Apple is accustomed to a few months of over-excited headlines at this time of year, in the build-up to the refresh of its mobile product line, and its iPad 2 should, indeed, turn up next week. But this week the company is under huge pressure, and negative comments are flying, indicating the new environment in which it will have …
If I buy a magazine from a publisher
surely I've bought it from them, not Apple - yet Apple get a share?
Just another reason to hope that 'App Stores' dwindle as web-based applications rise. Lock in multiplied (the grief my wife had to go through to get her iPhone 3G stuff onto a Galaxy S was amazing).
Re: If I buy a magazine from a publisher
<quote>...the grief my wife had to go through to get her iPhone 3G stuff onto a Galaxy S was amazing...</quote>
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Apple *hate* apostates.
Think about it
To understand what Apple have decided you need to know the problem that prompted it.
If you were to go into a shop and pick up a free blank magazine and then you bought all the contents from the publisher direct for a fee then how would the shop benefit? not at all!
This is what the magazines are trying to do, cut out the App Store from the revenue stream. Provide a free application but then charge for content directly. Apple gets nothing other than minuscule annual developer fees.
Put yourself in their shoes, they are employing lots of staff to handle app submissions and they have built a huge expensive data centre recently. Hosting apps, music and films is a costly business.
The way Apple works
Apple only gets a 30% share if users buy a sub through the app store. And to ensure that happens they've banned other direct means that an app could use to sign up a customer. An app might previously have directed the user to sign up through a web page or a dialog box. Now it can't. So Apple has graciously forced apps quite capable of managing subscriptions for themselves to give a 30% chunk to Apple.
They've also obliged subscription apps to ensure the App Store price is as low as any offered elsewhere. So there is no way to jack up the app store price to claw back some of the money lost to Apple.
It's horribly monopolistic and par for the course for a platform where Apple has leveraged its position as platform owner to engage in one unfair practice after another.
"Put yourself in their shoes, they are employing lots of staff to handle app submissions and they have built a huge expensive data centre recently. Hosting apps, music and films is a costly business."
If the AppStore model cannot support the infrastructure, then the AppStore model must change. I see four solutions
1) Make the user pay a minimum one-off fee for buying the app.
2) Make the publisher pay a minimum one-off fee for listing the app.
3) Make the user pay a minimum subscription fee per app purchase.
4) Make the publisher pay a minimum subscription fee per app listing.
If the fee is not paid (or lapses) the app is yanked from the store/iDevices.
That covers the cost of infrastructure, certifying apps etc. Content could come from the Apple store (for whatever fee Apple want) or some other place/store. This would allow competition and that is always good for consumers.
Of course there is a fifth option - if you don't like Apple's fees, don't list in their store.
cut out the App Store from the revenue stream.
... and that would be on account of the fact that apple had fuck all to do with developing the content? no??
well where the hell is MY cut in that case?
step away from the koolaid my boy!
heres a novel approach, if apple dont like the deal they get from free subscription apps, I'm pretty sure there must be some teeny tiny little clause hidden away in the small print that would enable apple to kick the free app from the store. don't quote me here, but i *think* apple may have unilaterally ditched applications in the past. as i said im not sure about this, i would hate to wrongly accuse the saintly steve of some mis-demenour or other :D
Those magazines have paid a developer to develop and app to make life easier for Apple Customers.
Apple benefit from that investment because Apple need apps to sell the iStuff.
What your ignoring are the benefits Apple get off the App providers.
You forget the app store was never in the revenue stream, the apps are added benefits to existing subscribers who own hamstrung apple kit.
In your blank magazine scenario you convenientally forget that Apple have been paid handsomely for the blank iMag in the first place.
Haters gonna hate
@AC, @DrXym, @TheBigYin, @Naughtyhorse
Loving the internal logic: if Apple can't make free apps pay, they should force the customers and/or the publisher to pay money. Presumably, you're setting yourselves up for further comments here about how Apple is abusing its position to force people to give them money.
If you ever bothered to stop reading propaganda, you'd see that Apple requires the developer to include the option to subscribe through iTunes *in addition to* the option to subscribe through an external service. Either option is available to the customer. The same price is payable in both locations.
The difference is that, if Apple do the subscription, the developer no longer has to pay for hosting, bandwidth, availability, payment control, security and all those other things that happen when you start selling content through a website.
Re: Think about it
"If you were to go into a shop and pick up a free blank magazine and then you bought all the contents from the publisher direct for a fee then how would the shop benefit? not at all!"
