Slashdot Mirror
Amazon, Google Cave To Apple, Drop In-App Buttons
CWmike writes "Amazon bowed on Monday to Apple's newest App Store rules, and removed a link in its iPhone and iPad Kindle apps that took customers directly to its online store. The move was required to comply with new rules designed to block developers from evading the 30% cut that Apple takes from in-app purchases. In February, Apple CEO Steve Jobs laid down the law. 'Our philosophy is simple — when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30% share,' said Jobs in a statement released Feb. 15. 'When the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100% and Apple earns nothing.' Rhapsody updated its iPhone app last week to, among other things, remove the in-app subscribing link. Also on Monday, Google complied with Apple's new rules when it re-released Google Books — which had been yanked from the App Store — minus an in-app purchasing button."
Is this an unannounced product?
Customers bowed on Monday to Apple's newest App Store rules, and removed iPhone and iPad from their shopping lists. The move was required to comply with new rules designed to block Apple's competitors from making iDevices worth having.
They have a choice. Pull the app.
Is a Windows PC "Microsoft's platform"? Is your house built by Acme Inc. "Acme's platform"? Do Microsoft and Acme respectively get to choose what appears on your desktop PC and in your house?
Oh wait......my mistake. Carry on.......
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
The only question is, is this the worst thing that Steve Jobs has ever done, or just the worst thing lately?
They get a 30% share? that's nuts. It's a shame that their hardware is such a social status symbol for so many people. Dictator Jobs certainly has a nice scam going on.
this must inhibit new stores like amazon in submitting an app. dose this apply to all app purchases, not just store apps?
restraint of trade? Could someone more sec/lawyered up than I explain this to me?
I just don't get it. Why is it that if Google doesn't want to comply, their only option is to pull the app. But if Google were to strip Apple from it's search engine results, that would be anti-competitive behavior?
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
"Amazon and Google Give Into Apple's Demands; Drop In-App Purchase Buttons"
"The more pity, that fools may not speak wisely what wise men do foolishly" - Touchstone,Shakespeare's "As You Like It"
Because Apple can do no wrong. You must be new here, so I'll forgive your apparent inability to understand Apple's infallibility in all things.
True; they can't just strip Apple from their search engine completely. First, they have to give Apple a chance to sign on to a deal whereby Google gets a 30% cut of any business that they send Apple's way. Seems to be exactly what Apple is doing. If Apple doesn't agree to the 30% cut for the service of Google bringing a new shopper to their site - then they can remove them from the index.
That's an even better solution than pulling the app. Places the onus squarely on Apple.
Like Apple would ever allow that.
Can kiss my ass.
Isn't this like Best Buy putting an escape tunnel in a Walmart that leads to a Best Buy store?
Uh, no. It's like Walmart demanding a 30% cut of anything that you buy online from Best-Buy using the computer you bought from Walmart.
The solution is to charge a premium to iPhone users.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I'd have left the button, but changed the functionality to display a message saying "Sorry, this feature no longer works. You bought an iWhatever, so you'll have to pay 30% more than everybody else because Apple wants their cut."
But then again, I have a tendency to be a dick when people tell me I can't do something.
Math. How does it work? .7X they get (after apple takes .3X) back to 1X.
If Apple wants a 30% cut, and an company wants $X for their application across the board, then they have to adjust the price upward to raise the
You have three way of looking at this: .7X + Y = 1X. Y = .3X. Increase the price by .3X, or 30%. This is wrong, as Apple will tax your price increase by 30%. .7X * Y = 1X. Y = 10/7. Increase the price by a factor of 3/7 (multiply by 10/7). This is correct, and results in a 42.857142...% price increase.
10/7 (price to Apple users) * 7/10 (your cut after the Apple tax) = 1.
You can round (assuming you haven't rounded down any fractions of a cent yet) and say your price is 43% more for Apple users. Not just 30%.
The third way of thinking about it is a flat +30%, then realizing you get taxed on that and doing a +30% of the 30%, and then +30% of 30% of 30%, ... for an infinite summation of the form SUM(n = 1, n -> inf) X * .3^n ... which is the same as 10/7 X.
Because Google holds a majority of the search engine market, making them the market leader, and by restricting (or removing search results from Apple, or any other company for that matter, they would definitely fall into the 'abuse' area of competition, as that could directly impact Apple sales). In contrast, Apple requiring apps to remove links to external app purchases outside of the app store is leveraged against all developers, not just some, and it could easily be considered a justifiable expense. These purchases are still allowed, but this allows Apple to take it's cut. They most likely justify this as a cost of the service itself (bandwidth, storage, distribution, credit transactions, etc), all of which they provide to the developer for a %30 percent cut. For many developers, the price is worth it since they don't have to deal with storage, distribution, credit, etc. Those that don't like it have a healthy market of competition to go to in Android.
http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2080003/May-2011-Search-Engine-Market-Share-from-comScore-Compete-Hitwise
Now Google could do something like prevent iOS apps from being ported into the Google market and rightly so since they pay infrastructure costs to support, distribute, etc.
I would really like to see a major player start promoting jailbreaking in a responsible way. It's completely legal, and they can distribute unsigned applications that do whatever they want without giving anything to apple except the money the consumer gave them when buying the hardware.
I'm so locked in with the apps and games I already have for my iPhone that I'm not going to go to Android any time soon, but I hate the closed platform monopoly. I can take care of loading it on my iPhone, just let me buy the version that doesn't suck because apple is forcing you to cripple it...
You have to charge 42.9% more to Apple-sourced customers to cover the 30% commission and still pocket the same amount yourself.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
So Apple is really the Pope app.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Right. Previously, Apple also outlawed that, where they said the price you offer through the app has to be the same price on your website. They took that part out, so now the theoretical "Apple tax" is actually a real thing. If purchasing something through an iOS app, people should expect to see an extra 30% charge, for Apple's share. It's the price people pay for the convenience of buying things through their iOS apps. Vendors can indicate that the price is lower on their site, but they're not allowed to put a link to their site in the app.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
But Apple has a complete monopoly of the iOS device market. WTF does that have to do with anti-competitive behavior? Technically, Google has close to 0% of the mobile device market. HTC, Motorola, Samsung, etc all have chunks, but Google (with the exception of the Nexus) has very little. Being a monopoly is not a requirement to being charged with anti-competitive business practices last time I checked.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Exactly. No matter how bad of Apple this, Anon hit the target. There are various shades of grey, even when it comes to monopolies.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
ever notice that the recession has been more or less tied to the rise of apple and its iphone?
