country where it isn't so: Contracts prevent most of Apple's customers from jumping platforms, and sunk costs in iOS apps tighten the lock-in.
- neutronicus 16y ago
  > Abandoning your users and moving to a platform where there's no money to be made is a questionable proposition for producers. And a lot of users will have second thoughts about moving to a platform they perceive to be distinctly inferior just because Apple are being dicks. It sounds like being on iOS as opposed to Android is worth money to you. That's what Apple thinks too. Either prove them wrong or pay the piper.
  - chc 16y ago
    Yes, fighting a monopoly is often a losing proposition. This is already well-known. Ask Netscape. Does the fact that Apple's appeal comes from its monopoly position somehow make its actions less of a shakedown?
    - neutronicus 16y ago
      Yes, fighting a monopoly is often a losing proposition. This is already well-known Ask Netscape. Does its resemblance to Microsoft in the '90s make Apple's actions more justifiable somehow? You know who Apple doesn't resemble? Sun. Sun let everyone besides themselves get rich off of Java, and look where they are today. And, monopoly, what? Having the best product doesn't make you a monopoly.

GHFigs 16y ago

I’m sure this post will invite a throng of Apple advocates to poke holes in my logic ...as if that were not transparently the intent of an article entitled "Why are you people defending Apple?"

davidu 16y ago

Comments all removed. The parent asked why I defend apple and I laid out my argument. Clearly people cared enough to respond and react. And yet I'm being downvoted for sharing my perspective just because it might be contrarian? Maybe that's /not/ why I'm being downvoted, but that's what it feels like to me. So no thanks. I'm content to keep my opinions to myself.

chc 16y ago
You defend Apple because Apple is good at generating profits for large, entrenched industries at the expense of users? That's an unusual stance. Also, which industries are you thinking of where the employees do not use some Google service or another every day? Even industries where I hear people constantly cursing Google often get a lot of value from their offerings.
daleharvey 16y ago
Apart from some of those examples being incredibly tenuous (personal computing), and the concept of defending companies position on one thing because you like its decisions elsewhere being kinda scary. But Google has had that impact on the entire web, both by providing visibility and a revenue stream via advertising.
- davidu 16y ago
  Comments all removed.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    Make judgment calls in each case. Don't like or dislike a company, that's just senseless. Rather, like or dislike what a company does. Appreciate IBM's Watson, and dislike IBM's European business dealings in the 30's and 40's. Appreciate contributions Apple has made to personal computing, disliking their control-freak attitude. Use your brain, don't make sweeping generalizations by sweep shit under the carpet.
    - 16y ago

lotusleaf1987 16y ago

Zach said it best yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2224469 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2224469 Of course Rhapsody can't sell their stuff for a 30% margin. It's not their own stuff! They're trying to be the last link in a chain of 90/10 (or more) splits. They repackage record labels' repackaging of artists' content. Do you think the artists would find 30% economically untenable? The App Store is 70/30 because Apple can take things straight from content producer to customer. When the Apple takes the place of publishing, distribution, inventory, sales, payments and shipping, there's real value for that 30%. When all someone wants out of Apple is merely to process the payment and send things down the pipe, gee, who do they think they are? But that's not what Apple is actually holding themselves out as. Apple doesn't want to be in that kind of commodity market anyway. Seems reasonable to me.

imichael 16y ago
So ideally they publish music from the artists directly, eliminating the other intermediaries and effectively making them the... the... the record label.
- danik 16y ago
  Another Apple Records? Isn't that a trademark issue? hehe...
  - wtn 16y ago
    Sosumi
- cmoscoso 16y ago
  For iDevices, yes.
statictype 16y ago
The App Store is 70/30 because Apple can take things straight from content producer to customer. When the Apple takes the place of publishing, distribution, inventory, sales, payments and shipping, there's real value for that 30%. This was already addressed in the article. iBooks has a significantly smaller variety of books than Amazon. By becoming the sole gatekeeper for content, Apple is ruling out larger distributers. Users don't gain from this. Only Apple.

aj700 16y ago

Uhh, it's an ingrained reflex from my teens. Because they're not Microsoft. It's just the leftover bitterness of Amiga Persecution Complex. Billg killed the Amiga ...or so it is widely believed, especially in Europe.

