
Subscriptions and the new In-App Purchase requirement - andre3k1
http://www.marco.org/3437484678
======
bradleyland
Marco really nailed it. He was also exceptionally level-headed considering
that his application, Instapaper, is likely to find itself in exactly the
situation he outlines. Marco's plans for Instapaper are based around paid
accounts for API access, which would enable third-party apps for paid users.
It would be an absolute shame if Marco's app weren't allowed on iOS. Quite
honestly, if Instapaper, Dropbox, and Evernote are under threat to be removed
from the App Store, I won't even consider a new iPhone until Apple revises its
policy.

~~~
runevault
I wonder if you'll see under the table deals where 3rd parties write apps for
these services FOR the company to bypass the restriction, assuming 3rd party
apps are still allowed by Apple's new policy.

~~~
schwabacher
I hadn't thought about it, but this is what they should do.

~~~
bradleyland
That would be a horrible business decision, in my opinion. "Under the table"
deal is just another way of saying "violating the agreement I signed". Two
wrongs don't make a right, etc, etc. But more importantly, operating in the
background would just enable Apple. Cutting Apple out of the revenue won't
really hurt them, but it will increase dependence on their platform, which
gives them more leverage.

Under the table deals would be extremely short sighted and dishonest.

~~~
schwabacher
Yeah, I think you are right.. I was commenting on the third party part more
than the under the table part.

I was thinking more along the lines of Amazon creating an open or liscensed
API for it's ebooks, so that someone can make an app for me to log into and
read books that I own. Users could still read their kindle books on their
iphones, and amazon could keep it's position as the best book store for iOS
users, expand to other devices, etc..

I don't think it is worth it for someone like Amazon or Pandora to stay off of
Apple's platform just to give them less leverage, but I agree that they would
have to be upfront about it.

------
quan
I agree with all the points except for the one that believes it's within Apple
right to do whatever they want because it's their hardware and platform. Let's
forget that the hardware really belongs to the iPhone/iPad owners for a
moment, but if it's defensible because it's their platform then it's more
reasonable for Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast to take a cut from all sales and
profits happened via their network. It's their platforms, which took them
decades to build. And surely there's value added when they offer
preferentially faster speed and more secured transaction to whichever
companies agree to pay them. It would be hilarious if an ISP starts demanding
30% cut from every sale Apple makes that originates from their network.

~~~
joe_the_user
Ah,

And _then_ every ISP will demand a cut of every sale that happens on the
Internet part of their network. Finally, the telecos implement some good
natural language processing and demand a cut of every sale you negotiate over
their _voice_ network...

...Their network, their rules...

... that will work well till the Oxygen cartel starts making demands....

~~~
wladimir
Indeed. Whatever happened to "With the internet, we can cut out the
middlemen"? Suddenly, every corporation wants to set up tollboothes along the
way and starts demanding their cut.

If this continues, in small steps, we'll be back at the old way, in which the
content creator gets only a minimal share of the pie, and it's the
distributors that get rich.

I'm all for an open, "flat", neutral infrastructure, so there is no way I'll
be buying any Apple products.

------
toddmorey
I really like how he moves the argument from "Does Apple have the right to do
this?" to "Should Apple do this?" I'm really surprised: this is what I've
always been taught to call bad revenue. I could understand a bit better if
they were a struggling startup looking for any possible profitable business
model, but they are printing money already. I'm left shaking my head here.
Even the folks who often rush to Apple's defense seem to agree this is a
mistake. For me, this is the first time that I've looked around Apple's walled
garden and wanted out.

~~~
joe_the_user
_I'm really surprised: this is what I've always been taught to call bad
revenue._

Interesting. Do you mean it is more like a move to squeeze the last available
dollar out of an existing business rather than a move to grow a business?

~~~
stanleydrew
I am interpreting it more as revenue that actually ends up indirectly costing
you more to obtain than it's worth in the long run, so that you come out net
behind. For instance, this App Store policy will bring in revenue but if
enough developers and customers leave the ecosystem because of it Apple will
end up a net loser.

