I was almost completely buying into the theme park and pizza concession analogy. But then I thought of the one exception. You're allowed to buy Amazon pizza outside of the park and bring it in for free, but only if Amazon has agreed to set up a pizza shop inside the park as well.
And I think that's the key point of contention. I don't mind Apple taking a 30% cut of anything I sell from within my app. And I don't mind when they make an editorial decision and make me remove offensive or inappropriate functionality from my app. But compelling me to add or implement functionality in my app or be rejected, that's contentious for me.
I'm really curious what the status would be of third-party content applications. Let's say that Amazon exposed reading functionality in a Kindle Web API but not purchasing functionality. So I implement an iOS application called kReader which can read Kindle books.
I wonder where I'd fall in Apple's rule restrictions then, since I'm not offering anything for sale either in-app or out-of-app.
I agree with the difference you point out, however Apple does not bar free content. So if you're in the business of giving pizza away, you are free to have your customers take their pizza into the Apple theme park without setting up shop within the park.
As you point out, you are required to set up a shop within the park if you also have a shop outside the park.
There's a lot more lock-in with a phone than there is with a theme park. If I go to Disneyland and I don't like any of the restaurants there (which is the case), I can just eat at the Denny's across the street. A more apropos comparison would be North Korea.
Again, if Apple allowed apps from outside the App Store on iOS devices, none of this would be that much of a problem. You could still sell to these people, but you just wouldn't be going through Apple to do it. Apple is essentially abusing its monopoly position in the mobile app market combined with its control of the phone itself to strong-arm money out of people.
Just so people understand my position: I've used Apple products almost exclusively since 1984. My primary computer is a MacBook Pro, and my phone is an iPhone 3GS. I'm not the sort of person who loves hating on Apple. But this really is nothing more than Apple being exactly the sort of bully Microsoft was in the '90s, and I don't like it.
I never said you should like it. I hope that my post conveys the idea that I don't like Apple or Amazon's approach to locking people into content like books.
I think it is a great analogy because it also points out the value of the "theme park" to the consumer: they feel safe with the vendors within it. In a lot of ways, that 30% is paying not just for Apple's e-commerce, but Apple's stamp of approval.
My bet: Amazon and Apple will spend a lot of time posturing and then will suddenly go quiet. Amazon (and the other "big names", who don't benefit from Apple's name) will end up paying a smaller fee. Everyone else will pay their 30%.
Also, you have to remember that the face value of "Apple$" is not 1:1. Around here (Australia) you can generally get iTunes cards at "20% off", which makes them a better mechanism for the consumer than paying by credit card, but which must be cutting into Apple's 30%.
(most) Everyone is aware of the situation and understands the risks -- it does not mean they cannot complain about the margin cut killing their business or the requirement to enforce the margin cut for content both in and out of the app store (even when said content is not linked to by the app).
I dont see how giving away things for free is relevant.
Absolutely complain, you always have that right. I am just saying that I consider most of the barking about this to be the Lion arguing with the Cheetah about how to divvy up the Antelope's flesh.
Don't restaurants inside theme parks charge more for their food than outside? Maybe I'm wrong and have been visiting the wrong theme parks but that has been my experience.
They can get away with it because once you're inside the theme park, it's convenient to buy your food in there, instead of hauling it in from outside.
And I think that's the key point of contention. I don't mind Apple taking a 30% cut of anything I sell from within my app. And I don't mind when they make an editorial decision and make me remove offensive or inappropriate functionality from my app. But compelling me to add or implement functionality in my app or be rejected, that's contentious for me.