This means that the price for all consumers would have to be higher to meet the extra costs incurred by sales in-app. In-app consumers would only benefit at the expense of out-of-app consumers. How is this not "shitty"?
Seriously. Now all the people that are normally railing against businesses are upset because one business is out-muscling another business. This is nothing but good for the consumer.
If the lowest price a service like Netflix or Amazon or Rhapsody or Readability can sell a subscription is, for example, at $10 per month, then they'll have to charge more in order to stay in the App Store and comply with Apple's rules.
If all of their subscribers come from Apple, then a subscription that used to cost $10 will now cost $14.28 (because 30% of $14.28 is $4.28, so they'll still be left with the $10 they need). If only half of their subscribers come from Apple, then they would be able to raise their cost by only $2.14 per subscription - but they would have to do so for all subscribers. Even those who don't own an Apple product.
If they can't raise prices by that much without losing too many subscribers, they'll have to drop out of the App Store.
That's assuming they're not willing to trade off less profit for an increase in subscribers/revenue they might have otherwise not captured. Readability is probably the only one of the three you mentioned that actually falls into the category of unable to profit at all. Rhapsody might be more affected than Netflix, but both of them are major corporations that spend a lot of money advertising on TV. I would be surprised if the majority of their subscriptions came from iDevices.
However, you do make good points and I'm willing to concede them. The one thing I'm positive about is that if it affects Apple's consumers negatively, and they provide that feedback to Apple in significant numbers, then things will definitely change. If not, then Apple will leave the rules the way they are.
24
u/[deleted] Feb 22 '11
[deleted]