“Economy Minister Vincent Van Quickenborne asked the country’s competition watchdog to review whether Apple abused its dominant position after several Belgian and Dutch editors were notified about the US company’s policy,” AFP reports. “A recent document from Apple ‘indicates that from now on, iPad subscriptions will only be sold via iTunes,’ the minister’s office said in a statement.”
AFP reports, “Apple takes 30 percent of the revenue from sales of newspaper and magazine subscriptions through iTunes, the ministry said… Belgium could launch a formal investigation if the review spots any problems with the policy, the ministry said, warning it could also transfer the case to the European Union’s competition watchdog.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: We’ve been through all of this with iPod+iTunes Store ad infinitum. So, once again: If publishers don’t like it, they can sell their publications to users of other tablets. If consumers don’t like it, they’re welcome to purchase some other tablet. Apple has the right to operate their platform as they see fit, since, after all, Apple created and maintains it. iOS apps are intended to go through the iTunes App Store. Period. Furthermore, iPads do not require the iTunes App Store to operate. The iTunes App Store does not require iPads to operate. Therefore, there is no tying and, obviously, there is no monopoly, so there can be no abuse.
For more on “tying” or lack thereof, read this and substitute “iPad” for “iPod” and “App Store” for “Music Store”: Enjoying Apple’s iTunes and iTunes Music Store without owning an iPod – May 11, 2005
MDN cut the sanctimonious BS. I’m a consumer and I HATE that new policy. It is a clear abuse of a monopoly position and I pointed that out to regulators in Brussels, Washington, and Austin. So eff Apple for getting Microsoftian in its desire for control.
Tommy Boy,
Nobody gives a shit what you hate. You must be an American.
There is no monopoly, dummy.
MDN is spot on, as usual.
Tommy Boy,
Can you explain why newspapers and magazines should be granted the “right” to use Apple’s servers to profit while Apple bears the costs of maintaining that infrastructure? Doesn’t seem very ethical to me. I think you’re a little off base.
I’m a consumer and am OK with Apple’s decision. Having a single point of purchase for a variety of periodicals is great for me. I know that there may be publications that Apple may want to bar. That would be bad. Operations of their App Store imply that they will censor, but I hope that they don’t. Time will tell. Ultimately, I am with Tommy Boy in that at some point an iPad owner should be able to buy a subscription to content from a source other than Apple.
The main reason I am okay with this right now is that the building a viable system for digital distribution, marketing and subscription payment processes is a huge and expensive undertaking. Apple is investing a huge amount (likely a good portion of the Carolina server farm too) to bring radical change to a dying artform: the periodical. It’s a huge bet; and expensive gamble. This development needs a good shepard to see it through. I want to see Apple’s model. I want to see it without the noise of twenty different alternatives. I like the idea of Apple using its leverage to focus publications on a single method. I want them to master this single method, populate the newsstand with enough titles to prove the model and indication direction for improvement. Once the tipping point is reached, and at least one proven method of digital subscription publishing exists, then I would argue that it is time for other subscription services have access to the iPod. And, hey, there is always the Android tablet… completely open and un-evil.
@JWSC: Apple’s servers are used to host the App, which is sold in the normal way with Apple taking 30% of the sale. However, the newspaper content, which is updated on a daily basis, is not hosted by Apple and Apple plays no further part in delivering this. I see no reason why Apple is entitled any of the proceeds of the newspaper content – unless they contribute to writing it. This *is* an abuse of their monopoly on the iPad – the iPad is the overwhelming market leader in tablet devices and Apple has ensured that the App Store is the only mechanism for installing apps on the device. Thus, newspapers have no option but to pay the 30% tax if they want to get into the tablet content business. If nothing else, Brussels has a clear case to investigate.
Y’all are missing the point. I have no problem with Apple offering iTunes subs as one method of receiving them. I do have a severe problem with Apple requiring iTunes subs as the only method of receiving them.
For example, I get a subscription to The Economist courtesy of one of my frequent flier programs. Because of my paid subscription The Economist gives me access to each week’s issue 2-4 days before I receive it in the mail via their website, iPad, or iPhone apps. Now what Apple proposes to do is cut off my access to The Economist unless I purchase a second sub through the iTunes store. Were I paying for the sub directly instead of receiving it as a reward that would not be an issue. But Apple’s policy will screw people who have previously subscribed to publications, received a gift sub, a rewards sub, or get it free for being an employee.
