Apple May Provoke Anti-Trust Issues With New App Store Subscription Policy

[rawhog]

"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," said Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs. "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. We believe that this innovative subscription service will provide publishers with a brand new opportunity to expand digital access to their content onto the iPad, iPod touch and iPhone, delighting both new and existing subscribers."

So, if I have a subscription to a print version of Popular Science. And I decide that I want to read the issues on my iPad. Apple gets no share because PS brought me to the app. PS should be able to let me access my paid for subscription electronically without having to pay for it again. But Apple won't let them do that.

[CynicalDriver]

Apple has 95% of iOS users instead of 5%. Key difference. (You have to figure in that about 10% jailbreak and half of those are pirates or don't have a credit card.)

You may be right, but, Cydia has less restrictions. This makes them two separate animals by default.

It's a non-issue for Cydia, because Cydia doesn't exert that level of control on it's publishers. Everyone knows the Apple App Store is WAY bigger, the point is that there is an option.

Also, if major retailers start publishing for Cydia, the JB community would explode... Or be utterly devastated by Apple, which is the more likely outcome, lol.


Sent from my iPhone using ModMyi

[mvhurlburt]

Well I'm no Anti-trust lawyer or any lawyer for that matter but I do get both sides of the argument. Yes, it does make sense that it IS APPLE'S STORE and if companies decide to business with Apple then that is their decision. Nobody is putting a gun to SJ's head and asking for 30%. On the other hand if the authorities(ergh... I hate authorities!!!) decide that Apple has enough of the mobile market share to call it a "Monopoly" or whatever the DOJ does to justify an anti-trust lawsuit then Apple ought to be held to the same circumstances as Apple expected M$ to be held to in the 90's! Either way I'm in no position to say but I do love Apple but unfortunately for Apple I love devs more and I hope the current Apple policy changes from a 30/70 split to something between a 5/95-20/80 split as without devs iOS wouldn't be anywhere! just my ¢2.... or maybe $20 ...lol

[CynicalDriver]

"
So, if I have a subscription to a print version of Popular Science. And I decide that I want to read the issues on my iPad. Apple gets no share because PS brought me to the app. PS should be able to let me access my paid for subscription electronically without having to pay for it again. But Apple won't let them do that.

No... There will be a way to get your content outside of the App. Popular Science (or Time, Newsweek, Addison Trivial Drivel, or anyone) CAN provide the subscription outside of the App, they just can't link to their site to purchase it from inside the App.

If PopSci decides to give you your content for free (probably via access/promotion code) then Apple can't really argue it... Free is free.

If a NEW customer wants in, they will have to choose which way to purchase the service (most will choose IAP.) PopSci will not be able to offer a lesser price on their website.

The reason this becomes an anti-trust issue, is because it will force publishers to do one of two things:

1) Accept Apple rapeage. This means accepting a 30% lower revenue stream for services.

Or

2) Raise prices for all subscribers to make up for it. Which forces higher prices on people who do not own an Apple iOS device. This equates to "price fixing" or "cornering the market."


Sent from my iPhone using ModMyi

[alexevo]

It isn't a simple matter of "if you don't agree then don't buy it" since that doesn't constitute the antitrust part of this. Microsoft was hit with antitrust lawsuits because of their market share and it can happen to Apple if the DOJ determines that they have a monopoly on the market of iApps.

My question is this: what is stopping developers from offering their app for free in the appstore and then giving you an upgrade from a lite version in the app store to unlock all the features to make it a full version after you go to their site and pay a fee?

[rawhog]

Well, I respectfully disagree CynicalDriver. For one reason. I contacted the publisher of Popular Science and asked them. Their response was that they are unable to offer this due to Apple's subscription restrictions.

[EskimoRuler]

"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," said Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs. "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. We believe that this innovative subscription service will provide publishers with a brand new opportunity to expand digital access to their content onto the iPad, iPod touch and iPhone, delighting both new and existing subscribers."

So, if I have a subscription to a print version of Popular Science. And I decide that I want to read the issues on my iPad. Apple gets no share because PS brought me to the app. PS should be able to let me access my paid for subscription electronically without having to pay for it again. But Apple won't let them do that.

Thats what's really sucks. Apple should not have a right to do this at all. I would love to have this option in the app, but not at the cost of this

[CynicalDriver]

Well, I respectfully disagree CynicalDriver. For one reason. I contacted the publisher of Popular Science and asked them. Their response was that they are unable to offer this due to Apple's subscription restrictions.

It's easy to blame Apple, when you want that second collection for a subscription. I'm not saying PopSci is crooked, just that they might be.

The way I would interpret this, is you have to allow subscriptions to be purchased in-app, you cannot only sell them online. Additionally, you must advertise the same price, so people are not bypassing Apple for a lower price.

You can still offer "established" accounts "bonus" access to the digital publication if they already pay for a print version. So, instead of having one price, you have two.

One for existing (free), and one for new ($5 or whatever).

I did not see anything that says you can only offer one package. Am I the only one who can see these loop-holes?


Sent from my iPhone using ModMyi

[mortopher]

Thats what's really sucks. Apple should not have a right to do this at all. I would love to have this option in the app, but not at the cost of this

Why shouldn't they? If it's purchased through an app from the app store, why shouldnt they get a cut?

[rawhog]

Compare this to purchasing a DVD/Blu-Ray movie with digital edition. You buy the movie, and for no extra charge are able to download a digital version to your iWhatever to watch away from home. This should be allowed for subscriptions as well. In SJ's statement, he says that if the publisher brings somebody to the app, Apple gets nothing. So, by not allowing them to offer free access to digital content for paid print subscribers, they effectively stop this from happening. Just Apples way of keeping that 30% rolling in. Mortopher, you are missing the point. I totally agree that if I want to gat the app, and then purchase a subscription. Then Apple deserves a cut. But, my point is. If I have already paid for a print subscription, I should be allowed to view those issues for which I have already paid, on my idevice without having to pay again. And by SJ's admission. If I come to the app because of my paid print subscription, Apple gets nothing. It is pure greed on Apples part.