苹果的iOS操作系统和Facebook是两个在基本层面上大不相同的平台，但它们在上个月中的动作暗示着他们在未来的一两年中可能会以一些奇妙的方式发生摩擦。

Facebook在本质上对用户使用何种设备或应用程序登陆他们的平台并无要求，与之相反，iOS的存在到目前为止主要是为了推动苹果硬件的销售。

但苹果和Facebook两者都会对各自平台的下游经济环节进行抽成。苹果一开始是针对付费应用抽取30%的收益，后来又将范围延伸至应用内置付费功能和现在的订阅服务。Facebook则通过Facebook Credits来实现这一目的，它引进的虚拟货币系统已经发展成为一个价值21亿美元的市场，并且它也奉行三七开分成的原则。

apple-vs-facebook

游戏邦获悉，二者今年都加大马力推行各自的付费系统。Facebook从今年7月开始将强制要求该平台开发商采用Facebook Credits作为游戏唯一的付费方式，苹果也要求发行商通过iTunes为消费者提供订阅或应用内置付费功能，并从中抽成30%。虽然用户仍可通过iTunes以外的方式为订阅服务付费，但苹果系统如此完善，相信大多数用户都会选择它的计费系统。

这看起来很不错：苹果控制着iOS上的计费系统，Facebook决定该平台游戏的付费方式。那么事情何时会变得有趣呢？

来自多个渠道的消息都暗示Facebook Credits即将向网页进军，或许下个季度就会出现。Facebook向网页内容开放虚拟货币系统，有可能让Facebook Credits的势力范围延伸至更多游戏，甚至是音乐等其他数字内容产品。人们已经连续好几年都在猜测这种可能。

但人们疏忽的一点是，Facebook的这一举动有可能是在为进入手机领域铺路。Facebook一直在游说开发商使用HTML5技术取代手机应用，Facebook首席技术官布雷特·泰勒（Bret Taylor）同样暗示，Facebook有可能面向平板电脑推出基于HTML5技术的应用产品。

现在来想象一下，如果Facebook不仅仅发布原版的iPad或Android应用程序，如果它还同时发布一个采用HTML5技术的优化版本，囊括了该平台来自Zynga及其他开发商的所有热门游戏，如果它把Facebook Credits整合进HTML5游戏，那么就会绕过App Store和Android Market的付费限制。HTML5技术与原始应用之间一直争议颇多，但许多热门的iOS应用中同样包含HTML5元素。Oecoway推出的非官方Facebook应用，可在iPad平台上顺利运行，其核心部分还基于HTML5的news feed功能。据AppData数据显示，该应用的月活跃用户刚刚突破200万。

问题的有趣之处并不在于开发商将倒向原版应用或HTML5中哪一方，而在于他们为何做出这样的选择。是出于性能、应用搜索还是创收潜力？如果Facebook可以通过社交优势和Credits解决这三个问题中的两个，手机应用开发商们会倒向它的阵营吗？

Facebook-Credits

支持Credits的网页应用将有助于Facebook牢牢抓住开发者群体，更何况它已将Android和iOS视为另一大收入来源。通过与开发商及第三方服务供应商对话发现，少数顶尖的iOS游戏开发商目前每年营收为2000万到2500万美元。虽然只是Zynga营收的一点零头，但仍然已经十分具有吸引力。

Facebook是一个强大的终点站，所以它极有可能为HTML5游戏带来更多流量。在该公司每月超过2亿的移动用户中，约有60%的用户通过网页访问Facebook，这个数字甚至超过了Gartner公司统计的Android手机设备目前的出货量。最重要的是，Facebook总能运用它与运营商及设备制造商的关系，让后两者在手机和平板电脑中预装Facebook应用，Facebook Zero以及上周在全球移动大会上展示的HTC和INQ特殊手机就属于这种情况。Facebook还可以让运营商从Credits的营收分成中分得一杯羹。

与此同时，苹果和Facebook在后者的Connect与音乐社交网站Ping绑定这件事上仍未达成一致意见，所以很难看到iOS会为Credits敞开大门。因此Facebook要全面出击网页领域工，还将经历一段漫长的时期。

自从它们登台以来，iOS和Facebook都见证了多数免费、广告赞助模式转向免费模式或免费体验模式这一变化过程。游戏领域在这条道路上最为领先，但其他产业如媒体等同样不甘落伍，开始尝试采用相关的付费系统。

问题在于，谁将在手机和网页上为数字内容提供最好的计费服务？随着苹果iOS和Facebook用户规模的扩大，它们俨然已经成为战局中的庄家，将自己定义为无所不在并且值得信赖的安全平台。因为谷歌正全力弥补它在付费系统及应用内容功能上的缺陷，而且还提供了一个订阅服务程序OnePass，所以Android也有可能成为第二大智能手机平台。不过，谷歌此前在计费服务上的工作并不到位。亚马逊在电子商务方面拥有多年经验，它通过网络服务与开发商群体建立起了紧密的联系，同样是个实力强劲的竞争对手。紧随这四者之后的是索尼和微软等公司。

这或许并不是一个赢家通吃的市场，也许将出现Visa、Mastercard及Amex这种大家平分天下的局面。因为竞争者过多，大家的利润可能都会下降。总而言之，这将是一场值得一看的角逐。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，转载请注明来源：游戏邦）

Are In-App Payments and Facebook Credits on a Collision Course?