I just don't get it. Why is it that if Google doesn't want to comply, their only option is to pull the app. But if Google were to strip Apple from it's search engine results, that would be anti-competitive behavior?
Google pulls sites from their search engine all the time. They do so when the rules are violated. Apple does the same thing with their App Store. Neither are anticompetitive behaviors.
Where did you get this idea?
But Apple has a complete monopoly of the iOS device market
By definition, they are allowed to control their own products. That is not called a monopoly. Otherwise the term "monopoly" becomes meaningless, since every company would be a monopoly.
Not using the computer you bought there, but using the catalog. Best Buy can't put an ad in Walmart's circular advertising the product at Best Buy. Amazon can't put an app in Apple's store that leads customers away from Apple.
shut up steve, we're on to you
Um, what? You can buy Kindle books directly from Amazon on iOS, without using In App purchases.
Where did you get this idea?
Oh, silly me. I should have known better to even question Apple's practices. Excuse me while I go and gouge my eyes out now.
Apple makes about 30% profit on their devices. They make 30% profit on apps sold through the app store. Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck? What, having the highest market cap of any technology company is not good enough for them?
You're right, IANAL, but I do have a brain and a sense of right and wrong and my "greedometer" gets pegged just about daily every time Apple makes a move.
I used to think IBM was a greedy corporation, then Microsoft came along and made them look like Ed McMurray. Now, Microsoft looks like like a gentle giant compared to the Apple. One big difference that worries me is that Microsoft seemed to care about the bad press they got and occasionally tried to smooth things over. Apple seem to just give the finger to anyone that complains about their business practices, and yet they manage to maintain a religious following, the likes of which I've never seen in 35 year in the business.
Those old Apple 1984 commercials could not be more ironic.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
And what do you do when you go into a bookstore? Do you not buy books unless the store doesn't add any mark up? How much did you pay for your computer parts at Fry's? I bet you paid more than Fry's paid the manufacturers.
Or what about the Android Market? Do you think Google runs it for free? Or Amazon itself?
And all this whining about Apple, Amazon's pricing policies for books and music have always been as bad, or worse, than Apple's.
Please, Steve Jobs can't fart without someone on here screaming that he's going to patent methane emissions.
Yes, but Amazon aren't allowed to tell people that in their iOS app.
They have no choice, it is Apple's platform after all.
Actually, if I paid for it, isnt it my platform?
Here's my take on it. Apple's greed is amazing to behold. And you have to love the conflict of interest between being owning the platform and also competing with Amazon via iBooks. How is it one company gets to take 30% of the sales of their competitor? Apple, Greed and the Amazon Kindle App http://jimlynch.com/2011/07/25/apple-greed-and-the-amazon-kindle-app/
Jim Lynch
Tech Analyst and Community Manager
How does this give in to Apple's demands? By eliminating the in app subscription/purchase capability, they've actually denied Apple any income from their sales. Seems like they refused Apple's demands, not gave into them.
That would be true if you could buy a computer at Wal-mart that only let you shop Wal-Mart's catalog.
The only reason they're doing this is because they can. But neither their dominance in design nor their trendy fashionabilityy is going to last forever. There's going to come a time in the next 5 years when Apple's going to have to compete more on price. And, people are going to remember how Apple treated people back when..
Apple is milking their pristine brand for all its worth and with a step like this, it's going to sour.
I bought $6K of $AAPL over 10 years ago that's now worth over $150K. Moves like this by AAPL just remind me there's going to come a time in the next 5 years, that I need to sell and get the hell out.
Apple makes about 30% profit on their devices. They make 30% profit on apps sold through the app store. Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck? What, having the highest market cap of any technology company is not good enough for them?
Apple runs the app store (like the regular iTunes store) at near break even levels. [citation] They do it because it sells hardware, not out of any altruism, but claiming Apple's percentage on app sales is exorbitant shows an ignorance about what percentage online retailers normally charge and about Apple's particular numbers. If anything you should be upset that they charge so little and thereby undermine the ability of competitors to get started in the market.
Now, Microsoft looks like like a gentle giant compared to the Apple.
There is certainly a lot of PR to that effect, and it seems like the "in thing" among some people to espouse such opinions. In my opinion, that just demonstrates one's ignorance about MS's business practices. Maybe MS finally figured out effective marketing for their brand image.
It's not Apple's product after it's sold to a customer.
There is a fundamental confusion caused by the fact that Apple is providing the app store service for free to purchasers of the iPhone, who have paid a one-time fee (carrier subsidies are a different matter). Apple is asserting control over the service as if people were subscribing to it for a monthly fee.
Oh, wait, are their customers the consumers who purchase their products, or the developers who write software for their products? Or are they the media companies who sell music and movies on iTunes?
Apple wants all of them to be its customers--it wants to make money from all of them for everything that happens.
It's got to stop somewhere--and it ought to be at the first-sale doctrine. But the practical solution is to support Android instead. On the other hand, if Apple is allowed to get away with this forever, and they keep growing, it may become the accepted norm--or is it already?
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Because Apple can do no wrong, and Google is the antichrist. /sarcasm.
Nathan's blog
The bookstore provides a service. If I'm buying an e-book from Amazon, using the Amazon app, what service is Apple providing? They're trying to add a 30% tax simply because you're buying the e-book using an Apple device. Maybe your car manufacturer should charge you 30% of the cost of every song you listen to while you're driving...
If iOS users want to keep getting milked and locked in, that's their business. But the extra costs of doing business with Apple are going to end up being paid by consumers, and Amazon (and Google, and everyone else) should make it very clear to iOS users that they will be the ones paying that extra cost, not everyone else.
