Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 16th Feb 2011 19:30 UTC
Google "Hot on the heels of Apple's subscription service announcement, Google has lifted the curtain on its own offering that will allow publishers to set a price for recurring content delivered via your Google login. The payment system is called 'One Pass', and it allows publishers to offer not only subscriptions, but also metered access, 'freemium' content, and even individual articles. So far, One Pass seems more flexible than Apple's offering, and the company will likely take a much smaller cut from publishers than Apple will."
Order by: Score:
Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Wed 16th Feb 2011 20:08 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Makes me wonder just how far developers are willing to sit under Apple’s thumb as Apple keeps pushing harder. If not this insane new restriction (tantamount to "give us all your profit"), then what is the straw that breaks the camel’s back and developers start dropping iOS native apps in favour of the web.

With iOS, WP7, WebOS, Android (several versions), MeeGo, Bada and probably a slew more on the way, I think Facebook has seen the light at the end of the tunnel by banking on HTML to reach all these platforms without an insane amount of duplicate engineering. If Facebook say HTML5 is the only way, how many more will follow?

This new restriction will cement Apple as one-and-the-same as Big Content, no better than Newscorp, Time Warner or Sony. I think Apple have long wanted to be a media giant, now they are.

If you’re developing for iOS, you need to stop and consider your position. What’s the _next_ restriction they are going to put into place? How are you going to deal with that if that new restriction kills your business model? Now think what’s the next thing that the web is going to make open without restrictions; books, videos, games?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 16th Feb 2011 20:16 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I'd also worry about Apple trying to assert editorial control on the content. Its already displayed terrible judgement when it comes to App store entries. What if a newspaper or Magazine desires to run an Editorial that offends people in some way? They'll cry to Apple who will in turn shutdown or filter the content.

Using apple is a terrible business decision and a terrible journalism decision.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by WorknMan on Wed 16th Feb 2011 20:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

With iOS, WP7, WebOS, Android (several versions), MeeGo, Bada and probably a slew more on the way, I think Facebook has seen the light at the end of the tunnel by banking on HTML to reach all these platforms without an insane amount of duplicate engineering. If Facebook say HTML5 is the only way, how many more will follow?


I've always wondered about this, as it seems on the desktop, everybody's talking about and trying to push apps into a web browser, regardless of whether the end users actually want it that way or not.

However, it seems that phones went the opposite direction, with native apps for just about everything, including stuff you would do on the web from a desktop PC.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Kroc
by FrankenFuss on Wed 16th Feb 2011 21:50 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
FrankenFuss Member since:
2009-08-05

If you’re developing for iOS, you need to stop and consider your position. What’s the _next_ restriction they are going to put into place? How are you going to deal with that if that new restriction kills your business model? Now think what’s the next thing that the web is going to make open without restrictions; books, videos, games?


Developers develop for iOS because iPhone/iPad/iTouch users BUY APPS!!! As it stands, iOS accounts for 85% of all app purchases.

The Android Store, so far, has been a failure (and Google has admitted this) because very little android users are buying apps. Now...what developer is going to give up iOS for a platform where no one is buying anything?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Wed 16th Feb 2011 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

iOS has created an unstable market resulting in a race to the bottom. Pricing of games on the web has been more stable and even more innovative, with things like the Humble Indie Bundle. Google have launched their Web App store that allows people to pay for web apps in a simple manner like native apps.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by FrankenFuss on Wed 16th Feb 2011 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
FrankenFuss Member since:
2009-08-05

Well...how successful has Google's Web store been? The answer is NOT VERY! And the reason...no one yet believes in that ecosystem. Apple's ecosystem is a proven winner...which has put money in developers' pockets. For a 30% cut, Apple takes care of the marketing, payment, storage space, virus-checking and many other headaches that a developer would normally have to deal with.

As a consumer, the App store is a complete winner. It's simple, payment is easy, and apps are quality. I'm sorry, I think you are spreading a bit of FUD here instead of looking at the positives for consumers and developers alike.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Wed 16th Feb 2011 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Positives for developers!? Positives like having bug fixes take weeks, when in HTML it’s just a refresh. When Apple decide that your app is no longer allowed, despite allowing it before? When Apple decide that you must now pay them more money when you didn’t have to before—basically, extortion. When Apple decide that your app treads on the new functionality that they plan to release and pull your app.

