NYT: Apple Moves to Tighten Control of App Store

[vaughnmr]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Keep in mind that the requirement for in-app / in-store purchases currently only applies to subscriptions. The official announcement strictly discusses subscriptions.

Purchasing content on a non-subscription basis is not affected.

This is the same as how Amazon treat magazines -- they take a high percent of the cut; they refuse to share customer data with the magazine publisher; delivery is locked down.

So, the Kindle app won't change, unless they added their magazine offerings to iOS apps without my noticing.

Err, no. Apple has confirmed that the policy applies to Amazon, B&N, Netflix, and probably all others.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...mazon_s_Kindle

[RockdaMan]

link

mere hours after Apple officially dropped their new App Store subscriptions service, the first magazine apps using the new billing system are hitting the App Store, courtesy of Popular Science and Elle Magazine.

Both work roughly the same as The Daily: you are given the option between weekly, monthly and yearly subscriptions and asked if the publisher may access personal information like your e-mail address and zip code.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

link

Good to see.

The proposals make sense for subscription content like this, where it is clear that the platform brought the user to the content provider and where Apple is providing a subscription tracking service.

They do not make sense when applied to general store content of one-off purchases such as books or films where Apple are providing nothing other than a payment processing scheme which is being forced on providers who would rather use their own payment processing scheme and refrain from handing over details of their customer base.

Graham

[RockdaMan]

Graham,

And that’s perhaps the most overlooked key to all of this so far. Apple’s aim here is not only to make money, but to enable everyone to make money with a system that actually works. How are they going to do that? By doing something that all companies say they do, but few actually really do: focus on the consumer.

This in-app subscription system will undoubtedly be one of the most user-friendly systems that subscription billing has ever seen. Actually, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say it will be the most user-friendly. Apple has created a centralized place to handle a wide variety of subscriptions spanning many different companies. All streamlined. All with one-click capabilities. No need to enter billing addresses. No need to enter credit card numbers. If you want to unsubscribe, it’s one-click. Change you subscription terms? One-click. What was once a nightmare of dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of different backend systems (or worse, phone calls) is now all taken care of thanks to the iTunes ecosystem.

And that’s exactly why consumers would use such a system. And it may finally be the answer for getting people to pay for content such as magazines, online.

Further, Apple absolutely had to force the prices to be the same (or better) as they are outside the app environment to ensure the system would work at launch. Without this key component, the system would be DOA. Companies would undoubtedly be okay with this system if they could jack up the prices to pay for Apple’s 30 percent cut, but that would undermine the entire system. Apple’s stance on this will piss companies off, but it’s the right one for consumers.

So while you read all the stories about how Apple is destroying their ecosystem and killing innocent bystanders today, think about the very gray big picture:

This new subscription system is great for Apple as they’ll make a lot of money and create a new, better experience for their customers (and maybe publishers too). But if it backfires, they could lose a significant part of their ecosystem support. And if some companies pull their apps, consumers may start to leave.

The new system is awesome for customers as Apple has enabled a way for them to easily get new content on their devices at a fair price. But if companies back out of the App Store as a result, they will be shafted.

This new system sucks for companies that provider subscription services, as they’ll now be forced into Apple’s way of doing things and must pay them 30 percent for it. But if it leads to a massive amount of new customers, it could actually be a very good thing.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/15/app...subscriptions/

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

Err, no. Apple has confirmed that the policy applies to Amazon, B&N, Netflix, and probably all others.

Yes... for subscriptions.

All the assertions of a further land grab seem to trace back to one statement by one Apple spokesperson to one site (Ars Technica). Though Apple is tight-lipped, taking this as the Word of Steve does seem like a bit of a stretch.

Things might change around July 30, but I'm guessing that they are going to have a hard time (politically, not technically) eradicating the "click the link to open a web browser" approach.

Mind you I do think this is a bone-headed approach, and Apple is pretty stubborn so they will probably stick to it no matter what. But I don't think it's going to end up applying to all content transactions on all apps.

[RockdaMan]

It's gonna blow over.

Publishers will put on their thinking caps, adjust their business models, and 'make it work'.

And then Apples critics will find something else to complain about. Probably on Mobileread.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Graham,

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/15/app...subscriptions/

I'm not sure why you highlighted that to me, Rock. In my post above I've agreed that it makes sense for subscription, i.e periodical, content. I can see it increasing sales and Apple are providing value for the 30% in handling the renewal and refund side of things, which saves organisations setting up their own systems.

But that's a very different kettle of fish to demanding a 30% of one-off sales from stores which are providing readers for content which does not pass through Apple's servers or to which Apple are not adding any additional service.