Seems they just have to mark up a little for in app purchases. The free market will do the rest. My landline bill shows the something like 30% cut the government gets. Well, your amazon receipt should show that too imo.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
Couldn't you just have said the formula (X/7)*10 to begin with, then state that it equals ~43% more?
Apple is pushing people in so many directions that someday soon they will find out the answer to this question. Do the apps being on iPhone give Apple power or does Apple owning the iPhone give them power over the apps? In the early days of the iPhone it struggled as simply an iPod with a ton of bugs and lacking features other smartphones had. The creativity of app developers started to create value on the iPhone. Apple's walled garden, on the other hand, has provided app developers a safe place where they are guaranteed to make money on the customers who sign up. But something has to give. I hope it's that Microsoft or Google catch up enough that their offerings become more enticing. Every day Apple becomes more and more demanding of controlling revenue streams is a day they dig their future grave.
Apple runs the app store (like the regular iTunes store) at near break even levels.
And you have the temerity to claim I'm ignorant? Even the citation you give shows that the app store made has contributed $189 Million since it opened. Granted, for a company with its revenues that may be small change, but only a lunatic can claim that a $189 Million profit is "just breaking even". Poor apple. Maybe, we should all chip in to support this charitable organization.
I wonder how many iPhones would have sold if there were no independent apps available for it? I'd credit the apps in the app store at least as much as Apples hardware for catapulting the company to the top of the food chain. True to Apple's image, they stick their finger in the eye of the indy developers that helped make them a success.
AFAIK, Microsoft hasn't changed anything. I still consider them as evil as ever. It's just that Apple has surpassed them on the list of companies I'd like to see burn in hell.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
I don't understand. Why is there no legal opposition to this sort of behavior? When Microsoft did this sort of thing with IE, they got slapped with some really major anti-monopolistic lawsuits.
Before agency, Amazon raped publishers. Apple reversed the numbers when they announced iBooks. Seems everyone forgets this fact. If you are an independent author, you are very happy Apple changed the e-book world.
IIRC, the only companies that make more money than Apple today are oil companies.
So how do you install the Amazon app without going through Apple's store? If you can't, then your analogy has a fundamental flaw. Apple is effectively adding a 30% tax to any item bought while using an iOS app, even if the item isn't made or hosted by them, and even if the app wasn't developed by them.
At least the state builds some roads, pays the police, etc.. Apple is trying to charge a 30% tax on other people's work without giving anything in return. The only people who could possibly defend that are Apple shareholders or terminal fanboys.
Maybe Google should charge Apple 30% of any sales of Apple products found through a Google search (and Google doesn't even have a monopoly on search, unlike Apple, which does have a monopoly on iOS app sales).
People who think Microsoft is greedy obviously never met Steve Jobs.
And you have the temerity to claim I'm ignorant? Even the citation you give shows that the app store made has contributed $189 Million since it opened. Granted, for a company with its revenues that may be small change, but only a lunatic can claim that a $189 Million profit is "just breaking even". Poor apple. Maybe, we should all chip in to support this charitable organization.
First of all the estimates are just that, estimates. Apple does not release the profit numbers from their store only the revenue. Munster has estimated they made $189 million; he also estimated only 1% for storage and delivery. He did even take into account other operating costs and did not take into account capital costs. If you read another report which delved more deeply into the numbers, Munster concedes that he did not factor capital costs.
This does not factor in the roughly $81 million Apple has spent since launch to store and deliver the 4 billion free apps that have been downloaded.
I don't about you but my impression is that building the data centers is not cheap. Since that report, Apple has building data centers for their App Store as well as the iCloud offering for estimates of $1B a piece.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
wish I had bought an Android.
But Apple has a complete monopoly of the iOS device market
By definition, they are allowed to control their own products. That is not called a monopoly. Otherwise the term "monopoly" becomes meaningless, since every company would be a monopoly.
Ummm, I recall Microsoft being called up on antitrust charges because they tried to give preferential treatment to IE on THEIR product and discouraged other browsers. I agreed with the charges at the time because I did think it to be unfair. I guess this doesn't apply to Apple because, well because they're Apple. Praise be to Jobs.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Amazon, google, et al should make apps for the jail-broken market -- they can keep the buttons.
Well, Google controls a much larger portion of a large market. They are in a near-monopoly state. When they do things that are unfair, it is cause for anti-trust investigation. In contrast, Apple is intentionally* limited in their market share. And because of their limits in the market, the impact of their control of their segment of the market is significantly smaller.
The difference is essentially "harms the public" or "harms their portion of the market." In the second case, it is clear and obvious that there is at least one alternative and a place for consumers who don't wish to endure the harm to go. In the first case, there are no other good options.
This isn't side-taking, it's just the way it is.
* I believe, and have believed for quite some time, that Apple keeps itself limited for precisely the reasons which answer your question. Apple wants to continue to make its choices with impunity. If they were to become a market leader, they know they would become a monopoly at some level and then they would be less free to make radical changes, choices or decisions as somewhere within all of that, the "public may be harmed" and antitrust investigations will follow.
Apple is beginning to walk a fine line with its iPhone at the moment. It needs to be less numerous than its competitors (and it is... fewer in number than Android devices collectively) while at the same time wildly popular. They also feel compelled to sue the pants on of any competitors. If they actually put any of their competitors out of business, they run the risk of becoming "the market leader" and will lose their freedom to, shall we say, "innovate."
In order to become an Apple customer, you have to pay in two things: 1. Money 2. Your brain.
Apple didn't bring a new subscriber to the app. The user was already a subscriber that just so happened to have owned an iPhone. They then went and searched out the app, again, because they were already interested, and downloaded it to the phone. The phone is/was a medium. That's like saying Intel/Geil/Seagate/ATI/Asus/Gigabyte all get a cut of my Amazon order because they "brought" me to Amazon today. This would only hold true MAYBE if the app was already on the phone when you bought it, so you tried it out and because hooked. Even then, you got the whole causation/correlation debate.
It's a part of the human condition. Do you not see how blindly the Fox News crowd follows 'their leaders' believing that everything their leaders do is just and right in every case?
