Leave it up to Dilger to spin this in an innocent way. Requiring in-store iOS purchases as an option in, say, the Kindle app, would wreck Amazon's profit margin on books and would either require that they charge higher prices for in-app purchases (hard to see that innocently) or that they pull out from iOS.
Amazon is extorting rather high margins from the writers whose work it sells. So from your perspective, Amazon should get all this profit just because it is applying a brand name and DRM? Why shouldn't Apple take a cut for doing all the retailing heavy lifting for in-app purchases made through iTunes?
It's ridiculous to suggest that Amazon has some right to profit from all the stuff being sold through iTunes. If Amazon created a store within a store inside Border's books, should Borders hand all the profits to Amazon? Does Apple earn all the profits from Macs sold through Best Buy?
This is bullshit. If it makes Kindle books 30% more expensive I'm going to go totally Cambodia.
That Cambodia is nice this time of year. And that you can buy ebooks there as well from Sony.
Sorry - more to the point, since Amazon is weighing in on platforming for Android purchases, how is it in Apple's best interest to continue to turn a blind eye to their content purchases landing external to the App Store? As competition increases between competing purchase platforms (not to mention OS/ecosystems) why shouldn't Apple act in their own best interest. The per cent charges for running the App Store covers overhead and if you were listening to the fincial reporting, is not a major revenue stream for Apple.
Well this is certainly a sad state of affairs. Apple's pissed that competitors are skirting around their 30% cut by offering purchases outside the App Store, so now they're enforcing a rule that they were keen to ignore earlier. Talk about bait and switch. Let's have all these successful models enjoy freedom on iOS for a year, then suddenly impose the keeper's fee.
This is a shakedown if you think about it. Apple doesn't like people selling products on their turf, so now they want their cut.
If B&N sold iPods or iPads at their store, aren't they entitled to piece of the sale price? Should retailers be made to sell someones product a zero markup? Weird sort of business model your are proposing.
Apple is unequivocally repeating their mistakes of the past.
They would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for Google. Steve had the right plan to take down Microsoft, RIM, and others... but I truly believe he was blindsided by Google directly competing against their walled pen strategy with an open range strategy.
Now, it's just a matter of time. Apple is going to be laid siege to by content providers. Will they continue to extort, or will they become flexible. Has Apple already pushed too hard too fast and alienated the rest of the industry?
Remember, ego nearly destroyed Apple before.
Superior technology / user experience & commanding market share didn't win out over free market last time - it is a GAMBLE to assume they will this time.
Look for Google and RIM to surge this year. Apple will remain strong - look for iad to be scrapped or completely revamped.
Are you folks reading the same article I am reading? Apples states that IF a store wants to sell outside the App Store then they also must give the OPTION of selling the same thing in the app (where Apple gets 30%).
The MAGIC WORD is OPTION...as a consumer you can CHOOSE to leave the iOS stores and purchase the content and then return to the app.
Why is this such a big deal? A smart customer will by-pass Apple's in-app purchase if they wish to avoid giving Apple 30% of the sale. While I am sure there are folks who will chose the in-app option because they want to have Apple's baby...the rest of us will ignore this and do what we have done in such situations as with the Kindle.
It would make the experience a little bit disjointed, but would it be within the legal realm/developer agreements for Amazon to offer "30%ish discounts" if you bought the book directly from them rather than directly from the iOS device?
"Buy this book for $12.99 in the in-app store OR click this link to get it for $9.99!"
It would suck for the end user because the experience wouldn't be fluid, but Amazon could keep their profit margins considering most users would click the link instead of just buying it on the device.
This is totally unfair to Sony, because Amazon and B&N don't have to play by these same rules, and that will bring extra development cost to Sony. This is definitely a change in Apple's policy, regardless of what Apple claims. Ridiculous.
I wonder if Kindle and Barnes isn't grandfathered in...
Like today, I would be able to buy a book online at the Sony/Amazon/Barnes & Noble bookstore and it will sync with my device.
Scenario 2
If I want to buy a book on my device, it simply goes through the standardized in-app purchase process, instead of redirecting me to another website.