ThomPete 16y ago

Google is the one who undercuts entire industries by making products in the field free and Apple gets the blame for charging people to get access to paying customers. What a funny ass backwards world we live in.

rauljara 16y ago

If the basic argument is that apple's margin are too high, I agree completely. They are a massively profitable company; they don't need to be charging what they're charging. If the argument is that there is something immoral about them charging people for use of their subscription service, I call bullshit. Until incredibly recently, they had no subscription service. Now they are offering the _option_ to use a subscription service. If you find the fees are too high, you are not obliged to take part in it. I think the real reason this upsets so many is that it clearly is worth it for many developers to take part in it, just like it clearly is worth it to let apple take their 30% cut for everything else sold on the app store. People are riled because they don't want to have to pay apple this fee, but hard cold business logic demands that they should, because it is profitable to do so (or less unprofitable than not doing so). It wouldn't be threatening at all if you felt like you could afford to just walk away from the ecosystem apple's built. Which seems to indicate they are adding value. Now, as to whether the value added == 30%, I direct you to the first paragraph. But what's the motivation to create such a wonderfully easy to use ecosystem if you can't derive a profit off it?

adam_albrecht 16y ago
From what I can tell, there is no option - any type of outside subscription or content that can be accessed through an iOS app must also be offered as an app store subscription or in-app purchase (with the 30% cut). This means that books on the Kindle app, subscriptions through Rdio or Rhapsody, and many other low-margin products and services will be subjected to Apple's ridiculous 30% take.
whatusername 16y ago
To me the issue is the fact that if you have any form of subscription service -- then you MUST use the IOS service and you MUST pay apple their 30%. Apple's service looks worthwhile and valid for certain use cases. But to insist that it must be used for any IOS Native app that has a monthly fee is a draconian change. Reasonably Serious Case: I've been looking at building an app for my wife to offer to her fitness bootcamp clients.. By my understanding of the new rules - I need to allow people to sign-up / renew contracts from within the app. And give Apple 30% of the $200 or so fee.

1010011010 16y ago

Apple is still better than Microsoft.

radley 16y ago
It's clear that changed over the past few years, starting soon after dropping "Computers" from their name...

cfontes 16y ago

Apple is just like a religion or sport team to some ppl... no matter what happens they stay on their side, I hate ppl that take things as a religion. BUT... I don't disagree with apple in this one though, they own the infra and without them there would be no place to sell the stuff so you should pay.

elehack 16y ago
They own the infrastructure, but they do not own the device. The customer does. They bought it. Apple comes along and says that anything you want to use on the device you bought and paid for needs to go through their infrastructure. That's where it becomes a huge problem. Not that they're charging for using their services, but because they're charging to let people do things with their property.
- linuxhansl 16y ago
  EXACTLY. That is exactly why I only run Linux based machines and my phone is a Nexus S. When buy Apple hardware the transaction is more equivalent to a lease rather then a purchase.
- superuser2 16y ago
  They're charging to let people do things through the iTunes store. Find me an example of them going after someone who liberated themselves from the iTunes store - Cydia still exists. Last I checked, there aren't any.
  - elehack 16y ago
    But they make it very clear that the iTunes store is the only authorized/approved means of doing things on the device, and try to make it illegal to do otherwise (although the Library of Congress put a temporary stop to that agenda). And while they don't go after the jailbreakers, they do try to diminish their experience with things like the iBooks jailbreak test. When you combine this behavior and stance with the "charging through the iTunes store" policy, it becomes effectively a mostly successful attempt to charge for doingsomething with the device. The Apple Tax in isolation, while disturbing, isn't intolerable. It's when you combine it with their other policies surrounding the platform that the real problem arises.

SPOTINT 16y ago

You own the device! Apple sell you the device! There is no place for apple in the way you experience the device once you pay the money!

SPOTINT 16y ago

You own the device! Apple sells you the device! There is no place for apple in the way you experience the device once you pay the money!

statictype 16y ago

This. More than the actual policy, what disturbs me is the number of people blindly defending it saying it's in the best interest of the users. It is not. This new subscription mechanism will effectively boot all newspaper/book/music subscription services off the App Store. This is great only if you're one of those people that believes every piece of technology you ever use should only be made by Apple. The only entity that benefits from this scheme is AAPL

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
radley 16y ago
I disagree - they can't leave the platform since it's so dominant. I expect a couple of big players will announce they're raising their rates 50% due to the new pricing policy. Users will complain, which will put pressure on Apple. If Apple doesn't back down, over time most third party services will introduce new features that won't be made available on iOS. Considering they'll be making 2-4x as much on all other platforms, they'll naturally create incentives for people to switch.

