10 ms·

Last.fm co-founder: Apple just fucked over online music subs for the iPhone

271 points by Uncle_Sam 16y ago

Supermighty 16y ago
I can understand Apple wanting to increase revenues. And even getting a bit of the subscription pie. But this whole thing seem wrong. It feels like Apple didn't really look at the whole ecosystem to see the ramification. Or that they did, but are overly confidant in their platform and reach to be able to force subscribers into this model. I don't see this ending well.
- harshpotatoes 16y ago
  Perhaps they're hoping that this will force some of the subscription businesses off their platform, forcing people into whatever services Apple can give through subscription (iBooks, music). And then the businesses that do remain can actually pay. In the short run, I can't imagine users would care very much if they could only get their books from apple and not amazon, and it would probably help Apple lock in users. But, lock-in and anticompetitive behavior probably don't make for a good experience from the user's perspective in the long run... So, maybe they have a different angle.
  - Supermighty 16y ago
    That could be a thought, or goal, of theirs, to push content creators to their platform instead of through Amazon and Rhapsody middle men. Users will and won't care depending on several factors. I can imagine that hardcore Amazon Kindle users will be pissed that they have one less platform to read their books on. The Kindle syncs books and your position in the book between devices. It's a value proposition that's hard to beat. Even if you have the same book on your iBooks I think users will get pissed that they have to search to find where they finished reading it on their other devices.
    - glhaynes 16y ago
      iBooks syncs last-read-to positions for books that are on the device. It doesn't automatically sync books, though - that has to happen through iTunes.
      - Supermighty 16y ago
        Does it sync last-read-position across all your devices. Or as many devices as the Kindle app supports?
        glhaynes 16y ago
        It does it across all the devices that run iBooks (i.e. anything that runs a recentish version of iOS).
    - praptak 16y ago
      "That could be a thought, or goal, of theirs, to push content creators to their platform instead of through Amazon and Rhapsody middle men." You don't push creators to a platform by scalping 30% from their income.
      - dedward 16y ago
        That misses the point. In this scenario, if you have the Kindle app installed on your iPad, and if you buy a subscription to something, you can do that from your kindle, your ipad, your computer, whatever. Kindle is cool that way. Apple is saying, hey, if you do it through the ipad kindle app, we expect 30% of the subscription fee from the publisher. AND the publisher is not allowed to offer cheaper prices to off-ipad purchases.... so the only logical move for Kindle is "umm, okay, we'll stop providing a kindle ipad app and we'll take our customers elsewhere" Leaving only the Apple-provided bookstore to handle subscriptions. They don't want people using their platform to launch recurring-revenue models for content and then not get a piece of the subscription pie.
      - grhino 16y ago
        The point is that creators already have to deal with worse than 30% scalping when dealing with other distributors of their content. For example, Activision/Blizzard has the infrastructure to sell/distribute games from their own website, however, when they also sell those games through a big retail distributor like Walmart, they have to give Walmart a huge cut (I'm guessing more than 30%) to entice Walmart to sell that game through their stores. Now, Activision/Blizzard cannot sell the game for 10% less than the retail price from their own website (at least, not initially) because otherwise, Walmart says to Blizzard/Activision "If you don't sell the game from your website at the retail price, we won't sell your game through Walmart." Even though it's a negotiation, it's mutually beneficial to the content producers and the distributors. The game Apple is playing is that they want to take the same cut from content distributors as they would from content creators. It's a gutsy move by Apple because those content distributors are already taking a cut by reselling content from content creators. They wouldn't be willing to do this if they weren't also making an aggressive push to be a content distributor of all digital media.
  - ROFISH 16y ago
    It's one thing if Apple provides a competing service to Netflix, Hulu, Rhapsody, et al. (And may be accused on monopolism.) The thing that boils my britches about this is that Apple DOESN'T have a competing service. When the services leave, the iPhone is left only with iBooks and iTunes, both of which are expensive and not very good.
    - harshpotatoes 16y ago
      I agree, but I also don't think it would be impossible for Apple to have their own hulu/netflix like service, after all, you can already buy some videos through itunes. I think this will only be bad for users, but not bad enough to force masses of people to leave. There will always be a cost to leaving Apple behind (both psychological and monetary), and if Apple had to invent their own services to replace those that left, I think they would be more expensive and maybe not quite as good as other products, but they wouldn't be so bad as to force people to leave their iphone, which still has many fun/useful features that don't have subscriptions. I think the only businesses that are in danger of leaving the apple system would be: Music streaming, video streaming, and books, and I think Apple would be able to provide their own in house replacements for those that left (for better or for worse).
    - grhino 16y ago
      In Apple's mind, iTunes and iBooks are competing services to Neflix, Hulu, Rhapsody, B&N eReader, Kindle eReader, except that iTunes and iBooks have less features or less content or worse experience or no streaming. They are all ways of providing access to view/read/listen to digital media from content producers. Right now, you may not view iTunes and iBooks as competing services because both are available on the same platform and provide different ways of accessing digital media. Apple currently has to allow these competing services to be made available through their platform, either to make the platform more appealing to end consumers or because of worries of anti-monopolistic concerns or because Apple isn't comfortable with denying these.
    - tallanvor 16y ago
      iTunes most certainly does compete with Netflix and Hulu especially, and iBooks is obviously there to compete directly with other ebook providers. I agree that both iTunes and iBooks are rather horrible products, though.
  - jimbokun 16y ago
    "In the short run, I can't imagine users would care very much if they could only get their books from apple and not amazon, and it would probably help Apple lock in users." Have you had any actual users actually tell you this? Everyone has heard of Amazon, everyone knows Amazon has lots of books, everyone knows Amazon has pretty competitive pricing, and most people who would consider buying an iPhone or iPad have probably also heard of Kindle. Having one device that can read Kindle books and also do a lot of other stuff is part of the current value proposition of iOS devices. If that goes away, it will inform the buying decisions of people in Apple's target markets very quickly. Just imagine the next Walt Mossberg reviews, comparing Android and iOS devices, pointing out that you can read all your Kindle books on Android, but no longer on iOS. That's not going to immediately affect sales? Heck, much of Apple's target market may already be hearing this news and taking it into consideration before deciding to buy an iOS device, because they are consulting their geek friends about the decision. I know you said you think this will happen "in the long run", but I think it could affect Apple's sales much more quickly than you expect.
