A rare disagreement
Marco Arment posts his thoughts on Apple’s recent subscription change, and how he differs from John Gruber, who has been pretty staunchly defending the new policy.
I would go a step further and say this isn’t about being “open” or “closed,” or even being in a publishing vertical vs. SaaS. It’s about payment processing. If a developer or company wants to rely on Apple for processing and managing their subscriptions, then yes: I say Apple has all the rights in the world to charge the 30% Apple tax. When it comes to services like Basecamp and Dropbox, who have been taking subscription payments for years and have already invested in developing out their payment systems, I see no reason for Apple to make a percentage of their profits, or require them to offer similar plans through In-App purchases. To apply this rule to Amazon, I would say: If Amazon chooses to handle subscriptions through their own payment system, they should be left alone. If they want a more integrated feel by relying on Apple’s In-App purchases, they should be taxed.
I’m not quite sure how this policy will pan out, as we have yet to see the real consequences and refinements unfold — but this requirement for services to offer whatever existing subscriptions they have through iOS is certainly the most frightening part of the rumor to me. The very thought of it is the only ding to the Apple brand I’ve seen in years.