Have you never bought a real, physical magazine? Try it... go to any newsagent, pick up a magazine, pay for it and take it home. You can almost guarantee that, somewhere within its pages, you will find an offer to subscribe to that magazine.
This means that, not only can you subscribe and the original point of purchase gets nothing, but, the subscription will always be cheaper than buying it from the original shop.
Now, can anyone explain how multi-billion-dollar-earning Apple can't go with this business model, but, your local newsagent accepts it and gets on with the business of making a living?
Re: Haters gonna hate
"The difference is that, if Apple do the subscription, the developer no longer has to pay for hosting, bandwidth, availability, payment control, security and all those other things that happen when you start selling content through a website."
Perfect logic if magazine publishers only produce content for iStuff owners. Meanwhile, back in the real world, they also publish for Android, WinMo, Windows etc... therefore they still have to pay for all those things you seem to feel they no longer need. Only, on top of that, they have to pay Apple a 30% payment handling fee. Apple have already charged the developer to allow it on to the app store, so, their costs are already covered.
But you conveniently forget ...
> If you were to go into a shop and pick up a free blank magazine and then you bought all the contents from the publisher direct for a fee then how would the shop benefit? not at all!
>> Put yourself in their shoes, they are employing lots of staff to handle app submissions and they have built a huge expensive data centre recently. Hosting apps, music and films is a costly business.
But did that shop carrying the free and blank magazine also make it impossible* for you to get it anywhere else ? No ? Well they have the choice wether to carry it or not - and more importantly, the publisher could get it to you by other means (flyer in other titles, flyer in the local free papers, by post if you phone them to ask, etc, etc).
In Apple's case they (Apple) have made it so that you *have* to get the blank and free magazine through them - so the fact that it costs them money and they get return gets them no sympathy from me. I suspect that in most cases, the people complaining about this latest territory grab by Apple would be happy to distribute the app themselves - ie well known publisher could just as well have a link on their site to download the app from, except Apple won't allow that.
So there is absolutely no excuse for Apple being as greedy as it is - other than a desire to own everything and separate customers from their suppliers (ie separate subscribers from the publishers) so that Apple can sell more and cut out the publisher. If it really were about anything else then there's no excuse for BANNING anything other than a "buy in app" purchase within the app itself, and there's no excuse for BANNING a premium for giving the customer this convenience.
This is 100% about Apple wanting to control everything, and own everything.
* Impossible meaning unless you are highly technical and prepared to risk everything involved in unlocking your reading equipment.
I refuse to enoble a simple forum post!
A smartphone is not a shop despite it seems the belief that it is to a lot of people. What it actually is is an enabling device.
My smartphone, "enables" me to do stuff that I choose to do, I purchase the services I require from the suppliers, the maker of my smartphone has nothing to do with this transaction.
There is no reason for my hardware manufactureer to be involved in the transaction and likewise why should Apple be involved; had they created a slightly less one sided model, they *may* have got away with it but they didn't and no amount of apologists will make it appear any other way.
So this is a problem entirely of Apple's own making with its closed garden approach. Their control freakery is why they have all those staff hanging around checking stuff, its certainly not the fault of the publishers.
Your analogy simply doesn't hold.
Doh! @ Guybles
Apple dont host the content for a magazine subscription.
The publisher already has all of the items you describe already, they dont need to pay someone else 30% to do the same sub management and sign up again, along with having no access to subscriber data.
You need to think outside the walled garden the content providers does more than just provide to Apple and they still need all the infrastructure etc.
Apple does nothing
Apple did nothing to develop the content nor even deliver it.
All Apple has done is helped deliver the App. Fine, charge for that then.
Insisting up a 30% cut of their business is far too much.
Attempting to preclude the vendor from charging less in more efficient markets is illegal.
Walmart would love to be able to force Tower to charge the same high price for a Sony TV. But, Walmart can not legally do that.
A Chevy dealer would love to be to control the retail price for the same car at another dealer too. But, it can not do so legally.
Apple can tack on 42% if it wants. But, it is illegal to control the retail price of the same product sold or delivered through other channels.
For most jurisdictions it is illegal for a wholesaler to control the retail price on its own products. Much less some idiots retailing the same product in their store.
Apple wants to deceive customers into thinking it is the most convenient way to get the best price for subscriptions. Or, exclude the service from Apple customers. Apple does not have the legal right to do either. Apple insists upon both.