46Bit 16y ago

I'm looking forward to Antitrust.

sethg 16y ago
If I understand correctly, antitrust concerns would only kick in if Apple uses its monopoly power to screw its competitors. For example, if iOS apps were required to sell content for less at the App Store than through competing channels, then Amazon et al. could rightfully cry foul. But screwing your customers is not an antitrust violation: it’s capitalism as usual. :-)
- fpgeek 16y ago
  Given the impact of these new policies on music streaming services like Rhapsody et al and Apple's dominant share in the digital music and digital music player markets, I think antitrust will become part of the story sooner rather than later. Especially if Apple launches their own streaming service (as has been rumored).
- Synaesthesia 16y ago
  Antitrust is about barriers to entry - the market is still wide open for anyone to compete with Apple.

jon_hendry 16y ago

I'm waiting for Apple to apply a per-MB charge for all data you access on iOS via WiFi or 3G that doesn't come from Apple.

radley 16y ago

Apple's new subscription model will cost more for end-users on all platforms. The new terms mean ~50% subscription price hikes across the board. Services can't reduce costs, and they aren't going to give away their profit. Ironically, it also creates incentives for competing platforms because the profit will be 2-5x greater than on iOS.

hughw 16y ago

Interesting to contrast Google Apps Marketplace: It charges 20% of "the total amount your customer ends up paying you for your application and related add-ons", specifically including recurring revenue but also excluding sales of items like books (unsure how they would classify e-books for this purpose). http://developer.googleapps.com/marketplace/fees http://developer.googleapps.com/marketplace/fees 20% off the top line for all revenue from a customer they acquire for you. Seems like a bargain for a one-time sale; seems costly in the out years when it's you, not Google, putting all the work into retaining the customer. Not complaining. Just contributing a data point from a similar effort in a slightly different space.

bane 16y ago

I suspect that, like most outrageous things Apple does 1) that we'll all have a big fight 2) Apple will continue with what they're doing for a while while we all get enraged and a bunch of us and the consumers jump platforms. 3) After months of fighting, Apple will relent and put a saner policy in place. 4) All will be right in the world 5) Wash, rinse, repeat. More likely than not, Apple is probably doing what they do best which is to feel out the upper ceiling of the market, do a credible job of defeating their competition, find out where a comfortable profit can be made, then screw up any path to bigger market share because the margins (and the ability to control the ecosystem) aren't there.

marze 16y ago

I imagine the decision at Apple went something like this: We can always go from 30% to 10% later, and all publicity is good publicity, so go for it.

profitbaron 16y ago
Additionally, it will also make the lower margin appear reasonable to developers etc, meaning Apple have given themselves a new revenue stream AND developers aren't that annoyed as they currently are at this 30% rate.

nevster 16y ago

The biggest complainers in all this will be companies like rhapsody who are middlemen.

EGreg 16y ago

I see this as a steady development towards a new era, away from copyright and patents and towards distribution-driven innovation. Look at Netflix, Apple and Google. They are discovering this model but just like the internet, I think the future will reveal itself over the next few years. People will pay for easy distribution and one-click purchasing. Some distribution networks will have a monthly fee for unlimited downloads. Others will have pay-per-download. Here's the good news: rather than relying on a government-enforced monopoly (copyright, patents, etc.) to make sure that the publishers and innovators get paid, we will rely on direct-to-consumer distribution networks, which compete with one another for publishers and users on things like ease of use and selection. In a way this is the Cable TV model. Eventually, I think everyone will move to a monthly subscription model for nearly unlimited downloads, like Netflix. That's because when torrent clients (or usenet or whatever else decentralized distribution network there will be) become as easy to use as the centralized ones (and decentralized always wins in the end), it will be just as easy and convenient to get a pirated movie as it is to get it on iTunes. But movies are expensive to make. That's why in the future, I think people will pay monthly fees instead of paying per item. At the end of the day, there will be a huge number of people subscribed to Netflix-like distribution networks just like there are people subscribed to the internet, and generating "positive externalities" for the cheapskates that get free content through decentralized means. But the system will work. Content creators will flourish!

