8 ms·
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 Appl
by 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 agoLosing 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.
- Synaesthesia 16y agoBut Kindle is still there! I would be surprised if Amazon remove it. I guess time will tell though!
- smackfu 16y agoApps have a while to come into compliance with the new rules or be kicked off.
- Synaesthesia 16y agoDidn't know that. Will be watching then!
- GrandMasterBirt 16y agoSorry, you are wrong. The entire apple business model is about vendor lock-in. Only recently did iTunes remove DRM from their songs. The reason is because iTunes won. Apple used iTunes to lock people in by forcing them to use an iPod if they wanted their music which they "own" or rather "lease". Sure you were free to get ANY other mp3 player in the world, as long as you were ok with losing all your music. The same here. Vendor lock in. You got ebooks from the cheapest store (iBook?) cool, iOS only, oh and a non-jailbroken one too. Apple's history with the i... product line is content lock-in onto a device. They lure you in with pretty interfaces, then they hold your stuff hostage. Apple wants a piece of the pie, and they want to be able to undercut all competition. They know they can't ban kindle or face antitrust so they will do other things. This is monopolizing pure and simple. It has nothing to do with apple making "enough" they want to make sure that they sell the cheapest stuff on the iOS, and they control where you can see the content - on the iOS - and if you leave you are fucked.
- jonbro 16y agoI think that the antitrust suits are just around the corner. Which is good, because there are a ton of corner cases beyond the obvious ones that just got damaged. I think the books / movies / tv are just the ones that we heard about first. Pretty sure this is going to effect flickr, vimeo, and more.
- dantheman 16y agoYeah because when you can't compete in the market, it doesn't hurt try and get the government to smack down your competitors...
- cletus 16y agoPeople love to throw around the antritrust word without--and this isn't necessarily directed at you personally--knowing what it actually means. Does Apple have a monopoly on phones? Hardly. Look at HTC, Motorola, Samsung, RIM, Nokia, etc. Does Apple have a monopoly on music? No. You can buy it from Amazon and elsewhere. Likewise you can use Grooveshark, Spotify, Rhapsody, Pandora, etc for different services depending on what country you're in. iTunes sure is dominant though. Does Apple have a monopoly on ebooks? Hardly. Amazon is a far bigger player here. Amazon is not dependent on Apple as a means of distribution, although Apple devices are obviously important. Does Apple have a monopoly on TV shows or movies? Hardly. You can buy DVDs from any number of places and downloads from the likes of Amazon. Content producers like Comedy Central, CBS, Fox and others also stream directly from their Websites (and they could do this in HTML5 if they wanted to, allowing them to be viewed on iDevices, but alas they still choose Flash almost exclusively). So where exactly is the monopoly (virtual or actual) here? You can say that Apple is the only one who can sell apps on iDevices and you'd be right. So what? NBC is the only one who can broadcast shows on their stations. That doesn't make them a monopoly. So unless someone can produce a cogent argument of how antitrust applies--and I've yet to see one--can we please stop bandying the word around like it has any relevance here? This isn't to say that some Congressman or Senator won't speak out or possibly there might be a House or Senate hearing but that's really about creating the appearance of doing something rather than their being any justifiable basis for investigation.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- cosmicray 16y ago> 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? The WSJ is the producer of the original content. The music subscription services are but another remora in the food chain. Were they the original producer of content, this would be an entirely different discussion.
- amanfredi 16y agoNo, the writers at the WSJ are the producers of the original content. At some level, every producer is an aggregator. I don't think it's fair to categorically distinguish between the two, although you may disagree on the value of the aggregation.
- vacri 16y agoUnsustainable? How about 'normal retail practice'? It's funny watching people froth at the mouth about normal retail practice. I don't like Apple or how they run their business, but a 30% cut for a retailer is even be a little low. Go into a bricks-and-mortar store and usually 30%+ of the price you see is markup on the wholesale price. Apple provide a service: they deserve to get paid for it. Even if Apple allowed apps to be sideloaded, you wouldn't sell anywhere near as many apps if you marketed them yourself, not to mention having to deal with organising a payment system and easy, integrated way of getting them. App developers are the wholesalers. Apple is the retailer. If you want to be both a wholesaler and retailer for your app, then Apple isn't for you. Go to Android... but you'll find it's still better to give Google a cut and be on their market as well...