>Apple doesn’t give a damn about companies with business models that can’t afford a 70/30 split. Apple’s running a competitive business; competition is cold and hard. And who exactly can’t afford a 70/30 split? Middlemen. It’s not that Apple is opposed to middlemen — it’s that Apple wants to be the middleman. It’s difficult to expect them to be sympathetic to the plights of other middlemen.
..
>This is what galls some: Apple is doing this because they can, and no other company is in a position to do it. This is not a fear that in-app subscriptions will fail because Apple’s 30 percent slice is too high, but rather that in-app subscriptions will succeed despite Apple’s (in their minds) egregious profiteering. I.e. that charging what the market will bear is somehow unscrupulous. To the charge that Apple Inc. is a for-profit corporation run by staunch capitalists, I say, “Duh”.
>If it works, Apple’s 30-percent take of in-app subscriptions will prove as objectionable in the long run as the App Store itself: not very.
Looks like Apple didn't really succeed and backtracked once Amazon and Netflix started threatening to pull their apps which would make the iDevices much less valuable to many users. You can only pillage the ecosystem so much before it starts hurting you.
" 'It’s not that Apple is opposed to middlemen — it’s that Apple wants to be the middleman. It’s difficult to expect them to be sympathetic to the plights of other middlemen.'"
is clearly in agreement with what he replied to:
"this notion that Apple actively tried to kill iFlowReader is pure geek fantasy... Apple did not give a shit about them."
I made a stronger claim than that; I said, nobody with any influence over app store terms and conditions had ever even heard of iFlowReader. I'm trying to convey how absurd it sounds that Apple would tailor its corporate strategy to an independent software product with so little traction or market impact.
If you think they did, you're free to think that. I think it's profoundly unlikely that they even knew about them.
You are probably right, but is it possible they saw the type of business that iFlowReader what doing, not them in particular but the general idea, as something they wanted to be in and they were looking at making it hard for others to compete? I do have to admit I'm implying they were trying to be mischievous and I hardly have proof of that but it's just I possibility.
>Apple doesn’t give a damn about companies with business models that can’t afford a 70/30 split. Apple’s running a competitive business; competition is cold and hard. And who exactly can’t afford a 70/30 split? Middlemen. It’s not that Apple is opposed to middlemen — it’s that Apple wants to be the middleman. It’s difficult to expect them to be sympathetic to the plights of other middlemen.
..
>This is what galls some: Apple is doing this because they can, and no other company is in a position to do it. This is not a fear that in-app subscriptions will fail because Apple’s 30 percent slice is too high, but rather that in-app subscriptions will succeed despite Apple’s (in their minds) egregious profiteering. I.e. that charging what the market will bear is somehow unscrupulous. To the charge that Apple Inc. is a for-profit corporation run by staunch capitalists, I say, “Duh”.
>If it works, Apple’s 30-percent take of in-app subscriptions will prove as objectionable in the long run as the App Store itself: not very.
The above was from http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/dirty_percent
Looks like Apple didn't really succeed and backtracked once Amazon and Netflix started threatening to pull their apps which would make the iDevices much less valuable to many users. You can only pillage the ecosystem so much before it starts hurting you.