Slashdot Mirror
Apple To Keep 30% of Magazine Subscription Revenue
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The Guardian reports that Apple has launched a new subscription service for magazines, newspapers and music bought through its App Store, expanding the model developed for Rupert Murdoch's iPad newspaper and will keep 30% of the revenue from subscriptions if the subscription is purchased through Apple. 'Our philosophy is simple – when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30% share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100% and Apple earns nothing,' says Steve Jobs, Apple's chief executive, who is presently taking a medical leave of absence from the company. 'All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same – or better – offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one click right in the app.' Apple's control over its App Store payments plan has long been a cause for concern for content companies. Publishers want to have access to subscriber data which can provide lucrative demographics on which to base advertising campaigns and targeted reader offers. Apple says customers purchasing a subscription through its App Store will be given the option of providing the publisher with their names, email addresses and zip codes. The use of such information will be governed by the publisher's privacy policy rather than Apple's."
Don't forget, Apple only requires that there be an option there, and that if the subscriber exists when they get the app, Apple doesn't expect a cut. I signed up for Netflix first and then downloaded the app much later. Under the terms as described, Apple won't get a cent of my subscription fee.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Who is this 'everybody' you speak of? Best OS? Subjective. Best hardware? Laughable. It's the same commodity hardware EVERY company uses inside a fancy Apply case.
Which is why I explicitly drew the contrast between the original "We host, we handle billing, we manage the storefront: 30%", which was skeezy because of its compulsoriness(no sideloading or competing stores allowed); but was a reasonably square deal, particularly for indies, and the "You Must give us 30% of the take from your own storefront if that storefront interacts in any way with one of the apps that we deign to tolerate" model...
The former case is definitely command and control; no alternatives, cryptographically enforced fiat; but it was a deal: Apple provided hosting, billing, and storefront management in exchange for 30%.
The latter case is pure rent-seeking: Even if you operate your own hosting, storefront, billing, etc.(as Amazon, say, does) it will no longer be allowed to let them access a web page and make a purchase. You will be required to offer it as an in-app purchase(30% cut to Apple) for the same price that you would offer it outside. That, is pure rent seeking. Perhaps your ISP should get a percentage of the online shopping you do? Heck, why doesn't Fedex get a cut of the value of the goods they ship?
Parent can't read his own reference.
Apps that are for charitable donations must be free, and cannot use IAP to get donations. Donations can only be collected via an external website or SMS, meaning they never pass through Apple (and thus a 30% cut is never taken).
See also App Store guidelines, section 21.