Avoid Apple products completely. All consumers will be much better off if you do. Former Apple customes will be better off. And even non-Apple customers will be better off.
Hint: Apple wants to raise the price for your media subscription some 42% even if you do not do any business at all with those Idiots. (They demand that the direct price be just as high as that required by their 30% cut.)
Apple does absolutely nothing for their cut save for a very small transaction fee (2-4%).
Personally, I want a 30% cut of all media subscriptions too. I am a nice guy. I should get all that money. And if I am granted all that money, I'll be glad to put up a one click service for trapped customers.
If I had a subscriptions service, and I do, I would never deal with Apple. Perhaps file a law suit but never deal with them.
The US DOJ or the FTC will have to sue Apple if necessary. All those companies that offer media by subscription should also file their law suits against Apple. Google has already reacted by announcing their 10% fee. But, 10% may even be too high for what is being provided.
Apple is doing nothing more that what PayPal provides. Just transacting the money. Oh, and keeping the customer details to itself.
No hate, just simple economics. Things cost money. For free (at point of consumption) things, someone needs to swallow the cost. In the AppStore that means Apple /or/ the publisher. You have to pick one.
As for the "in addition to", that was part of my point. Apple is insisting on this so they can cover their costs. They assumed repeat revenue (a bit like Sony with the PS3 and games) and are now reliant on that. If they had charged a sustaining price up-front, then they wouldn't have had to do this.
I quite agree about the service Apple provides, but what if the dev doesn't want their service? Their only choice just now is not to list in the AppStore, but if they are not listed there how can they sell their wares to the iDevice crowd?
I am not saying that Apple is a monopoly (their sales are still far too small for that) but I can see why the regulators might want to keep an eye one things. What if Samsung et al go down similar routes - that would not be good for consumers IMHO.
And I repeat - no Apple hate. They are very, very good at what they do (design, integration) but there are certain things they do that I don't like. Simple.
"I am not saying that Apple is a monopoly (their sales are still far too small for that) "
Straight from wikipedia - "In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."
I think that is Apple described right there. They keep changing the terms to favour their products at the expense of competing products.
It's up to Apple
It's Apple's store. They get to charge whatever they want. And it's the publisher's content. They get to refuse to pay Apple's price and sell their content elsewhere if they like. So what's the big deal? It's a free country. We like free markets.
Methinks you don't get it
The entire point, that you have missed, is not that Apple are gouging application developers/publishers 30% of final cost for listing applications (either standalone or ones that act as portals for content access) on their store.
The point is that a condition of being listed on the store is that you can't offer cheaper prices for the same application/content elsewhere. Another condition is that any subscription-based content access must also be available for purchase through Apple's system. One condition or the other would be tolerable (because a dev could simply differentiate their iApp from their other offerings, maintaining the Special Sheen of Specialness that Fruitmachines are sold on), but both together means that an awful lot of publishers/developers won't be able to make any money through the App Store without also being forced to make a loss on selling the same content elsewhere.
Just another reason to hope that 'App Stores' dwindle as web-based applications rise.
Eh? Web based apps were Apple's preferred model with the original iPhone. Developers hated it.
(And you do realise that when you buy a mag from a shop, the retailer takes a cut, don't you?)
"...with the threat to the publisher that they can't publish anywhere else if they don't also force them to raise their prices there too." Nonsense. Apple aren't threatening that /at all/! The T&C's state that if a subscription is available, it must not be available elsewhere for less, ie the 30% fee cannot be offset onto the customer. I agree that it's too much and that Apple dictating prices outside of it's ecosystem may be anti-competitive, but let's not make up bullshit to prove a point, eh? As for 'arbitrarily' high figures; bollocks. Again 30% is IMO too high, but that figure won't've merely been plucked out of Tim Cook's arse! A portion of it *will* be covering costs and access to a massive distribution network. The profit bit, which *any* business is entitled to demand, is blatantly too high.
"Yes, but that cut isn't an arbitrarily high figure"
...it is an arbitrarily low cut forced by the publishers, who are almost exclusively large multi-national corps, on small - often sole trader - retail businesses, to no-one's benefit but their own.
This would have been a neat summary of the situation - if there had been links to the sources quoted...
> Responding to complaints by email, Jobs wrote: "Our philosophy is simple: when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 per cent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 per cent and Apple earns nothing.
That sounds reasonable-- I thought the furore was because apple was demanding that *only* apple-subscribed content could be shown?
