Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567
Results 121 to 125 of 125
  1. #121  
    I've been following the mini developer revolt in response to the new rules. It's not much of a revolt, yet, but the drumbeat gets louder. I couldn't be happier. That is how it is supposed to work. If Apple loses enough business and the stock price falls low enough, they will make a correction. That is the free market at work. Still don't see an issue for regulatory bodies. They really do have more important things to do, like fix problems the market can't correct.
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    I've been following the mini developer revolt in response to the new rules. It's not much of a revolt, yet, but the drumbeat gets louder. I couldn't be happier. That is how it is supposed to work. If Apple loses enough business and the stock price falls low enough, they will make a correction. That is the free market at work. Still don't see an issue for regulatory bodies. They really do have more important things to do, like fix problems the market can't correct.
    Agree. Let the market solve this one.
  3. #123  
    Yes, the market should resolve this. But there's a lot of hypocrisy all around...
    1) If a publisher/content provider/middleman gets the majority of subscriptions today via their IOS application (either in-app or link from app to website) then the impact on them will be greater - but it also means that they derive significant value from the Apple ecosystem and should pay for that benefit. But I think the reality is that most large providers like Netflix do not get new subscribers via IOS and so the impact to them won't be that much

    2) Netflix and other providers can make it very difficult for consumers to find the button in their app that allows the consumer to buy a subscription. Apple has not stated that the IOS subscription offer must be prominent, advertised, etc. And so there are many ways to 'hide' this option but still meet Apple's requirement. Of course if a content provider wants to leverage IOS to bring in new subscribers, then they do not need to hide that functionality

    3) Savvy consumers that disagree with Apple's philosophy can simply ignore/avoid the in-app subscription and instead go directly to the publisher’s website. Saying that Apple needs to provide the link to the publisher’s website to facilitate this is simply lazy thinking. If the principle is that important –you can stop buying/using Apple products or better yet go directly to the website and make the purchase. Is this less convenient – of course. But the extra 3-5mins it takes should not stop anyone.

    4) Amazon: Amazon gets the same 30% cut AND also sets the final price for the content. Content providers can set a list price but this price has to be lower or the same as it is outside the Kindle. AppleInsider | Inside subscription content: Apple iPad vs Google One Pass vs Amazon Kindle

    5) Google: Google’s price seems lower – 10% - but it’s across all channels. So that means Google gets 10% even if the subscription is made directly on the publisher’s site. Apple only gets a cut if it’s made via the IOS app.

    The one change/clarification I think Apple should make is around pricing. They should clarify that subscription prices for competing offerings (Android, etc) can be set any how the publisher wants. This makes sense since games/apps on the various platforms cost different amounts. But I think they should still maintain that the price for IOS specific subscriptions remain the same or better in the IOS app.

    Just a thought…..
  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardfan View Post
    Agree. Let the market solve this one.
    I object to this strategy because I own some apple stock.
  5. #125  
    A great post by my favorite blogger and iOS developer:
    Marco.org - Subscriptions and the new In-App Purchase requirement
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions