Comments on: Too greedy? A shift in the force http://almaer.com/blog/too-greedy-a-shift-in-the-force blogging about life, the universe, and everything tech Sat, 08 Sep 2012 07:06:53 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Michael http://almaer.com/blog/too-greedy-a-shift-in-the-force/comment-page-1#comment-47976 Michael Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:00:27 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog/?p=2941#comment-47976 @Tony -- "Nothing is stopping app publishers from messaging to their customers and potential customers that they can get a better deal on the web site". Actually there is something stopping publishers from doing that: AAPL. The AAPL policy is that you must offer things at the same price in-app and anywhere else. So you can't offer a better deal on your website than you offer in-app. And you can't make outside-of-app the only way to get content. You are correct that AAPL thinks that they do not need content providers like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Kindle, etc. However, if you think the fact that they offer competing services is a coincidence, then I would say you are naive. Also, I think Dion is right on that folks like Netflix and Amazon *have* to invest heavily in Android, even if they didn't want to. AAPL has really given them little choice. And that sure seems like hubris. @Tony — “Nothing is stopping app publishers from messaging to their customers and potential customers that they can get a better deal on the web site”. Actually there is something stopping publishers from doing that: AAPL. The AAPL policy is that you must offer things at the same price in-app and anywhere else. So you can’t offer a better deal on your website than you offer in-app. And you can’t make outside-of-app the only way to get content.

You are correct that AAPL thinks that they do not need content providers like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Kindle, etc. However, if you think the fact that they offer competing services is a coincidence, then I would say you are naive. Also, I think Dion is right on that folks like Netflix and Amazon *have* to invest heavily in Android, even if they didn’t want to. AAPL has really given them little choice. And that sure seems like hubris.

]]> By: Adrian http://almaer.com/blog/too-greedy-a-shift-in-the-force/comment-page-1#comment-47975 Adrian Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:11:18 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog/?p=2941#comment-47975 "Nothing is stopping app publishers from messaging to their customers and potential customers that they can get a better deal on the web site and still view that content on their iOS devices." Well, yes, something does stop publishers from giving customers a better deal on the website. The explicit requirement that the in-app price must be the same or lower than the best price you can get via any other platform does. “Nothing is stopping app publishers from messaging to their customers and potential customers that they can get a better deal on the web site and still view that content on their iOS devices.”

Well, yes, something does stop publishers from giving customers a better deal on the website. The explicit requirement that the in-app price must be the same or lower than the best price you can get via any other platform does.

]]> By: Kevin Dangoor http://almaer.com/blog/too-greedy-a-shift-in-the-force/comment-page-1#comment-47974 Kevin Dangoor Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:54:38 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog/?p=2941#comment-47974 I don't think the true impact of the new policy has been felt yet... I'm thinking that there are likely many people (like myself) who use the Kindle app on both my iPhone and iPad. If the Kindle app (which was updated recently!) gets rejected from the App Store, that could be the start of the Rebellion. I don’t think the true impact of the new policy has been felt yet…

I’m thinking that there are likely many people (like myself) who use the Kindle app on both my iPhone and iPad. If the Kindle app (which was updated recently!) gets rejected from the App Store, that could be the start of the Rebellion.

]]> By: Abe http://almaer.com/blog/too-greedy-a-shift-in-the-force/comment-page-1#comment-47973 Abe Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:27:21 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog/?p=2941#comment-47973 Hey Dion, Count me among those who are sad about this change. The 3.3.1 thing made me seriously question whether to invest in iOS as a developer or user, but when they updated the terms I thought it reflected some awareness on the part of those making the guidelines that it's in everyone's best interest to keep the App Store rules reasonable. But this new 30%-of-all-subscription-revenue thing is actually even worse. I can think of two possible explanations: One, that they didn't think through the various business models of subscription services, and realize that 30% of revenue amounts to 100% or more of profits in many cases. (This is unlike charging for apps, where Apple is providing a real service as distributor, and the marginal cost of each app sale is close to zero, leaving 70% of profits for the developer). Given the kind of financial expertise at Apple, though, it's hard to believe they didn't know what they were doing. That leaves the second, more cynical, explanation: that they are purposely pushing content-based subscription services out of the App store. In the end it doesn't really matter to me which explanation is correct. The only thing that matters is that iOS is a platform controlled by a capricious central authority that doesn't care about destroying businesses that developers have invested a lot of time in. Unless your app is extremely safe - games, or simple apps that don't push the limits of the platform in any way - developing for iOS is a very risky investment. I'm honestly sad about this. Up until now I felt like iOS was clearly the best platform. I'm not a big Android fan - the UI leaves me cold, and the new tron-inspired stuff in Honeycomb strikes me as astonishingly bad. And Microsoft is Microsoft. I'm finding myself rooting for HP WebOS. Maybe I'll trade in my iPhone 4 for a Pre 3. Hey Dion,

Count me among those who are sad about this change. The 3.3.1 thing made me seriously question whether to invest in iOS as a developer or user, but when they updated the terms I thought it reflected some awareness on the part of those making the guidelines that it’s in everyone’s best interest to keep the App Store rules reasonable. But this new 30%-of-all-subscription-revenue thing is actually even worse.

I can think of two possible explanations: One, that they didn’t think through the various business models of subscription services, and realize that 30% of revenue amounts to 100% or more of profits in many cases. (This is unlike charging for apps, where Apple is providing a real service as distributor, and the marginal cost of each app sale is close to zero, leaving 70% of profits for the developer). Given the kind of financial expertise at Apple, though, it’s hard to believe they didn’t know what they were doing. That leaves the second, more cynical, explanation: that they are purposely pushing content-based subscription services out of the App store.

