[ThomPete]

But here is the question.

Do people buy the iPad because of the magazines or the magazines because of the iPad?

In other words. Does it really make a difference if they leave? Is that really anything to worry about? Will that really mean the end of native apps?

Again apple is not depending on the subscription apps to make money. It's the other way around.

[recoiledsnake]

>Again apple is not depending on the subscription apps to make money. It's the other way around.

Won't their value diminish if there no apps and no content to subscribe to, except through Safari? Why do you think Jobs advertizes 400K apps with a tile of icons on screen?

What if Netflix and Kindle were yanked on June 30? Many people buy iDevices just to access those. Will be interesting June 30th

[Steko]

"If there was no apps and no content"

"if there no apps and no content to subscribe to"

What world do you live in where this is even remotely possible? By all means Go Galt, there are plenty of others willing to step in and make millions off iphone owners.

[drivebyacct2]

You're missing the point. The point is, Apple's walled garden is profitable now, in part, due to the forced use of their APIs. If developers continue to be forced to use Apple's APIs or nothing... well... as we're seeing here in this case, they begin to choose nothing.

It's like the mafia expecting payments. The protection they offer is great if you're willing to pay the price. If you're not, you have to move out of town and offer your services remotely (or at least via a webapp instead).

And the notion that any old body is going to step in and "make millions off iphone owners" is really cute. I'm curious who produces the content like Financial Times that can just come in and supply a new native app for iOS...

That's precisely the point being discussed here. Apple is successful as long as people can access the apps and content they're looking for. Hell, Apple will still be successful even if Kindle and Netflix walk... but they won't be as successful as their competitors. There really is no doubt that Apple relies on media (itunes-music, movies, ebooks, etc) to sell the value of their platform. Will their greed hurt their access to that media? I think that's a big part of a big question.

[Steko]

It's not remotely like the mafia. It's like pretty much every other store in the world -- Amazon, Wal-Mart, Target, Macys, Newegg, etc. Businesses sell their goods to Wal-Mart even though Wal-Mart takes a 30%-50% margin because of the hundreds of millions of people that shop at Wal-Mart.

"I'm curious who produces the content like Financial Times that can just come in and supply a new native app for iOS..." Is there no native app for WSJ, Economist, Fortune, Forbes, Bloomberg, Businessweek, etc.? None of those are as good as the FT but that's irrelevant, the FT isn't an option for someone searching for a business news/analysis app.

[drivebyacct2]

So are you of the position, that to users looking for business information, the delivery mechanism is more important than the content?

How universal do you think that is? How well do you think that will work when WSJ, Economist, etc, realize that they can ship a "native" app that uses a WebView, that also looks native, and they don't have to give Apple 30%?

And I really don't know how you don't see this being like the mafia... I own my own device, I own my own developer's license. My users own their own devices, yet I'm forced to force them to use Apple's distribution/payment/subscription channels.

I own my own store, or I distribute drugs on my own. The mafia forces me to buy and sell through them. Apple doesn't own a "financial news store", so acting like they should be allowed to (exclusively, no less) broker ANY content to their device, is frankly absurd.

Your analogy would make sense, except it's like Wal-Mart holding you ransom, telling you you WILL pay 30% and that you can't go elsewhere or they'll kick you out of their (App)Store.