Newsflash: Apple is evil. Yeah, I wasn't surprised, either.
I like the idea of an app store. It's one-stop shop for programs on a particular platform that makes it easy for users to find what they were looking for or something else entirely. It allows the smallest developers to sit on the same storefront as the biggest and reach an audience greater than they would have with an ordinary webpage ad. It has a centralized payment system so you don't have to leave credit card information on dozens of different websites to populate one device. It allows one user to install software on multiple machines without worrying about activation keys, uninstalls, or phone calls to reset install limits; you can go to the app store on whatever authorized device and redownload a purchased program for free. This isn't a mobile phone exclusive, as even Apple's App Store has launched on the Mac platform and Steam has been bringing this model to PC gamers for years. That said, I absolutely hate what Apple has been doing to theirs. It used to be mostly about the rejection of useful apps like Google Voice which only recently made it back to the store. That was just the tip of the iceberg.
Recently, Apple and NYT launched their iPad-based newspaper, "The Daily", along with an in-app subscription model. It operates just like an app purchase, meaning that Apple takes a 30% cut off the top. Not long before that, Sony's reader app was rejected from the App Store because they didn't include a way to make sure Apple made money on book sales. Sony's plight will soon be shared by many as the model used for The Daily is now a requirement. Any app that has subscriptions or purchases (for content, functionality, or services) must also have an in-app subscription at equal or lower cost. Links to websites are also no longer allowed, blocking that potential outlet for subversion. Some services already available in app form, like the very vocal Rhapsody music service, already operate on fairly small margins after paying content providers and their own expenses, so dealing out another 30% is not feasible. Keep in mind that the in-app price is required to be no higher than the external rate, so shuffling raising just the price in-app to cover the tax isn't allowed. Such a result would require the service to either operate at a loss, increase their subscription rate, or pull their service from the platform. So far, Rhapsody is threatening the last of those options and is investigating the potential of legal action.
The new policy concerning paid content is not sitting well with many despite initial praise. When it was first announced, it was assumed to be an optional service, one that would allow smaller distributors to rely on the added convenience to attract more customers. But look at some of the most popular services on the iPad, one of the affected platforms. Kindle, Netflix, Hulu Plus, nook and more find themselve continually in the bestsellers lists. All of them would have to start paying Apple 30% of their sales and fees or face being removed from the store, even though all of them distribute their own content from their own servers. This is a win-win for Apple, though. Either these folks play ball and hand them buckets of cash or they are gone, leaving alternatives such as their own services (iBooks, iTunes and its rentals) to fill the void for those used to consuming all manner of media on their tablets.
What is surprising about this situation is the reaction. Typically, regardless of what Apple does, they loyal masses rush to their defense. They waste no time forgiving the computer giant for the iPhone 4 death grip debacle or their fomerly-unbreakable reliance on AT&T's network that was so loathed. Or the lack of cameras, low memory, and late deployment of multitasking for the iPad. These defenders just aren't there this time. The only follow ups talk about Google's One-Pass system that has similar convenience with a much lower skim and, most importantly, is optional. Just to be clear, Apple is allowed to do whatever the hell they want with their ecosystem and the agreements developers had to sign obliges them to adhere to even the most ridiculous clauses of every policy. If you don't like it, find a different platform. And that option is exactly what some of these spurned teams are planning to do. Perhaps even the most Apple-shaped eye can see that this new policy is, for lack of better word, evil. It's hard to envision any scenario here where the advantages outweigh the costs. My first thought when I bought an iPad 3G last year was I had myself a handheld Netflix portal. Hell, that was a primary reason why I bought one. This move threatens the continued existence of an iOS Netflix app among dozens of others, including some staples of app collections. Unless something changes, come June, when the policy goes into full effect, the App Store may be a far more barren landscape. Where are the developers rushing to rewrite their app, reduce their cut from each sale, and sell out on their own principles to sate the increasingly brash and greedy Apple? Any semblance of support is drowned by the discontent from those whose apps were rejected for omitting IAP support and whose financial stability will cease to be should another 30% of the pie get eaten off the top.
I joked after the Sony Reader incident that the next step was to step in an charge a fee to online merchants when someone uses mobile Safari to make the purchase. After this, would anyone be surprised if it happened?
Recently, Apple and NYT launched their iPad-based newspaper, "The Daily", along with an in-app subscription model. It operates just like an app purchase, meaning that Apple takes a 30% cut off the top. Not long before that, Sony's reader app was rejected from the App Store because they didn't include a way to make sure Apple made money on book sales. Sony's plight will soon be shared by many as the model used for The Daily is now a requirement. Any app that has subscriptions or purchases (for content, functionality, or services) must also have an in-app subscription at equal or lower cost. Links to websites are also no longer allowed, blocking that potential outlet for subversion. Some services already available in app form, like the very vocal Rhapsody music service, already operate on fairly small margins after paying content providers and their own expenses, so dealing out another 30% is not feasible. Keep in mind that the in-app price is required to be no higher than the external rate, so shuffling raising just the price in-app to cover the tax isn't allowed. Such a result would require the service to either operate at a loss, increase their subscription rate, or pull their service from the platform. So far, Rhapsody is threatening the last of those options and is investigating the potential of legal action.
The new policy concerning paid content is not sitting well with many despite initial praise. When it was first announced, it was assumed to be an optional service, one that would allow smaller distributors to rely on the added convenience to attract more customers. But look at some of the most popular services on the iPad, one of the affected platforms. Kindle, Netflix, Hulu Plus, nook and more find themselve continually in the bestsellers lists. All of them would have to start paying Apple 30% of their sales and fees or face being removed from the store, even though all of them distribute their own content from their own servers. This is a win-win for Apple, though. Either these folks play ball and hand them buckets of cash or they are gone, leaving alternatives such as their own services (iBooks, iTunes and its rentals) to fill the void for those used to consuming all manner of media on their tablets.
What is surprising about this situation is the reaction. Typically, regardless of what Apple does, they loyal masses rush to their defense. They waste no time forgiving the computer giant for the iPhone 4 death grip debacle or their fomerly-unbreakable reliance on AT&T's network that was so loathed. Or the lack of cameras, low memory, and late deployment of multitasking for the iPad. These defenders just aren't there this time. The only follow ups talk about Google's One-Pass system that has similar convenience with a much lower skim and, most importantly, is optional. Just to be clear, Apple is allowed to do whatever the hell they want with their ecosystem and the agreements developers had to sign obliges them to adhere to even the most ridiculous clauses of every policy. If you don't like it, find a different platform. And that option is exactly what some of these spurned teams are planning to do. Perhaps even the most Apple-shaped eye can see that this new policy is, for lack of better word, evil. It's hard to envision any scenario here where the advantages outweigh the costs. My first thought when I bought an iPad 3G last year was I had myself a handheld Netflix portal. Hell, that was a primary reason why I bought one. This move threatens the continued existence of an iOS Netflix app among dozens of others, including some staples of app collections. Unless something changes, come June, when the policy goes into full effect, the App Store may be a far more barren landscape. Where are the developers rushing to rewrite their app, reduce their cut from each sale, and sell out on their own principles to sate the increasingly brash and greedy Apple? Any semblance of support is drowned by the discontent from those whose apps were rejected for omitting IAP support and whose financial stability will cease to be should another 30% of the pie get eaten off the top.
I joked after the Sony Reader incident that the next step was to step in an charge a fee to online merchants when someone uses mobile Safari to make the purchase. After this, would anyone be surprised if it happened?