metabrew 16y ago
I'm the one quoted there (RJ). It's worth pointing out that I've not worked at Last.fm for a couple of years, and the chat log (which I posted) doesn't mention Last.fm at all. That said, I still think my analysis is bang on. What Apple have done will really cripple anyone reselling/licensing content (Spotify, Last.fm, Netflix etc).
- mrseb 16y ago
  Author here. I've put 'co-founder' back into the post's title -- sorry about the ambiguity.
  - sh4na 16y ago
    You know, just putting co-founder in the title doesn't actually explain that he's not with the company anymore... it just means founded it with someone else (unless co-founder means someone who founded a company with someone and then left? could be my bad english failing me..)
    - mrseb 16y ago
      No, your English isn't failing you; you're correct! It doesn't explain that he has since left Last.fm.
- Retric 16y ago
  The obvious long term result is Spotify, Last.fm, Netflix etc are going to dump apple. Then a new company will resell Last.fm content at a 40% markup to sidestep the apple rules. Bad PR is then going to force apple to rethink their stance. However, I expect Apple is going to offer "deals" to the major players.
  - coffeedrinker 16y ago
    I think Apple will be happy to have all the music subscription apps go away. They bought lala.com and I expect them to have an iTunes subscription service before long.
eftpotrm 16y ago
I suspect Apple may have to back down over this... So much of the value they paint of the iOS ecosystem is in the apps - 'There's an app for that' was a large campaign last year. Yet they're now threatening to make a number of their more popular apps economically unviable according to their creators. In-app payment will mean a new app, no? Which won't get approved if it contains a rant against Apple on that screen explaining the price hike they need to make it viable. Yet the current versions contain links to web-based payment, which would be relatively easy to update to include a page saying 'Apple are thieves' and explain why. I'm well aware that many / most customers would see such a message, give a stereotyically teenage whatever reaction and move to a competitor, but a good percentage won't and we've seen how fast bad news travels now. Enough providers that customers value enough are now angry enough with Apple to try their luck at this, particularly with a competing platform available and growing without the same restriction, and I wouldn't like to bet on Apple winning this.
- extension 16y ago
  I suspect Apple has something up their sleeve. Nothing stops them from cutting a deal with certain publishers, except maybe accusations of hypocricy. It isn't, but it could be perceived that way.
  - jokermatt999 16y ago
    Perhaps not hypocrisy, but greed and unfairness, yes. It cuts out the folks that Apple doesn't make a deal with an entrenches the major players, simply for Apple to make more profit. That might not be hypocritical, but it's a shitty thing to do.
- JamieEi 16y ago
  I fear that they will "back down" to something like a 5% cut for certain types of low margin content. In other words something that looks good in comparison but is still completely unreasonable when compared to the 1% that Visa & Mastercard take. Maybe that's even been the plan all along.
  - 16y ago
asknemo 16y ago
It is a bit emotional, but understandable. I believe the situation would have been totally different if Apple has these 30% rules and things long before iOS becomes the leading platform, when developers has the choice what and what not offer, and they can decide whether they invest or not. But the situation we have here now is that many of them has invested substantially in the iOS platform. They have invested talents, and have definitely helped co-promote the iOS in one way or the other and created a solid user base. This bomb is understandably very very unpleasant to them. Honestly if a developer/company give in and accept the 30% now, what stops Apple from charging 35%, 40%, 50% in the long run? How are they going to report to their investors and convince them that their business models is not controlled by some giant company's policy that they have absolutely no say in?
ig1 16y ago
Are companies prohibited from charging iPhone users an extra 30% ?
- count 16y ago
  Yes - you have to make the iphone price as cheap as a user can get it outside of your app.
  - thalur 16y ago
    I was wondering if there might be a way around that rule by claiming that what you sold in-app was a different product from what you sold out-of-app (e.g. on your website), but I'm not sure it would really work. E.g. you sell the in-app "iPhone exclusive" version for $x and the out-of-app "everything except iPhone" version for ($x * 0.7) and then provide a "works on iPhone for no extra cost" special offer.
    - corin_ 16y ago
      Or a seperate company/brand? If Spotify was called Spatify on the app store, operated by a company that's owned by Spotify, their product wouldn't have to match the pricing of Spotify products on non-apple platforms... and perhaps 'Spatify' could announce a deal that allows Spotify customers to use their product for free. Then it just comes down to whether Apple follow the rules by the letter, or apply common sense and tell Spotify not to take the piss.
      - metageek 16y ago
        Yeah, but then Spotify users wouldn't find Spatify in the app store.
        corin_ 16y ago
        Possibly they could call the sub-company "Spotify Magic" (random example - but something that will show up in search results for "spotify"), or possibly they could just ensure that Spatify gets well enough known for people to search for its new name. I suspect if any company did this they would put a lot more research and thought into it than I have for my two quick HN comments - I'm really just wondering what, if somebody took this approach, Apple's response would be.
forgotAgain 16y ago
It does seem like they over reached on this one.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  It seems like Apple's MO now is to over reach on everything, and wait to see how much people push back. It actually seems like a real business tactic they're using now.
marze 16y ago
Can't last.fm or anyone else not accept new subscribers from within an app, and be fine?
- Kylekramer 16y ago
  Apple makes it pretty clear that if you are offering a service that you deploy via an iOS app, you have to offer it within app or be rejected.
- larrik 16y ago
  Nope. Apple says that if you accept subscribers at all, you must also accept them within the app, and at the same price. Seriously.
- Manfred 16y ago
  Yes, they can. They're just not allowed to link to their subscription page from within the app. If they offer in-app subscription purchases the pice of that offer should be the same or lower as outside the app: "If you would like to make a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) subscription price must be offered inside the app […]" Some people misread this sentence as "you can't put a content app in the app store without giving money to Apple".
  - tallanvor 16y ago
    No, it means if you offer a subscription product, people have to be able to sign up for it through the app using Apple's subscription service. They can still let people sign up on their website, but they also have to let people sign up on the app, and they can't charge more even though Apple is taking a 30% cut. What Apple is doing is worse than what credit card companies do. --At least with credit cards merchants can offer a discount for paying with cash.
    - Manfred 16y ago
      The relevant text is in section 11, article 13 of the App Store Review Guidelines: Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions. I read it in the press release as being just about the price and not the fact that you _have_ to offer it. I guess I was wrong?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
antirez 16y ago
Today I was speaking with a friend of mine about how the 30% thing can create huge problems where there are small margins. However my friend replied that after all we are not in the condition we were with Microsoft in the OS field, and that there is a lot of space for the market to fix that. That is, if really there is not enough margin, a lot of cool things will start happening only on Android, WP7, and so forth. For the users this will start to be a disadvantage, as Apple can't get everything right. For instance Kindle is cooler than iBooks. So there are really chances that this time the market will fix it.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
djtumolo 16y ago
Selling subscriptions is too broad. There's been a lot of talk about music and magazine app requirements, but what about other business services? Chargify, a subscription billing service, offers an iphone app for its customers. Do they need to offer sign up in the app, and pay apple? What about TheLadders.com, or WeightWatchers? A huge number of companies with an app and a subscription business model just got hosed.
iuguy 16y ago
The Internet will route around all obstructions. I wonder if any of these content providers would get in trouble for providing jailbroken apps with music subscriptions from their websites? They could then encourage people to jailbreak their phones to get 'the full experience'. I think that would be a nice way of flipping the bird to Apple.
tjansen 16y ago
I guess in the long run, most multi-platform content providers will simply have to offer two products: one with iOS support and a 30% surcharge, and a cheaper one that only supports open systems like the web and (plain) Android. No one can afford not to support iOS. But on the other hand, no one will be able to charge 30% more than the competition on other platforms.
cletus 16y ago
30% is simply an unsustainable cut of many things, of which music subscriptions are just one example. I've said before--and I stand by the statement--that Apple doesn't have a lot of wiggle-room here without disrupting their retail channel for iTunes cards, which (IMHO) is a really important competitive advantage they have over, say, Android. Having the retail credit channel is the equivalent of the importance of having prepay options for cell phones vs postpay. Many people don't want to put CC info in iTunes or they simply want to give gift cards to kids. What Apple should do is make such a service optional. If it's compelling, people will use it. I also believe that for some people this will be compelling because they then don't have to deal with billing and all the infrastructure (payment gateways, receipts, accounts departments and so forth) that that entails. Forcing it down people's throats is another matter entirely. It's still unclear how this will relate to the Kindle, which is really what interests me, as it is a mix of subscriptions and single-purchase publications, all of which are purchased outside of the App Store. Part of the problem is that there is an internal inconsistency in play. You can subscribe to the Wall Street Journal Web edition and use that on Safari on your iPad just fine. Why should the WSJ app that gives you access to that same content be any different? You could sell an app on the App Store for $10 and Apple would get their $3 cut. Give a free version away and offer a $10 in-app upgrade and Apple still gets their $3 cut. From Apple's perspective, why are subscriptions any different? I guess Apple are seeing this as people making money off their platform so they should get a cut. That position has superficial attractions but quickly breaks down if you go deeper. To me it's a lot like the ISPs who want to charge Netflix or Google for all the bandwidth they use, which is nothing more than double-dipping. The customer pays for the bandwidth. What they use that bandwidth for should be immaterial to the ISP. Personally I think Apple makes enough money from selling the devices, the App Store and iTunes that just nickel-and-diming people who produce material users subscribe to to the point of excluding such content from the device is really not in their interest or the user's interest. Not having Grooveshark on my iPhone/iPad is a problem (that predates this). Losing other music services will be a problem. Losing the Kindle will be a HUGE problem.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Losing the Kindle will be a HUGE problem. I agree. I've invested in a bit of content on the Kindle. It's ideal for technical books, which often should be disposable. That said, I'm of two minds about this. I think we should get to the point where there are no longer multiple upstream "distributors" getting a cut of content. Often, this just gets between me and content producers without adding real value. I guess Apple are seeing this as people making money off their platform so they should get a cut. That position has superficial attractions but quickly breaks down if you go deeper. The writing is on the wall. Tablets are inevitably going to become commodity items. Apple is already in the software and content distribution business, and wants to ward off big competitors like Amazon. It's just natural that Apple wants to protect its turf.
halostatue 16y ago
I strongly suspect most people who are commenting on this haven't read the iOS developer terms or the updated guidelines. I think these updated terms are crappy and unfair, but they're not at all what some of the more lurid claims are making—including, IMO, the one made in the accompanying article. These rules are all about iOS In App Purchases (IAP). If your app is not eligible for IAP, these rules don't apply. Period. End of story. If your app is eligible, these rules probably apply. So, what's not eligible? * Goods or services for use outside of the app. This means that Linode, TheLadders.com, Chargify, WeightWatchers, etc., are all in the clear because they can't even offer their services through IAP. * Currency of any form. Even if Facebook's mobile app offered FB Credit purchases, it wouldn't be allowed to do so through IAP. * Rentals. Pre-determined-time-limited content access is disallowed for IAP. If one were to look at all of the materials that Apple has published on this, this primarily seems focussed around downloadable content, not around streamed or "rented" content, and certainly not around non-app goods or services. Yes, Last.fm, Pandora, Netflix, Hulu and the like are in a bit of a grey area right now, but I strongly suspect that they will come out in the clear on this because they essentially "rent" the content to you; you can't download it and keep it—they're probably not eligible for IAP in the first place. On "The true cost of publishing on the Amazon Kindle"[1], I have a comment that outlines the exact sections[2] with paraphrases of the text involved. I also have a comment[3] on "Why are you people defending Apple?"[4] that talks a bit more about who this hurts, namely reseller-distributors. Content owners are (for the most part) going to be ecstatic about this if they offer the content for sale directly. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2228839 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2228839 [2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2229495 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2229495 [3] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2229353 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2229353 [4] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2228419 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2228419
- stanleydrew 16y ago
  If content owners are going to be ecstatic about offering IAP for a 30% fee, why does Apple need to force them? Won't they just implement it on their own?
- jokermatt999 16y ago