E.G. I can't sell a subscription and direct the user to the app from outside the store, only direct them to the app and have them subscribe via apple. Thirty percent is still too much, either way.
Can't think of one... a ramble perhaps?
So I ask one of our twin 16 year old boys, 'Verizon has the iPhone now.. want one?' He says, 'iPhones are gay...'
I just laughed. Told me everything I needed to know.
Love my BB Storm2 and wouldn't mind the Storm3 when it comes out... however the specs on RIM's new offering in that kind of format is already dated, Droids that out-perform it are already on the shelves. iPhone is out of the question, if I don't have enough sense to determine what I want or should have on my phone - I'm better off with a dumbphone in the first place. Microsoft... bah, out of the question because who the hell knows how they will screw it up, and they will, I do have confidence in that lol. Android is my next best choice, but here again while I don't think Oracle can kill it off with their BS, it'll probably cost Google some time and money to rectify it. No hurry so might as well see how it shakes out.
I think Apple remembers the lean years and want to cushion any blow they might take when the fad runs it's course or competition catches and surpasses them. Lots of smart people in the world with great ideas and they all don't work at Apple. Added stress for Apple is Steve Jobs wearing out, AAPL stock will probably freak when he goes.
Well, that's all I needed to know
Shit, your teenage son thinks iPhones are gay? Damn. Well I guess I'll be switching to Android now. What on earth have I been doing buying gay smartphones these last few years? Thank god we've got your son to show us which direction the industry is heading in, otherwise we'd all be lost.
And he's not alone
All the young people I know -second hand through my step-daughter - have ditched iPhone and moved to crackberries. She isn't a teenager, she's a 23yr old nurse, her friends work in hairdressers, beauty salons, etc, and they and their customers migrated away from iPhone.
Its no indicator, sure, but says a lot.
The Point is....
..that the iPhone is no longer popular with the high school set. Which is a big demographic that carries on into the college set. Which also has everything to do with Apple and not the 'industry'. as a whole. Which also means you can't see past Jobs' halo if that's all you took from my post.
My own experience is that more iPhones are generally being carried by grandma and grandpa now - therefore no longer 'cool' lol.
There are quite a few youngsters in my office and the majority of them have iPhone they're very happy with. But I'm not attempting to extrapolate a conclusion from that about how the industry as a whole is going.
teenagers think iPhones are gay?
Hmmm, although not overly tech specific this may indicate the way the wind is blowing in the wider world.
My teenage niece reckons...
that only chavs have Blackberrys these days and Android phones are for sad loner nerds and pikeys. Must be true*...
*Obviously, it's not.
I just hope your other twin 16 year old boy isn't gay, or he must be having a horrible home life with a brother and a father like that.
Slang understanding fail.
"Gay" doesn't mean homosexual in that context.
It means naff or uncool..
I had heard about the iPhone dropping in sales rankings. I was curious and appreciate some explanation. Here's one reason: another manufacturer is discounting their phones.
Kids, you can always buy market share, but you better get the volume. Otherwise you are #1 in share and #6 in profit.
Vis a vis developers, let's say there's a population of 100,000 with devices. But 30,000 bought theirs at full price using one platform, 20,000 bought theirs using another platform, and 50,000 got theirs using the latter os because it was discounted.
If the marketing guy says "OS B has 70,000 users and thus should be our target for app development," you should:
a) Give him a bonus because he noticed that 50,000 users who saved on their phone have more money in their pocket to buy apps.
b) Say, good point, and then circulate his name among the head hunters and hope the competition hire him, because he doesn't get that people who pay for their phones are more likely to pay for the added value of a good app.
Is 30% too much? I don't know. I'm not in the business. But if I did get into the business and didn't have an earlier, disappearing business model with which to compare current endeavors, I might find that I can do all right. Or not. Real stores do things such as charge for optimal shelf space. If the benefit exceeds the cost, the product makers pay.
This will all work out and find its balance. If it turns out that Apple goofed here, we may rest assured that students working towards MBAs next decade will have a subject for their theses written on Android 14 inch tablets via Google docs.
markup not the problem
The problem with Apple's subscription is NOT the markup. Apple has the right to markup the price of subscriptions as it might want.
The problem (antitrust and price fixing) comes from forcing the subscription service to not take subscriptions from more efficient channels at a possibly lower price. Few if any channel now takes 30% off the top. That makes the Apple App store very inefficient. Efficiency in this context means high transactions costs.
When Apple forces ALL subscriptions to cost at least as much as through Apple it prevents the various channels from competing. And Apple is trying to illegally preclude anyone from competing on price.
