soa理念_我们的理念很简单

When you’ve been at this long enough, sometimes you completely forget what you’ve written about a topic before. Or that you’ve written about it at all. Or that you were one of the first to write about it.

当您从事了如此长时间的工作时，有时您会完全忘记以前写过的关于某个主题的文章。 或您已经写过有关它的文章。 或者您是第一个撰写此文章的人。

Also, forget “sometimes”; this happens often.

另外，忘记“有时”； 这种情况经常发生。

Such was the case a couple weeks ago when amidst the unfolding Apple v. Epic imbroglio, my old colleague at TechCrunch, Jason Kincaid, reminded me of a series of posts we did around the launch of Apple’s in-app subscriptions for iOS apps nearly a decade ago:

几周前就是这种情况，当时我在TechCrunch的老同事Jason Kincaid展开了Apple v。Epic imbroglio诉讼，这让我想起了我们围绕启动Apple的iOS应用程序内应用程序订阅所做的一系列帖子。十年前：

The year was 2011. In smartphone years, this may have not been the stone age, but it was the bronze age.¹ It was so long ago, in fact, that this was just a few months after Apple rebranded “iPhone OS” to “iOS”. The broader implications were just starting to come into focus…

该年W A S在2011年的智能手机，这可能尚未石器时代，但它是青铜age.¹这是很久以前，其实，这是短短几个月后，苹果公司更名为“iPhone OS ”到“ iOS”。 更为广泛的影响才刚刚开始受到关注……

Along those lines, on a random day in February, just after the launch of The Daily — remember The Daily?! — Apple unveiled subscriptions on the App Store. It was a big enough deal to get its own press release, but not a big enough deal to get its own press event. Again, it was all telegraphed alongside The Daily unveiling, as it was the first publication to use the service. But it was also much bigger than that. This much is clear now, almost a decade later. But re-reading those posts, it was clear back then to some of us as well.

沿着这些思路， 在每日新闻发布后的2月中的任意一天-还记得《每日报》吗？ -Apple在App Store上公布了订阅。 获得自己的新闻发布是一笔足够大的交易，但却没有得到自己的新闻活动的足够大的交易。 同样，这是《每日报》的首发，同时也进行了电报，因为这是第一本使用该服务的出版物。 但这还远不止于此。 现在已经差不多十年了，这已经很明显了。 但是，重新阅读这些帖子后，我们中的某些人也很清楚。

As I wrote at the time:

正如我当时所写：

Simply put: this is one of the boldest bets Apple has ever made. And it could backfire. Or it could be huge beyond belief. Either way, it’s going to be very controversial.

简而言之：这是苹果有史以来最大胆的赌注之一。 它可能适得其反。 否则可能会超出预期。 无论哪种方式，都会引起很大争议。

Both things ended up being true, of course. It ended up being huge beyond belief — it’s a key component of Apple’ second-most important business after the iPhone: services. And it was controversial at the time. And it’s even more controversial now, as it is backfiring, it would seem.

当然，最后两件事都是对的。 最终，它的规模令人难以置信-它是苹果仅次于iPhone的第二重要业务： 服务的关键组成部分。 当时这是有争议的。 而且，由于回火， 现在看来更具争议性。

And while Apple was just focused on subscriptions with that announcement, it was pretty clear that this would underpin all in-app economics. In-app purchases had been around since 2009 with their 30% cut, but now Apple wanted to extend the 30% across the board. And that’s where we find ourselves today.²

尽管苹果在发布公告时只是专注于订阅，但显然这将支撑所有应用内经济学。 自2009年以来，应用程序内购买已削减了30％，但现在苹果希望将这一比例扩大到30％。 那就是我们今天所处的位置 。²

But I think this announcement also betrays a sentiment Apple may wish we all had forgotten. In the words of no less than Steve Jobs:

但我认为，这一宣布也背叛了苹果公司希望我们所有人都忘记了的情绪。 用至少乔布斯的话来说：

“Our philosophy is simple — 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. We believe that this innovative subscription service will provide publishers with a brand new opportunity to expand digital access to their content onto the iPad, iPod touch and iPhone, delighting both new and existing subscribers.”