Graham

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Yes... for subscriptions.

[...]

But I don't think it's going to end up applying to all content transactions on all apps.

Here's the quote from the original article I linked:

Apple has now said "publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a website, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app".

It does appear to apply to both content and subscriptions.

Graham

[snipenekkid]

if this is NOW suddenly sbout only subscriptions it does not address why the Sony app was originally 86'd and the general statement issued that ALL app providers better get in line or get bounced.

[snipenekkid]

oops posting from my Kindle and buggered it...

but mow what about providers like Amazon who also sell subscription content. There is zero Apple should be able to do there. Apple needs to deal with publishers not the developers and others who are the real souls building the platform for Apple's benefit. Right now the , Apple, is punishing those very entities who are the true driving force behind the platform.
Nothing about the sudden change in the typical Apple BS that they are all about the customer, seems to change any of the potential that the user will ALWAYS have total and free uae of the apps we purchase and the content for those apps. It is going to be a long time before I have any trust in the brand as anything other than a TOY.

[Neil]

I think that Apple is in double trouble here with book sellers such as Amazon and now with newspaper and magazine publishers. This is the latest article I did for Joy of iPad on this:

Anyone who doubts that Steve Jobs being missing from Apple's helm is important need only look at the latest decisions and policies from Apple to appreciate why Apple needs his guidance. The latest is what Apple has released as to their subscription plans for publishers after a year or so of Jobs' negotiations -- all of which seem to have been circularly filed by those in charge at Apple now. A quote from CNN's money page to illustrate:


"The New York-vs-Silicon Valley cold war between Apple and the publishing industry just got even icier.

"Apple on Tuesday unveiled its long-awaited subscription model for content on its mobile devices. The company has been crafting its policy and holding quiet negotiations with publishers for nearly a year, but the plan it announced showed few signs of diplomatic compromise.

"Apple's take-it-or-leave-it approach: It wants 30% of all sales generated through its platform, and it alone will have customers' names and contact information unless buyers opt in to share that data with content creators.

The publishing industry's response? Silence. Crickets."

CLICK HERE to read the complete article.

[Graham]

One of the interesting things in the background of all this is that the One-Click system at the heart of the new subscription service is licensed from Amazon...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click

Graham

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Graham

Here's the quote from the original article I linked...

Yes, I did see that quote. And as I said, this quote traces back to one (unofficial) statement by one Apple employee as quoted in one article. So I'm a bit skeptical that they're going to apply this as broadly as the Media Hype-O-Sphere believes.

[tomsem]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Yes... for subscriptions.

All the assertions of a further land grab seem to trace back to one statement by one Apple spokesperson to one site (Ars Technica). Though Apple is tight-lipped, taking this as the Word of Steve does seem like a bit of a stretch.

Things might change around July 30, but I'm guessing that they are going to have a hard time (politically, not technically) eradicating the "click the link to open a web browser" approach.

Mind you I do think this is a bone-headed approach, and Apple is pretty stubborn so they will probably stick to it no matter what. But I don't think it's going to end up applying to all content transactions on all apps.

Read a little further in the ComputerWorld article:

Later Tuesday, Apple spokeswoman Trudy Muller confirmed that those rules apply not only to newspaper and magazine publishers, but also to content sellers like Amazon.com, which offers a Kindle app for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad.

To meet Apple's guidelines, Amazon must remove its "Shop in Kindle Store" link from its Kindle application. That link, which opens the iOS browser and displays Amazon's Web-based e-bookstore, is currently the easiest way for Kindle app users to purchase new books.

(emphasis added)

The second paragraph quoted is the writer's, and may or may not reflect Apple's position. The App Store guidelines are not very explicit on this point.

Personally I would not care if the 'shop' buttons were removed. I use ebook apps to read content I've already acquired or purchased. It is really easy to bookmark preferred storefronts, and I prefer to browse for new content on my laptop for the most part. I'll buy just as many (or few) books either way.

And it is a little more complicated than removing the 'shop' button: typically, book samples have a 'buy' link in them (that launches a browser, etc). Does the reading app have to prevent that from working, according to Apple?

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Yes, I did see that quote. And as I said, this quote traces back to one (unofficial) statement by one Apple employee as quoted in one article. So I'm a bit skeptical that they're going to apply this as broadly as the Media Hype-O-Sphere believes.

The quote is taken directly from the press release, Trudy Muller just went on to confirm it.

As Tomsem's just indicated, Trudy Muller has gone on to reaffirm that when the press release says "content and subscriptions" it does apply to apps like the Kindle one.

Graham