I strongly suspect most people who are commenting on this haven't read the iOS developer terms or the updated guidelines. I think these updated terms are crappy and unfair, but they're not at all what some of the more lurid claims are making—including, IMO, the one made in the accompanying article.
These rules are all about iOS In App Purchases (IAP). If your app is not eligible for IAP, these rules don't apply. Period. End of story. If your app is eligible, these rules probably apply.
So, what's not eligible?
* Goods or services for use outside of the app. This means that Linode, TheLadders.com, Chargify, WeightWatchers, etc., are all in the clear because they can't even offer their services through IAP.
* Currency of any form. Even if Facebook's mobile app offered FB Credit purchases, it wouldn't be allowed to do so through IAP.
* Rentals. Pre-determined-time-limited content access is disallowed for IAP.
If one were to look at all of the materials that Apple has published on this, this primarily seems focussed around downloadable content, not around streamed or "rented" content, and certainly not around non-app goods or services.
Yes, Last.fm, Pandora, Netflix, Hulu and the like are in a bit of a grey area right now, but I strongly suspect that they will come out in the clear on this because they essentially "rent" the content to you; you can't download it and keep it—they're probably not eligible for IAP in the first place. On "The true cost of publishing on the Amazon Kindle"[1], I have a comment that outlines the exact sections[2] with paraphrases of the text involved.
I also have a comment[3] on "Why are you people defending Apple?"[4] that talks a bit more about who this hurts, namely reseller-distributors. Content owners are (for the most part) going to be ecstatic about this if they offer the content for sale directly.
First, the guidelines have been changed in the past. That's one of the issues everyone has with Apple's behavior - changing the rules. So let's not take the guidelines as the final arbiter.
Last.fm, Netflix, Pandora, Hulu and so forth are on the platform. They are not "essentially 'rental'" as you argue. They are subscription streaming services. They clearly "read or play approved content" as mentioned in the guidelines.
Content owners are _not_ ecstatic. They don't want an Apple-only marketplace. They want multiple healthy resellers.
Rules and guidelines have been changed for every marketplace in history as it finds its way around. Sometimes these changes are good; sometimes they're bad; sometimes they're neither.
Apple is trying something that I don't personally like (extending the rules to Amazon &c.), but just arguing that this is bad because Apple's changing the rules is a non-starter. Rules change. Sometimes they hurt people who were banking on a strategy that was based on the old rules. This is visible in pretty much every human endeavour. (The banks didn't like the rules that instituted the FDIC. They bitched. The rules were still changed.)
Last.fm, Netflix, Pandora, etc., are essentially rental in terms of IAP rules; you have time-limited access to particular content (with Last.fm and Pandora it's even more time-limited than with Netflix, since you have no real self-direction over the songs that are played per the web radio rules in the U.S.).
The guidelines aren't as clear as they could be, but as I said elsewhere, I'm pretty sure this isn't about access as much as downloadable content.
There's probably a reason they went through middlemen. Not every content company wants to handle the distribution. They could simply have done so before. Was using PayPal that much harder than this new system that they weren't willing to touch it despite it offering much better margins? I doubt it.
and the like are in a bit of a grey area right now
And how long til Apple wants a piece of their pie too? I don't mean this as FUD, I'm serious. Apple has shown, repeatedly, a willingness to fuck over developers by changing its rules to suit Apple whenever the fuck it wants. Sure, some of these are marginally, arguably, better for the customer, but not to the point where it justifies screwing over the developers. For now, iOS is mostly where the profit is. But is it worth putting up with Apple's whims every few months, seriously?
If you're talking about the new subscription fee, that is false (or at least Apple has not given any indication that it will be true at any time in the near future). You still have to distribute the content yourself. The 30% cut is essentially a referral fee.
By "distribution", I meant creating the app, marketing it, setting up downloads for the content, etc. That's not covered by this payment system, but it would be by a middleman.
If content owners are going to be ecstatic about offering IAP for a 30% fee, why does Apple need to force them? Won't they just implement it on their own?
App Store rules are not a legal system. They reserve right to reject you for any reason they like, including attempts to bypass spirit of their rules. They have humans judging every case.
Indeed. In fact Apple can reject for abiding by the spirit of the rules if they simply don't like you or feel you're a threat to them. Don't think that even if you follow their rules, even in spirit, that they don't reserve the right to screw you over. You're in their house and they can make the rules, as they go along.
Exactly. That means that an app that wants to offer a "rental" can continue to do so via an in-app link to another purchase process, and does not need to offer the same service (for the same price) in a way that Apple can get 30%.
The value proposition is pretty similar. Let's be honest. The chance that a kindle book is going to still work in 100 years is vanishingly slim. Might be unworkable marketing-wise, though.
These rules are all about iOS In App Purchases (IAP). If your app is not eligible for IAP, these rules don't apply. Period. End of story. If your app is eligible, these rules probably apply.
So, what's not eligible?
* Goods or services for use outside of the app. This means that Linode, TheLadders.com, Chargify, WeightWatchers, etc., are all in the clear because they can't even offer their services through IAP.
* Currency of any form. Even if Facebook's mobile app offered FB Credit purchases, it wouldn't be allowed to do so through IAP.
* Rentals. Pre-determined-time-limited content access is disallowed for IAP.
If one were to look at all of the materials that Apple has published on this, this primarily seems focussed around downloadable content, not around streamed or "rented" content, and certainly not around non-app goods or services.
Yes, Last.fm, Pandora, Netflix, Hulu and the like are in a bit of a grey area right now, but I strongly suspect that they will come out in the clear on this because they essentially "rent" the content to you; you can't download it and keep it—they're probably not eligible for IAP in the first place. On "The true cost of publishing on the Amazon Kindle"[1], I have a comment that outlines the exact sections[2] with paraphrases of the text involved.
I also have a comment[3] on "Why are you people defending Apple?"[4] that talks a bit more about who this hurts, namely reseller-distributors. Content owners are (for the most part) going to be ecstatic about this if they offer the content for sale directly.
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2228839 [2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2229495 [3] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2229353 [4] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2228419