I can easily see and identify this type of behavior even if I cannot fully understand or appreciate it. There are certain areas of my brain I cannot simply turn off. These people can and do live without those areas of their brains and they seem quite happy and confident as a result. When I was a kid, I used to cry wishing I could be stupid like the other kids... (I know, there are some here who will say I got my wish... fuck you, I said it first, dumbass.) But I definitely see things differently from the rest of the masses and I see things the masses can't or don't see. I get the impression that there are lots of people on slashdot who have a similar issue with not being able to turn off parts of their brains as well and will see stupidity everywhere they look even and especially when the stupid can't see it for themselves.
...correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that I can make 30% more per sale if I develop for some platform other than Apple?
Of course. You are free to crawl off to some untravelled corner of the internet to die any day you choose.
For Amazon or Netflix obviously they will easily acquire customers through other means. For smaller players 30% is nothing given the HUGE number of iOS users (hundreds of millions now) all with registered credit cards that can buy on a whim.
30% seems excessive but Apple is giving you a huge reach on its platform so it's not like you get nothing in return. Heck, you could grow on Apple and then drop in-app subscriptions when you became large enough to drive traffic to yourself.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't about you but my impression is that building the data centers is not cheap. Since that report, Apple has building data centers for their App Store as well as the iCloud offering for estimates of $1B a piece.
I have no idea how much Apple will pay for their data centers (though 1B apiece seems to be a bit much), but I do know one thing. Apple would not be building them it if it were not expected to be a profitable venture. All I can say is WAKE UP! Apple has passed Microsoft in terms of Market cap. Microsoft employs 93,000 employees, has a widely diverse product line as well as service organizations as well as a fairly profitable gaming division. They provide enterprise software that runs a sizable portion of the worlds businesses and still maintain about 85% marketshare for desktop computers. Microsoft is just about everywhere.
Apple, on the other hand employs about 34,000 employees, has a primary product line of about a dozen desktop or laptop machines, an mp3 player, smartphone and tablet. Yet they were able to surpass Microsoft handily and continue on a rapid rise.
I'm all for companies doing well and it's good to see periodic shakeups in the industry just to keep things fresh, but I can only see one explanation for Apple's meteoric rise and that is an enormous profit margin on all their products. People who purchase a MacBook Pros actually feel good about paying $1300 for a 13" laptop with 250GB drive, 2GB RAM and a dual core CPU. OTOH one can pick up a DELL XPS with 17" display, 750GB drive, 6GB RAM and i7 quad core CPU for the same price. DELL is able to do this and still make a profit (even after paying MS the licensing fee for Win7). I realize that Apple puts it in a prettier box, but it ain't that damn much prettier. And spare me the fanboi rhetoric about how much better OSX is than Win7. That is a pile of steaming BS. I use both on a daily basis (because my work requires it) and I personally prefer the Win7 UI hands down to OSX, but I'm intelligent enough to realize that different people have different tastes (to be perfectly honest, I even prefer Ubuntu to OSX).
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Actually, since Apple takes 30% of what you charge, they'd have to raise their prices on iOS by 42.857% to make the same money that they did before Apple began this campaign of general asshattery. Companies that are on both iOS and Android need to raise their prices and then undertake a cooperative ad campaign about how you have to pay 43% more if you use iOS because Steve Jobs is a greedy bastard.
Though, it is amusing to see how as Android market share keeps growing and iOS has stagnated Apple changes to bullshit like this and suing everyone to try to increase profits.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
IIRC, the only companies that make more money than Apple today are governments.
FTFY
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
I have no idea how much Apple will pay for their data centers (though 1B apiece seems to be a bit much), but I do know one thing. Apple would not be building them it if it were not expected to be a profitable venture.
Google spends about $500M on each of their data centers although their purpose is primarily crawling and their expenses are differently structured. So $1B doesn't seem that far off. Looking at their latest quarterly results, Apple made at most $1.3B in iTunes and app store revenue. At most Apple took in $390M in revenue before accounting for costs including those $1B centers. At the same time, they made $20B in revenue for iPad/iPhone/iPods for a profit of $6B. I would say even if Apple made no money on their stores, $6B is reason enough to keep running them.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I don't know how accounting works in your world but normally when pay for something as huge as a data center it goes to something called "capital costs". That capital cost has to be deducted from any and all revenue before you can show something called "profit". Some capital costs take a long time to pay back. There is the idea that some companies are willing to take a loss on some aspects of their business to make more money on other aspects. It's called "selling razor blades". Considering the huge amount of money Apple makes on their hardware, it seems they are using the reverse of selling the razor for a large amount and selling the blades for little or next to nothing.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
doesn't apple have to give the app the 'apple blessing' with a signed signature before you can put it on an iThingWhateverItIs? If that's the case what about the one that i own? can I not test it on my on tablet without interference? Assuming that mine is NOT jailbroken that is. It seems silly that I should be able to sell my app or give it away to whomever i want who has bought the device and totally circumvent apple through blessing the app and/or through the app store.
Apple makes about 30% profit on their devices. They make 30% profit on apps sold through the app store.
And a brick-and-mortar store often makes anywhere from 50% to 200% profit on stuff sold through their store. Amazon makes money on stuff sold through its store. Google makes money on stuff sold through their outlets.
Every store has its rules and as long as the rules are spelled out and applied evenly then the only question becomes: "Do I want to buy or sell stuff through that store?"
If Apple asks for too much then rest assured they will have people dropping support for the store. If they are asking for the right amount then people will come to the store. There's nothing evil in this, it's pure business. Right now Apple has a lot of people interested in buying stuff through their stores so they can make it a condition to sellers that Apple gets a cut.
And don't think that the 30% is pure profit to Apple. There are development costs for the software running the stores, there are administrative costs, hardware costs, bandwidth costs, etc. In fact, the last time I saw numbers on the stores they weren't turning much of a profit at all, they were meeting costs and making a little bit extra.
As evidenced by the number of people willing to sell through the Apple stores there are a lot of people who think that a 30% cut is a fair price to pay for the benefits of selling through the stores. That should speak for itself.
Sapere aude!
I'd hate for GM to not only tell me who was allowed to ride in my car but also that any burger joint I drove my GM product to had to give Apple a 30% cut of any orders I or my passengers made at their drive-in window.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Brilliant!
