Way of the Rodent

By the way, this week's episode is on what's wrong with Apple hardware. I'm glad to see that finally somebody acknowledges that Apple's build quality or design for function isn't always great.

Just been to the Apple store with a slightly dickie button on my iPhone. Sat there for about 20 minutes while they ran a couple of tests and reset it and walked out with a shiny new, unscratched, unchipped iPhone with a working button and had a pleasant chat with the lovely girl working there.

Cracking customer service, well done Apples.

They didn't make you feel like it was a great magnanimous event of their behalf and they wouldn't do it normally?

So, my 3GS iPhone has developed a crack down the back from the port upwards that's beginning to concern me. This something the apple shop would sort out? I'm thinking no, but worth a look?

Or he could try giving it to a random hipster tramp while wandering through Manchester. That might work.

See, it's a bit of a journey to go find out only for them to turn me away with a flea in my ear. hmmmm

Oh, you and your old school ways!



good idea

Well just phoned them. Happy to look at my *computer* ("you mean my iphone that I have mentioned about 3 times right?") and will see what they can do.

If it's out of warranty (1 year) then I'd have to pay for it. Had it more than that so knackers to that idea then I spose

maybe you didn't read. It's quite a journey.

and I couldn't pull off a beret anyway

Cor but it's a big old head.

Its called a bike cover?

You've pulled off a Green Beret before.


What?

last.fm and Rhapsody have basically said that iOS is unsustainable for them if this is enforced, I can't see many content or service providers (e.g. Skype) having a 30% mark-up to start with. If enforced iOS devices might as well be called iTunes extenders, with big content providers like Sony and Amazon having Android tablets in the works things might blow up in apple's face.

"In a statement, Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs said: "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.""

ahahahahaha. Jeezus.

OnePunchMickey said:

They're rapidly out-cunting MS.

Well ever since SOMEbody killed the desktop/laptop we've had a real hard time on that front.

Thanks for the heads up matt.

alex said:

OnePunchMickey said:

They're rapidly out-cunting MS.

Well ever since SOMEbody killed the desktop/laptop we've had a real hard time on that front.

I've been reading, talking and trying to find a way to defend this 30% commission thing that Apple are proposing taking for subscription service and I just don't seem to be able to do it.

The only credible arguments I can build seem to be built on a pretense of it's a stepping stone to something else, or it's to protect something else. So it doesn't stand on it's own two feet.

I know Apple take a kicking for a lot of things like being generally expensive, or not offering every bell and whistle that could possibly be added into something or being to controlling or restrictive. However in most of these cases their decisions hold up to closer scrutiny and certainly make sense to enough people to allow them to have significant enough market shares. BUT this subscription and services thing is making them look like complete COCKS.

I Don't get it, and while I know this must have Job's blessing I can't help but think that if he were 100% healthy and 100% working we'd have either had a change of direction or some very positive spin put on it all by now.

There's a few bits to it russ:

1) If you allow people to subscribe to your content or service through a mechanism outside the app you must ALSO allow people to subscribe from within the app (from which Apple will take 30%)

2) If people choose to subscribe through your other channels Apple doesn't get a chunk of the fee.

3) However if people choose to subscribe though the App Store the end user will have to proactively opt in for each purchase whether to allow Apple to supply the company with your personal details (name, address, mobile number, email address etc). So given most people will potentially value their privacy I can imagine them NOT passing on the info, and also possibly choosing App Store purchase to avoid having to do so,

4) The price/conditions offered through the App for subscriptions/services must be the same or better than those available through other channels.

(forgetting the withholding of subscriber data at the moment)

So the problem being made in the market is that the vendor are comparing the 30% charge by Apple to the 1.5% charge typically taken by a credit card company for a transaction. That's a pretty huge gulf.

My bet is that 30% is less than the record companies were giving up in the early days of iTMS, but possibly what they're giving up these days. So Apple is kind of just going with the same fee structure.

[For the record, I suspect that many businesses pay around 30% of their resale price in cost of sale - sales commision, retail markup, point of sale marketing etc. I'm not sure what it comes out to for a subscription magazine for example but I think total cost of sale might be quite high - And Apple's argument could be that they are providing a brand new sales channel, with the iPhone/iPad and iTunes/AppStore as the Sales Force for it so should be entitled to charge a similar cost of sale]

The killer for companies is that they can't charge customers a premium for buying through App and (rightly so in my view) Apple don't have to worry about justifying why we should buy through the app because we know we're always getting the best price, so why worry about shopping around. At this point I bet significant amounts of purchases will be through App, possibly impulse and spur of the moment to be honest.

like I said Rich, whenever I tried to justify it to myself it came out as a step to something else and whichever way you look at it, it makes apple seem like a bunch of dicks.

