????蘋果上周二公布了一系列條款，規(guī)定了出版商及其他內(nèi)容供應(yīng)商通過蘋果應(yīng)用商店（App Store）提供訂閱服務(wù)的分成比例,。在史蒂夫?喬布斯的口中,，這個(gè)分成規(guī)定聽來似乎是全世界最合理的事了。
????喬布斯寫道：“我們的理念很簡(jiǎn)單,。如果蘋果公司給應(yīng)用帶來了一個(gè)新的訂閱用戶,，則蘋果公司抽取30%的分成；如果是出版商給應(yīng)用帶來了一個(gè)新/老用戶,，則全部收入歸出版商所有,，蘋果公司分文不取。我們所要求的僅僅是,，如果出版商在應(yīng)用以外制定了訂閱價(jià)格,，那么它也應(yīng)該在應(yīng)用內(nèi)實(shí)行同樣或更優(yōu)惠的價(jià)格,，以便顧客在應(yīng)用內(nèi)只需一次點(diǎn)擊便可輕松訂閱?！?/p>
????這套理念在喬布斯看來雖然合理,，但在出版商們看來卻不可理喻。蘋果的規(guī)定還直接威脅到了蘋果應(yīng)用商店內(nèi)一些最知名的第三方應(yīng)用的生存,，包括亞馬遜出品的Kindle應(yīng)用,、Zinio公司的雜志商店應(yīng)用，以及由美國全國廣播公司（NBC）,、?？怂闺娨暸_(tái)（Fox）和美國廣播公司（ABC）等聯(lián)合推出的Hulu Plus應(yīng)用等。延伸閱讀：《喬布斯致出版商：我的地盤我做主》,。
????面對(duì)蘋果公司的苛刻條件,，部分出版商選擇了妥協(xié)。而包括《財(cái)富》的東家——時(shí)代集團(tuán)（Time Inc.）在內(nèi)的另一些出版商目前仍未與蘋果達(dá)成協(xié)議,。還有些出版商,，如《金融時(shí)報(bào)》（Financial Times），則干脆撤出了蘋果的應(yīng)用商店,，推出了自己的網(wǎng)頁應(yīng)用,。其他出版商則紛紛威脅要將他們的業(yè)務(wù)搬到谷歌的Android平臺(tái)上，因?yàn)楣雀铔]有類似的限制,。
????蘋果似乎也明白了其中傳遞的信息,。本周一，也就是在距離新規(guī)則原定的生效日期還有兩個(gè)半星期的時(shí)候,，蘋果公司廢止了要求所有播放音樂、視頻,、書籍等內(nèi)容的應(yīng)用必須在應(yīng)用內(nèi)銷售完全一致的內(nèi)容,、并與蘋果分成的規(guī)定?？萍疾┛虯ll Things D的彼得?卡夫卡寫道：
????“現(xiàn)在（蘋果應(yīng)用商店里的）應(yīng)用可以提供購自應(yīng)用商店以外的內(nèi)容,，前提是應(yīng)用里不得設(shè)置能將消費(fèi)者直接引導(dǎo)到某個(gè)外部商店的‘購買’鏈接。也就是說在用戶仔細(xì)逛過蘋果的應(yīng)用商店之前,，蘋果是不會(huì)輕易讓用戶訂閱應(yīng)用里呈現(xiàn)的內(nèi)容的,。不過蘋果并不會(huì)剝奪用戶的這項(xiàng)權(quán)利?！?/p>
????亞馬遜的Kindle應(yīng)用里有一個(gè)按鍵,，可以把顧客帶到亞馬遜的網(wǎng)站上去購買書籍，因此亞馬遜不得不重寫這款應(yīng)用的程序,。不過如果亞馬遜想要繼續(xù)保留來自蘋果用戶的收入流,，那么它應(yīng)該可以設(shè)計(jì)一個(gè)變通方案,。
????以下是蘋果公司舊版和新版的規(guī)定（來自科技博客MacRumors）。
舊版：
????11.13 （應(yīng)用商店內(nèi)的）應(yīng)用可讀取或播放已核準(zhǔn)的在應(yīng)用外部銷售的內(nèi)容（如雜志,、報(bào)紙,、書籍、音頻,、音樂,、視頻）。倘若同一內(nèi)容在使用了IAP（應(yīng)用內(nèi)訂閱）功能的應(yīng)用上銷售,，且銷售價(jià)格等于或低于應(yīng)用外銷售價(jià)格,，則蘋果將不會(huì)收取任何比例的收入。本規(guī)定既適用于直接購買的內(nèi)容,，也適用于訂閱服務(wù),。
新版：
????11.13 不允許應(yīng)用使用含有外部購買或外部訂閱機(jī)制的鏈接，如設(shè)置“購買”鍵引導(dǎo)顧客到某網(wǎng)站買電子書,。
????11.14 應(yīng)用商店內(nèi)的應(yīng)用可讀取或播放已核準(zhǔn)的,、從應(yīng)用外購買或訂閱的內(nèi)容（特指雜志、報(bào)紙,、書籍,、音頻、音樂和視頻）,，但應(yīng)用內(nèi)不得設(shè)置讓顧客購買該內(nèi)容的按鍵或外部鏈接,。對(duì)于已核準(zhǔn)、但從應(yīng)用外部購買或訂閱的內(nèi)容,，蘋果公司將不會(huì)從銷售收入中收取任何比例的提成,。
????譯者：樸成奎 |
|
|
????Last February, when Apple (AAPL) announced the rules by which publishers and other content providers could offer subscriptions through its App Store, Steve Jobs made them sound like the most reasonable thing in the world.
????"Our philosophy is simple," he wrote. "When Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing. All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app."
????What sounded reasonable to Jobs, however, sounded crazy to publishers. Moreover, it threatened the very existence of some of the most popular third party applications in the App Store, including Amazon's (AMZN) Kindle, Zinio's magazine store and Hulu Plus, a joint venture of NBC (NBC), Fox (NWS) and ABC (DIS), among others. See: Steve Jobs to pubs: Our way or highway.
????Some publishers caved and went along with Apple's terms. Some, including Time Inc. (TWX), which publishes this blog, met them half-way. Some, like the Financial Times, pulled out of the App Store and went with a Web app instead. Others threatening to take their business to Google's (GOOG) Android, which had no such restrictions.
????Apple seems to have gotten the message. On Monday, two and a half weeks before the rules were scheduled to take effect, Apple changed them. It scrapped the requirement that apps that play content like music, movies, and books to also sell the same content within the app itself, and share the revenue with Apple. As All Things D's Peter Kafka put it:
????"Now, apps can offer access to content purchased outside of Apple's walls, as long as the app doesn't have a "buy" button that connects consumers directly to an external store. That is: Apple won't make it easy for users to buy in-app content without going through Apple's store, but it won't outlaw it, either."
????Amazon, which currently uses a button in its Kindle app that takes customers to the Amazon website to purchase books, will have to rewrite its app. But if it wants to keep the revenue flowing from Apple users, it should be able to design a workaround.
????Below: The old terms and the new (via MacRumors).
????Before:
????11.13 Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP [in-app purchase] at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions.
????After:
????11.13 Apps that link to external mechanisms for purchases or subscriptions to be used in the app, such as a "buy" button that goes to a web site to purchase a digital book, will be rejected
????11.14 Apps can read or play approved content (specifically magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video) that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app, as long as there is no button or external link in the app to purchase the approved content. Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues for approved content that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app. |