Yeah, developers are having such a great time.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by FrankenFuss on Wed 16th Feb 2011 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
FrankenFuss Member since:
2009-08-05

Positives for developers!? Positives like having bug fixes take weeks, when in HTML it’s just a refresh. When Apple decide that your app is no longer allowed, despite allowing it before? When Apple decide that you must now pay them more money when you didn’t have to before—basically, extortion. When Apple decide that your app treads on the new functionality that they plan to release and pull your app.

Yeah, developers are having such a great time.


You make it sound like most of the developers are unhappy with the Apple App Store. Here, let me throw a facts wrench into your FUD machine! http://www.ismashphone.com/2010/09/survey-says-app-store-developers...

Edited 2011-02-16 22:32 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by Soulbender on Thu 17th Feb 2011 04:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Yes, lets throw in a survey from 4 months ago when discussing the impact of recent changes.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by malxau on Wed 16th Feb 2011 22:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

Positives for developers!? Positives like having bug fixes take weeks, when in HTML it’s just a refresh. When Apple decide that your app is no longer allowed, despite allowing it before? When Apple decide that you must now pay them more money when you didn’t have to before—basically, extortion. When Apple decide that your app treads on the new functionality that they plan to release and pull your app.


Yes, but despite all that Apple are making developers money. People are still writing iPhone Apps despite all of the valid points you make. The story of the Apple App Store is an experiment on how many things developers will give up in exchange for cash.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by kristoph on Wed 16th Feb 2011 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

That just total BS.

1st, a much larger number of Indie developers thrive on iOS then ever did on the PC (see Majick Jungle for example)

2nd, the only viable alternative - Android - actively encourages free apps rather than paid apps and makes those apps much more costly to deploy due to device fragmentation (see Angry Birds for example)

You may not like the model or whatever but please don't make shit up.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by kristoph on Wed 16th Feb 2011 23:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

It's only content owners that really care about this, and especially content owners who want my personal information so they can mine it for targeted advertising.

As a developer, I am more that happy to have Apple facilitate a mechanism where a person can give me money without ever having to enter a CC.

Facebook does exactly the same thing BTW. It's Facebook credits or nothing.

Reply Score: 2

The war is open and frank!
by acobar on Wed 16th Feb 2011 20:51 UTC
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

Apple has been trying to seize all things they thought they could after the huge success iPhone became. They even mutated iTunes on the monstrosity it is today.

Hopefully, they will see the light and undo some of their very imbalanced steps toward developers and content providers. No one needs closed, uncooperative and unfair solutions and now that they have powerful contenders, they can not twist arms anymore.

Reply Score: 2

Yeah...I BET it's flexible!
by FrankenFuss on Wed 16th Feb 2011 21:21 UTC
FrankenFuss
Member since:
2009-08-05

At least you can say one thing for Apple's system...they are giving the user the option to opt-out of having these publishers get their info then turn around and sell it (which has been something publishers have been doing for decades and it's the real reason they are upset with Apple).

I wonder if Google will give users this choice? I suspect they won't.

UPDATE: Yep...Google is giving the info away! http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/16/google-one-pass-apple/

The difference is subtle but important. In Apple's system, the user has to opt-in to give the publishers their info...Google's system defaults to giving the publishers info so users have to explicitly opt-out.

Good ole Google!

Edited 2011-02-16 21:39 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Yeah...I BET it's flexible!
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 16th Feb 2011 22:56 UTC in reply to "Yeah...I BET it's flexible!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What is the big problem with making sure advertising is targeted instead of random?

Reply Score: 1

FrankenFuss Member since:
2009-08-05

What is the big problem with making sure advertising is targeted instead of random?


Gee...how about the option of not having my information sold to third parties if I don't wish to? What about my right to control some aspects of the info I want released online? I'd thought you'd be all for that..but then, I remembered, Google is for releasing it...so whatever Google does is good by you.

