If the basic argument is that apple's margin are too high, I agree completely. They are a massively profitable company; they don't need to be charging what they're charging.
If the argument is that there is something immoral about them charging people for use of their subscription service, I call bullshit. Until incredibly recently, they had no subscription service. Now they are offering the _option_ to use a subscription service. If you find the fees are too high, you are not obliged to take part in it. I think the real reason this upsets so many is that it clearly is worth it for many developers to take part in it, just like it clearly is worth it to let apple take their 30% cut for everything else sold on the app store. People are riled because they don't want to have to pay apple this fee, but hard cold business logic demands that they should, because it is profitable to do so (or less unprofitable than not doing so). It wouldn't be threatening at all if you felt like you could afford to just walk away from the ecosystem apple's built.
Which seems to indicate they are adding value.
Now, as to whether the value added == 30%, I direct you to the first paragraph. But what's the motivation to create such a wonderfully easy to use ecosystem if you can't derive a profit off it?
Now they are offering the _option_ to use a subscription service.
Wrong. Please don't misunderstand this new policy as something that is in addition to the existing rules.
The Kindle App currently in the app store (which doesn't offer in-app purchase or subscription) is now probably in violation of the app store guidelines in light of these new terms. They have forced companies that offer any subscription service outside the store to also offer it in the store and with a hefty 30% commission.
It's something in addition to the existing rules (a new feature; recurring subscriptions) and a change to the existing rules (content provided externally from the app store must now also be provided internally to the app store and give Apple their 30% cut).
I don't care much about the former; I don't like the latter.
It's also not yet clear whether this applies to any subscription service or merely content subscription services. Even within the concept of content subscription services, it's not clear whether this applies only to downloadable content (a la The Daily or Amazon Kindle) or streaming "rental"-type content (a la Netflix or Hulu).
Apple will need to clarify those positions, but I believe that this probably applies to downloadable content only. I do not believe that it applies to services (e.g., Dropbox or Salesforce, etc.) or to rental services (e.g., Hulu or Netflix).
This rule change badly hurts reseller-distributors (Amazon Kindle, Amazon Audible, B&N, Kobo, etc.); they don't have 30% of margin to give up and they can't afford to raise the price on everything 30%+ across the board just so they can stay in the iOS game. This is (to me) clearly anticompetitive and probably is just at the edge of antitrust-legal.
This rule change does not (immediately, if ever) hurt content owner-distributors (newspapers, magazines, major publishers). I say "(immediately, if ever)" because this is access to an additional stream of income, although it's at a fairly high premium. Apple's 30% may be a fairly low customer acquisition cost, though. The newspaper that it might hurt a little is the WSJ as (IIRC) it doesn't give access to all content unless you're already a WSJ subscriber. They will probably be required to implement in-app purchase to a WSJ-app subscription for an update very soon.
Yeah, this confused me a lot. The press release [1] says quite clearly:
> 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. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.
It's that last clause which clearly states that apps like the the current Kindle app, which includes a "Buy Books" link at the top, will no longer be allowed.
This will be a massive shock to the nascent content-based app market on iOS. I can see only two possibilities for developers of these existing apps: primary producers of content who can afford to wear the extra 30% will just lose on their margin; or apps reduce the price of content on iOS so the Apple cut isn't as big. Neither option will be particularly palatable to most producers. Many might avoid the platform entirely.
But over the long term, I suspect this will have a positive disruptive effect in the iOS content market. Smaller producers who can build a business model around the 30% cut by Apple (similar to app developers) will have a better chance at maintaining a healthy margin.
So under the new guidelines, can Amazon distribute an app that lets you read Kindle books you’ve already purchased in other ways, with a note “we can’t actually make a clicky link here, but open up Safari and go to amazon.com to buy more books”?
To me the issue is the fact that if you have any form of subscription service -- then you MUST use the IOS service and you MUST pay apple their 30%.
Apple's service looks worthwhile and valid for certain use cases. But to insist that it must be used for any IOS Native app that has a monthly fee is a draconian change.
Reasonably Serious Case: I've been looking at building an app for my wife to offer to her fitness bootcamp clients.. By my understanding of the new rules - I need to allow people to sign-up / renew contracts from within the app. And give Apple 30% of the $200 or so fee.
I suspect that your analysis is completely wrong. IANAL, and all.
1. Apple disallows in-app purchases for physical goods; presumably this would include services that are provided in the physical world instead of wholly electronically.