  if they offer the content for sale directly. There's probably a reason they went through middlemen. Not every content company wants to handle the distribution. They could simply have done so before. Was using PayPal that much harder than this new system that they weren't willing to touch it despite it offering much better margins? I doubt it. and the like are in a bit of a grey area right now And how long til Apple wants a piece of their pie too? I don't mean this as FUD, I'm serious. Apple has shown, repeatedly, a willingness to fuck over developers by changing its rules to suit Apple whenever the fuck it wants. Sure, some of these are marginally, arguably, better for the customer, but not to the point where it justifies screwing over the developers. For now, iOS is mostly where the profit is. But is it worth putting up with Apple's whims every few months, seriously?
gokhan 16y ago
Apple tries to tax after sales usage of the device as if it's a leased device. They don't want to give up the upfront sales revenue of the device, and still want to get their cut for the usage. This both can't happen. Give the device free and tax the usage, or sell it and live with the fact that the device is now belongs to the customer. And iXYZ owners want to believe that they own the device. They can't hack it, they can't open it, they can't put software on it on their own. They can't even freely access the storage inside. And this kind of actions from Apple reminds them that they just don't own the device. When it came to the question of who own the device, Apple customers always gave up their right to own the device in return of ahead of the time features, polish, being cool etc.
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 [insert Last.fm] 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.
- jaaron 16y ago
  I'm tired of seeing Zach's comment reposted as if it's some sort of inspired gospel. Apple is positioning itself as _both_ a platform for applications and services _and_ as a consumer service. The services offered by Netflix, Hulu, Rhapsody, Rdio and so on offer value consumers have time and time shown they are willing to pay for. These are services the content owners (artists), studios and labels do not provide or provide poorly. Claiming they simply "repackage ... artist's content" is misleading. These services are increasingly cross platform, available on the web, mobile devices, internet connected consumer electronics, game consoles, etc. They add value to those platforms and can complete when the platform is suitably independent. Those platforms provide only a portion of the necessary infrastructure to run a consumer service. Purchasing, bandwidth, hosting, encoding, transcoding, metadata, social networking features, inventory and so forth are typically still maintained by the consumer service itself. They already have these services due to their web presence. Apple tries to play the game both ways in an increasingly monopolistic fashion. Before you go on and start harping about Android, recall that Microsoft was convicted not because it was the only operating system (it wasn't) but because it used it's market advantage in the OS to restrict competitors in other markets (browsers). Apple is doing the same thing. It's one thing for Apple to provide competing consumer services. It's another when they intentional block competition on their supposedly independent platform. Keep in mind, as a platform provider, Apple doesn't provide as many services as Zach suggests. They are little more than a payment services provider, though their rates and restrictions are completely out of line with the rest of that market. Consider for a moment if Apple were to do provide the same APIs and restrictions on all of Mac OS. Applications can only be made available in the Mac App Store. Applications must use Apple's subscription and purchasing API and no other API for purchases. And so on. They have their own browser? Why not offer an API for web apps as well. It would be secure and user friendly. "Apple takes the place of publishing, distribution, inventory, sales, payments and shipping... Seems reasonable to me." I'm sure it does.
bradshaw1965 16y ago
As an aside, what is the fist graphic in the posted article? I probably just don't understand the mark, but I interpret that kind of logo with revolutionary, "fight the power" kind of stuff and this is just corporate positioning, not revolution.
- Stormbringer 16y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raised_fist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raised_fist Given my brief scan of that article, there are too many possible associations for the meaning to actually be clear. It could be to do with politics - anything from accusing Apple of being Nazi's, Communists, Communist Nazis (etc) and then there's the racial overtones. It might just be a call for Solidarity. E.g. I don't like this, if I revolt will you revolt with me? [ ] Yes [ ] No.
protomyth 16y ago
I am fine with Apple hosted content being at 30%, but when I have to do all the work for hosting and delivery, 30% is beyond reasonable. I would even be fine if the rule said that an app developer can provide no link / no in app purchase unless it is through Apple. People using Amazon, B&N, Netflix, last.fm, etc. wouldn't of had a problem because they know to go to the website to buy stuff. The "must also" crap is the problem.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
savoy11 16y ago
I'm watching this in pure joy, since the HN crowd typically consists of homo-erotic Apple fanboys. Having their gay nature into account, they obviously like to get screwed by Apple on a daily basis and yet maintain the "anti-Microsoft" attitude. I'm curious how long is this gonna last.
scdc 16y ago
Maybe it will cause last.FM to shut down, or maybe if last.FM pulls out of the iTunes store, it will fuel iOS competition with Android. Or maybe it will fuel mobile browser app development. I like how the market will decide how this all plays out.
slouch 16y ago
The best part of this article is, "High Lord Jobs."
dalton 16y ago
I wish I had the balls to have mentioned this particular risk in my startup school talk re:music a few months ago. People probably would have thought I was being paranoid/delusional. The subscription model is already pretty f---ed even without a Deus Ex Machina from Apple.
p90x 16y ago
Apple is the forbidden fruit. Tempting, seductive and ill get you kicked out of paradise.
- Stormbringer 16y ago
  You might be right about forbidden fruit, but Apples aren't mentioned in Genesis at all. It turns out that the first reference to the Apple in the Torah is this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+32:10&version=NIV http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+32:1... Based on 40% of the verses in the Bible that mention Apples being in the Song of Solomon, Apple is definitely a naughty little fruit. :D
  - p90x 16y ago
    That's interesting. Did you know that apple's original logo depicts Isaac Newton under an apple tree? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Apple_first_logo.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Apple_fir...
    - Stormbringer 16y ago
      Song of Solomon 8:5 (New International Version, ©2010) Friends 5 Who is this coming up from the wilderness leaning on her beloved? She Under the apple tree I roused you; there your mother conceived you, there she who was in labor gave you birth.
colinplamondon 16y ago
Use a browser.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
thewileyone 16y ago
I respect Steve Jobs as much as his fans love him, but I think that if this was announced after he has departed, no one would buy into it.
oceanician 16y ago
Which IRC channel was that on then?
cynoclast 16y ago
Why are people still blaming Apple in this? It's the recording industry that is the root of the problem. Apple is very, very late to the game in terms of trying to own ideas and sell über-cheap copies of information like physical products.

