[nomurrcy]

Full disclosure: I generally like apple products and have used NeXT / apple products for a long time.

I don't see how Apple's stance here is defensible or honest. They using their position as a large platform provider to steal from 3rd party developers.

To me this is akin to me writing a program for OSX that allows users to sign up for a subscription service, and apple taking a 30% cut of my cash flows just because I targeted their platform. They have been paid for their device by the consumer, they don't own all the software running on the device. They provide an OS, 3rd party developers provide the applications.

Most iOS programs receive absolutely no advertising from apple. In these cases how has apple contributed anything - how as Apple brought them customers. What if I run an ad-words campaign and drive my own app sales? If Apple were to make deals with developers for cuts of cash flow in exchange for advertising on the store, that would seem more honest.

To me this seems anti competitive and just plain dishonest. Apple is at risk of becoming the troll under the bridge here.

[c2]

I think we are going to start to see Apple pull more and more moves like this. They are basically where Microsoft was at their peak. Apple's share price is sky high, their growth and margins are phenomenal, and at this point to continue to deliver shareholder value, they need to grab money from more and more sources - that means squeezing their position for every possible dime. What's next after the iPad? What comes after the app store? Well, why not tighten up monetization of the app store by directly tying revenue with publishers.

I'm eager and a little weary of seeing Apple's next moves over the next couple years.

[trotsky]

Philosophically this doesn't seem much different from a case where Apple requires a 30% cut on all commerce done through OSX, Mozilla demanding 30% of a MBP sale through firefox, or MS demanding 30% of that WinXP iTunes sale. I wouldn't expect it to escape the review of various competition authorities.

[drawkbox]

I also mirror your sentiment. I think that this will lead to lost hardware sales (I may have to buy a Kindle now) and may as well develop for that if I have one.

When did Apple turn from a hardware focused company to a software company/platform company only? It seems their platform is taking precedence to their hardware now.

Then again you can't buy iBooks on Kindle or Nook but the point of an iOS device is a bit of a smart phone singularity. I want all my stuff on that device.

This will not get me to buy more iBooks, it may make be buy a Kindle though instead of using my iPads for reading books.

Let's hope they all go PDF.

[brettnak]

I can say that it has led to at least one lost sale of an iPad. I was getting ready - essentially money-in-hand - to buy an iPad. I will no longer be doing that. From a purely consumer perspective I don't believe this policy benefits me at all and there are some pretty exciting alternatives on the horizon. Notion Ink's Adam looks pretty good to me and with Honeycomb on the way and being optimized for Tablets, iOS is no longer the only choice.

[msbarnett]

It's a bit off-topic, but PDFs, with their fixed page size baked right into the file, make for a truly miserable eBook experience.

[CWuestefeld]

I couldn't agree more. I think what your parent post meant to convey was the need for a standard format for ebook files. I think MOBI or EPUB could both fill that role.

[relic17]

"Dishonest", "steal", "anti competitive" - these are some heavy accusations. In the context of Apple's relationship with developers, dishonest would mean deliberately lying, cheating, or signing a contract and then reneging on it (in which case the developer has legal recourse). "Steal" is quite irrelevant here - if Apple stole anything from anyone, it would have been sued. "Anti-competitive" - if your definition of non-anti-competitive is letting anyone (especially small players) do whatever they want with your product for free (just because you are big and they are small), you would be right, but that would be a wrong definition. The reality is that Apple is offering a product, a service, and clear terms of how it wants these to be used as a precondition for doing business. Developers can take it or leave it. I don't think dishonesty, theft, or the super-vague term of anti-competition can be applied here.

[nomurrcy]

Sure. These are 'heavy' accusations. I feel pretty strongly about seeing a company I like go down this road. They are attempting to steal, and their behavior is dishonest and anti-competitive.

If they want to make money selling books or subscription services let them try on equal footing with other companies. They are actively attempting to grow their own ebook store and at the same time charging competitors an unavoidable 30% tax to sell on their platform.