Edited 2011-02-16 23:06 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Praxis Member since:
2009-09-17

[q]What is the big problem with making sure advertising is targeted instead of random?


Gee...how about the option of not having my information sold to third parties if I don't wish to? What about my right to control some aspects of the info I want released online? I'd thought you'd be all for that..but then, I remembered, Google is for releasing it...so whatever Google does is good by you.


There is an opt-out. And don't forget Apple runs an ad network as well. There aren't protecting your data, their keeping it for themselves. They love profit to much to let stuff that valuable slip through their fingers.

And who is the third party your talking about Google passing info too. The app your buying the subscription from? Hardly a third party.

Under the Apple system, you are seen as Apple's customer first and thus they control your information. Under the Google system your seen as the publishers customer first and they control your information. Opt-out are possible under both systems, well opt-out to the publisher, Apple and Google handle the transaction in both cases so they see everything, and what is seen is never forgotten.

Personally I find the repercussions of Apple's 30% share in all in-app purchases throughout all apps and how that will effect the competitiveness of the market place far more worring than clicking an opt-out button once in a while or *gasp* someone knowing my demographic information. Just my priorities I guess, yours may differ.

Edited 2011-02-17 02:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

LOL. What a load of .... You're kidding right? Ok, I understand this might be a hard concept to grasp for people who expect everything for nothing, so let me spell it out for you.

Present situation - you take a subscription to a magazine / newspaper / book club. The item is supplied by the "publisher", but in order to supply that item it has to be printed, packaged and delivered. At every point along the line those people are making a percentage of the value of the item. Even in the case of newspapers where they print their own there are associated costs with that printing, and then there's cost associated with delivery.

Why the hell should it be any different just because the item is being delivered digitally? So Apple make 30%. I GUARANTEE there are big content providers who they've already been working with on this for some time who are VERY happy with that 30%. Do you know how much Audible have been taking from the audiobook producers for YEARS? 45%+, and if Audible want to whack your $30 audiobook into a $7 a month subscription you get 55% of the $7, and you don't have a choice. Hows them apples?

Just as has been commented on another story here, if it's Apple it has to be shit, if it's Android it has to be excellent.

Reply Score: 2

Praxis Member since:
2009-09-17


Present situation - you take a subscription to a magazine / newspaper / book club. The item is supplied by the "publisher", but in order to supply that item it has to be printed, packaged and delivered. At every point along the line those people are making a percentage of the value of the item. Even in the case of newspapers where they print their own there are associated costs with that printing, and then there's cost associated with delivery.


This is merely an example of one supply chain. Low marginal cost, flexible pricing, and mass market appeal. Yep they are in a good position to be able to take the 30% to Apple.

However this new policy of Apples applies to far more than newspapers and magazines. And not all of them have +30% profit margins to just give away. I don't think many tech blogs have expressed much real concern for magazines and newpapers, our ire has been reserved for services much closer to our hearts. Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, Kindle. Companies and products whose supply chains and business models are very different than the newspaper or magazine business. These are of course just the biggest examples, there are numerous smaller more niche services who would be absolutely wrecked by the 30% cut.

If your only point of comparison and justification for the 30% cut are brick and mortar stores and economic then your missing 99% of the story.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Yeah...I BET it's flexible!
by A420X on Thu 17th Feb 2011 04:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yeah...I BET it's flexible!"
A420X Member since:
2011-02-02


Gee...how about the option of not having my information sold to third parties if I don't wish to? What about my right to control some aspects of the info I want released online?


+1 Targeted ads are one of those weird things that we accept online but find objectionable in real life.

It's nice when there are systems in place to control it but it would be better if we didn't have to worry about it in the first place.

It's not that I have anything to hide, I have a very mundane Internet history, much like I buy and am interested in pretty normal things offline.

Still, I would be a little concerned if someone started keeping track of my purchases and actions on the street, and don't see how the absence of a physical presence should negate the respect for privacy we have deemed acceptable in normal interactions.

Reply Score: 2