> But Apple has a complete monopoly of the iOS device market.
That's like saying that Ford has a complete monopoly on the Mustang market. Technically true; but a straw man at best.
Imagine all the people...
I don't own any Apple devices. Is there a way to buy apps that doesn't go through the Apple app store? If not, I don't see how the following is possible:
When the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100% and Apple earns nothing.
If you can only get the application through Apple (jailbreaking aside), then only Apple can bring new subscribers according to their logic. The above then becomes a sort of red herring.
No, no. You're thinking about it all wrong! Apple's not taking 30%. They're letting the rest of us keep 70%! That's over half, you should be grateful!
Those differences are all about Macs. iOS and the App Store are a very different story. And some Mac users are terrified that Apple might take the lessons learned with the iOS platform and implement them on Macs.
I'm not terrified, but certainly somewhat worried. The Mac is an excellent platform, and the only Apple product I'm willing to pay for, exactly because it is relatively open. As soon as Apple starts locking it down, I'll have to look for an alternative. And simply paying money to Apple already hurts me because of all the crap they pull.
And a brick-and-mortar store often makes anywhere from 50% to 200% profit on stuff sold through their store. Amazon makes money on stuff sold through its store. Google makes money on stuff sold through their outlets.
Every store has its rules and as long as the rules are spelled out and applied evenly then the only question becomes: "Do I want to buy or sell stuff through that store?"
There's one subtle but important difference between the App Store and any other kind of store: When you don't want to sell your stuff through a normal store, you can always look for an alternative, go to the competitor, set up your own store, or whatever. For iDevices, Apple has the only store that can sell stuff for them. There is no alternative, no competitor, and no way to sell your own stuff. If you don't want to sell through their store, you don't get to sell it at all.
Suppose that everything you put into your car, from brake fluid to fluffy dice to toys in the back for the kids, had to be bought at an official Ford dealer. Yes, there are other car brands available, but it's still unreasonably restrictive.
I recall Microsoft being called up on antitrust charges because they tried to give preferential treatment to IE on THEIR product
I know you know this bit, but just for clarity's sake (because a lot of people here don't seem to know why Microsoft are so hated): Microsoft's product was effectively the only product in that market, giving them an actual monopoly. Monopolies aren't bad per se, unless the company that has the monopoly starts to use their position to destroy competition. Microsoft were definitely abusing their position, and that is why they were slapped. The IE bundling wasn't their first serious abuse of power either (if you're interested, also see: DR-DOS problems running Windows 3, the Disk Stacker compression tool, their secret use of APIs for their own software (like scatter-read in NT for SQL Server), something about Word Perfect (I forgot what that was though), bullying OEMs in to not shipping non-MS operating systems on PCs).
The reason it doesn't apply to Apple now is because Apple do not have a monopoly on anything, smart phones included. What share of the smart phone market do Apple have? It's certainly less than the 90% or so that they'd need to be considered a monopoly. If Apple make a serious error of judgement (like you could argue they have with this no-links rule), the theory is that there are enough options on the market that if people really care they can buy an alternative. And there are alternatives and people who don't like Apple are buying them, so it seems the free market is working.
Exactly. And what about the people who buy an iPad with the explicit purpose in mind to use it to access a specific publisher's content? Shouldn't Apple be paying that publisher 30% of the price of the iPad, by that logic?
They took a lesson learned from iOS and brought the app store to the Mac, including the policy that allows installation on multiple devices. Then they dramatically slashed prices for their own software that they sell through the app store. What's so bad about that?
There's one subtle but important difference between the App Store and any other kind of store: When you don't want to sell your stuff through a normal store, you can always look for an alternative, go to the competitor, set up your own store, or whatever.
If you're an informed consumer then you know that's the case when you buy an iDevice. You'll either have to use Apple's stores or jailbreak. If you're fine with that then an iDevice is just the thing for you.
If you're not an informed consumer then caveat emptor. You always have the option of returning the device and buying another brand that better fits how you want to use it.
Suppose that everything you put into your car, from brake fluid to fluffy dice to toys in the back for the kids, had to be bought at an official Ford dealer. Yes, there are other car brands available, but it's still unreasonably restrictive.
That's not a reasonable analogy, even if it is the obligatory car analogy. iDevices have a pretty good web browser that can provide all sorts of content and services and they can also use music, videos, books, and other documents from other stores. I have tons of stuff that I bought from other sources that work just fine on my iPhone so it's not as complete of a lock-in as it's often made out to be.
Sapere aude!
Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck?
By your own statement, that 'someone else' makes 70%, with no marketing or distribution cost whatsoever.
I think you forgot that Apple is a for-profit enterprise, with public shareholder backing. If they aren't doing everything they can within the law to maximize their shareholder investment, then the management should be fired.
This applies to all corporations, private equity firms, and small businesses the world over. Right or wrong, it's called capitalism; you might have heard of it.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
It's not Apple's product after it's sold to a customer.
Doesn't Apple generally disagree with that assertion these days?
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
>> but I do know one thing. Apple would not be building them it if it were not expected to be a profitable venture.
But we all agree that it is a profitable venture: it increases the value proposition of the ecosystem and thereby helps to sell more hardware, which is where the money is.
The poster to whom you were responding alluded to this. What he or she argued was your assertion that the App Store is run for direct profit. In other words, that most of that 30% goes to pay the cost of doing business.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
There's one subtle but important difference between the App Store and any other kind of store: When you don't want to sell your stuff through a normal store, you can always look for an alternative, go to the competitor, set up your own store, or whatever.
If you're an informed consumer then you know that's the case when you buy an iDevice. You'll either have to use Apple's stores or jailbreak. If you're fine with that then an iDevice is just the thing for you.
If you're not an informed consumer then caveat emptor. You always have the option of returning the device and buying another brand that better fits how you want to use it.
Returning something you bought over a month ago is generally not that easy. And with Apple changing its conditions like this, I doubt anyone really knew in advance what was coming.
I've gone to web sites on my iphone and had them pop up "install my app" messages. These tend to be free, but if one were a paid app, would Apple still get their cut?