2. Apps have to be (minimally) useful to people without requiring a for-pay subscription.
3. These new rules would only kick in if you offered content (or possibly services; this is the SaaS question still unanswered, but it probably only applies to content as delivered content—that is, it seems to me to not apply to rental content, e.g., Netflix or Hulu) to people that is dependent on a subscription fee or a one-time fee.
As an example, let's say your wife's app were to have two news feeds about her fitness bootcamps (regular and premium). If all of her fitness bootcamp clients (the people who pay $200) are given access codes to the premium feed subscription, she may be required to offer in-app purchase of access to the premium news feed to people who are not or cannot be her physical customer at a price equivalent to or less than what she charges for the physical customers to have access to that feed.
All you'd have to do to comply is provide access to the premium news feed as an in-app purchase for $200 or less and let Apple take 30% of that. They're not getting anything for her fitness bootcamp services.
In reality for the case study -- I'll likely just leave it as a web app. I'm more comfortable with the web anyway. Or if it did go IOS native -- It would just be a free service.
re: 3. I worked on the worst-case assumption of SaaS Issues..
Isn't that seperate pricing though?
If you have person A paying $200 for Bootcamp + App and person B paying $200 for App, isn't there a problem?
I'm wouldn't be concerned about new customers.. But if my existing customers have the app -- then they would have to have the ability to pay via iTunes for next month.. And that means a 30% cut to apple.
I'm not sure it's something they would enforce.. But I'm concerned regardless.
No; for some other posts on this, I did some checking in the agreement and IAP is explicitly disallowed for rental content or services or for goods or services for use outside of the app.
Let's play with your case study a little more, though (it's fun!):
Because IAP cannot be used for goods or services outside of the app, your IAP subscription would have to be clear that it's for access to the premium feed only and not contracting your wife for fitness bootcamp services. What would you do if someone who lives 3,000 km from you purchased the bootcamp service through the app? You'd never be able to fulfill it (which is one reason why IAP can't be used for non-app goods or services, I suspect).
So, in reality, you might offer the premium feed a lot like the Schlock Mercenary app does (and has since it was introduced)[1]: one month for $0.99, three months for $2.99, or six months for $4.99. There's also a way to enter a subscription token, although I've never had one so I don't know exactly how it works. I would presume that they could start offering these directly for sale on the Schlock Mercenary store if people wanted to give Howard more money directly, rather than letting Apple take 30% of his definitely-worth-it $4.99.
Anyway, you'd have a nominal fee for your premium feed, and then you'd give the people who have contracts with your wife for her non-app services access codes to get at the premium feed without having to pay an extra fee.
Everybody wins, especially you and your wife, because now you're making money that you wouldn't have gotten otherwise, just for writing extra premium content.
So as long as I convince Apple that the Bootcamp is $199 and the App is $1 then I don't have an issue (Unless non-IOS bootcampers catch wind and want a discount :P)
In terms of structure -- it will be more of a saas app -- Food/exercise diary with integration into the bootcamp client systems.. So all of your bootcamp workouts/measurements/results are already entered for you. That was my concern as the key feature of the app was to essentially see your bootcamp results and to give your trainer a look at your food diary. Which wont happen unless you're paying the $200 and actually there in meatspace....
// Of course -- I guess we could move into virtual coaching / training / etc... Getting workout and diet plans out of the app for a much higher monthly fee... that might be worth paying the 30% to Apple for as our clients wouldn't be ones we could reach elsewhere.. hmmm... this has potential.
From what I can tell, there is no option - any type of outside subscription or content that can be accessed through an iOS app must also be offered as an app store subscription or in-app purchase (with the 30% cut). This means that books on the Kindle app, subscriptions through Rdio or Rhapsody, and many other low-margin products and services will be subjected to Apple's ridiculous 30% take.
If the argument is that there is something immoral about them charging people for use of their subscription service, I call bullshit. Until incredibly recently, they had no subscription service. Now they are offering the _option_ to use a subscription service. If you find the fees are too high, you are not obliged to take part in it. I think the real reason this upsets so many is that it clearly is worth it for many developers to take part in it, just like it clearly is worth it to let apple take their 30% cut for everything else sold on the app store. People are riled because they don't want to have to pay apple this fee, but hard cold business logic demands that they should, because it is profitable to do so (or less unprofitable than not doing so). It wouldn't be threatening at all if you felt like you could afford to just walk away from the ecosystem apple's built.
Which seems to indicate they are adding value.
Now, as to whether the value added == 30%, I direct you to the first paragraph. But what's the motivation to create such a wonderfully easy to use ecosystem if you can't derive a profit off it?