“我们的理念很简单-当Apple为应用程序带来新的订阅者时，Apple可获得30％的份额； 当发布者将现有或新订阅者带到应用程序时，发布者保留100％的权益，而Apple则一无所获。 我们所需要的就是，如果发布者在应用程序外部进行订阅要约，则在应用程序内部进行相同(或更优)的要约，以便客户可以在应用程序中一键单击即可轻松进行订阅。 我们相信，这项创新的订阅服务将为发行商提供一个全新的机会，将其内容的数字访问扩展到iPad，iPod touch和iPhone上，从而使新订阅者和现有订阅者都感到高兴。”

Jobs was saying that Apple was totally fine with app developers keeping 100% of the revenue if they brought in the customer — Apple’s 30% cut would just be a finder’s fee, as it were. And while that’s still technically true, this is also where it feels like Apple has started to deviate from the original intent.

乔布斯说，苹果完全可以让应用程序开发人员在吸引客户的情况下保留100％的收入-苹果公司削减30％的费用实际上只是一个发现者的费用。 尽管从技术上讲这仍然是正确的，但是这也感觉就像苹果已经开始偏离最初的意图 。

As we all are well aware, Apple now makes it all but impossible to subscribe to a service by any method other than their own. Forget the MFN clause, you can’t even mention that there’s another way to sign up for a service anymore.

众所周知，Apple现在几乎不可能通过自己以外的任何方式来订阅服务。 忘记了MFN子句，您甚至都不会提到有另一种方法来注册服务。

As I read this holy scripture, my interpretation is that Jobs intended for Apple to showcase that their payment method was the best and win on those merits. These days, Apple is winning more on obfuscation. One is understandable, the other is shitty.

当我阅读这本圣经时，我的解释是乔布斯打算让苹果公司展示他们的付款方式是最好的，并在这些优点上取胜 。 这些天来，苹果公司在混淆方面赢得了更多胜利。 一个是可以理解的，另一个是卑鄙的。

Apple would seem to be reading their old press releases in a very literal and narrow way. But they’re looking past intent. And while it has taken a decade, such strict adherence to a (rather arbitrary) dogma from a different world is finally catching up to them. It’s time to lead by example again, and revisit those rules.

苹果似乎正在以一种非常狭义的方式阅读他们的旧新闻稿。 但是他们正在寻找过去的意图。 尽管花了十年的时间 ，但如此严格地遵循来自不同世界的( 相当武断的 )教条终于赶上了他们。 现在该再次以身作则 ，并重新审视这些规则 。

I’ll give Jason, 9+ years ago, the last word:

我要给9年前的杰森说最后一句话：

Which brings us to why I find all of this so alarming. Above all, I don’t like the precedents that Apple continues to set. The App Store has existed for less than three years, and Apple has been drastically changing the rules on the fly, ruining some businesses and hampering others. It took years to reveal its developer guidelines in the first place, and, even when it actually printed some guidelines, it’s continued to arbitrarily change how it’s enforcing them.

这使我们想到了为什么我发现所有这些都如此令人震惊。 最重要的是，我不喜欢苹果继续树立的先例。 App Store成立不到三年，Apple一直在Swift改变规则，破坏了部分业务并阻碍了其他业务。 最初花费了数年时间才披露了其开发人员指南，即使实际印刷了一些指南，它仍在继续任意更改其执行方式。

The lyrics have changed, but the song remains the same.

歌词已更改，但歌曲保持不变。

¹ Adjusting for COVID years, this was pre-historic times.

¹调整为COVID年，这是史前时期。

² Except for the backroom hush hush deals, of course. Such deals eventually yielded a 15% second year option across the board.

²当然，除了后台安静交易。 这样的交易最终使第二年的选择权产生了15％的收益。