Considering markup in a retail store is more towards 40-50% than 30% AND you have a much larger audience with an App store AND you have much lower overhead costs, the 30% is looking like a bargain. Once you Apple haters on slashdot realize this, you'll start to understand Apple's huge profits as of late.
While I think this policy is going to end up shooting Apple in the foot, your analogy does not fit. If Apple pulled Google apps from the App Store then it would be like Google pulling Apple from search results. The analogy you provided was a bit apples to oranges (pardon the pun).
As long as Google earns revenue by selling ads to me, then yes, they are the antichrist.
As it turns out Google already does this with Adwords. But of course it's okay when Google sends business your way and takes a cut, right?
I wish there was a filter where I could automatically block anyone who says Apple has a monopoly on (itunes, iphone, ipad, app store, etc.). It would be great to automatically filter out those posters who are too stupid to understand what a monopoly is, let alone make an intelligent comment.
Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck? By your own statement, that 'someone else' makes 70%, with no marketing or distribution cost whatsoever.
I think you forgot that Apple is a for-profit enterprise, with public shareholder backing. If they aren't doing everything they can within the law to maximize their shareholder investment, then the management should be fired.
This applies to all corporations, private equity firms, and small businesses the world over. Right or wrong, it's called capitalism; you might have heard of it.
Yep. I've heard of it, perhaps you should learn about it rather than repeating untruths. First, the reality is that there is no legal requirement for corporations to maximize shareholder value. The only legal obligations corporations have to their shareholders is what they specify in their shareholder agreement (their so-called list of objectives). Their list of objectives can be any (legal) objective at all. Obviously most for-profit corporations do seek to maximize shareholder value because it they don't, their management will get canned by the shareholders. However, that's not even the reason for my objection. There are many ways corporations can go about pursuing the goal of increasing shareholder value. There is no legal requirement that Apple screw indy developers and squeeze them to the point where there is no profit to be made, simply because the app store already has enough apps to push their hardware, they don't really give a damn it there are any more. There are intangible items such as good will toward the developers that create the apps that make people want to purchase your product.
Second, if I perceive a corporation is abusing it's position or just being a dick by implementing draconian policies, I have the right (maybe even obligation) to speak out as loud as I can in hopes that enough people will see it, agree with it and raise enough hell it so the corporation changes their position. Maybe you're OK with their policies and that's fine. I'm not, and I intend to make that known as loudly as I can.
If Apple added the following to their EULA, I suppose you'd be just fine with it.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Aside from the fact that your assertion is false that every article claims every apple product is running at break even levels, let's look at your next stupid statement, that you "don't care what your citation states". Why bother to discuss the topic with you if you insist on staying on your mountain of ignorance?
$189 million over 4 years? That's a far cry from the 30% profit my doom and gloom was espousing. Hence the term "near" break even levels. While that seems like a ton of money to most people, it is not the cash cow the haters make it out to be. The App store generates some income, but it's main purpose is being part of the ecosystem that sells the hardware.
You might want to revisit your numbers and see how healthy Dell is nowadays. It's a sinking ship.
And spare me your fanboi rhetoric about how OS X being better than Win 7 is a pile of steaming BS. And spare me your fanboi rhetoric about how you prefer the Win 7 UI or Ubuntu. That's a pile of steaming BS too!
Let's look at Amazon/Kindle.
The price in the store of the app is $0. That makes Apple's share of the app revenue also $0. Further, purchases for the Kindle are outside of the App Store. That means Apple's share of any purchase is also $0. Yet Apple reviews and hosts the app.
Why should Amazon be able to duck any form of paying Apple for the hosting? Why is Apple the only one being greedy here, and not Amazon as well?
Exactly what share of the money was Amazon offering?
I think letting them continue without a link is actually pretty generous on Apple's part. It isn't like Apple's seeing a penny out of this app. No more people are buying an iPad for reading Amazon books than, say, web surfing or Angry Birds HD.
Because Apple does allow purchases outside of the App Store, just as long as the developer also allows purchases inside the App Store. I've got several applications that do this. (Very consumer friendly, too: Content I bought years ago for Palm OS was available to me on my iPhone.)
is why I don't own an iPhone.
It's like Samsung getting 30% of my purchase when I call in to purchase a RonCo product I saw on TV.
They control what you can do in all aspects except making basic phone calls. They would control that but their are regulation in place to prevent that type of behavior. Fucking digital robber barons.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Hmm. They don't have a monopoly on app stores, but they're trying to legally enforce a monopoly on App Store (tm).
I hate to keep pointing out the obvious, but you Apple fanbois just don't get it. Apple makes tons of money off their hardware (otherwise they wouldn't be in the #1 technology company position now would they?). Part of the reason they are successful in doing so is because there are so many apps for their devices. If I'm a customer trying to decide whether to buy an Android or iOS device, a large part of my criteria is what apps are available it. If the Android device has an app to let me purchase and read Amazon/Kindle books (and I happen to really enjoy that service) but iOS doesn't have that app, I might be inclined to go with Android rather that iOS. It's not about being generous, it's about encouraging app developers (including the big guys like Google and Amazon) to create an app for the iOS platform so customers will purchase more Apple devices. I have no doubt at all that Apple has actually done more damage to their bottom line by adopting these types of policies than they can ever hope to make up by squeezing developer or content providers for a piece of their action. In fact, Apple's policies are probably one of the main reasons for the success of Android.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
So, we've moved on to the personal insult stage? Thanks, but I'll keep above that line.
The Kindle app is all but meaningless to Apple sales. Nobody buys an iPad for Kindle. They buy an iPad for dozens of apps they want. Kindle app? Bonus to customer. But fewer iBooks sales. Loss to Apple.
If customers care about the Kindle, they buy a Kindle.
Apple doesn't care if you buy an iPad and a Kindle. The Kindle app adds not a penny to Apple's revenue.
Paying for advertising is completely different than paying for the right to sell from a program that you wrote.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
That's not "bringing customers to the app" though. That's a purchase despite the app. My question is specifically how a publisher can get an app and a customer together without the app store or jailbreaking.
