Rhapsody won't sing Apple's subscription tune

So it is impossible for Rhapsody to use a website, just like they do on the computer.

As for the whole rules issue, one rule you agree to is that Apple can change the rules when they feel the need.

And the in app payment and same or better are actually pro-consumer rules.

A lot of the commenters (including you, it seems) don't seem to understand basic business economics. The 30% share here is off the gross revenue that in many cases they wouldn't have access to. So it's plain silly to talk about that as if it's possible to absorb a higher rate than their margins. The 'marginal cost' of a subscription service where you're offering access to other people's content doesn't change when you sell more subscriptions. Therefore it's largely the same cost for them.

Bottom line is operating on margins less than 30% (which is quite common in the digital streaming business), Apple's plan prevents you from offering your services to their customers.

I take it NOBODY has read the new terms and conditions. Really people where does it say anywhere in the new T&C's any of the c**p spouted here.

Read section 3.8 - 3.11

@Michael

"Owning the platform doesn't mean you can do what you want with it."

Actually that's EXACTLY what it means.

@ Singapura...

Are you an idiot? Everything Apple did created this platform! Others have tried and failed just like Palm Windows CE/Mobile and Motorola iTunes phone but Apple had the balls to stick to their guns and not cave in to the mobile carriers.

It's going to take more than all the hardware manufacturers banding together on the Android platform. They will need to get rid of some of the carrier's demands and close up the shop a bit. AKA make it like the Apple platform or if that disgust you then make it like the Windows 7 platform.

While you might like the "freedom" you get with the Android platform, it's that freedom that is hurting the platform.

Question: Why is Netflix available on iOS and Windows 7 Mobile but only coming out on select Android devices?

I wonder how this will play out in light of recent statements by the Library of Congress that seem to say that jailbreaking your device is perfectly legal. If that's the case, then the app store ceases to be the one place to get iOS apps and other app stores can function as fully legal entities. Right now there's very little reason for the average consumer to jailbreak their device, and there's the idea that it might be wrong, but if it's touted as a perfectly legal option, and 3rd party app stores are being used and supported by major content distributors, I wonder what will happen. It's going to take some big players pulling their apps from Apple's store, but if that happens consumers will have to choose between an Apple device with limited content, a jailbroken Apple device where Apple isn't getting a cut of the purchase, or a non-Apple device without Apple's restrictions. They certainly don't want to be seen as less functional, and they don't want to drive people to jailbreak, so it seems like they would have to come up with a compromise, I hope. But it will take more companies like Rhapsody standing up to them.

Apple does provide the market place for these apps. If they want to find a way to profit from that, I can understand. But comparing them to a physical store isn't really fair. A physical store may take 30% of the profits, but they also take a share of failures. Their profits are offset by their losses, and in most cases, they are taking a risk with everything they sell. If a product doesn't sell, it's generally the shop owner who takes the loss, or at least part of it. Apple passes all of the risk on to the content distributors, but takes a sizeable cut of any sales just the same. If this drives content providers to other platforms, it benefits no one.

Right now Apple has corned the tablet market, and right now they've created a near-monopoly by designing those tablets to only be compatible with their own store. If they're ever going to strong-arm everyone into giving Apple a cut of all of their business, this is the time, but if a couple of big players step away from the app store as a result, that time will pass. I love my iPad, but at the end of the day it's only as good as the content I can get on it. If, when upgrade time comes, the content providers have left Apple for Android, then so will I. I'm not saying that Apple has no right to push these practices, but is not consumer-friendly. Either my Apple products become less functional as content providers stop supporting them, or my content overall becomes more expensive as Apple drives up prices with their app store policies. If they're successful in getting content providers on board while they're still number one in portable hardware, they may win, but in this case a win for Apple is a loss for Apple customers, which doesn't strike me as a good way to do business in the long run.

I didn't read all comments, so I apologize if this has been said already:

1) Why not make the end user pay some or all of the extra 30% by charging more for the in-app subscription? Or is that against the rules?

2) I don't think buying Kindle books (or anything from say the Amazon app) counts as a "subscription"

Is Rhapsody still in business? WOW never knew they were still around...

Wait a minute. You mean that a company is doing something to increase their bottom line? Oh no! The horror!

Here are the facts: the App Store is Apple's and Apple's alone. They can do what they want with it. Rhapsody and any other dev who doesn't like it can leave. End of discussion.

What some people (and Apple) seem to forget is that some of these apps have added substantial value to the iOS platform and enabled Apple to sell as much hardware as they did. I wouldn't have gotten an iPhone if there was no Kindle app and I won't get one again if they don't settle with Amazon. And if you think that Bezos won't play hardball, think again: These are the guys that left Texas when they didn't do things their way.

Forcing companies to use your billing system and putting their own at a clear disadvantage is NOT alright, even if it is your own platform. Putting your own content distribution services at an advantage by overcharging others is NOT alright, even if it is your own platform. Microsoft can sing that song about the Internet Explorer litigation some years past. iOS is no different from Windows in that regard and Apple can very well be *ordered* to play along.

Margins in digital distribution are razor sharp and there are but few companies that can afford to give Apple 30% of their revenues. If enforced, the new business model will effect a mass exodus from the App Store to other platforms that will be happy to have them and guess what ... users will follow. Apple can hurt Amazon and Netflix, but it's not immune to the consequences of doing so. Settling amiably is definitely in their interest.

It remains to be seen how flexible Apple is in the end about this. I wouldn't be surprised to see markups for IAP (it adds convenience after all) that most users simply won't be willing to pay.