While the OP comes across as a tad hyperbolic, this is what I've thought for a long time: if a business is dependent on the good graces of the provider of a platform it's built on, it simply does not have a working model. It happened before with Facebook credits, and Apple making a similar move is no surprise to me.
That's not what is happening here. My company makes all of its money from subscription services that we sell directly to customers. Now if we provide a IOS app to access that content, we risk losing 30% of our revenue if the user happens to sign up via the app instead of via our website.
I'm not sure what "open alternative" you are referring to. My website -- built on "open" everything, other than the subscription cost -- is doing fine. I would like to provide a native IOS app to access that content. But I can't accept a 30% revenue cut.
Two solutions present themself. Solution 1: Give user a separate feature for "Mobile Access" only stick that on the appstore.
Solution 2: Apple may grow wise to solution 1, in which case, make an API to your product, then have a 3rd party developer legally unrelated to your first company make a native product which accesses your product.
Apple has no relation to your real product, however you can offer a free subscription app to your service as it's unrelated an just using an API (a la dropbox or freshbooks).
If Apple is handling Billing, Subscriptions, Payments, Merchant fees, etc, then isn't that a savings to the content maker? Does the economies of scale with handling those services rest of the vendor, or with Apple?
From everything I have ever read about iTunes and App stores, the 30% cut isn't profitable for Apple. It covers operating costs of the stores. Could someone point to me the place where Apple is making an actual profit on this?
Now take that and move that to Amazon's domain. The currently offer insanely low prices. Selling each book with a 30% to apple can make their profit margin zero or less. Which means that either Amazon must raise prices on their products and thus giving Apple the ability to compete vs Amazon on price via unfair advantage or Amazon pulls out giving apple a monopoly. I don't think Microsoft ever made these sort of policies. Though granted MS never made an amazing platform.
On the flip side, apple created a platform. That platform is where apple wants a piece of the pie of every transaction period. Don't like it? Don't make apps for it. Nobody is holding a gun to any developer's head forcing them to make iPhone/iPad apps. If enough developers turn away, apple will react appropriately. So quit complaining and pull your apps from their store. "But that will hurt my profits" well then quit whining and just accept what apple has to give you. If enough great developers move to Android, and make insanely awesome android apps that everyone wants a piece of, then iOS has some major competition.
Sure, Amazon is the poster boy for getting screwed here. But they aren't the only ones getting swept up in this nonsense.
I'm just saying, I'm not Amazon. I'm a content company that sells content to users in print form, and on the web (primarily on the web these days). Customers can only get to my content if they subscribe. Most of them get to that content via our website. Pretend I'm the Wall Street Journal (but I'm not).
I'd like to make a IOS app to allow my users to get to their extremely expensive content in a native application, but now that I have to pay a 30% tithe to Apple, I won't do that. Now I'll make a web based version which will suck more, and we'll let that ride until Apple pulls that out from under us too.
If Apple continues this course, they will lose developers and apps to Android, which could drive consumers to switch to Android as well. I've been a happy iPhone customer until now, and I'm strongly considering switching to Android when my contract expires this summer.
Now take that and move that to Amazon's domain. The currently offer insanely low prices. Selling each book with a 30% to apple can make their profit margin zero or less.
There's a new ecosystem waiting to be born here.
My read is that Apple is looking ahead at a future full of small/startup ebook publishers.
At the local iPhone dev meetup, I met this college kid with a modest little Catholic prayers and affirmations app. It's basically the electronic equivalent of a pamphlet. He doesn't put any effort into marketing it. It makes $150/month. Granted, that's a small amount, but a very tiny amount of investment went into that small return. With a little effort, I bet there's a lot of independent authors who could make a living publishing this way, and that the big players in ebooks and publishing are actually in the way of this ecosystem coming into being.
> My read is that Apple is looking ahead at a future full of small/startup ebook publishers.
If I was a small/startup, I would happily give over some percentage -- possibly even 30% -- of my revenue to Apple in order to avoid building my own payment system. The App store is really nice, and if they want to compete on the merits of the store, then that's great.
But Apple isn't doing that. They are using the power of their marketshare to force publishers into paying a 30% tithe to Apple just to put an application on the device. It doesn't matter if you are Amazon or the New York Times and already have your own subscription system -- you have to eat the 30% cut.
That's what bothers me about this. If Apple wants to compete by providing a more cost effective point of sale system, then that's great; everyone wins. But they are abusing a monopoly position to force publishers into their system, and in that game, Apple is the only winner.
You make the alternative pay? That's what the angry birds guys did.
But in the more general case, this is where it would have been great to have somebody with a business degree. Because they probably know the answer to your question.
