> All developers use only iStore for any end user transaction. This may be enforced by Apple on the grounds of providing a consistent and safe end user experience. But its is mostly to do with keeping a tight control over the market (end user) and their revenue stream. - Use only iOS for developing any Applications. Ditto said and actual reasons. - And now Apple also wants not only a 30% cut of the App sales (which is fair), but also a further 30% cut of the subscription revenue stream (which the App publishers have rightly described as exceedingly greedy. But it is also "monopolistic")
>So lets view the fairness arguments again. What would be fair for Apple to do so that they are paid a deserving portion of revenue for their efforts? They could mandate that 1. Any paid for App will not encumber additional subscription revenue share (tax), as long as they do not use Apple's streaming resources (is this 100% possible for subscription services?) 2. Any App which is distributed free, but is paid for by a subscription model, will have a revenue share agreement with Apple.
I'm not sure that's an accurate analysis. It appears you want to define Apple (and iOS) as simply a technical infrastructure service provider: bandwidth, disk space, etc. If that were true, iOS would be effectively identical to Android and no one would complain about this 30% because they'd just hop over to Android without a second thought.
Apple is providing a service to iOS developers: access to the iOS eco-system. Developers are not required to develop an iOS app, they have numerous other options for distributing their application/service. If they want to leverage the iOS eco-system (installed user base, iOS advertising & marketing that Apple pays for, SDK that Apple has developed and maintains that is often considered rather efficient at enabling development of user-friendly applications, payment processing system that is extremely easy for end-users, etc), those developers must agree to Apple's terms of access. In return, Apple believes they can charge fees for various methods in which a developer may choose to use the wide range of features Apple has created in their iOS eco-system.
Readability is, as far as I can determine, nearly identical: they have developed a service that provides access to other people's creative work and Readability charges for that service. As an end user, I don't have to use Readability to access the original creative work. If Readability is "allowed" to charge the content owner 30% to give me that special Readability access, why can Apple "not" charge the developer 30% to give them access to that special Apple eco-system?
My entire point would be moot if Apple required 30% of all revenue from Readability regardless of whether the subscription originated from within the iOS app or from Readability's website - but Apple has not done that, which is exactly why Apple's fee is a fee to access the eco-system (not specifically to use Apple's bandwidth, Apple's storage space, etc).
edit: In fact, on further consideration, why is Readability's business model considered fair in and of itself? They provide a mechanism for a publisher to voluntarily sign up to receive the 70% Readability wants to give them - but does that mean Readability will not function on a publishers content if that publisher does not agree? I don't believe Readability is blocking access to content from publishers that have not signed up. Effectively, Readability is extorting publishers: give us 30% or we'll take everything. Apple on the other hand is simply saying: give us 30% or you can't use our service. The latter is blatantly more "fair" as it only exists with choice. The former requires publishers to actively use resources to block Readability (on a continuing basis) in order for the publisher to maintain their previously established business model. The publisher's choice has been eliminated. How can Readability justify that?
>Effectively, Readability is extorting publishers: give us 30% or we'll take everything
Readability has costs, and provides a service for free. They give you the choice of using their service for free (no revenue for them, no revenue for ad-driven content sites), or paying them a fee for the use of their service (which is strip everything except the content so you don't have to - a value-added service if I ever saw one). This fee gets forwarded to the content author, while they keep a commission for the service they're providing you. You, presumably, see a value in their service, or you wouldn't use it. You see a value in the content, or you wouldn't read it. They give you the choice of supporting the content and the service, where money is split to support the service you like and the content you like, or just use it without paying anything. The content author is denied ad revenue because you use a service which strips ads. This service now offers you the chance to support your favorite content authors directly, to compensate for the loss of ad revenue.
And you see extortion where?
>My entire point would be moot if Apple required 30% of all revenue
>from Readability regardless of whether the subscription originated
>from within the iOS app or from Readability's website
Your point is moot. Apple takes 30% from in-app subscriptions. People using the app don't have a choice between subscribing through the app or through the website, seeing as Apple does not allow linking to the website. Obviously, people using the app won't think of going to the browser to subscribe. Hence, even though it seems there's an alternative, toll-free way to subscribe, in practice there isn't. Even though it looks like it's optional, it's not, and content-based apps are going to be especially hit with this toll. The Apple 30% toll - encouraging people to develop for your platform, then putting up flat 30% fees on revenue - now that is extortion.
Readability scrapes content and removes ads. Publishers lose revenue when Readability processes their content in that manner and presents it to the Readability subscriber.
Readability then tells the publisher "we're charging our subscribers in order to remove the ads from your site, if you want 70% of that revenue, sign up here, the alternative is, you get 0% and you also lose the revenue from your ads because we're going to scrape your content anyway".
Publishers can now either agree to Readability's redefining the publisher's business model, or they can fight back by using resources to subvert Readability from scraping the content.
