Apple Launches Subscription Service

[Marcus Yam]

Getting the iScriptions... or iSub?

Apple Launches Subscription Service : Read more

 

[Benihana]

"The use of such information will be governed by the publisher’s privacy policy rather than Apple’s."

Yeah, I thought it wasn't Apple's policy as they did not ask for SSN.

 

[kewlx]

“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,”

So what happens to the amount of the share when a new subscriber joins or rebuys??

 

[saiyan]

Based on what most new articles have explained, Apple's guideline requires publishers' apps to provide in-app option for purchasing subscription if they also provides external links for customer to purchase subscription on publishers' web sites.

That means customers have to ways to purchase subscriptions:

1) In-app purchase: In this case Apple gets 30% of revenue share and publisher gets 70%.

2) Web purchase: Apple gets 0% and publishers keep 100% of revenue.

Now the question is will iOS users use in-app purchase option or click on a link to open a browser to publishers' web sites for subscription purchase?

 

[kewlx]

Now the question is will iOS users use in-app purchase option or click on a link to open a browser to publishers' web sites for subscription purchase?

Probably only those that are lazy will do the apple way cuz it doesn't hurt them but for those of us that know this will probably try to help the DEV out more than apple

 

[eddieroolz]

What's the point of paying for subscription (for news and etc) when it's available at your fingertips on the web?

 

[hoofhearted]

I see a ton of MMORPGs coming out and using this.

 

[maestintaolius]

The way this article is presented makes it seem like this is a 'new feature' when, based on other articles it sounds a heck of a lot more like a money grab by apple. Apple is insisting that all apps with web or other outside purchasing methods (such as b+n ebooks, magazine subscriptions, etc) also have the in-app purchases (which apple gets a 30% cut). Also, the app developers are required that the in-app purchases be the same price as the web purchases so dev's can't raise the price to make up for the 30% loss to apple.

 

[tntom]

This is not going to last as seen from the all the developers in an uproar and threatening to leave App Store.

Example: "Developer A" makes a subscription based music streaming app for both iOS and Android. It costs $5/mon. Developer makes $2 while the other $3 goes to royalties, development, server maintenance, etc. Since Apple forbids providing a link or referring customer to your site to make payments, then Apple gets $1.50 leaving $0.50 for the developer. But on Android the Developer makes his entire $2.

But if he increases the price for the iOS app he has to increase the price for the Android App as per Apple's policy. Which then in turn prices his app too high to compete. Then Apple starts offering same service themselves and keeps 100% of the money.

The only logical choice for a Developer, is to either support Android only or to have two products under different names and different prices for both platforms. Only charging 30% more for the iOS version to recoup Apple tax.

 

[maestintaolius]

[citation][nom]tntom[/nom]This is not going to last as seen from the all the developers in an uproar and threatening to leave App Store.Example: "Developer A" makes a subscription based music streaming app for both iOS and Android. It costs $5/mon. Developer makes $2 while the other $3 goes to royalties, development, server maintenance, etc. Since Apple forbids providing a link or referring customer to your site to make payments, then Apple gets $1.50 leaving $0.50 for the developer. But on Android the Developer makes his entire $2. But if he increases the price for the iOS app he has to increase the price for the Android App as per Apple's policy. Which then in turn prices his app too high to compete. Then Apple starts offering same service themselves and keeps 100% of the money. The only logical choice for a Developer, is to either support Android only or to have two products under different names and different prices for both platforms. Only charging 30% more for the iOS version to recoup Apple tax.[/citation]
Well, kinda, from how I understand it, you're still allowed to have a link that leads to your site for purchases. However, apple also requires that you also have a button/function within the app that also does the purchases in-app and at the same price as the website. The big catch is that for the one-click in app process the dev loses 30% to apple.

Apple also expressly forbids charging different prices (unless the in-app purchase is cheaper) for the out of app purchases so devs can't up the cost 43% (1.43 * 0.70 = 1.001) to recoup the apple 30%. They also state that everything you can purchase outside the app also requires it be offered in app which makes me wonder about legacy issues and continuing subscriptions such as netflix (i.e. does apple deserve a cut of fee from someone who's been using netflix for 5 years just because they happened to use a netflix app?).

Apple seems to be implying the apps sell stuff because they're on the iPhone; of course, one could also argue that the iPhone sells because of the apps available. Chicken, meet egg; egg, meet chicken. Personally, I tend to side with the devs, without the apps, the iphone is just another smartphone with a high gloss finish.

 

[dokidoki]

@tntom

Er.. I believe you have your numbers backwards. It's $1.50 for the Developer and $0.50 for Apple, not the other way around, if we follow your example.

And where are you getting this 'fact' that Apple will just offer the same service themselves and pocket 100% of the cash? They're not a news service nor do they offer any subscription-based games.

 

[tntom]

@dokidoki

Er.. I believe you have your numbers backwards. It's $1.50 for the Developer and $0.50 for Apple, not the other way around, if we follow your example.

And where are you getting this 'fact' that Apple will just offer the same service themselves and pocket 100% of the cash? They're not a news service nor do they offer any subscription-based games.

$1.50 is 30% of $5.00 and it is just a theoretical example.

And I should have said "If Apple decided to create a competing service," they would have more than an unfair advantage cost wise because they wouldn't have to lose the 30%. But it is a moot point as Apple sometimes does not allow competing apps anyways.

@maestintaoliu

Well, kinda, from how I understand it, you're still allowed to have a link that leads to your site for purchases.

Atleast they are allowing links for developers to some extent. Unfortunately the vast majority will use the most convenient option.

Also Google just announced their One Pass subscription service with a 10% fee. I'm not sure how their fine print compares to Apples though.

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]What's the point of paying for subscription (for news and etc) when it's available at your fingertips on the web?[/citation]

You will get exclusive propaganda from news corp.

 

[Guest]

There is a loophole... Raise price 40% then offer a 40% coupon on the site good for either purchase option. Since to see the coupon they have to already be on the site, buying from there suddenly becomes easier and for peeps that click the button in-app without going to the site, Apple tax is covered. The link in-app can even say "Visit our site for the latest offers and discounts!"

 

[WyomingKnott]

"An Apple a day..."