Apple itunes subscription policy for content developers thread

Toggle sidebar
Not quite. They want users to have the option of buying content from within the app rather than being directed to a website with Safari. Content providers can still sell outside the app without any commission going to Apple, but there has to also be an in app option.

30% seems ridiculously high to me; so, despite being less convenient than an in app purchase, I'll be going the purchase via safari route whenever possible.
 
just read an article
heres what it said all the rules were
its time for devs to start pulling apps and have the users force apple to let business be business

•Any subscription offered outside an app must also be offered for the same or lower price inside the app. No passing on extra costs to the user.
•Apple takes 30% of the revenue from in-app purchases -- be they Amazon books, Time Inc. magazines or Hulu Plus TV shows. As Joshua Benton writes in Nieman Journalism Lab: "Giving up 30 percent of tablet revenue is one thing; giving up 30 percent of print subscription revenue is suicide."
•The publisher gets to learn the name, e-mail address and zip code of in-app subscribers only if the user clicks a button agreeing to share that information -- something most are unlikely to do.
•Publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a website, for example) that allow the customer to buy content or subscriptions outside the app, which pretty much shuts down the business model of, say, Amazon's Kindle app.
 
When I made a decision to start selling my Videos through retail stores as well as direct, I had to agree with all my retailers that I would not undercut their markup by selling to customers direct. It is a reasonable request. The retail markup was 40%.

Different products have different markup margins in retail sales. I'm not familiar with the software business but book, record, and video sales is typical 40%. When I worked in the Stereo audio business the margins for retail were typically 30-45% and the store was allowed to discount from that.

It seems to me that many here are duplicitous or don't understand what is customary and common practice in commercial and retail sales business. Instead, you like to make rules to fit the people doing business rather than a uniform commercial code following. When Apple became the biggest company maker of consumer products they became the bad guy, the evil one. It wasn't long ago that Microsoft held this status in the computer software industry.
The way I see it an ap developer has choices. He can develop for Apple products and follow the rules set by2 Apple, or he can refuse and market his ap on his own. If he wants to use the Apple system he must do it according to their rules. I remember when several stores I sold my Videos to decided I needed to print ISBN barcodes on my Videos. When I checked the cost to do that was much higher than the volume these stores did so I refused and pulled my Videos from their shelves. I recognized that ISBN was a UCC practice in my industry but it doesn't mean I had to follow it. Only if I wanted to see at the stores that required it. NO anti-trust and no unfair rules singling me out.

If developers want to venture on their own the app market becomes the jail break market. The courts have already ruled that jail breaking is legal so let the ap developer go that route and let the market, the public, decide. But then the user who jail breaks his Apple device should not expect Apple to support the jail broken OS.


Specifically, the publishing business is indeed in trouble. It is not the problem with Apple wanting 30% of the take that is the problem it is the fact that these information subscription services are all obsolete in today's society. The thing that makes them obsolete is that subscription news services is being replaced by free services or services offered bundled in my other packages. I may want to pay for the Wall Street Journal, but then maybe I can just get the information, the same information, elsewhere. Unless the publishing business can offer something value added that the free services can't why should I pay anything? Then I have to also ask Is it really free. People need to understand that nothing is really free. Take Google Android. People want to have that because it is free. Well, not really as you give up some privacy when you use Android as that is how Google makes it's return on investment. It collects your habits and sells that information to businesses who want it, neatly packaged for their use. You permit them to do that either knowingly or unknowingly, so in effect you are bartering for the Android OS.
 
rockymtnhigh said:
I hope there is an anti-trust suit.
Click to expand...
I don't think this will happen right the way.
Publishers will probably try to hike the prices first. By around 40% to end with the same profit.
If that has a drastic effect on sales, the legal department might get involved...

It is hard to fight "my way or the highway" attitude legally.
But since jailbreaking was eventually ruled legal, it is doable.

Diogen.
 
mdram said:
just read an article
heres what it said all the rules were
its time for devs to start pulling apps and have the users force apple to let business be business

•Any subscription offered outside an app must also be offered for the same or lower price inside the app. No passing on extra costs to the user.
•Apple takes 30% of the revenue from in-app purchases -- be they Amazon books, Time Inc. magazines or Hulu Plus TV shows. As Joshua Benton writes in Nieman Journalism Lab: "Giving up 30 percent of tablet revenue is one thing; giving up 30 percent of print subscription revenue is suicide."
•The publisher gets to learn the name, e-mail address and zip code of in-app subscribers only if the user clicks a button agreeing to share that information -- something most are unlikely to do.
•Publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a website, for example) that allow the customer to buy content or subscriptions outside the app, which pretty much shuts down the business model of, say, Amazon's Kindle app.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard about the no linking policy. That's extremely troubling.
 