271 points by Uncle_Sam 16y ago

I can understand Apple wanting to increase revenues. And even getting a bit of the subscription pie. But this whole thing seem wrong. It feels like Apple didn't really look at the whole ecosystem to see the ramification. Or that they did, but are overly confidant in their platform and reach to be able to force subscribers into this model. I don't see this ending well.

harshpotatoes 16y ago
Perhaps they're hoping that this will force some of the subscription businesses off their platform, forcing people into whatever services Apple can give through subscription (iBooks, music). And then the businesses that do remain can actually pay. In the short run, I can't imagine users would care very much if they could only get their books from apple and not amazon, and it would probably help Apple lock in users. But, lock-in and anticompetitive behavior probably don't make for a good experience from the user's perspective in the long run... So, maybe they have a different angle.
- Supermighty 16y ago
  That could be a thought, or goal, of theirs, to push content creators to their platform instead of through Amazon and Rhapsody middle men. Users will and won't care depending on several factors. I can imagine that hardcore Amazon Kindle users will be pissed that they have one less platform to read their books on. The Kindle syncs books and your position in the book between devices. It's a value proposition that's hard to beat. Even if you have the same book on your iBooks I think users will get pissed that they have to search to find where they finished reading it on their other devices.
  - glhaynes 16y ago
    iBooks syncs last-read-to positions for books that are on the device. It doesn't automatically sync books, though - that has to happen through iTunes.
    - Supermighty 16y ago
      Does it sync last-read-position across all your devices. Or as many devices as the Kindle app supports?
      - glhaynes 16y ago
        It does it across all the devices that run iBooks (i.e. anything that runs a recentish version of iOS).
  - praptak 16y ago
    "That could be a thought, or goal, of theirs, to push content creators to their platform instead of through Amazon and Rhapsody middle men." You don't push creators to a platform by scalping 30% from their income.
    - dedward 16y ago
      That misses the point. In this scenario, if you have the Kindle app installed on your iPad, and if you buy a subscription to something, you can do that from your kindle, your ipad, your computer, whatever. Kindle is cool that way. Apple is saying, hey, if you do it through the ipad kindle app, we expect 30% of the subscription fee from the publisher. AND the publisher is not allowed to offer cheaper prices to off-ipad purchases.... so the only logical move for Kindle is "umm, okay, we'll stop providing a kindle ipad app and we'll take our customers elsewhere" Leaving only the Apple-provided bookstore to handle subscriptions. They don't want people using their platform to launch recurring-revenue models for content and then not get a piece of the subscription pie.
    - grhino 16y ago
      The point is that creators already have to deal with worse than 30% scalping when dealing with other distributors of their content. For example, Activision/Blizzard has the infrastructure to sell/distribute games from their own website, however, when they also sell those games through a big retail distributor like Walmart, they have to give Walmart a huge cut (I'm guessing more than 30%) to entice Walmart to sell that game through their stores. Now, Activision/Blizzard cannot sell the game for 10% less than the retail price from their own website (at least, not initially) because otherwise, Walmart says to Blizzard/Activision "If you don't sell the game from your website at the retail price, we won't sell your game through Walmart." Even though it's a negotiation, it's mutually beneficial to the content producers and the distributors. The game Apple is playing is that they want to take the same cut from content distributors as they would from content creators. It's a gutsy move by Apple because those content distributors are already taking a cut by reselling content from content creators. They wouldn't be willing to do this if they weren't also making an aggressive push to be a content distributor of all digital media.
- ROFISH 16y ago
  It's one thing if Apple provides a competing service to Netflix, Hulu, Rhapsody, et al. (And may be accused on monopolism.) The thing that boils my britches about this is that Apple DOESN'T have a competing service. When the services leave, the iPhone is left only with iBooks and iTunes, both of which are expensive and not very good.
  - harshpotatoes 16y ago
    I agree, but I also don't think it would be impossible for Apple to have their own hulu/netflix like service, after all, you can already buy some videos through itunes. I think this will only be bad for users, but not bad enough to force masses of people to leave. There will always be a cost to leaving Apple behind (both psychological and monetary), and if Apple had to invent their own services to replace those that left, I think they would be more expensive and maybe not quite as good as other products, but they wouldn't be so bad as to force people to leave their iphone, which still has many fun/useful features that don't have subscriptions. I think the only businesses that are in danger of leaving the apple system would be: Music streaming, video streaming, and books, and I think Apple would be able to provide their own in house replacements for those that left (for better or for worse).
  - grhino 16y ago
    In Apple's mind, iTunes and iBooks are competing services to Neflix, Hulu, Rhapsody, B&N eReader, Kindle eReader, except that iTunes and iBooks have less features or less content or worse experience or no streaming. They are all ways of providing access to view/read/listen to digital media from content producers. Right now, you may not view iTunes and iBooks as competing services because both are available on the same platform and provide different ways of accessing digital media. Apple currently has to allow these competing services to be made available through their platform, either to make the platform more appealing to end consumers or because of worries of anti-monopolistic concerns or because Apple isn't comfortable with denying these.
  - tallanvor 16y ago
    iTunes most certainly does compete with Netflix and Hulu especially, and iBooks is obviously there to compete directly with other ebook providers. I agree that both iTunes and iBooks are rather horrible products, though.
- jimbokun 16y ago
  "In the short run, I can't imagine users would care very much if they could only get their books from apple and not amazon, and it would probably help Apple lock in users." Have you had any actual users actually tell you this? Everyone has heard of Amazon, everyone knows Amazon has lots of books, everyone knows Amazon has pretty competitive pricing, and most people who would consider buying an iPhone or iPad have probably also heard of Kindle. Having one device that can read Kindle books and also do a lot of other stuff is part of the current value proposition of iOS devices. If that goes away, it will inform the buying decisions of people in Apple's target markets very quickly. Just imagine the next Walt Mossberg reviews, comparing Android and iOS devices, pointing out that you can read all your Kindle books on Android, but no longer on iOS. That's not going to immediately affect sales? Heck, much of Apple's target market may already be hearing this news and taking it into consideration before deciding to buy an iOS device, because they are consulting their geek friends about the decision. I know you said you think this will happen "in the long run", but I think it could affect Apple's sales much more quickly than you expect.