------
mcritz
Marco’s analysis is sane & pursuasive. It's a much better response than the
Readability team’s rant.

Clear heads will win this fight.

~~~
lukifer
Will they? Many App Store absurdities have been resolved through the squeaky
wheels getting the grease.

~~~
Vivtek
Maybe it's a planned double-whammy.

------
hamrickdavid
I think one very interesting case is services like directv, dish networks,
comcast, tivo etc. They all offer services but their apps are ancillary to the
subscription service that they provide. Does Apple want Directv to offer
subscriptions within the app?

~~~
extension
Only if the content being paid for is delivered through the app. If the app is
just something like a remote control or a channel guide then I'm guessing
Apple would let it slide.

~~~
treblig
It's exactly this issue though. Where's the line on what Apple will "let
slide"? When is something part of the core service of a product?

------
Terry_B
Just so I've got this clear..

If I develop an enterprise ipad application and track down the customers
myself, it is possible to sell to them and take 100% of the revenue still?

I can do this by offering the app for free on the app store and requiring
activation through my own external signup system. However, I must also offer
the option to sign up using Apple's API and Apple taking 30%?

I just need to be on the phone to the customer when they download the app and
ask them politely to not use the Apple method?

~~~
scrod
Why ask them? Just price the Apple-payment-system version 30% higher than your
own and let customers see the difference.

~~~
arn
You can't do this. Apple states you must price it the same.

~~~
oscardelben
Or lower.

------
endtwist
What's going to be interesting to me, now, is whether or not this will cause
developers (more specifically, service and not game developers) to start to
look more seriously at web-only apps, as opposed to native.

You're thinking, "the performance of web apps doesn't at all compare to native
apps," and you're (mostly) right. Web apps tend to feel a bit slower and less
responsive. _But_ if we can get one "hero" (i.e., popular web-only app) then
people will learn to accept/ignore that the performance isn't quite the same
as what they get when they download an app — and that would be good for the
whole mobile web ecosystem.

And, of course, as mobile browsers (fairly quickly) advance, the performance
will increase significantly and the difference will be less noticeable.

~~~
mikeklaas
The problem isn't the performance of mobile apps. We're about to release an
ipad app that could've easily been a webapp—it is 90% implemented via
javascript+HTML, animated with CSS transitions, all in a UIWebView controller.
We do a lot of app-side caching, but I think a sufficiently-motivated
javascript dev could do something similar.

The problem is that by not making it a native app, you're cutting yourself off
from "the way people get apps" for their devices. The app store is a
distribution mechanism that just _can't_ be ignored by a serious mobile
developer.

------
jasonjei
Is it interesting timing that in-app subscription rollout is happening as
Steve Jobs is taking a step back? I wonder if this says anything about the
potential PR fallout to happen that Steve would handle better than most others
just as he did when the iPhone prices were lowered.

~~~
mikeklaas
Considering the main press release quotes Jobs[1], this is unlikely.

[1] “Our philosophy is simple—when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app,
Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new
subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns
nothing.”

~~~
zach
Except that Steve's quote is a good argument for the conservative
interpretation, which says that if you don't use an iOS app as advertisement
for non-App Store payment, nothing changes. Because to me it seems like
there's no necessary IAP option implied and if the publisher isn't using
Apple's means (including the iOS platform itself), it keeps its 100%.

That battle of interpretations rages on, unless I've heard different. It looks
like Marco is taking the liberal interpretation (apps must accept IAP as a
form of payment for any services they offer).

It seems to me this is the underlying debate.

------
kevinburke
Marco didn't mention the possibility that more people would begin to jailbreak
their phones and use Cydia or another site, where Apple can't control the
applications on offer. Am I underestimating the difficulty of jailbreaking an
iPhone and setting that up?

~~~
joebananas
You're overestimating peoples inclination to fuck around with cruddy hacks.
The vast, vast number of iPhone users aren't nerds, and have no desire to
become nerds.