That link is fine, but other than the 'possibly lower' cut, is very vague otherwise.

I'm not fond of Apple's position, but then I don't think that is the final word either. These big companies will hash out what they want from Apple and Apple will negotiate something a bit different. The smaller guys will just either have to go along with what comes out of the deal, or shift to another platform.
 
THe problem i see is Apple's demand for 30% (which might make Don happy), will ultimately raise the price of electonic subscriptions for end-users. We are already seeing that with book sellers, and it strikes me that in an environment where there are no costs of manufacture or distribution, prices should be cheaper. Amazon has been fighting a losing battle on that end with its efforts to keep Kindle books at $9.99 or less.
 
rockymtnhigh said:
THe problem i see is Apple's demand for 30% (which might make Don happy), will ultimately raise the price of electonic subscriptions for end-users. We are already seeing that with book sellers, and it strikes me that in an environment where there are no costs of manufacture or distribution, prices should be cheaper...
Click to expand...
Too rational.
Contradicts Apple mindset as a company and capabilities as for users...

Recall this attempt to rationalize by St. Jobs himself
http://www.satelliteguys.us/215361-apple-death-widgets-2.html

Diogen.
 
As long as we have options to get information free, or pay for added convenience and additional details, what is the concern we are being asked to pay for the electronic newspaper. Is it the fear that the electronic media will be the same price as the paper content? Frankly, I find that interesting because the electronic media is far more capable, convenient, and easier than the printed form so maybe if I choose to buy a subscription it should cost more.

Also, I think there is this misconception that replacing printing presses with servers, programmers, and network of fiber, satellite signals and towers is to replace hard media cost with something that's free. Are you who believe that, stupid? While it is true that ramping up volume has a marginally lower cost per unit as opposed to the presses, it certainly is not free and the intial infrastructure amortization is far greater than a print shop. So, the cost is real and we should all expect to pay for the electronic media just as we do printed media.


THe problem i see is Apple's demand for 30% (which might make Don happy), will ultimately raise the price of electonic subscriptions for end-users.
Click to expand...
Rocky- I'm not an academic and admit I don't understand the logic you academics often use per your comment about what makes me happy. But I can tell you this, I'm an engineer and a businessman with degrees in both. I don't fall for the fantasy that Apple or Google should supply the infrastructure for content for free. I appreciate that they have real costs in the service they supply and we consumers have to expect to pay for that one way or another. They will either do it for a price ( Apple) or hide the ROI in selling your habits ( Google). All I ask for and what will make ME happy is to have a choice. Let me pay the price if I want or seek the info for free if I have the time to look for it. As a business, let's for argument sake give Apple the credit for making the first move at 30% level. Google comes in at 10% They will probably offer different advantages for the price asked. It's good business and I don't care if Apple is higher price than Google. I also don't care if Borders goes Bankrupt or Amazon has to pay more. Let competition and the market dictate the price. Sorry for being such a capitalist but that's just me.
 
Don, what on earth does my being an "Academic" have to do with saying a 30% increase is something that would make you happy. You comment over and over about your stock ownership in Apple, and how it is performing. My comment was pretty straight-forward.

And your notion of "good business" means in the end the consumer gets screwed. But since you'll be making so much money from Apple, you won't mind paying more for electronic content. On the other hand, I do mind, since a 30% fee means a good part of that gets passed off to me, as the consumer.
 
And your notion of "good business" means in the end the consumer gets screwed.
Click to expand...
I think good business is where the company supplies a product or service for a price the public is willing to pay. Your attitude about getting screwed is just pure academic liberal bullsh!t based on FUD. Smart business makes the intitial offer high and then tempers that offer as the market and competition dictate. The only trouble is when the government steps in and tries to price fix or regulate what we have to pay for the product or service, and then go additional steps to make us buy it too. We all know what that is and hopefully that's over.

Hey- this is a gadgets zone but so many threads here are about the political aspects of companies, the leaders and how they run their business, how the CEO's of those companies operate, including hate posts about company CEO's. Then when I made a comment or two last year about my attitude regarding Apple and Google and Microsoft, you and one other go all huffy about it. Rocky- what you did in this thread was an attempt at baiting. But I didn't bite. I just disagreed with your obvious liberal academic philosophy. If that unerves you you have the hammer here so send me away.

Why don't you just ban all discussion about companies, leadership, stock and profitability of companies, M&A's, hirings and firings, market share, etc and enforce the gadget discussion to just tech talk about the gadgets. Maybe it would keep all of us from annoying each other.
 
Wow -- get a clue Don. Yeah, I was baiting you. :rolleyes: Whatever.

The only b.s. I see here is coming from you. You obviously have some strange chip on your shoulder. Get over yourself already.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Share this page

Share this page
Top