Anybody who has watched a gangster movie knows what racketeering means.  The most common form is “protection” racketeering where criminals demand payment from businesses in exchange for protection from “other” criminals. If payment is not made the abuse comes from the very group demanding the money for protection; the defender become the harmer.

Apple’s new subscription payment model reminds me of the protection racket. Steve Jobs said in a press release, “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.”  While this sounds filled with good intention, the problem is Apple takes 30% of that subscription fee!

Jobs also stated “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.” The protection racket: pay us our cut or your app gets removed from the app store.

Besides, I’m not quite sure how Apple is bringing the new subscriber to the app…

The content provider had to create the app and provide the content. Didn’t Apple already get paid for the device itself? Yes, they provide iTunes (and the app store) as a means to get the application to the device but without a jailbreak this is the only official method of getting an app ON THE DEVICE. Doesn’t getting a subscriber depending solely on the content of the subscribed material? What did Apple have to do with the content? NOTHING!

I’m not affected by these new subscription terms as I do not provide any such subscription content but I feel for those who do. Isn’t this a violation of the RICO Act of 1970.