IMHO Apple got caught out with how fast people bypassed their 30% app fee by giving away their apps through the app store and then charging you outside the system to access content.

Now if you're Apple you probably want Kindle on the iPad and so you're happy(ish) to allow amazon to give the app away free. However when Guitar magazine make a huge splash about their "Lick a day" (don't get excited guys it's not that type of 'lick') app being a free download etc. and then as soon as you fire it up you realise you have to pay for a $6 a month subscription (or whatever it was), I think Apple are less happy, right down to people selling services the same way.

And you can bet your arse the likes of Murdock etc. are finding creative ways to game the system hence the shotgun blast.

I've no idea what the answer to the above case is.

We're all sitting here on the outside calling it a Monopoly Play, Cuntish Behaviour etc. I can't believe nobody in a position of influence/authority at Apple hasn't said the same thing, so why are they doing it? doesn't make sense to me...

Another one of my "steps to something else" was that they knew this was going to happen and would be happy with a lower figure but wanted someone like Google to show their hand (which they have done with the 10% figure they're going to charge) and if it was acceptable would slot into line behind it and not worry about coming out with a real price first and having Google come out with a stupid low price.

I'm at a loss because I much prefer the simplicity of buying through the app, and putting my credit card details in Apples hands rather than a host of independant app writers and media publishers. I also like that I get to keep my details private. However all this is smelling horrible at the moment and in danger of making Apple slip from it's leadership position.

So I hope you see I'm not really supporting Apple on this one, I just don't understand their reasoning. It all doesn't make sense to me.

gogol1000 said:

More simple reasoning: they want to make shit loads of money with as little effort as possible and have a ready made cash cow?

Don't you think it's too early in all this to do though?

@sty Like I said a few pages back: the right thing for Apples to do would be to allow developers to do whatever they want with subs but at the same time make their own iTunes subs infrastructure so good that devs would be daft to bother making their own.

sty said:

Apple now say you must ALSO provide in app ability to purchase)

They're now saying not ALSO but that you can ONLY take-up subs through iTunes from the app. Apps aren't allowed to link to a browser at all any more for the purposes of subs.

Koworld said:

sty said:

Apple now say you must ALSO provide in app ability to purchase)

They're now saying not ALSO but that you can ONLY take-up subs through iTunes from the app. Apps aren't allowed to link to a browser at all any more for the purposes of subs.

Only the link. I don't think there's a rule that stops them saying "either visit our web site at www.guitarplayer.com or click this button to subscribe" they can even use awesome pictures.

However unless you object to buying through Apple (which would be odd if you bought an Apple device in the first place) you'd be silly not to click the button though.

Why don't Apple allow a click through link? probably because they worry people will bury the buy now button and feature the link in a manner users think you can only buy through a website, or some other similar trickery? and they don't want the T&Cs for devs to get any more complex.

(Seeing as I seem to be defending Apple here why it COULD be a good idea:)

At the end of the day it should be about customer experience. In all honesty the best customer experience has to be pushing button, entering your purchase password and getting the content/subscription and knowing it will all be billed nice and neat as usual, and knowing you're getting the best price available. Why piss around clicking through to other web sites and filling in forms and credit card details etc.

I can't see why this doesn't make the best sense for the customer. I can't see any compelling reason why I'd want to deal directly with Future Publishing or some other bunch unless I really want to be specific about how I pay for my subscription etc. for my convenience and doing it by Direct Debit or similar.

Now if this was Microsoft XBLA I'd be nowhere near wanting to do the transaction through there, so I guess I trust Apple more than XBLA.

(Back to my own personal view now)

It's still an unholy mess and I don't know why they're doing it

Think you're missing the point here Sty. Everything else is a bit restrictive but in the end it's their service, if they think they can get away with it they can. Hell, I agree with forcing an istore charging method to stop companies bypassing with free apps.
Stating that prices HAVE to be the same or cheaper on the istore whilst charging 30% is straight up wrong. Either prices will go up across the all sub methods because they need to be on the app store and soak up the 30% or the apps just go. Both are bad for the consumers.
If they were allowed to charge more to buffer the 30% all would be fine. A lot of people, me included would happily pay a but more for convenience sake and not spreading cc details to another company, even if they were allowed to put a direct link to their website.

I hope they lose a load of key headline apps and userbase if things go ahead as standing. Let Market forces sort them out because at the moment they're near as trying fix pricing.

Register for free limited access? They can balls off wanting my details, get back to me once I can register through my iTunes account.



What? ;)