Readability's business model is very similar to such P2P companies as Limewire: charging people for an easy method of accessing content that belongs to others. The only difference is, Readability has offered, apparently out of the kindness of their hearts, to pay a portion of their revenue to the publishers they steal content from. The publisher has no choice to be uninvolved in Readability's business model, they either accept it and get a percentage of it in lieu of their existing revenue, or Readability justs cuts the publishers existing revenue.
That's nearly the textbook definition of extortion.
Regarding Apple, you're absolutely wrong. No one is forced to develop an iOS app, so automatically, extortion is off the table. Further, the 30% does only apply to in-app subscribers, and though you want to claim that means everyone has therefore had their choice removed and must subscribe in-app, that's simply false. In addition, if most of your subscribers come from in-app purchases, you can thank Apple for setting up and maintaining an eco-system that is in turn your largest market.
>iOS would be effectively identical to Android and no one would complain about this 30% because they'd just hop over to Android without a second thought.
Your point is not very clear here. Are you claiming that Android cannot be run on the iPhone (technology wise), or that iOS provides an API whereas Android does not? Both don't seem to be the case.
>In return, Apple believes they can charge fees for various methods in which a developer may choose to use the wide range of features Apple has created in their iOS eco-system.
My contention is that if Apple charges for the application usage revenue share for using iOS, then its fine. Also if Apple dictates that if an App is free to install for a customer (in which case it gets zero revenue from end user for iOS services), then it can charge a share of the subscription revenue. However, Apple dictates that it be paid 30% of the end user subscription revenue regardless of any distinction of whether the revenue is from the application, or for its content. (Yes there is a fine distinction between the two. To Apples credit some of these application are distributed for very low cost (near free), in which case Apples revenue share is disproportionate. But then Apple also charges an annual developer license fee!
>If Readability is "allowed" to charge the content owner 30% to give me that special Readability access, why can Apple "not" charge the developer 30% to give them access to that special Apple eco-system?
Of course Apple can, and it does charge developer 30% of Application revenue. It also charges $100/year per developer for its API. But what is not fair is that it also demands an additional 30% of subscription revenue. What has Apple done additional to providing an iOS environment and API (the first 30% cut) to warrant a subsequent subscription revenue share (blood sucking second 30% cut)?
>My entire point would be moot if Apple required 30% of all revenue from Readability regardless of whether the subscription originated from within the iOS app or from Readability's website - but Apple has not done that
- No link allowed to App publishers website to subscribe from there.
- Not allowed to use items which were subscribed outside iStore, unless it is also available in iStore.
These points reek of blood sucking greed. May Apples developers leave in droves to Android, and beat some sense into shitty Managers unfairly monopolizing Application development on its iOS platform.
>So lets view the fairness arguments again. What would be fair for Apple to do so that they are paid a deserving portion of revenue for their efforts? They could mandate that 1. Any paid for App will not encumber additional subscription revenue share (tax), as long as they do not use Apple's streaming resources (is this 100% possible for subscription services?) 2. Any App which is distributed free, but is paid for by a subscription model, will have a revenue share agreement with Apple.
I'm not sure that's an accurate analysis. It appears you want to define Apple (and iOS) as simply a technical infrastructure service provider: bandwidth, disk space, etc. If that were true, iOS would be effectively identical to Android and no one would complain about this 30% because they'd just hop over to Android without a second thought.
Apple is providing a service to iOS developers: access to the iOS eco-system. Developers are not required to develop an iOS app, they have numerous other options for distributing their application/service. If they want to leverage the iOS eco-system (installed user base, iOS advertising & marketing that Apple pays for, SDK that Apple has developed and maintains that is often considered rather efficient at enabling development of user-friendly applications, payment processing system that is extremely easy for end-users, etc), those developers must agree to Apple's terms of access. In return, Apple believes they can charge fees for various methods in which a developer may choose to use the wide range of features Apple has created in their iOS eco-system.
Readability is, as far as I can determine, nearly identical: they have developed a service that provides access to other people's creative work and Readability charges for that service. As an end user, I don't have to use Readability to access the original creative work. If Readability is "allowed" to charge the content owner 30% to give me that special Readability access, why can Apple "not" charge the developer 30% to give them access to that special Apple eco-system?
My entire point would be moot if Apple required 30% of all revenue from Readability regardless of whether the subscription originated from within the iOS app or from Readability's website - but Apple has not done that, which is exactly why Apple's fee is a fee to access the eco-system (not specifically to use Apple's bandwidth, Apple's storage space, etc).
edit: In fact, on further consideration, why is Readability's business model considered fair in and of itself? They provide a mechanism for a publisher to voluntarily sign up to receive the 70% Readability wants to give them - but does that mean Readability will not function on a publishers content if that publisher does not agree? I don't believe Readability is blocking access to content from publishers that have not signed up. Effectively, Readability is extorting publishers: give us 30% or we'll take everything. Apple on the other hand is simply saying: give us 30% or you can't use our service. The latter is blatantly more "fair" as it only exists with choice. The former requires publishers to actively use resources to block Readability (on a continuing basis) in order for the publisher to maintain their previously established business model. The publisher's choice has been eliminated. How can Readability justify that?