I’m a consumer AND a former metropolitan daily newspaper editor. I also think Apple is doing the right thing here. The newspaper industry couldn’t find a good digital business model if someone walked up and handed it to them, which is precisely what is happening.
Newspaper publishers are the cheapest SOB’s on the planet and along with magazine publishers, they cannot be trusted with consumer data. I WANT a trusted single source holding my credit card info and I WANT access to hundreds of digital publications.
However, I DON’T WANT hundreds of publishers accessing my contact and Web surfing information. If this happens, we will have to endure a whole new generation of advertising spam. This also is why I won’t used Android mobile phones or tablets either.
Who can forget the good times with the magazine industry a few years ago? Third-party telephone solicitors with full access to my personal data, telephone sales calls by the hundreds, mailboxes filled with unwanted snail mail ads each day, and subscriptions that couldn’t be canceled without writing a snail mail letter to a P.O. Box in the middle of nowhere.
I’d trust Apple with my data before the publishing industry.
Last time I checked, Netflix doesn’t pay a dime to Apple for the subscription that you use to watch movies on the iPad. And Netflix app is free, therefore Apple doesn’t get a dime on the app in the App Store either.
So, there are ways to not pay Apple’s tax. But if you want the benefits, you must pay the tax. Otherwise, it’s like requesting WalMart to sell your products in their stores for the exact price you charge WalMart.
Although skimming off 30% of the proceeds seems like a rather stiff tax, the same is true for music, for which the labels are still collecting some further tens of %. There is no such middle man for newspaper/written press sales. And nobody seems to object, in fact business is booming.
I understand that Apple is fighting against a proliferation of apps, one for every newspaper, and they surely would be in favor of having just a few apps that use a common format for retrieving paid content.
Besides, most news reader apps turn out to be far inferior to what is already offered through web pages. The reason is that “tablet” apps are inflexible, like being cast in concrete, while web content can be extremely dynamic: indeed, web apps are data themselves and can adapt themselves easily to the content.
So what the iOS appStore is doing is to offer just another competitive alternative to the web.
@Tommy Boy and @Reality Czech.
i’m not sure I get TB complaint. if you can get the info 2-4 days early, and for the economist, it isn’t a time sensitive issue anyway but more in depth articles, by going to their website, then go to their website. you don’t need the app store or apple or your ipad for that
@RCzech…there is nothing wrong, in us law, with having a monopoly if..”Monopolies may exist in a particular industry if a company controls a major natural resource, produces (even at a reasonable price) all of the output of a product or service because of technological superiority (called a natural monopoly), holds a patent on a product or process of production…” My dad and three other biz men built a movie theater. if a studio or individual wanted to show a movie, comedy shorts, or whatever in that theater, my dad and his partners got a profit from every day there were movies shown. like it or not, it costs money to run a movie house, hire people to manage it, pay utilities, rent, taxes and on and on. there were a few other theaters but not well run and not well attended, so they benefitted from their work and stayed afloat. apple has invested heavily in a vision, at great risk, in the carolina server farm, hardware, software, marketing, staffing to make the app store viable. they don’t owe me anything for free, although the mindset of a lot of my buds is take what you can get, hack it, if need be, cause we don’t care!
And indeed, you all seem to be missing the point. No one is complaining about the app store being used to sell the app. The problem is that APPL now wants to regulate which users can receive which content witthin the apps, and at what price.
It’s like you have to buy the articles in the MDN app, and you can only get these articles via the app store.
I have no objections against the app store being the place to buy your apps. I do think it’s just wrong for APPL to control the content in the app, after the app has been approved. APPL has the approval process in place to either accept or reject the app. From there on, when the content does not violate the TOS it’s hands of for APPL.
In addition, there are other examples in the app store of apps which can only be used by a selective group of users, not all users. With these apps not being sanctioned, the president is set. I hope that Belgium and a lot of other countries will unite and will investigate APPLs double standards.
Last, but not least. At this moment APPL is forcing a non existing model onto publishers. How wrong can that be.
Really a educative and informative post, the post is good in all regards,I am glad to read this post.
http://www.cellhub.com/T-mobile-cell-phones/lg-p509-optimus-t-titanium.html
LG Optimus T
Dear MDN,
Your standpoint is really fascinating – give Apple 30% of all revenues on content that can be delivered through an iOS-device.