Can Walmart control the retail price charge by Tower for a Sony TV? I am sure Walmart wishes it could. But, what if Tower wanted to do the same with Walmart? How would that work?
Can a Ford dealer control the retail price at another Ford dealer?
This is precisely what Apple is trying to force upon media suppliers. Give Apple 30% plus the ability to preclude anyone else from competing on price.
Or, what? Be excluded from convenient access to Apple customers. Customers owed and controlled by Apple. That is a protection racket. Apple is demanding a 30% cut not because it is providing value but rather because it can exclude access to Apple owned customers.
Now you know that Apple thinks it owns its customers. And it will cause prices to be high for them and everyone else just so it can grab its 30%.
Any service that subscribes through Apple will charge a much higher subscription charge regardless of the channel. About 42% is needed to cover the 30% cut Apple demands. That means that even if you go to the web site for the service directly, it's price has to be up that 42% as well.
Nothing here benefits consumers. Apple demands a 30% cut just for the convenience of clicking a button? And the jerkheads demand the same high price be charged to all consumers even if they do not have the convenient button.
Apple can charge 30% if it wants. But that results in a 42% increase for consumers. And Apple can not legally force subscribers to pay the same high rate through other channels. Neither can it legally preclude a supplier unless they give up their right to price according to the efficiency of the channels they use.
A $100 subscription must be raised to $142.86 to cover that 30% cut.
On Android the same subscription would only cost $111.11 to cover a 10% fee. That is $31.75 more if you are an Apple customer.
So Apple decided it had to preclude price competition on Android and even direct web sites. But, that is illegal. And Apple lawyers know that.
Every vendor on the planet would like to be able to control the retail price charged by a competitor. Or, if you are a store, eliminate any products that might compete with your own.
It is clear that Apple wants a monopoly position. And it wants to charge monopoly like prices.
Apple clearly does not want to let its customers know that they are paying higher prices than everyone else (42% higher). So it has to force suppliers to give up their right to price their products in all other markets.
Apple does not want to look like the expensive alternative it is when it trys to take a 30% cut. Who would want that? Certainly not Apple customers.
Avoid buying all Apple products. Now or in the future you will be forced to pay higher prices for services not even provided by Apple. Because the idiots at Apple think they owe you and they will use your presence to collect protection money from others. That is what they are doing today.
Products and services will be available at a lower cost going directly to the supplier or even through Android. Googles's 10% fee may also be too high. But, at least Google does not try to illegally control the retail price for such services when delivered through other channels.
Apple is run by idiots. That is dead obvious. They are trying to avoid competition on price. And they are trying to profit illegally from fools and idiots that previous bought an Apple device.
"Apple is run by idiots" Do me a favour. They wouldn't be where they are today if that were true you boob. They perhaps have limited morals or few scruples, but idiots they are not. They are certainly trying to bend the rules, but have gone too far. To be honest if you aren't trying to bend the rules, you are absolutely doing it wrong.
"They are trying to avoid competition on price." Any business with half a clue does that, numbnuts. There is nothing wrong with doing that at all. What /is/ wrong is trying to dictate the price for other platforms/mediums. That should be up to the business *not* the supplier.
"And they are trying to profit illegally from fools and idiots that previous bought an Apple device." Less of it, dickwad. They don't criticise the the choice of bowl you use to have your haircut with or the choice of penholder you use, poindexter! Again, this on the whole isn't a problem. They can charge a captive audience what they like. They cannot, however, dictate what some one else can charge.
The insults are in there because you make a good and valid point, but ruin it by being a militant twat. The majority of the Apple using public agree with you, so stop being a knob!
You absolutely hit the nail on the head with the majority of your post. However, AC 16:42 is right that they have shown lack of scruples rather than stupidity.
Mate, you just made a good point about the above post, but ruined it by including the insults.
AC because I am!
Apple IS run by idiots
"Apple is run by idiots" Do me a favour. They wouldn't be where they are today if that were true you boob. They perhaps have limited morals or few scruples, but idiots they are not. "
Sure they are! Total complete idiots. They have thrown many thousands of earlier users away, in the past. But, as what P.T. Barnum said, there are two new fools to replace one old fool who wised up to Apple's machinations. Just study their past, or be condemned to repeat it. IMHO it all went to hell when Woz got shoved under the bus, starting with the Apple ][ plus. Then there was the ][e, the Lisa, the Mac, the Mac+, NeXT, iMac, etc ...each generation of users discarded with no hope of upgrading to the next level hardware wise. I know one guy that bought a Lisa for over 10 grand, only to see it discontinued 6 months later. Right, to hell with him! You can bet he went PC in lightning time. What happened to all of those iMac's that were faithfully bought by scarce Librarian Dollars? The taxpayers took it up the old wazoo, is what. I truly hope that you Apple consumers wise up.