Apple’s iOS and Facebook are very different platforms at a fundamental level. But their moves over the past month suggest that they could clash over the next year or two in some fascinating ways.

At its core, Facebook is an identity layer that is agnostic about which device or application a user touches the platform with. iOS, in contrast, has so far existed mainly to drive sales of Apple hardware.

But both Apple and Facebook want a cut of downstream revenues from the burgeoning economies that their platforms support. Apple did this from the get-go by taking 30% of revenue from paid apps, which it extended to in-app payments and now subscriptions. Facebook did this with Credits, the currency it introduced as virtual goods blossomed into a $2.1 billion U.S. market. It anchored off the price expectations Apple set, and also used the 70% to 30% revenue split.

Both have moved to consolidate power around their in-house payment systems this year. Facebook will make Credits mandatory as the sole payment option for games by July. Apple now requires that publishers offer consumers the choice of paying through iTunes for subscriptions or in-app purchases, from which it will take a 30% cut. While consumers can still pay for subscriptions outside iTunes, Apple’s system is so seamless that most consumers will probably opt for it anyway.

So this is all well and good: Apple controls payments on iOS. Facebook controls payments on canvas games. When does it get interesting?

Multiple sources have hinted that Facebook Credits are coming for the web — perhaps as soon as next quarter. Opening up Credits to the web would extend the currency’s reach into many more gaming titles. It would also get the company into other types of digital goods such as content or music. There’s been widespread speculation about this for years.

The less discussed aspect of the move is that it would also be a back door into mobile. Facebook has been pushing game developers to use HTML5 instead of building native apps. Facebook chief technology officer Bret Taylor has also hinted that whatever tablet experience it launches may be in HTML5.

Now imagine if Facebook didn’t just launch a native iPad or Android tablet app. Imagine if it also launched a tablet-optimized HTML5 version that came complete with all of the Facebook platform’s top-performing titles from Zynga and other developers.

If it integrated Credits into HTML5 gaming titles, this would bypass payment restrictions in the app store and Android Marketplace. Much has been made of the HTML5-native debate, but many popular iOS apps have HTML5 elements in them. Oecoway’s unofficial Facebook app, Friendly for iPad, renders its core parts including the news feed in HTML5. It has just over 2 million monthly active users, according to AppData.

The interesting question is not whether developers are turning to native apps over HTML5, but why. Is it because of performance, discovery or monetization? If Facebook could solve two of those three problems with the social graph and Credits, would mobile developers come?

Supporting Credits in web apps would help Facebook hold onto its developer community as it eyes Android and iOS as alternative sources of revenue. From conversations with developers and third-party service providers, the handful of very top iOS game developers are operating on an annualized $20 to 25 million run rate right now. That’s a fraction of what Zynga makes, but is nevertheless intriguing.

Facebook is powerful enough as a destination that it could probably drive meaningful traffic to HTML5 gaming titles. About 60 percent of the company’s more than 200 million monthly mobile users access it through the web, which is more than the total number of Android devices that Gartner estimates have been shipped to date. On top of that, Facebook could always leverage its relationships with the carriers and device manufacturers to come pre-installed on handsets and tablets, along the lines of what it has done with Facebook Zero and the special HTC and INQ handsets that were unveiled last week at Mobile World Congress. It could offer carriers a cut of Credits revenue to sweeten the deal.

Meanwhile, given Apple and Facebook’s failure to come to an agreement with bringing Connect to Ping, iTunes’ social network for music, it’s hard to see iOS giving Credits an opening. So Facebook will have to go through the web at least in the long-run.

Since their inception, the iOS and Facebook platforms have presided over a shift from mostly free and advertising-supported experiences to freemium or free-to-play ones that are monetized with micropayments. Games have pioneered the way, but other industries like the media are beginning to experiment with payments too.

The question is who will provide the best payments infrastructure on mobile and the web for digital content? Apple’s iOS and Facebook have positioned themselves as ubiquitous and trusted platforms with the scale to become market-makers. Android is also emerging as the second major smartphone platform as Google fixes its payments infrastructure with in-app purchases and a subscription program OnePass. However, the company has never historically executed payments well. Amazon, with years of expertise in e-commerce and recommendations, plus ties to the developer community through web services, is very formidable too. Coming in behind these four are other players like Sony and Microsoft.

This is probably not a winner-take-all market. It may end up looking something more like Visa, Mastercard and Amex. Margins may have to come down as they compete. This will be one interesting horse-race to watch.（source：insidemobileapps）