If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say some of this looks awfully convenient, and maybe even well timed, for Apple.
"See, the 30% we charge you isn't so bad after all, is it?"
"See, the 30% we charge you isn't so bad after all, is it?"
That said, the "conspiracy theory" falls apart because this is ultimately self-serving by Apple; in-app purchases translate to money for them, and if developers are too scared to include content purchasing options in their apps (since in-app is the only permitted method, natch), it means a direct hit to Apple's bottom line. It isn't altruistic towards developers, so it's silly to see it as a justification of Apple's 30% cut.
Other Apple Exec: Add value to it.
Apple Exec: How do we do that?
Other Apple Exec: Show people that if they didn't use our methods and lose their 30%, they'll get sued for licensing fees for an in-app purchasing patent and probably lose it anyways.
Apple Exec: "Hey Lodsys, we're already paying you money, but could you do us a favor real quick..."
I'm not claiming this is what happened, because I sincerely don't think it is what went down. I'm just illustrating a theoretical and likely fictional path.
Per-subscription costs, however, are a different story.
0.5% doesn't seem much, but if they succeed in this, many more other patent trolls will come out of the woodwork and all will demand a small percentages. Lots of these quickly add up, with 100 patent trolls parasiting on your App, you lose already half the profit.