Maybe I'm missing something in what you're saying.
If that is sufficiently true across a sufficiently large number of jurisdictions, then things will gradually (say, overnight) change so that you'll not be able to buy an iPhone 4 (or whatever the next generation will be ; I stopped counting when they started putting numbers on the things), but you'll only be able to lease them.
Which would you, as Jobs, prefer? $450 once and not having the heart and soul of your customer for ever and eternity, or $35/month for 15 months, the heart and soul of the lessor for those 15 months, plus the ability to (legally) brick the phone at the end of the 15 months (in the process fucking them over for daring to think un-iThoughts). Unless the lessor has already signed up for an iPhone 4.5 on an 18 month contract.
I don't know which countries that ruling applies, but it's easy to circumvent: don't sell your device to anyone, just lease the machines via leasing agents. If the agent gives their customer the mistaken impression that the customer has brought, say, an iLeash, then that's a matter between the agent and the lessor-under-the-misapprehension-that-he's-a-purchaser.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
This has always been Apple's business model. In the past they did the same thing with their computer business. If you want to make an application to run on our computers you owe us a cut. So all programmers went over to pc / dos. No cut. Fast forward and pc / windows has major market share of the business. They lost the computer war doing this business practice. Why do they think its going to work again this time? I expect we will be seeing history repeating its self.
love the taste, hate the texture
Would there be anything left on /. with that filter?
I think it's likely we're not quite understanding each other, yeah.
Yes, excluding jailbreaks apps come through Apple's App Store. However, they can be free. Apple will approve free applications. And you can purchase content from within or without the App Store. This "greed" question comes down to purchase of content in free apps. (Presumably, it would come up in paid apps offering content outside of the App Store, too, but there's been little gnashing of teeth over that)
Apple doesn't consider use of the app "bringing the customer." Let's pretend there's a newspaper Xyz with an app. Apple doesn't consider just downloading and using the app to be Apple bringing the customer to the deal. Apple considers using in-app purchase to be Apple bringing the customer to the purchase. By the same token, Apple would consider the customer purchasing the paper from Xyz's web site to be Xyz bringing the customer to the purchase.
What Apple doesn't want is for the Xyz iPhone app to provide a link in the iPhone app in lieu of in-app purchase. Apple would view that as Xyz taking Apple's share for customers Apple is bringing to the deal. In app purchase and on-site purchase? Fine. On-site purchase from the website, even on the iPhone, so long as the app didn't send them to the site for the purchase? Fine. On-site purchase with a link from the app and no in-app purchase? Not fine.
I haven't signed up with Apple to be an iOS developer, so I can't answer most of those questions. From what I understand it, the only legitimate way to distribute your application to the public is through Apple's store and, yes, you need their approval to do so. I believe the Apple development kit includes a simulator to test it on the various platforms, rather than a way to load it to your device directly. That's complete speculation on my part though.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I get all that. It's pretty much inline with my perceptions about how Apple operates regarding in-app purchasing.
My point was, how does a seller bring "a customer to the app" in any meaningful sense in terms of Apple's analogy to Apple bringing a customer and getting a 30% cut. They're talking about an app transaction in their case specifically, and in the same breath describing the alternative of a company bringing a customer to the app. That seems to implicitly mean a transaction could occur in the latter case without the 30% Apple tax while also involving the app for the purchase. I don't get the mechanics of that, unless it's a lie of omission.
It's not Apple's product after it's sold to a customer.
Apple aren't selling the store to anyone. The App Store remains Apple's. The iOS device is the user's, free to do with as they please. The consumer cannot expect Apple to help them using it in other ways than what Apple prefers though. Heck, for the first months after the iPhone was released there was no App Store, Apple telling developers they should make HTML5 webapps.
Android? You mean the 99% pirated app platform? Made by Google, whose customers are the advertisers? Modified by vendors and operators to add distinct features since every sale of an Android device is a lost sale for the other vendors?
And since Microsoft are busy copying Apple's practices for their WP7 platform I guess "accepted norm" is the right answer.
They make 30% profit on apps sold through the app store. Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck?
Where do you get that 30% figure from? They take a 30% cut from paid apps, but that does not in any way shape or form relate to any profit percentage.
(As does Goole's Android Marketplace by the way - Amazon only charges 10% but then they get to set the price.)
You seem to be in the "companies should be non-profit" camp, but fact is that most are in it for the money. If you do not like it you are free to pick a different platform to develop for, instead of acting like Wal-Mart has a duty to let you open a stall in their supermarkets.
To the general public? Yes. To other developers? No, you can just zip the project and they can unpack, change an identifier value and use it with their wildcard provisioning profile. There are also options open to businesses to have "inhouse" distribution to known devices, and mass-purchase of apps (this latter is recent). And you can install provisioning profiles on your friends' devices to let them use your apps as well (but they need to let you install the apps for them IIRC).
No, because the customers can register and purchase subscriptions at a website (for instance). Case in point: I can log in to Zinio.com, start a subscription, and the iPad Zinio app will download the subscribed magazine. It is just more convenient to do it through the app and Apple's payment system instead of having yet another place where I have a credit card on file (or having to re-enter that info on every purchase).
Registering at Zinio.com, marvel.com etc. and then using the iOS apps means Apple did not bring the customer for the rule's purposes.
Well, it is your hardware, to do with as you please. You did not buy the App Store or the other Apple services.
Yours. But Apple's services and the rules laid out for developers are unrelated to your device.
Since company A (Amazon) obviously sees a business benefit from using the market of company B (Apple), company A should reimburse company B for the benefit. Do you think companies are in it for the profit of others?
Well, you really knocked the hell out of that straw man you constructed. Good job.
What I said: Apple is using every legal avenue they have to increase profits
What you seem to think I said: Apple is under a legal obligation to increase profits in every conceivable way
To reiterate, I never said that Apple has some legal obligation to chisel as much money from everyone as possible, rather that it's just in their best interests to do so under all legal avenues available to them, with an eye towards the future to make sure they don't piss off all their repeat business.
This lesson in english comprehension has been brought to you by Slashdot.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Then they dramatically slashed prices for their own software that they sell through the app store. What's so bad about that?
