Ruh-roh!
“Music streaming service Rhapsody today blasted Apple’s decision to take a 30% cut of all in-app subscription and content revenues, saying that the move makes its iPhone business model unsustainable.
The Seattle-based company was the first to publicly express its displeasure with Apple’s announced rules changes, which not only spelled out the 30% revenue cut, but also require content sellers to delete links to outside-app sales sites, and offer the same or lower prices for in-app purchases as they do for subscriptions or content bought elsewhere.
(snip)
In his statement yesterday, Irwin also said, “We will be collaborating with our market peers in determining an appropriate legal and business response to this latest development,” a comment that some interpreted as threatening to sue Apple.”
Wow, has Apple finally overplayed its hand?
Has the garden’s wall developed a crack?
Why can’t publishers pass on savings to the customer when Apple doesn’t take a 30% skim?
Are these terms and conditions even legal? They sound like anti-competitive price-fixing.
Of course, none of this will stop iPeople from buying Apple devices. Even with pricey educations, fat bank accounts, and the best messed-up hair money can buy — iPeople still spend money like rappers with their first royalty check on “look at me” image products.
That being said, it looks like Apple may have hit its first point of dissent among content publishers, and it’s about goddamn time.
Hold muh beer, this could get interesting.
I saw this today, not sure how it will work out for them.
I already consider them hostile to indy developers, at $1000 for a computer to be able to code for iOS that put me out of the game. I considered it, but never could talk myself into spending that much for a hobby computer.
Android is where it is at and developers are learning this. There is a lot of growing that needs to happen but with alternative market places already going strong no one would dare screw devs with fees like this.
Here is Google’s version here
If Apple took 10% rather than 30% of subscription revenue, would that be ok? Is your issue with the fact that they are skimming revenue for use of their platform, or the fact that they are skimming 30%? I understand that Google is skimming 10% of subscription revenue for apps on their android platform.
It’s not just the 30% (which seems very high for a transaction fee), it’s the fact that Apple is fixing prices.
For instance, if you want to offer a 30% discount to people who subscribe from your own website (essentially passing on the Apple tax savings to the customer), you are not allowed. By putting content in the App Store, Apple wants to control what you do outside of the App store … on your own website.
Apple can charge what it wants in it’s own walled garden. When they try to expand the wall of that garden to your personal property, however, they have overreached.
Apple explicitly stating that you cannot distribute your content in a cheaper, competing way may be illegal.
This scheme will probably see a courtroom, as well it should.
Understand. So then I take it that you also object to Google’s 10% skim for subscriptions on their Android platform too?
Judging from your question, I don’t think you do understand.
Some cut for a transaction fee is obviously necessary, and yes, 10% is still probably a bit high (Visa and MC charge about 3%), but you’ve missed the larger issue. The legal issue.