NYT: Apple Moves to Tighten Control of App Store

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by Graham

As yet there is no confirmation that Apple's new rules will slap 30% on individual ebook sales.

Where there is smoke...

I think they'll blink eventually. And then we'll all move on. .

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by Crowl

they are doing nothing at all

They are running a business and they have the right to charge for people to play in their playground.

No one is making users use iOS and no one is making the businesses sell their wares on iOS.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

Apple controls 100% of the app market for iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad.

There are other tablets and other phones. Consumers don't need to use Apple if they want a phone and they don't need to use Apple if they want a tablet.

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Probably only during the period of transition. Kinda like how there won't always be a premium on the price of hybrid/electric cars.

1. Simple math clearly tells us that it will always be more expensive to pay X+1 players than to pay only X players. There is no way around that. So no, it would not be only for a transition period.
2. Even if it were true (which isn't) that it would be only for a transition period it is still unacceptable that Apple wants money for doing nothing for it. In fact if customer prices would not increase one cent it is still unacceptable to let Apple harvest money for nothing. It is unacceptable in itself.
3. Even if it were true that it would be only for a transition period it would still be unacceptable to demand even a cent more from customers in exchange for nothing.

[RockdaMan]

Horemheb, don't buy anything from them then. Don't support them.

[RockdaMan]

For people like me, and the other 28 million living with cancer, people like Steve Jobs are incredible role models. When I was undergoing chemotherapy three years ago, I was often tempted to think “why me?” But then I asked myself, “Why Steve Jobs? Why Lance Armstrong?” And I reflected on the remarkable things that they went on to achieve after their treatment. Their inspirational example helped me more than I can say.

Steve Jobs chooses not to talk about his cancer. He prefers to focus on his work. We should respect his choice.
--
If you know someone who is living with cancer, the best way to help them is to focus on the positives, give them the space to tell you as much or as little as they choose, and be open minded about what they are able to achieve.

2011 promises to be another amazing year for Apple. Let’s focus on that and and leave the oncology to the professionals.

http://www.cultofmac.com/we-could-al...ancer-survivor

[RockdaMan]

[Graham]

Isn't this thread about what happens after your amusing graphic, Rock?

Graham

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by Graham

while speculation is rife that this applies to the non-subscription content, that speculation is not confirmed in any of the comments from Apple.

OK, you may be right on this. At least I cannot dig up anything explicitly about e-books. Two things however:
1. I am almost sure that Apple wants the same for other content as well. Their lack of confirmation on these "speculations" is only for the purpose of sustaining the possibility to abandon the idea later without losing face - after measuring the upset the idea causes.
2. Even if it is true that Apple wants to sack only subscriptions the problem remains the same. It only renders my specific example irrelevant. Change all e-books to subscriptions in my examples and it will immediately be correct. So Apple wants money for nothing.

It seems things are quite clear: Apple are charging 30% for subscriptions made through the app (for which they are providing the service) and nothing for subscriptions made outside the app (where they add no value).
Graham

It is in the press release:
"However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app."

E.g. Amazon sells subscriptions too. Why would Apple receive money for these subscriptions? Apple does nothing for it. Again, change e-books to subscriptions in my example and you get the picture.

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Horemheb, don't buy anything from them then. Don't support them.

Believe me, I won't. Apple however wants to get in my (and all customers') way by increasing the average price of content. The least I can do is to make noise about this.

[Horemheb]

I am not sure how much it helps to copy Apple propaganda here.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

It is in the press release:
"However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app."

E.g. Amazon sells subscriptions too. Why would Apple receive money for these subscriptions? Apple does nothing for it. Again, change e-books to subscriptions in my example and you get the picture.

Apple doesn't receive money for those subscriptions made outside the app. This is why your example doesn't work. What they're saying is that they are going to force the developer to put an additional offer inside the app (i.e. in a much more attractive place) and break the link to the offer outside the app. It's that mandatory requirement which is controversial.

Graham

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

I am not sure how much it helps to copy Apple propaganda here.

I want to know which parts of it are incorrect.

[Graham]

Here's a very interesting interview with the marketing director of Popular Science, the first magazine to sign up for the new Apple subscription service. It goes into a lot of detail about how this is going to work from the content provider's perspective.

I'd say that he's cautiously optimistic, stressing that they want to be on as many platforms as possible, but forgive me for highlighting a couple of negatives:

The challenge with Apple is going to be how do you integrate publisher-sold subscriptions in the iTunes store. When somebody clicks on the "subscribe" button ... a non-descript window comes up that says ‘May we share your e-mail address with the publisher for their marketing purposes.'

I'm sure the publishers would hope that that was changed to something more attractive; I can't imagine any new subscriber clicking 'yes' to that!

Apple charges it upfront to the consumer's credit card and there are no cancellations, no refunds.

I hereby take back 90% of everything I said above about providing value!

If Apple are not going to be handling cancellations and refunds, and the support that entails, then they are simply processing the credit card fee, triggering renewals, and hanging onto the subscriber data for their own marketing purposes. Their charge should be 2% at most, and arguably the subscriber data is worth more to them than their costs.

Graham

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by Graham

What they're saying is that they are going to

Make subscription prices equal for all, and make signing up (much more) pro-consumer.