All this does is apply more consistency across the platform and makes that experience even more consistent for existing customers. It makes total and complete sense.
None of us posting on here are likely typical users, and redirects become confusing, and could create potential security issues as well.
If Apple keeps this sort of behavior up, they are going to have an exciting anti-trust suit on their hands. Major corporations with competing products -- Sony, Amazon -- are not going to simply standby and allow their business models undermined by Apple, especially if that means Apple is going to take a cut of every purchase.
I have to post again. Let me preface by stating I do have an iPhone, a Mac Mini and an AL Macbook. My next phone likely will be an Android phone (with an iPod Touch as a dedicated music player), so...
HOW is this in ANY WAY Anti-Trust? How are these companies' business models going to be undermined? Apple is simply requiring an in-app OPTION to purchase the same content as is sold outside the iOS store. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO MAKE THE IN-APP PURCHASE (thereby bypassing Apple getting a cut).....Just click the "buy outside the store" button and then all is well.
Amazon is not selling any content through the App Store
Where is Amazon's iOS app located? Is it not inside the Apple's App store?
If you bring a list of books into a bookstore, then direct customers inside the store to a truck you have ouside, because your books don't have to pay bookstore's markup, you think the store owner won't call police to kick you out or arrest you?
Like today, I would be able to buy a book online at the Sony/Amazon/Barnes & Noble bookstore and it will sync with my device.
Scenario 2
If I want to buy a book on my device, it simply goes through the standardized in-app purchase process, instead of redirecting me to another website.
All this does is apply more consistency across the platform and makes that experience even more consistent for existing customers. It makes total and complete sense.
None of us posting on here are likely typical users, and redirects become confusing, and could create potential security issues as well.
It all makes sense...
Do they have to pay the 30% for each book sold or do they just have to go through Itunes? I'm kinda lost here. I don't want to pay 30% more just to go through apple's store.
Because it is common courtesy. Apple sell you the platform and then you should be able to choose how you want to use it.
Let's look at the mac then. Why should apple let you install software on your mac that is not from the mac app store where apple gets a 30% cut. EXACTLY the same.
You are a victim of apple marketing. Why should the mobile platform be so so different?
Apple is getting more and more like '1984' every day.
They have banned people who have a magazine subscription from getting free access on the equivalent iPad apps for God sake. It's a joke.
They should be happy making stonking big profits on great consumer products not being even more greedy to weed out a little extra on ebooks. Bloody hell.
explains quite a bit your reaction. You apparently have not run very successfully any sort of business operation. Let me provide an example:
A firm purchases land and use rights to create a very nice bit of shopping mall. They have well-paved carparks, lot's of green space, convenient services, nice events, nice seating for weary shoppers, areas where children can amuse themselves while parents rest and chat. Perhaps they blend in some entertainment, perhaps some nice amusement rides, theaters, music venues, etc. They then advertise to retailers to come and set-up shop, picking and choosing a few good established and popular retailers to anchor and then opening up smaller more affordable space for more cutting-edge, adventuresome or simply different retailers to try out being in business there. The firm is responsible for maintenance, crowd control, and upkeep on the property. In order to do this they ask for and receive a small portion or percentage of the intake by the retailers above the standard rental for the storefront. They are in this for the long-haul so they keep everything reasonable and fairly affordable for most. They will object however if a retailer puts up a large sign that sends its customers to another , cheaper retail storefront to do the purchases when the customers are in the mall, thus circumventing the per cent charge required for operational overhead and what little profit the firm may get out of that fee. That's the App Store and that's the apps using the App Store for the retail space and customer base.
Apple is becoming abusive with their position , just because you buy a record player from someone doesn't mean they can say you can't play any records not bought from us. It's time for the federal government to look into Apple's practice with the app store and their effort to squash any alternative stores ( Cydia).
It's not 'the' app store, it's apples app store. As every reseller on the planet, they have the right to sell within their own guidelines as made clear in supplier contracts. This isn't abusive or anti competitive. If you don't like the way apple run their business model, then use a different company's products. Apple do not have a monopoly. There is no issue, nor has there been a change to the guidelines. The NYT are spreading FUD and Sony have tried to flaunt the very clear rules.
I Predicted last summer that it would only take a year before Android passed IOS for the number of users. I was wrong, Android has already passed IOS, and every other smart phone OS. My next prediction is that Android will pass IOS as the most popular tablet OS within 6 months. Remarkably Android already has 15% of the tablet market. The reason I say surprisingly is that Google is still about a month away from even releasing a version of Android that they would even recommend for tablets. Once Android 3.0 is released, and with it a bunch of new really good tablets, IOS on tablets will drop precipitously.
I agree completely. Android is going to lay waste to iOS by year end.
Apple is making the exact same mistake it did with Microsoft and desktop computing. Exact.
Apple is determined to be a boutique technology company under Steve Jobs.
They have banned people who have a magazine subscription from getting free access on the equivalent iPad apps for God sake. It's a joke.
Not really, try walking into 7-11 and pick up a newspaper or magazine and tell them your not going to pay for it because you already have a subscription.
Go into B&N and pick up a book and say you are not going pay because you already bought the kindle version or vice versa.
Go tell you're cable company that you want to watch the In-Demand movie for free because you already payed for it at the theater.
You are buying content delivery. If you don't want to pay, go scan your subscribed magazine or newspaper and put it on your device.
It would make the experience a little bit disjointed, but would it be within the legal realm/developer agreements for Amazon to offer "30%ish discounts" if you bought the book directly from them rather than directly from the iOS device?
"Buy this book for $12.99 in the in-app store OR click this link to get it for $9.99!"
It would suck for the end user because the experience wouldn't be fluid, but Amazon could keep their profit margins considering most users would click the link instead of just buying it on the device.
I can really see Apple letting that idea fly.
Once the app is on my device (you know, the one I bought with my dollar), why can't I source my data for it elsewhere? Apple are artificially imposing themselves in the relationship between me and the vendor.
It feels like these articles in "Apple Insider" come straight from Apple HQ. If they don't then the writers are either under a lot of pressure from Apple to make Apple sound good, or they are under some sort of trance that makes them see Apple as the eternal benevolent dictator of what we want and what we can do.
Maybe the success of the iOS App Store, and the failure of Google's Android store, should figure in to your wildly ideological opinion of what people really want.
Quote:
I Predicted last summer that it would only take a year before Android passed IOS for the number of users. I was wrong, Android has already passed IOS, and every other smart phone OS. My next prediction is that Android will pass IOS as the most popular tablet OS within 6 months. Remarkably Android already has 15% of the tablet market. The reason I say surprisingly is that Google is still about a month away from even releasing a version of Android that they would even recommend for tablets. Once Android 3.0 is released, and with it a bunch of new really good tablets, IOS on tablets will drop precipitously.
The percentage of phones being sold with code from Android is rather meaningless. Google hasn't achieved something new here. It's just displacing the former platform of a number of phones formerly sold by failures (Motorola, Sony Ericsson) who can't write software. Before Android, they were running WiMo or Flash Lite or Symbian or the legitimate JavaME.
So now the same losers are running a new, recognizable brand. You really think Apple is running scared? It has the majority of the WORLD'S mobile (not just smartphone) profits, and all of the tablet profits.
You think the Galaxy Tab's fake sales numbers are a problem? You think the collective counting of all the third rate loser mobile makers somehow counters the fact that Apple is growing far faster than any other mobile maker?
Sounds like you're the one steeped in religious delusion, not DED.
Do they have to pay the 30% for each book sold or do they just have to go through Itunes? I'm kinda lost here. I don't want to pay 30% more just to go through apple's store.
You pay a percentage mark up every time you shop in a store. To sell your product through a reseller results in overheads. It is for the product manufacturer to ensure these prices are absorbed to result in a sensible price for the end customer. When you buy coke from walmart, there is a mark up that enables walmart to function as a business. This is no different.
Comments
Leave it up to Dilger to spin this in an innocent way. Requiring in-store iOS purchases as an option in, say, the Kindle app, would wreck Amazon's profit margin on books and would either require that they charge higher prices for in-app purchases (hard to see that innocently) or that they pull out from iOS.
Amazon is extorting rather high margins from the writers whose work it sells. So from your perspective, Amazon should get all this profit just because it is applying a brand name and DRM? Why shouldn't Apple take a cut for doing all the retailing heavy lifting for in-app purchases made through iTunes?
It's ridiculous to suggest that Amazon has some right to profit from all the stuff being sold through iTunes. If Amazon created a store within a store inside Border's books, should Borders hand all the profits to Amazon? Does Apple earn all the profits from Macs sold through Best Buy?
Your position is absolutely ridiculous.
Apple wants it?s App Store cut ? e-book platforms take note
This is bullshit. If it makes Kindle books 30% more expensive I'm going to go totally Cambodia.
That Cambodia is nice this time of year. And that you can buy ebooks there as well from Sony.
Sorry - more to the point, since Amazon is weighing in on platforming for Android purchases, how is it in Apple's best interest to continue to turn a blind eye to their content purchases landing external to the App Store? As competition increases between competing purchase platforms (not to mention OS/ecosystems) why shouldn't Apple act in their own best interest. The per cent charges for running the App Store covers overhead and if you were listening to the fincial reporting, is not a major revenue stream for Apple.
if Apple decide to sell iTune content through Amazon store, would not Amazon demand a cut of the proceed, 6-25% as stated by Amazon's policy?
So what's so surprising about Apple demanding sellers in its market not circumventing their policy?
Amazon is not selling any content through the App Store
Well this is certainly a sad state of affairs. Apple's pissed that competitors are skirting around their 30% cut by offering purchases outside the App Store, so now they're enforcing a rule that they were keen to ignore earlier. Talk about bait and switch. Let's have all these successful models enjoy freedom on iOS for a year, then suddenly impose the keeper's fee.
This is a shakedown if you think about it. Apple doesn't like people selling products on their turf, so now they want their cut.
If B&N sold iPods or iPads at their store, aren't they entitled to piece of the sale price? Should retailers be made to sell someones product a zero markup? Weird sort of business model your are proposing.
They would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for Google. Steve had the right plan to take down Microsoft, RIM, and others... but I truly believe he was blindsided by Google directly competing against their walled pen strategy with an open range strategy.
Now, it's just a matter of time. Apple is going to be laid siege to by content providers. Will they continue to extort, or will they become flexible. Has Apple already pushed too hard too fast and alienated the rest of the industry?
Remember, ego nearly destroyed Apple before.
Superior technology / user experience & commanding market share didn't win out over free market last time - it is a GAMBLE to assume they will this time.
Look for Google and RIM to surge this year. Apple will remain strong - look for iad to be scrapped or completely revamped.
It seems that Apple's plans would impact Kindle and Nook. Apparently Apple is insisting on their 30% cut.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...book-sales.ars
Are you folks reading the same article I am reading? Apples states that IF a store wants to sell outside the App Store then they also must give the OPTION of selling the same thing in the app (where Apple gets 30%).
The MAGIC WORD is OPTION...as a consumer you can CHOOSE to leave the iOS stores and purchase the content and then return to the app.
Why is this such a big deal? A smart customer will by-pass Apple's in-app purchase if they wish to avoid giving Apple 30% of the sale. While I am sure there are folks who will chose the in-app option because they want to have Apple's baby...the rest of us will ignore this and do what we have done in such situations as with the Kindle.
"Buy this book for $12.99 in the in-app store OR click this link to get it for $9.99!"
It would suck for the end user because the experience wouldn't be fluid, but Amazon could keep their profit margins considering most users would click the link instead of just buying it on the device.
This is totally unfair to Sony, because Amazon and B&N don't have to play by these same rules, and that will bring extra development cost to Sony. This is definitely a change in Apple's policy, regardless of what Apple claims. Ridiculous.
I wonder if Kindle and Barnes isn't grandfathered in...
Scenario 1
Like today, I would be able to buy a book online at the Sony/Amazon/Barnes & Noble bookstore and it will sync with my device.
Scenario 2
If I want to buy a book on my device, it simply goes through the standardized in-app purchase process, instead of redirecting me to another website.
All this does is apply more consistency across the platform and makes that experience even more consistent for existing customers. It makes total and complete sense.
None of us posting on here are likely typical users, and redirects become confusing, and could create potential security issues as well.
It all makes sense...
If Apple keeps this sort of behavior up, they are going to have an exciting anti-trust suit on their hands. Major corporations with competing products -- Sony, Amazon -- are not going to simply standby and allow their business models undermined by Apple, especially if that means Apple is going to take a cut of every purchase.
I have to post again. Let me preface by stating I do have an iPhone, a Mac Mini and an AL Macbook. My next phone likely will be an Android phone (with an iPod Touch as a dedicated music player), so...
HOW is this in ANY WAY Anti-Trust? How are these companies' business models going to be undermined? Apple is simply requiring an in-app OPTION to purchase the same content as is sold outside the iOS store. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO MAKE THE IN-APP PURCHASE (thereby bypassing Apple getting a cut).....Just click the "buy outside the store" button and then all is well.
Amazon is not selling any content through the App Store
Where is Amazon's iOS app located? Is it not inside the Apple's App store?
If you bring a list of books into a bookstore, then direct customers inside the store to a truck you have ouside, because your books don't have to pay bookstore's markup, you think the store owner won't call police to kick you out or arrest you?
Under these rules:
Scenario 1
Like today, I would be able to buy a book online at the Sony/Amazon/Barnes & Noble bookstore and it will sync with my device.
Scenario 2
If I want to buy a book on my device, it simply goes through the standardized in-app purchase process, instead of redirecting me to another website.
All this does is apply more consistency across the platform and makes that experience even more consistent for existing customers. It makes total and complete sense.
None of us posting on here are likely typical users, and redirects become confusing, and could create potential security issues as well.
It all makes sense...
Do they have to pay the 30% for each book sold or do they just have to go through Itunes? I'm kinda lost here. I don't want to pay 30% more just to go through apple's store.
Because it is common courtesy. Apple sell you the platform and then you should be able to choose how you want to use it.
Let's look at the mac then. Why should apple let you install software on your mac that is not from the mac app store where apple gets a 30% cut. EXACTLY the same.
You are a victim of apple marketing. Why should the mobile platform be so so different?
Apple is getting more and more like '1984' every day.
They have banned people who have a magazine subscription from getting free access on the equivalent iPad apps for God sake. It's a joke.
They should be happy making stonking big profits on great consumer products not being even more greedy to weed out a little extra on ebooks. Bloody hell.
explains quite a bit your reaction. You apparently have not run very successfully any sort of business operation. Let me provide an example:
A firm purchases land and use rights to create a very nice bit of shopping mall. They have well-paved carparks, lot's of green space, convenient services, nice events, nice seating for weary shoppers, areas where children can amuse themselves while parents rest and chat. Perhaps they blend in some entertainment, perhaps some nice amusement rides, theaters, music venues, etc. They then advertise to retailers to come and set-up shop, picking and choosing a few good established and popular retailers to anchor and then opening up smaller more affordable space for more cutting-edge, adventuresome or simply different retailers to try out being in business there. The firm is responsible for maintenance, crowd control, and upkeep on the property. In order to do this they ask for and receive a small portion or percentage of the intake by the retailers above the standard rental for the storefront. They are in this for the long-haul so they keep everything reasonable and fairly affordable for most. They will object however if a retailer puts up a large sign that sends its customers to another , cheaper retail storefront to do the purchases when the customers are in the mall, thus circumventing the per cent charge required for operational overhead and what little profit the firm may get out of that fee. That's the App Store and that's the apps using the App Store for the retail space and customer base.
Apple is becoming abusive with their position , just because you buy a record player from someone doesn't mean they can say you can't play any records not bought from us. It's time for the federal government to look into Apple's practice with the app store and their effort to squash any alternative stores ( Cydia).
It's not 'the' app store, it's apples app store. As every reseller on the planet, they have the right to sell within their own guidelines as made clear in supplier contracts. This isn't abusive or anti competitive. If you don't like the way apple run their business model, then use a different company's products. Apple do not have a monopoly. There is no issue, nor has there been a change to the guidelines. The NYT are spreading FUD and Sony have tried to flaunt the very clear rules.
It really is that simple.
I Predicted last summer that it would only take a year before Android passed IOS for the number of users. I was wrong, Android has already passed IOS, and every other smart phone OS. My next prediction is that Android will pass IOS as the most popular tablet OS within 6 months. Remarkably Android already has 15% of the tablet market. The reason I say surprisingly is that Google is still about a month away from even releasing a version of Android that they would even recommend for tablets. Once Android 3.0 is released, and with it a bunch of new really good tablets, IOS on tablets will drop precipitously.
I agree completely. Android is going to lay waste to iOS by year end.
Apple is making the exact same mistake it did with Microsoft and desktop computing. Exact.
Apple is determined to be a boutique technology company under Steve Jobs.
They have banned people who have a magazine subscription from getting free access on the equivalent iPad apps for God sake. It's a joke.
Not really, try walking into 7-11 and pick up a newspaper or magazine and tell them your not going to pay for it because you already have a subscription.
Go into B&N and pick up a book and say you are not going pay because you already bought the kindle version or vice versa.
Go tell you're cable company that you want to watch the In-Demand movie for free because you already payed for it at the theater.
You are buying content delivery. If you don't want to pay, go scan your subscribed magazine or newspaper and put it on your device.
It would make the experience a little bit disjointed, but would it be within the legal realm/developer agreements for Amazon to offer "30%ish discounts" if you bought the book directly from them rather than directly from the iOS device?
"Buy this book for $12.99 in the in-app store OR click this link to get it for $9.99!"
It would suck for the end user because the experience wouldn't be fluid, but Amazon could keep their profit margins considering most users would click the link instead of just buying it on the device.
I can really see Apple letting that idea fly.
Once the app is on my device (you know, the one I bought with my dollar), why can't I source my data for it elsewhere? Apple are artificially imposing themselves in the relationship between me and the vendor.
It feels like these articles in "Apple Insider" come straight from Apple HQ. If they don't then the writers are either under a lot of pressure from Apple to make Apple sound good, or they are under some sort of trance that makes them see Apple as the eternal benevolent dictator of what we want and what we can do.
Maybe the success of the iOS App Store, and the failure of Google's Android store, should figure in to your wildly ideological opinion of what people really want.
I Predicted last summer that it would only take a year before Android passed IOS for the number of users. I was wrong, Android has already passed IOS, and every other smart phone OS. My next prediction is that Android will pass IOS as the most popular tablet OS within 6 months. Remarkably Android already has 15% of the tablet market. The reason I say surprisingly is that Google is still about a month away from even releasing a version of Android that they would even recommend for tablets. Once Android 3.0 is released, and with it a bunch of new really good tablets, IOS on tablets will drop precipitously.
The percentage of phones being sold with code from Android is rather meaningless. Google hasn't achieved something new here. It's just displacing the former platform of a number of phones formerly sold by failures (Motorola, Sony Ericsson) who can't write software. Before Android, they were running WiMo or Flash Lite or Symbian or the legitimate JavaME.
So now the same losers are running a new, recognizable brand. You really think Apple is running scared? It has the majority of the WORLD'S mobile (not just smartphone) profits, and all of the tablet profits.
You think the Galaxy Tab's fake sales numbers are a problem? You think the collective counting of all the third rate loser mobile makers somehow counters the fact that Apple is growing far faster than any other mobile maker?
Sounds like you're the one steeped in religious delusion, not DED.
Do they have to pay the 30% for each book sold or do they just have to go through Itunes? I'm kinda lost here. I don't want to pay 30% more just to go through apple's store.
You pay a percentage mark up every time you shop in a store. To sell your product through a reseller results in overheads. It is for the product manufacturer to ensure these prices are absorbed to result in a sensible price for the end customer. When you buy coke from walmart, there is a mark up that enables walmart to function as a business. This is no different.