"... they will need to give Apple 30% of their subscription revenue for all customers that want to access SalesForce via mobile."
Wow, a huge post based on this flawed understanding. It isn't 30% of every customer that accesses the mobile app, it's 30% of each client that signs up via the mobile app.
The rules are pretty simple. If you offer subscription service purchasing elsewhere, like your website, you also must offer it in your app via in-app purchase. If a person finds your service by installing the mobile app and then decides to sign up, using the now required in-app purchase ability, Apple gets 30%.
...and if your profit margin is close to that 30%, as it is with many businesses, you are now required (should you choose to develop an app for iOS) to sell your product to users whom you have to support and stand a very good chance of gaining nothing from.
In other words, such a business would be required to offer an option to hand off all of its profit to Apple, should it choose to offer a native iOS app. Apple gets a better experience for its customers, and the third party gets more customers it gets zero profit from. I can understand if such a business would find this unacceptable. (And look at it from a user's perspective: if given two options, one-click billing through Apple or time-consuming credit card entry through a web portal, which do you suppose the majority of users will take?)
So how exactly is that understanding flawed?
Edit: More details added, and some wording correction.
No-one is _required_ to sell stuff in the App Store. Don't sell stuff in the App Store, keep all your profits.
> I can understand if such a business would find this unacceptable.
Let's say you distribute a FREE app in the App Store and it requires a subscription at $10.00 per month (through Apple) but you provide a handy button labeled "Get subscription for $8.00 per month" that goes to your website.
Apple doesn't want this. It costs Apple to distribute (and market, and support) your App. Apple gets nothing. And now you are selling your profitable product via an inferior user experience AND making anyone who actually uses Apple's service look like a chump.
The problem is that they will be required to sell subscriptions through Apple. The new rule is that apps that offer subscriptions through other sources must also include in-app subscriptions for the same price through Apple's store.
It wouldn't cost apple anything if they just allow applications downloaded of websites to be installed on iDevices. I'm sure subscription services would be happy to host a small application package themselves.
> It costs Apple to distribute (and market, and support) your App
Give me a break. You used the weasel word "costs" which is technically truthful, because it is greater than zero. But it is not material, IMHO.
Because developers PAY $100/developer to get on the Apple developer program. They spend their own money/time to develop the app. And sell it to a user who's PAID for his phone and net access. Apple is serving as a glorified download.com (which btw also does reviews and ratings for free).
Apple "markets" apps: again a weasel word, since in your universe listing your app in their directory is "marketing". Ditto "support" (they test your app cursorily to reject things).
You've missed the point. Apple is providing access to hundreds of millions of potential customers who can purchase your product in a frictionless manner. The people on this platform spend more $ per person than other ecosystems because the platform is easy to use and has the widest choice of product. That makes the platform very valuable.
If it was so easy to get this kind of distribution, then why don't you just develop an Android app and put it up on your website and watch the millions of users roll in? Oh wait, there aren't hundreds of millions of customers searching for apps on your website?
A user base, especially one that spends more $ per person that another, is extremely valuable. Historically this kind of access to a large distribution platform was just not available to mere mortals. I remember just 4-5 years ago, large companies would have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just to have their app listed on the Vodafone Live app store, and then have 50% taken as commission for the privilege.
And for content, many Telco's just didn't allow it...because they had their own content subscriptions they were trying to sell to their users..so forget 30%, you simply couldn't sell your content subscription.
Apple's app store, and a 30% cut is starting to look fair compared to the above.
But they are marketing your app by marketing the platform. Those commercials you see with catchy tunes and hands swiping and flicking apps, those make people want an iOS device to run apps. Everything Apple does is to make consumers want to come to the platform, and based on their numbers, it is working. Then you, the developer, gets to put you app in the only marketplace available to those 100M+ users. That is the value Apple is bringing.
It is the same value other market places bring. People sell on eBay because they know there are eyeballs there. Same with people who sell on Amazon. eBay and Amazon market their platforms to bring that value. No one creates their own webpage when they want to sell some stuff and hope people find it through Google. They go to where the hard part, bringing people to look, has already been done.
Apple is marketing their hardware product and the platform, not your app.Yours is just one app out of hundreds of thousands, soon to be millions.
If Apple is eating your businesses margins, and you gain nothing from operating on their platform, then what's the point? "I get no profit from my customer, and this may even be costing me money because I'll never recover the cost of iOS app development and maintenance, but at least I got to pay $100 for the privilege of being app #823,465".
If your ROI isn't going to cover the $100/developer and the cut that apple want's then you have bigger problems to deal with.
If you want freedom why not choose Android?
Then you don't have to pay anything and you get all the profit.
Only problem of course is that no one on Android is actually paying for their apps.
You are paying for access to a platform where many people actually pay for their apps. That is worth something and it is hopefully worth much much more than what apple charges.
Wow, a huge post based on this flawed understanding.
That's about 80% of the entries from this blog that make it on the front page of HN. It's a great blog for gauging general developer perception and dissatisfaction, but that doesn't mean that the opinions expressed are actually true. (Signals all stations to prepare for downvotes.)
Wow, a huge post based on this flawed understanding. It isn't 30% of every customer that accesses the mobile app, it's 30% of each client that signs up via the mobile app.
The rules are pretty simple. If you offer subscription service purchasing elsewhere, like your website, you also must offer it in your app via in-app purchase. If a person finds your service by installing the mobile app and then decides to sign up, using the now required in-app purchase ability, Apple gets 30%.