You know someone is spinning something when they start using the word "delighting".
Question: "Will developer backlash be too powerful for Apple this time?"
Apple fanboi commentards are bleating a lot about how they deserve the cut due to expensive hosting costs. Uhm, no.
Bulk bandwidth a couple pence per gig = 1000 app downloads
1000 app sales at a quid rakes in 300 bucks and costs them maybe 5p, so do us all a favour and stfu with the 'expensive hosting' bollocks excuse
FAIL for Apple. Those apps on that app store helped them to sell their iHardware, pissing off the publishers and develops who make the Apple ecosystem so appealing is just STUPID.
Thank you for the insight
I am grateful to know that Apple is going down the tubes and Android is now ascendant. I hope the word gets to the thousands of hapless investors who have bought Apple stock so they can sell right now, before it's too late.
Then, you can expect Apple's stock to fall by 100 points or more in the next few weeks.
The main reason I'm grateful, is that maybe your story will have the desired effect. Apple will fall. And I will load up on Apple stock and make lots of money when it goes back up.
My only fear is that you are too late. Most of the things you report were reported last week or even earlier. So maybe Apple has already fallen all it's going to for awhile. Well, that's OK, I guess. I already bought back in when Apple went from above $360 a share to below $340 a share. But I sure would have liked to get it even cheaper.
How about a Steve Jobs health rumor? Do you think that would work?
Restraint of Trade
I woud have thought this Apple subs T&C's requirement for prices on the App store be the same as elsewhere is a clear cut and dried case of price fixing and restraint of trade?
I for one defend their right to charge as much of a percentage as they like. Whatever they think they can get away with: that's how free market economics works. But attempting to fix the supplier price and eliminating price competition? That's not how it works.
I am confident that Apple will have to remove at least the pricing restriction, if not the in-app linking to external web based marketplaces restriction. They really must be on an extremely dodgy legal footing here.
Before I get pelted with abuse. I am very much locked into Apple's world at the moment. I have a double digit number of Macs and iThingys... but this recent development is making me wonder whether Apple has finally jumped the shark this time, and I'm actively researching alternatives.
Forget product delays: Verizon now reporting Grip of Death problems!
Now Verizon (CDMA) users are complaining that the so called Lemon 4 is exhibiting the very same problems that were experienced on AT&T a year ago.
Corporate mouthpiece Natalie Kerris reiterated Apple's mantra: "The (Lemon) 4 has a great antenna that allows it to have an amazingly thin design, great battery life and reception," Kerris said. "We designed the iPhone 4 external antenna to work great on Verizon's CDMA/EVDO network.""..
Unfortunately the trusted Consumer Reports, who ran their usual tests, didn't agree.
Who would a normal person believe?
Life Ring for 30%.
This situation is analogous to a salvage captain insisting on an agreement with the captain of a distressed ship for salvage rights. Agree to pay me 30% in the future and I will throw you a life ring. Yes, there are other salvors out there besides Apple. The captain of the sinking vessel is perfectly welcome to get back on the radio and yell mayday until someone else answers. Apple is only going to stand by with its hand out while grinning.
Surely someone else will come along--won't they? Rupert Murdoch, the most savvy man in the news biness has already taken Apple's offer. In fact, he may well have set the terms of the agreement. Anyone think about this from Murdoch's point of view? Why would he take such a catastrophic offer from Apple of all companies?
The difference is that, if Apple do the subscription, the developer no longer has to pay for hosting, bandwidth, availability, payment control, security and all those other things that happen when you start selling content through a website.
Ok so I wish to subscribe click on the link/button and pay, how much bandwidth does that take?
the cost for hosting 5 or 10 lines of text?
availabilty, we ll that's down to the publisher of the material you are subscribing to nothing to do with Apple.
Security I'm sure any company that was offering online payment will have this in place already or just back it off to the company who is actually handling the transaction (and as a clue in neither case is it Apple)
So lets see my shopping list is 1)providing a link/button on/through a website and 2)hosting 10 lines of text.....anyone care to give me some pricing for this?