Why is everyone assuming Apple's being evil here?<p>Not that they're perfect by any means, but the pattern seems pretty clear: they start off with a restrictive situation, see how it works, and then adjust. (Sometimes they restrict more, then relax; sometimes they stay more restrictive.)<p>They're engaged in a learning process, folks. Nothing quite like the App Store has been attempted before on this scale, and you know they've gotta be rather conservative at each step. You would if you were in their shoes.<p>Yes, they're trying to make money, but I see lots of signs that they're also trying to accommodate the needs of users first, then developers.<p>Never assume malice when it could just be incompetence (i.e., learning from mistakes), etc.<p>(I'm not shilling for Apple. I didn't even attend WWDC this year for the first time in many years. ;-)
Essentially Apple wanted to see if they could get away with being greedy, and when it didn't work out they abandoned it.<p>It's similar to what they've done with app approvals, features, terms of service, signal strength bars, location data, etc.
The problem with in-app purchases was always that Apple HAS to use the same 30% fee. If they use another percentage, developers just create free apps and make 'premium' features available for the same price as their paid app would otherwise be, thereby handing over less money to Apple.<p>Because Apple's in-app purchases don't distinguish between features and content, Apple can't use different pricing schemes.<p>I think Apple may try to change this situation with their News Stand system in iOS5. The content appearing there are still normal apps, they're just grouped together in a special folder and feature automatic downloads.<p>My guess is that content purchased in those News Stand apps will be less taxed than other in-app purchases, for example just 10%. That way Apple will keep some of their most important 'partners' happy.
Is it possible that Amazon was playing 'chicken' with the Kindle app, and finally at the last moment, Apple relented and Amazon won?<p>On an episode of The Talkshow, Gruber was speculating that this would come to a head in early June and that something had to happen either way: The Kindle app gets pulled or Apple makes some kind of exception to the rule.
The key difference between the old policy...<p>"provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app."<p>...and the new...<p>"that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app, as long as there is no button or external link in the app to purchase the approved content. Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues for approved content that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app"<p>Now it appears that it's fine to show content that is subscribed for outside of the App Store ecosystem (but you may not link directly to your payment pages).
Wow, this could not have come at a better time, since I was just wondering the other day if our companion app to our SaaS offering would be approved. Very pleased to see them reversing their position on this, and further clarifying that even this guideline excludes SaaS subscriptions (which I think is why they specifically spell out audio, video, etc. as the types of content). Thanks, Apple!
Probably their lawyers got to them. They have a near monopoly in legal music downloads (market share at 70%), so if their app store policies led to Rhapsody or Rdio going out of business it would look pretty bad in the eyes of regulators.
Planned the whole time?<p>1) Apple introduces a strict requirement for using IAP with a deadline<p>2) All the devs who were planning to comply to keep their apps in the store have likely done the work integrating IAP already<p>3) Apple reverses policies<p>4) Devs have the option to drop IAP in their apps but it's not likely that many will IMO
Does this mean that people like iFlow (<a href="https://www.iflowreader.com/Closing.aspx" rel="nofollow">https://www.iflowreader.com/Closing.aspx</a>) can start selling eBooks again now? Or is it too late for them already?
It makes perfect sense now that they have Newsstand in iOS 5.
Netflix, Amazon Kindle, SaaS apps and what-have-you can do what they want subscription-wise and still provide immense value to the platform, while magazines and newspapers will want to be part of Newsstand and will give Apple their 30% without much of a fuss. Everybody wins.
I truly don't understand why apple does this, I can only assume its because they have nothing but contempt for the people who develop apps for their platform.
I would like to point out to people who say that Apple is being greedy: until they came out with their 30% deal it was normal for Phone companies to ban all software from their phones except for their own. When phone companies did include outside developers software, deals of 90%+ were common (as they still are in the games' industry)
<i>That is, these apps can't have a "buy" button that takes users to an external subscription page. </i><p>I can't see how this is good for the user at all.
I think this also has to do with the in-App Patent trouble. Now Apple can say, hey, we did not force you to offer in-App purchase in your app, you can sell your subscriptions just outside the store; in the end, you as the developer of the app are responsible for any resulting legal trouble.