Gee, that gives them an unfair advantage over its competitors. Apple raise your prices! Apple is too cheap! Just like when they had to fight of those iPad scalpers - those iPads were much too cheap! It's time the government stepped in and forced Apple to raise their prices!
Fandroids hate facts.
As long as Google earns revenue by selling ads to me, then yes, they are the antichrist.
If that was the only thing they sold: http://scripting.com/stories/2011/07/25/whyGoogleCaresIfYouUseYour.html
"There's a very simple business reason why Google cares if they have your real name. It means it's possible to cross-relate your account with your buying behavior with their partners, who might be banks, retailers, supermarkets, hospitals, airlines. To connect with your use of cell phones that might be running their mobile operating system. To provide identity in a commerce-ready way. And to give them information about what you do on the Internet, without obfuscation of pseudonyms.
Simply put, a real name is worth more than a fake one. "
Fandroids hate facts.
I don't own any Apple devices. Is there a way to buy apps that doesn't go through the Apple app store? If not, I don't see how the following is possible:
When the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100% and Apple earns nothing.
If you can only get the application through Apple (jailbreaking aside), then only Apple can bring new subscribers according to their logic. The above then becomes a sort of red herring.
That's about existing services an app gives access to, like a newspaper site, or Hulu. It makes sense once you think about it - which rules out Apple haters, but there you go.
Fandroids hate facts.
I'm not an Apple hater, - simply have no reason to purchase any of their products. I am truly puzzled how Apple can claim there is a method to purchase in-app wherein the publisher retains all revenue from a customer brought to the app by a publisher.
The topic is about purchasing through an app, either by linking (which is now banned) or by direct purchase through the app. Ergo, the statement is meant to imply the publisher has some method to retain 100% revenue through in-app purchasing if they bring the customer. How is this accomplished without jailbreaking? That's the beginning and end of my question, which has yet to be answered by anyone.
The bookstore provides a service. If I'm buying an e-book from Amazon, using the Amazon app, what service is Apple providing?
They provided the iPhone, the App store, and the APIs Amazon used to create an app for which they have paid Apple nothing but the $99 a year, and make millions of. They have made the iPhone open, so Amazon could do all this - unlike Amazon with the Kindle, try buying an app for that. Heck, they created the whole app thingy - try to imagine a Kindle Java Application for your Nokia Nxyz.
Fandroids hate facts.
ever notice that the recession has been more or less tied to the rise of apple and its iphone?
Did you write this gem? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2015720742_brier25.html
Fandroids hate facts.
http://www.tipb.com/2011/04/19/apple-sold-187-million-ios-devices/
187 million devices. I agree that I said "Users", that was not quite right... but the user base is probably approaching 100 million as not many people would have more than two iOS devices.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Returning something you bought over a month ago is generally not that easy. And with Apple changing its conditions like this, I doubt anyone really knew in advance what was coming.
Considering the fact that Apple said the conditions were changing back in February and 5 months later these app makers are changing their apps, I'd say there was plenty of advance warning.
Besides, you can always sell off the device if you are past the grace period.
Anyways, like I said: caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. If you don't do your research before you buy anything then you're stuck with what you've bought. Apple has been pretty open about the direction they are going in regards to how stuff is billed in their stores, a modicum of research would have informed a person as to what type of device they were buying.
Sapere aude!
I think calling it a lie of omission might be reaching a bit, but sure. The app purchase itself is 70-30. That's why so many companies make the app free and try to charge for things the app needs or uses outside of the store, so they don't need to share a penny of it with Apple.
I can't believe they backed down on that then. You can't install the kindle software except through the app store (or by being a nerd); so in return apple gets a 30% cut of your revenue if you have the nerve to sell the next book in the app itself? Fuck Apple.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
The comment wasn't about purchasing apps though. It was about purchasing through apps. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense in the context of an article about removing links in apps that circumvent direct in-app purchasing.
Apple said if they direct a consumer to purchase through an app, they deserve a 30% commission, but if publishers get a person to the app without Apple's help, the publisher gets 100% revenue from the purchase. Given Apple's walled-garden approach, I don't see how the latter is possible without jailbreaking, hence my question.
Actually, even if it was about directly purchasing apps, you still have to jailbreak or go through Apple's "Apple brings the customer process." I'm really trying to find out if there is a mechanism for installing and purchasing through apps that does not require either jailbreaking or using Apple's app store. If there's not a mainstream process for that, the statement really is a lie of omission, since you wouldn't be able to do app purchasing without Apple claiming to bring the customer. I want to know if there's actually a method that exists to allow purchasing through the publisher's direction, without being subject to the Apple tax. The statement by Apple clearly implies there is a method to do so, otherwise there would be no case in which a developer is not subject to their tax. If the latter is true the statement is clearly misleading. If not, what method other than jailbreaking allows the installation and in-app purchasing that is not subject to Apple's control.
Hopefully I've stated the thing enough different ways to get across what I'm trying to find out. I know the above is full of redundancies. :)
No, that helped. What you mean has clicked now. :)
Yes, developers can avoid sharing by making the purchases available on their web site and having the iOS app use the purchase. They're just not allowed to provide a link in the application to that web site.
If the developer provides both In App Purchase and off website purchase, Apple would get a 30% split of the In App Purchase only, and nothing of the off website purchase. Of course, all other things most users would probably do In App Purchase. Kindle's probably an exception, since one of Apple's rules is (was?) that In App Purchase can only handle things on iOS. If you want to make that resource available to a user's account on other devices, it's got to be off a website.
Disclaimer: I'm an app developer that uses this loophole, though our last update was long enough ago that we still have a link. (Possibly also because we're too small to worry about, I don't really know.) I still don't like it. :)
30% Apple cut will have to be paid out of the Customer's pocket, and that shows how middle men or agents in the market squeeze percentage and make the price higher. In a way Apple may be right as the manufacturer, but ultimately, the customers suffer for all this.
From the article: " when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app"
Eh, the way I see it, Apple didn't bring a new subscriber, the app brought a new subscriber, which Apple had nothing to do with.
Apple thinks it owns you and your phone which is why I use android!