metabrew 16y ago

I'm the one quoted there (RJ). It's worth pointing out that I've not worked at Last.fm for a couple of years, and the chat log (which I posted) doesn't mention Last.fm at all. That said, I still think my analysis is bang on. What Apple have done will really cripple anyone reselling/licensing content (Spotify, Last.fm, Netflix etc).

mrseb 16y ago
Author here. I've put 'co-founder' back into the post's title -- sorry about the ambiguity.
- sh4na 16y ago
  You know, just putting co-founder in the title doesn't actually explain that he's not with the company anymore... it just means founded it with someone else (unless co-founder means someone who founded a company with someone and then left? could be my bad english failing me..)
  - mrseb 16y ago
    No, your English isn't failing you; you're correct! It doesn't explain that he has since left Last.fm.
Retric 16y ago
The obvious long term result is Spotify, Last.fm, Netflix etc are going to dump apple. Then a new company will resell Last.fm content at a 40% markup to sidestep the apple rules. Bad PR is then going to force apple to rethink their stance. However, I expect Apple is going to offer "deals" to the major players.
- coffeedrinker 16y ago
  I think Apple will be happy to have all the music subscription apps go away. They bought lala.com and I expect them to have an iTunes subscription service before long.

eftpotrm 16y ago

I suspect Apple may have to back down over this... So much of the value they paint of the iOS ecosystem is in the apps - 'There's an app for that' was a large campaign last year. Yet they're now threatening to make a number of their more popular apps economically unviable according to their creators. In-app payment will mean a new app, no? Which won't get approved if it contains a rant against Apple on that screen explaining the price hike they need to make it viable. Yet the current versions contain links to web-based payment, which would be relatively easy to update to include a page saying 'Apple are thieves' and explain why. I'm well aware that many / most customers would see such a message, give a stereotyically teenage whatever reaction and move to a competitor, but a good percentage won't and we've seen how fast bad news travels now. Enough providers that customers value enough are now angry enough with Apple to try their luck at this, particularly with a competing platform available and growing without the same restriction, and I wouldn't like to bet on Apple winning this.

extension 16y ago
I suspect Apple has something up their sleeve. Nothing stops them from cutting a deal with certain publishers, except maybe accusations of hypocricy. It isn't, but it could be perceived that way.
- jokermatt999 16y ago
  Perhaps not hypocrisy, but greed and unfairness, yes. It cuts out the folks that Apple doesn't make a deal with an entrenches the major players, simply for Apple to make more profit. That might not be hypocritical, but it's a shitty thing to do.
JamieEi 16y ago
I fear that they will "back down" to something like a 5% cut for certain types of low margin content. In other words something that looks good in comparison but is still completely unreasonable when compared to the 1% that Visa & Mastercard take. Maybe that's even been the plan all along.
- 16y ago

asknemo 16y ago

It is a bit emotional, but understandable. I believe the situation would have been totally different if Apple has these 30% rules and things long before iOS becomes the leading platform, when developers has the choice what and what not offer, and they can decide whether they invest or not. But the situation we have here now is that many of them has invested substantially in the iOS platform. They have invested talents, and have definitely helped co-promote the iOS in one way or the other and created a solid user base. This bomb is understandably very very unpleasant to them. Honestly if a developer/company give in and accept the 30% now, what stops Apple from charging 35%, 40%, 50% in the long run? How are they going to report to their investors and convince them that their business models is not controlled by some giant company's policy that they have absolutely no say in?

ig1 16y ago

Are companies prohibited from charging iPhone users an extra 30% ?

count 16y ago
Yes - you have to make the iphone price as cheap as a user can get it outside of your app.
- thalur 16y ago
  I was wondering if there might be a way around that rule by claiming that what you sold in-app was a different product from what you sold out-of-app (e.g. on your website), but I'm not sure it would really work. E.g. you sell the in-app "iPhone exclusive" version for $x and the out-of-app "everything except iPhone" version for ($x * 0.7) and then provide a "works on iPhone for no extra cost" special offer.
  - corin_ 16y ago
    Or a seperate company/brand? If Spotify was called Spatify on the app store, operated by a company that's owned by Spotify, their product wouldn't have to match the pricing of Spotify products on non-apple platforms... and perhaps 'Spatify' could announce a deal that allows Spotify customers to use their product for free. Then it just comes down to whether Apple follow the rules by the letter, or apply common sense and tell Spotify not to take the piss.
    - metageek 16y ago
      Yeah, but then Spotify users wouldn't find Spatify in the app store.
      - corin_ 16y ago
        Possibly they could call the sub-company "Spotify Magic" (random example - but something that will show up in search results for "spotify"), or possibly they could just ensure that Spatify gets well enough known for people to search for its new name. I suspect if any company did this they would put a lot more research and thought into it than I have for my two quick HN comments - I'm really just wondering what, if somebody took this approach, Apple's response would be.

forgotAgain 16y ago

It does seem like they over reached on this one.

kenjackson 16y ago
It seems like Apple's MO now is to over reach on everything, and wait to see how much people push back. It actually seems like a real business tactic they're using now.

marze 16y ago

Can't last.fm or anyone else not accept new subscribers from within an app, and be fine?