In the end it doesn’t really matter to me which explanation is correct. The only thing that matters is that iOS is a platform controlled by a capricious central authority that doesn’t care about destroying businesses that developers have invested a lot of time in. Unless your app is extremely safe – games, or simple apps that don’t push the limits of the platform in any way – developing for iOS is a very risky investment.

I’m honestly sad about this. Up until now I felt like iOS was clearly the best platform. I’m not a big Android fan – the UI leaves me cold, and the new tron-inspired stuff in Honeycomb strikes me as astonishingly bad. And Microsoft is Microsoft. I’m finding myself rooting for HP WebOS. Maybe I’ll trade in my iPhone 4 for a Pre 3.

]]> By: Tony http://almaer.com/blog/too-greedy-a-shift-in-the-force/comment-page-1#comment-47972 Tony Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:50:01 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog/?p=2941#comment-47972 No one is forcing customers to only buy their content subs through in-app purchasing, and Apple hasn't said that outside-purchased content can't be view in-app(as long as the same option is give at the same price within the app). Nothing is stopping app publishers from messaging to their customers and potential customers that they can get a better deal on the web site and still view that content on their iOS devices. It surprises me that people continually expect another business to make sure that their own business model is sustainable. Gruber is right. Apple doesn't need Readability, or any other app developer. No one is forcing customers to only buy their content subs through in-app purchasing, and Apple hasn’t said that outside-purchased content can’t be view in-app(as long as the same option is give at the same price within the app).

Nothing is stopping app publishers from messaging to their customers and potential customers that they can get a better deal on the web site and still view that content on their iOS devices.

It surprises me that people continually expect another business to make sure that their own business model is sustainable. Gruber is right. Apple doesn’t need Readability, or any other app developer.

]]> By: Ugh http://almaer.com/blog/too-greedy-a-shift-in-the-force/comment-page-1#comment-47971 Ugh Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:02:19 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog/?p=2941#comment-47971 3% or 30% - if this sort of midstream change was pulled on a consumer, it would be called a bait-and-switch scam, and be subject to a fine or prosecution. Yet somehow, the Grubers of the world are a-ok with this as long as it is Apple jabbing the worm on the hook. 3% or 30% – if this sort of midstream change was pulled on a consumer, it would be called a bait-and-switch scam, and be subject to a fine or prosecution. Yet somehow, the Grubers of the world are a-ok with this as long as it is Apple jabbing the worm on the hook.

]]> By: Michael Stum http://almaer.com/blog/too-greedy-a-shift-in-the-force/comment-page-1#comment-47970 Michael Stum Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:16:47 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog/?p=2941#comment-47970 I don't think it's much of a disturbance, because not much changes for the typical App Developer who sells paid apps. If you have a paid app, Apple handles all the sales stuff for you (everyone who ever tried dealing with credit cards knows how big of a pain that is) and provides a reasonably useful marketing channel if you make it on their front page. 30% on paid apps is certainly acceptable (although it would be interesting to see what competition could do). The issue here is free apps that offer subscriptions like Magazines. Apple makes the point that free apps don't generate money, which is understandable (although one can argue that it helps selling devices and other paid apps). Magazines argue that 30% is too much of a cut, which I can also understand (although if I compare subscription to newsstand prices I have to wonder about he difference). So it seems that Magazine Subscriptions will die out on iOS, which naturally upsets the industry that is already fighting with Magazines dying out in the real world. They are a bit desperate to finally find a way to monetize on the internet, and Apple denies it to them. I don’t think it’s much of a disturbance, because not much changes for the typical App Developer who sells paid apps. If you have a paid app, Apple handles all the sales stuff for you (everyone who ever tried dealing with credit cards knows how big of a pain that is) and provides a reasonably useful marketing channel if you make it on their front page. 30% on paid apps is certainly acceptable (although it would be interesting to see what competition could do). The issue here is free apps that offer subscriptions like Magazines. Apple makes the point that free apps don’t generate money, which is understandable (although one can argue that it helps selling devices and other paid apps). Magazines argue that 30% is too much of a cut, which I can also understand (although if I compare subscription to newsstand prices I have to wonder about he difference). So it seems that Magazine Subscriptions will die out on iOS, which naturally upsets the industry that is already fighting with Magazines dying out in the real world. They are a bit desperate to finally find a way to monetize on the internet, and Apple denies it to them.

]]> By: Chris Leydon http://almaer.com/blog/too-greedy-a-shift-in-the-force/comment-page-1#comment-47969 Chris Leydon Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:30:19 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog/?p=2941#comment-47969 Hello, My name's Chris Leydon and I'm the founder of TinyGrab. It seems as though you missed my point on our blog post about TinyGrab's position on the new App Store polices. We have no issue whatsoever with Apple taking a 30% from our app... they just won't provide us for the means to do it and inadvertently lock us out from the app store. The issue isn't the percentage, it's the flawed system. Best wishes, Chris Leydon TinyGrab Project Manager Hello,

My name’s Chris Leydon and I’m the founder of TinyGrab.

It seems as though you missed my point on our blog post about TinyGrab’s position on the new App Store polices. We have no issue whatsoever with Apple taking a 30% from our app… they just won’t provide us for the means to do it and inadvertently lock us out from the app store.

The issue isn’t the percentage, it’s the flawed system.

Best wishes,

Chris Leydon
TinyGrab Project Manager

]]>