reedF211 16y ago

I'm completely disgusted by Apple's behaviour on this topic. Apple should be ashamed of itself for gouging developers. This is like if someone has a bakery in Des Moines, IA and then wants to expand to New York, and the city of New York insists that the price of cake the bakery charges be the same or lower than the price in Des Moines where the rent and operation costs are a fraction of what they are in NYC. This kind of monopolistic behavior by Apple is worse than Microsoft at its worst in the 90s and the early 2000s.

rahoulb 16y ago
It's not worse than Microsoft. Apple does not have a monopoly in mobile devices. Apple is acting as a distributor and asking for a cut for being that distributor. There are other equally viable distributors - web apps, Android, maybe even WP7. I'm sure the Angry Birds or Pixelmator people don't begrudge Apple taking a cut for giving them a massive amount of marketing and promotion - as well as an ultra-simple way of receiving payment (still a major stumbling block in the online world). The key thing is how they enforce the external restrictions. It does make sense to say you need to offer the same terms externally as inside the App Store - to the consumer. The problem is that this can appear totally unreasonable to the developer. It all depends on enforcement - if they go after 30% of Highrise revenue because 37Signals have a native client we will know things are wrong.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
wmeredith 16y ago
Except, uh, without the monopoly.

olalonde 16y ago

[...] my colleague MG Siegler did a thorough piece talking about why this makes sense for Apple and users [...] How surprising...

Cadsby 16y ago

I'm not saying I agree with Apple's new policies, but I don't remember seeing any outrage when Amazon was taking a whopping 70% of ebook sales, while simaltenously instituting a most favored nation clause which made it impossible for publishers to sell their books cheaper via any other distribution channel. Unfortunately Apple brings out the fanboy in some, while also bringing out the rabid anti-Apple sentiment in others. I wish the hyper emotion would get toned down on both sides.

speleding 16y ago

30% is not as much as people think it is. I've been involved in billing systems that do recurring billing and it is actually surprisingly hard, a lot harder than one-off payments. Just a few examples: * Credit cards on file get stolen or expire all the time. * People forget to cancel in time and do charge backs which you then have to resolve in some other way. * People e-mail customer support a lot more than for regular payments ("I want cancel, and please refund last x month too"). Support is expensive * Apple operates in a lot of countries where credit card penetration is very low and other payment methods are required. ... and then they handle the entire operation of the app store, and they need to make a profit somewhere. When the iPhone just came out Apple claimed they were not making any money on the app store and I think that's entirely believable. Margins will have gone up as scale increased but now that they have added recurring billing those margins will be lower again.

brown9-2 16y ago
This is a completely subjective judgment. You don't think 30% is too much for these services.
- speleding 16y ago
  Double faux pas: It's not subjective, because I provide quantitative arguments (Apple not making money on the app store initially) and facts (recurring billing is much more expensive than regular billing, which is common knowledge to billing experts). Also note that I did NOT say 30% wasn't too much, I said it's not as much as people think.

api 16y ago

Apple can do this because they have a monopoly on good design. Almost nobody outside Cupertino understands that design, user interface, and user experience matter.

nevinera 16y ago

Shame on you people for having opinions that don't match mine.

azar1 16y ago

YOU PEOPLE!? What's that supposed to mean?

epo 16y ago

More anti-Apple whining and double standards. Funny how when people commit theft by avoiding paying for recorded content like music and films the claim is that the world has changed and the studios and record companies should adapt their business models. Apple's marketplace, Apple's T&Cs. If you can't do business using Apple's marketplace change your business model or change your marketplace. If enough people do the latter then Apple will have fewer quality suppliers.

Spyckie 16y ago

Won't this just make consumers hurt at the end? The most reasonable option as a developer is just to mark up the prices by 30% and then say if you want it the normal price, too bad - Apple needs its cut.

juddlyon 16y ago

I don't know or care about all the particulars. This feels like pure greed, not some cool strategic play. In other news: this is the first decent thing I've read on TC in six months!