Kylekramer 16y ago
Apple makes it pretty clear that if you are offering a service that you deploy via an iOS app, you have to offer it within app or be rejected.
larrik 16y ago
Nope. Apple says that if you accept subscribers at all, you must also accept them within the app, and at the same price. Seriously.
Manfred 16y ago
Yes, they can. They're just not allowed to link to their subscription page from within the app. If they offer in-app subscription purchases the pice of that offer should be the same or lower as outside the app: "If you would like to make a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) subscription price must be offered inside the app […]" Some people misread this sentence as "you can't put a content app in the app store without giving money to Apple".
- tallanvor 16y ago
  No, it means if you offer a subscription product, people have to be able to sign up for it through the app using Apple's subscription service. They can still let people sign up on their website, but they also have to let people sign up on the app, and they can't charge more even though Apple is taking a 30% cut. What Apple is doing is worse than what credit card companies do. --At least with credit cards merchants can offer a discount for paying with cash.
  - Manfred 16y ago
    The relevant text is in section 11, article 13 of the App Store Review Guidelines: Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions. I read it in the press release as being just about the price and not the fact that you _have_ to offer it. I guess I was wrong?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

antirez 16y ago

Today I was speaking with a friend of mine about how the 30% thing can create huge problems where there are small margins. However my friend replied that after all we are not in the condition we were with Microsoft in the OS field, and that there is a lot of space for the market to fix that. That is, if really there is not enough margin, a lot of cool things will start happening only on Android, WP7, and so forth. For the users this will start to be a disadvantage, as Apple can't get everything right. For instance Kindle is cooler than iBooks. So there are really chances that this time the market will fix it.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

djtumolo 16y ago

Selling subscriptions is too broad. There's been a lot of talk about music and magazine app requirements, but what about other business services? Chargify, a subscription billing service, offers an iphone app for its customers. Do they need to offer sign up in the app, and pay apple? What about TheLadders.com, or WeightWatchers? A huge number of companies with an app and a subscription business model just got hosed.

iuguy 16y ago

The Internet will route around all obstructions. I wonder if any of these content providers would get in trouble for providing jailbroken apps with music subscriptions from their websites? They could then encourage people to jailbreak their phones to get 'the full experience'. I think that would be a nice way of flipping the bird to Apple.

tjansen 16y ago

I guess in the long run, most multi-platform content providers will simply have to offer two products: one with iOS support and a 30% surcharge, and a cheaper one that only supports open systems like the web and (plain) Android. No one can afford not to support iOS. But on the other hand, no one will be able to charge 30% more than the competition on other platforms.

cletus 16y ago

30% is simply an unsustainable cut of many things, of which music subscriptions are just one example. I've said before--and I stand by the statement--that Apple doesn't have a lot of wiggle-room here without disrupting their retail channel for iTunes cards, which (IMHO) is a really important competitive advantage they have over, say, Android. Having the retail credit channel is the equivalent of the importance of having prepay options for cell phones vs postpay. Many people don't want to put CC info in iTunes or they simply want to give gift cards to kids. What Apple should do is make such a service optional. If it's compelling, people will use it. I also believe that for some people this will be compelling because they then don't have to deal with billing and all the infrastructure (payment gateways, receipts, accounts departments and so forth) that that entails. Forcing it down people's throats is another matter entirely. It's still unclear how this will relate to the Kindle, which is really what interests me, as it is a mix of subscriptions and single-purchase publications, all of which are purchased outside of the App Store. Part of the problem is that there is an internal inconsistency in play. You can subscribe to the Wall Street Journal Web edition and use that on Safari on your iPad just fine. Why should the WSJ app that gives you access to that same content be any different? You could sell an app on the App Store for $10 and Apple would get their $3 cut. Give a free version away and offer a $10 in-app upgrade and Apple still gets their $3 cut. From Apple's perspective, why are subscriptions any different? I guess Apple are seeing this as people making money off their platform so they should get a cut. That position has superficial attractions but quickly breaks down if you go deeper. To me it's a lot like the ISPs who want to charge Netflix or Google for all the bandwidth they use, which is nothing more than double-dipping. The customer pays for the bandwidth. What they use that bandwidth for should be immaterial to the ISP. Personally I think Apple makes enough money from selling the devices, the App Store and iTunes that just nickel-and-diming people who produce material users subscribe to to the point of excluding such content from the device is really not in their interest or the user's interest. Not having Grooveshark on my iPhone/iPad is a problem (that predates this). Losing other music services will be a problem. Losing the Kindle will be a HUGE problem.

stcredzero 16y ago
Losing the Kindle will be a HUGE problem. I agree. I've invested in a bit of content on the Kindle. It's ideal for technical books, which often should be disposable. That said, I'm of two minds about this. I think we should get to the point where there are no longer multiple upstream "distributors" getting a cut of content. Often, this just gets between me and content producers without adding real value. I guess Apple are seeing this as people making money off their platform so they should get a cut. That position has superficial attractions but quickly breaks down if you go deeper. The writing is on the wall. Tablets are inevitably going to become commodity items. Apple is already in the software and content distribution business, and wants to ward off big competitors like Amazon. It's just natural that Apple wants to protect its turf.

halostatue 16y ago

I strongly suspect most people who are commenting on this haven't read the iOS developer terms or the updated guidelines. I think these updated terms are crappy and unfair, but they're not at all what some of the more lurid claims are making—including, IMO, the one made in the accompanying article. These rules are all about iOS In App Purchases (IAP). If your app is not eligible for IAP, these rules don't apply. Period. End of story. If your app is eligible, these rules probably apply. So, what's not eligible? * Goods or services for use outside of the app. This means that Linode, TheLadders.com, Chargify, WeightWatchers, etc., are all in the clear because they can't even offer their services through IAP. * Currency of any form. Even if Facebook's mobile app offered FB Credit purchases, it wouldn't be allowed to do so through IAP. * Rentals. Pre-determined-time-limited content access is disallowed for IAP. If one were to look at all of the materials that Apple has published on this, this primarily seems focussed around downloadable content, not around streamed or "rented" content, and certainly not around non-app goods or services. Yes, Last.fm, Pandora, Netflix, Hulu and the like are in a bit of a grey area right now, but I strongly suspect that they will come out in the clear on this because they essentially "rent" the content to you; you can't download it and keep it—they're probably not eligible for IAP in the first place. On "The true cost of publishing on the Amazon Kindle"[1], I have a comment that outlines the exact sections[2] with paraphrases of the text involved. I also have a comment[3] on "Why are you people defending Apple?"[4] that talks a bit more about who this hurts, namely reseller-distributors. Content owners are (for the most part) going to be ecstatic about this if they offer the content for sale directly. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2228839 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2228839 [2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2229495 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2229495 [3] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2229353 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2229353 [4] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2228419 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2228419

stanleydrew 16y ago
If content owners are going to be ecstatic about offering IAP for a 30% fee, why does Apple need to force them? Won't they just implement it on their own?
jokermatt999 16y ago
if they offer the content for sale directly. There's probably a reason they went through middlemen. Not every content company wants to handle the distribution. They could simply have done so before. Was using PayPal that much harder than this new system that they weren't willing to touch it despite it offering much better margins? I doubt it. and the like are in a bit of a grey area right now And how long til Apple wants a piece of their pie too? I don't mean this as FUD, I'm serious. Apple has shown, repeatedly, a willingness to fuck over developers by changing its rules to suit Apple whenever the fuck it wants. Sure, some of these are marginally, arguably, better for the customer, but not to the point where it justifies screwing over the developers. For now, iOS is mostly where the profit is. But is it worth putting up with Apple's whims every few months, seriously?