Providing a store infrastructure on the phone is fine. Forcing application developers to use your api for in-app purchases is borderline. Disallowing any subscription based content to be viewed on the phone unless you get a shot at taking 30% is crooked, especially given the fact that they are in direct competition with some of those providers.

I understand big business. Apple desires to take a piece of every cash flow associated with a iphone from cradle to grave - whether they had anything to do with creating it or not. And why not? We're talking about a lot of money and the ability to diversify into the cashflows of businesses (journalism etc) they have nothing to do with. They are actively attempting to set up a toll bridge for all content consumed on mobile devices running their OS. They will probably succeed.

This may or may not end up being seen as legal. (I believe they are in a grey zone) I'm saying I don't believe it is moral. Apple didn't do anything to earn this money; they are simply trying to take it because it is there, and they can.

Apple is one of my favorite companies, it bugs me to see them acting this way. If MSFT were doing this sort of thing you'd have grabbed your torch and pitchfork long ago.

[relic17]

I understand your reasoning and completely disagree with it. The only way I can answer is to urge you to check your premises. That would mean thinking about the meaning of "equal footing" and answering why, in your view, Apple has the obligation to provide developers with any kind of footing.

You also use terms such as "unavoidable 30% tax" and "forcing application developers". Do you really think Apple has the status of a government (i.e. the ability to charge mandatory tax) and do you really think Apple is actually physically forcing anyone to do anything? And finally, since you believe their platform policy of taking 30% is "crooked", why do you think that charging for the use of your property is immoral? Or do you think that there are some "moral" boundaries that should be acceptable? What prevents the other parties from walking away if they don't like these terms?

[nomurrcy]

I'm not sure I follow. A lot of your thinking seems to be predicated on the fact that Apple somehow owns your phone after you purchase it. They don't - you do. That's why you give them money for it.

Apple has tried to argue that it needs to retain strict control over what software you can and can't install for your protection. The fact of the matter (now apparent) is that they want to insert themselves into a transaction between two willing parties, without creating any marginal value.

What if your TV maker tried to charge a fee to your cable company because you were watching on 'their' TV?

What if Microsoft charged amazon a 30% fee because you purchased a book through 'their' browser.

What if Kitchenaid charged your bakery a fee per cupcake as you were using 'their' mixers.

The list is endless. At some point you need to assert your rights.

Again: if apple wants to make money selling me books, let them sell me books. Don't let them get away with selling something they don't own.

"... why do you think charging for the use of your property is immoral?"

This is the fundamental problem. Apple doesn't own my phone nor do they pay for my data connection. They are charging for my property.

[chc]

When framing arguments about Apple, I find it helpful to ask, "Would this defense apply just as well to Microsoft in the '90s?" And as far as I can see, your arguments apply better to Microsoft in the '90s than they do to Apple today. All Microsoft did was create a Web browser, create terms favorable to their interests and ensure that their Web browsing experience was the default. Unlike Apple, they didn't require competitors on their platform to pay them money or GTFO, they didn't require competing Web browsers to use a restricted subset of Explorer's engine, and they certainly didn't demand a cut of any revenue from transactions done through Netscape.

And yet Microsoft was convicted of anticompetitive behavior by pretty much every court in the world. So even if Apple really is on the up-and-up, your reasoning doesn't come close to showing it.

[nopal]

The cut is high, but Apple does do more with iOS than they do in your hypothetical.

Apple has created a ecosystem in which it is very easy for consumers to purchase subscriptions. They're further enhancing the usefulness of this system by blocking applications that do not allow consumers to easily purchase subscriptions in a uniform way (e.g. in-app). And they're requiring app developers to pay 30% for the benefits they receive by exposing your app to the users of this ecosystem.

The rate may be high, or it may not be. We will see by how many developers pull their apps from the AppStore.

[chc]

I might agree if Apple didn't force developers to make the price in Apple's ecosystem the same as the lowest price available elsewhere. If you want to take 30% of my money for the service of "exposing" my app (which I think that means "not banning" in the context of a walled garden), I need to charge 50% more just to maintain my profit margin.