I guess you are already paying Apple voluntarily 30%
– of your Dropbox subscription
– of your isp-subscription
– of your laywer’s bills that were delivered by email
– of your Evernote subscription
– of your SalesForce subscription
– of your banking fees (I happen to have a nice banking app)
– of your ….
I think it is also reasonable when you pay 30% on top for all services that use OS X.
And of course MS should be granted the same right.
It is perfectly fine for me when Apple charges a publishing house 30% for an App or even for an online subscription.
It is perfectly fine when Apple has detailed technical requirements for apps in its store.
Charging 30% for content that could be accessed by a device -and to which Apple has never contributed- is ludicrous.
So if Apple wants to make money, let it charge publishers for their app but please stop this corporate greed.
@vanfruniken
Not sure what you mean by “skimming off 30%” of the proceeds (sounds negative), but the iTunes Store basically breaks even. Apple uses the 30% of the gross revenue to maintain the store. It makes little if any profit on it.
This is no different, or less, than any store on the planet, which mark up wholesale prices in order to run their business. It doesn’t seem to be referred to as “skimming”, and it doesn’t seem to be a problem when every other store on the planet does it.
If someone wants to publish something on paper, should Apple be responsible to maintain the printing press or deliver it for free? If they don’t like it, publish online or onpaper or make your own tablet.
Periodicals are dying because of blogging. The quality of blogging posters is improving and sites like MDN are aggregating the news while writing interesting commentary. Ads still pay the way.
> Apple has the right to operate their platform as they see fit, since, after all, Apple created and maintains it.
This view that an owner can do what he wants with the product as per a form of capitalisme sauvage is An American centric view which is not shared in the European Union or in most other Western countries.
The test is whether a company with a dominant position abuses that dominance. Microsoft abused their position with Windows and the EU took action over it – even though no-one was forced to buy a Windows computer, their dominance in the market place reduced competition and led to unfair practices. The suggestion that a person or a consumer builds their own tablet or operating system is unrealistic.
If Apple are abusing a dominant position and following unfair practices then it is no defence to say that it owns the product. The promotion of fair practice and competition is important and the EU has taken action against American and European companies that have attempted to behave unfairly or abusively.
I don’t think he is American! Try @tomiahonen – he is worth following.
Although I don’t agree that the world should be run by Brussels as he sometimes does.
And no, Apple is not manipulating a monopoly position to keep COMPETITORS out of the frame. They are simply designating what and how they wish to sell in their own store.
For all we know, it might well not work to Apple’s advantage. So, on this I disagree with Tommy Boy completely.
Simply, whatever you sell through my store, u pay me 30%
WTF is wrong that?
Screw communist Begium.
Guess Belgium has no problem requiring you to pay 15% sales tax on everything you buy in Belgium.
Talking about monopoly here.
No, M$ dominance did not lead to monopoly base, M$ gain a monopoly position through abuse and illegal activities.
Every app operates under the same rule. All sales have to go through the app. Otherwise apps can sell any crap and guess where the people ate gonna go o complain if the get ripped off?
Hello Safari, Safari, are you there? Hey Belgium, there is a full fledged web browser on every iPad. Go buy your periodical subscriptions directly from the publisher and pass over the middleman. There is no abuse because there is a second option.
for many years companies are trying to be green and to save the environment, could you imagine the impact of electronic newspaper will be? less trees to cut means we have more air to breathe and some people say that clean air reduces stress thus we work more efficiently! Belgium think outside the box, you should be supporting this! not those money-hungry companies!!
@About Tommy Boy: I live in Texas a$$hat.
@ Ubermac: So by your logic then Apple should get a cut from books I download in my Kindle app?! It should get a cut of movies I download in Netflix?!
@ Tommy Boy
You’ve mistakenly applied the term “logic” to Ubermac’s posting; he’s unfamiliar with the concept. But he is extremely good at ranting. Keep watching for a sample soon.
This case cannot succeed. A consumer may buy a subscription from any publisher’s website, receive the new publication in PDF form on their Mac and drag and drop it to their iPad iBooks library. Or a publisher can continue to make their publication available on the web, allowing users to read it online, or download it to work with an application on the iPad.
Apple’s “monopoly” is only applicable to a narrow market: Users of Apple products who prefer to deal directly with Apple.