gokhan 16y ago

Apple tries to tax after sales usage of the device as if it's a leased device. They don't want to give up the upfront sales revenue of the device, and still want to get their cut for the usage. This both can't happen. Give the device free and tax the usage, or sell it and live with the fact that the device is now belongs to the customer. And iXYZ owners want to believe that they own the device. They can't hack it, they can't open it, they can't put software on it on their own. They can't even freely access the storage inside. And this kind of actions from Apple reminds them that they just don't own the device. When it came to the question of who own the device, Apple customers always gave up their right to own the device in return of ahead of the time features, polish, being cool etc.

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 [insert Last.fm] 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.

jaaron 16y ago
I'm tired of seeing Zach's comment reposted as if it's some sort of inspired gospel. Apple is positioning itself as _both_ a platform for applications and services _and_ as a consumer service. The services offered by Netflix, Hulu, Rhapsody, Rdio and so on offer value consumers have time and time shown they are willing to pay for. These are services the content owners (artists), studios and labels do not provide or provide poorly. Claiming they simply "repackage ... artist's content" is misleading. These services are increasingly cross platform, available on the web, mobile devices, internet connected consumer electronics, game consoles, etc. They add value to those platforms and can complete when the platform is suitably independent. Those platforms provide only a portion of the necessary infrastructure to run a consumer service. Purchasing, bandwidth, hosting, encoding, transcoding, metadata, social networking features, inventory and so forth are typically still maintained by the consumer service itself. They already have these services due to their web presence. Apple tries to play the game both ways in an increasingly monopolistic fashion. Before you go on and start harping about Android, recall that Microsoft was convicted not because it was the only operating system (it wasn't) but because it used it's market advantage in the OS to restrict competitors in other markets (browsers). Apple is doing the same thing. It's one thing for Apple to provide competing consumer services. It's another when they intentional block competition on their supposedly independent platform. Keep in mind, as a platform provider, Apple doesn't provide as many services as Zach suggests. They are little more than a payment services provider, though their rates and restrictions are completely out of line with the rest of that market. Consider for a moment if Apple were to do provide the same APIs and restrictions on all of Mac OS. Applications can only be made available in the Mac App Store. Applications must use Apple's subscription and purchasing API and no other API for purchases. And so on. They have their own browser? Why not offer an API for web apps as well. It would be secure and user friendly. "Apple takes the place of publishing, distribution, inventory, sales, payments and shipping... Seems reasonable to me." I'm sure it does.

bradshaw1965 16y ago

As an aside, what is the fist graphic in the posted article? I probably just don't understand the mark, but I interpret that kind of logo with revolutionary, "fight the power" kind of stuff and this is just corporate positioning, not revolution.

Stormbringer 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raised_fist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raised_fist Given my brief scan of that article, there are too many possible associations for the meaning to actually be clear. It could be to do with politics - anything from accusing Apple of being Nazi's, Communists, Communist Nazis (etc) and then there's the racial overtones. It might just be a call for Solidarity. E.g. I don't like this, if I revolt will you revolt with me? [ ] Yes [ ] No.

protomyth 16y ago

I am fine with Apple hosted content being at 30%, but when I have to do all the work for hosting and delivery, 30% is beyond reasonable. I would even be fine if the rule said that an app developer can provide no link / no in app purchase unless it is through Apple. People using Amazon, B&N, Netflix, last.fm, etc. wouldn't of had a problem because they know to go to the website to buy stuff. The "must also" crap is the problem.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

savoy11 16y ago

I'm watching this in pure joy, since the HN crowd typically consists of homo-erotic Apple fanboys. Having their gay nature into account, they obviously like to get screwed by Apple on a daily basis and yet maintain the "anti-Microsoft" attitude. I'm curious how long is this gonna last.

scdc 16y ago

Maybe it will cause last.FM to shut down, or maybe if last.FM pulls out of the iTunes store, it will fuel iOS competition with Android. Or maybe it will fuel mobile browser app development. I like how the market will decide how this all plays out.

slouch 16y ago

The best part of this article is, "High Lord Jobs."

dalton 16y ago

I wish I had the balls to have mentioned this particular risk in my startup school talk re:music a few months ago. People probably would have thought I was being paranoid/delusional. The subscription model is already pretty f---ed even without a Deus Ex Machina from Apple.

p90x 16y ago

Apple is the forbidden fruit. Tempting, seductive and ill get you kicked out of paradise.

Stormbringer 16y ago
You might be right about forbidden fruit, but Apples aren't mentioned in Genesis at all. It turns out that the first reference to the Apple in the Torah is this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+32:10&version=NIV http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+32:1... Based on 40% of the verses in the Bible that mention Apples being in the Song of Solomon, Apple is definitely a naughty little fruit. :D
- p90x 16y ago
  That's interesting. Did you know that apple's original logo depicts Isaac Newton under an apple tree? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Apple_first_logo.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Apple_fir...
  - Stormbringer 16y ago
    Song of Solomon 8:5 (New International Version, ©2010) Friends 5 Who is this coming up from the wilderness leaning on her beloved? She Under the apple tree I roused you; there your mother conceived you, there she who was in labor gave you birth.

colinplamondon 16y ago

Use a browser.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

thewileyone 16y ago

I respect Steve Jobs as much as his fans love him, but I think that if this was announced after he has departed, no one would buy into it.

oceanician 16y ago

Which IRC channel was that on then?

cynoclast 16y ago

Why are people still blaming Apple in this? It's the recording industry that is the root of the problem. Apple is very, very late to the game in terms of trying to own ideas and sell über-cheap copies of information like physical products.