This is the first thing Apple has done with it's iOS policies that has upset me. This is not fair, and in the end, it is users who will get hurt.
Arguing that Apple deserves a 30% cut of every book Amazon sells that ends up on an iPad is completely illogical. Those same books could be read in Amazon's software on Windows. Does Microsoft deserve a 30% cut for allowing the Kindle app to be installed on Windows? Does Apple deserve a 30% cut of book sales if the user has installed the Kindle app on their Mac through the Mac App Store?
Of course not.
Apple doesn't deserve a cut in the transaction because Apple *hasn't done anything*. If I'm on my iPad, and I am reading The Road by Cormac McCarthy and decided "Hey, I'd like to read 'No Country for Old Men,'" and go back to the Kindle app and hit "Store" which takes me to Safari where I buy the book, Apple has in no way facilitated the purchase. Amazon is handling the entire process, covering the cost of transmitting the file to me, and picking up the credit card processing fees and managing the payment of related taxes. Apple has done nothing. They don't deserve a 30% cut.
Would Apple deserve a 30% cut if I bought that same book through Amazon's website on my computer, and then opened it up and read it on my iPad? In that scenario, iOS wasn't even involved in the transaction, how can you argue that Apple deserves a cut?
Some argue that Apple deserves a cut for allowing Amazon to offer its software for iOS through the App Store. If that's the case, then doesn't it also deserve a cut when I buy on the Mac, since Kindle is in the Mac App Store? There's no logic to that position. You're effectively arguing that for the act of allowing the Kindle app to exist on iOS, Apple is entitled to a significant share of all the revenue that the user of the app sends to Amazon.
If the argument is that Apple deserves to be compensated solely because they allow the software to exist at all, that's an argument against allowing free apps on the iOS store, not an argument that logically justifies Apple screwing up a situation that has been very beneficial to iPad users.
The truth is that Apple and Amazon *both* benefit from the Kindle app being available on the iOS App Store. Amazon benefits from having a wider array of devices capable of reading books from its store. Apple benefits from the fact that the Kindle app makes the iPad a better ereader by providing access to a much, much better selection of books than iBooks provides. The iPad with a Nook app, a Kindle app and the iBooks app is the *best* possible ereader. Remove the Kindle and Nook apps, as this policy by Apple may well do, and the iPad becomes an *terrible* ereader because iBooks has a terrible selection. That makes the iPad a less compelling product.
As I see it, there are two possible ways this scenario plays out, if Apple doesn't do the right thing and allow users to continue using the Kindle and Nook apps in the current "everyone wins" scenarios:
1. Amazon adds an in-app book store, but charges 30% more for books to cover Apple's fees. So that $9.99 book now costs $14.25. This is not good for Amazon, as some users will not buy books over the $9.99 price Amazon has fought hard to establish as the high end price expectation for ebooks. This is not good for Apple, because someone looking at the in-app stores on an Android tablet and the iPad tablet will see that every Kindle book offered is significantly cheaper on Android. And this is not good for many consumers, who won't understand that there's a second method to buy books, so they end up spending more than they should.
2. Apple doesn't allow Amazon to price in-app books more than through-the-web books, in which case Amazon basically *has* to remove the Kindle app from the iOS store. For many books, particularly lower-priced books, Amazon splits revenue with publishers or authors in a 30/70 split, with the 30% going to Amazon. If Amazon sells me a $4.99 book and they have to give Apple 30% on top of the 70% they're giving the rightsholder, that leave them with, oh, 0% of the revenue, but 100% of the costs. That's obviously not viable.
Will Apple allow Amazon to price in-app purchases higher to offset the unnecessary costs Apple is now foisting on them? Or is Apple well aware of Amazon's financial structure in regards to its ebooks, and using this "in-app option" requirement to drive Kindle off the iOS platform?
I love Apple products. In the 17 years I've been using computers, I've owned nine Macs, three iPhones, two AppleTVs and an iPad. I am a huge advocate of the iPad, but this is a policy change that, to me, would greatly reduce the value of the device.
I want the iPad to be a device where I can read books from any ebook store, a device where I can watch my iTunes movies, my Hulu episodes and fun stuff on Netflix, not a device where the only approved content is that which gives Apple it's 30% revenue cut. Right now, the iPad is the device I want. This new policy from Apple will make it far less attractive. Which sucks, because I love the tablet form factor, and Android tablets are awful, and likely will continue to be.
In the past, Apple has used its iOS platform rules to do things that, in my mind, help the consumer. They've blocked Flash and all its problems. They've required apps to follow practices that improve security and stability.
This policy change won't help consumers. It will hurt them. This isn't using the rules to make iOS a better platform. This is using the rules to try to make more money for a company that last year posted over $16 billion in profits.
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.
Way off base. iOS is flourishing because app store developers are protected and payed for their efforts which continues to push development of quality apps forward.
Though Android based devices are experiencing great unit sales, their app delivery channels are floundering.
The freedom and "open-ness" that Android users tout does not necessarily = app/developer profits.
Unless Android can create solid revenue streams for developers, Android isn't going to lay waste to anything except itself, and eventually cannibalize itself down into a couple "not-so-open and free" app retail channels (most likely Google itself) that manage to turn a profit for developers.
Remember, without the apps, either platform is just a shiny phone.
I think you're really splitting hairs there. If you have to offer the in-app purchasing, even if there are alternatives (like skipping out to the web to buy the item yourself), then they are definitely imposing themselves.
You'd be kidding yourself if Apple will allow apps to provide an incentive (such as a price differential) to induce the purchase outside of the ecosystem.
Amazon can always choose not to have an App if they find it unsustainable. You as a customer can always go directly to Amazon website. Apple didn't beg Amazon to creat an app in their store to sell Amazon's books. Their store, their rules. You either follow the rule or find some other place to set up shop.
As for incentives, I would certainly hope Apple doesn't allow a price difference. But if Amazon can't find a way to creat incentives for people to buy their stuff through their own store, then they are too stupid at it, and is probably better off paying Apple 30% for the customers anyway.
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).
are you that dumb? blah blah.... you can play any music on itouch ever heard of ripping cd in itune. or imported music.
Apple wants iOS users to have the option to purchase in-app.
YOU don't have to.
You can go to Amazon.com and pay less. No problem.
That's your choice.
Apple's goal is to make in app purchases easier for customers and thus encourage sales.
Price sensitive shoppers have the freedom to take the long road and save a buck or two.
Apple wants to provide the best experience for customers.
Being redirected to a web page to finish your purchase is not a great experience.
Users wouldn't have to be redirected to a web page if Apple simply allowed transactions to take place inside the app itself. They don't want you to use your own system - they want you to use their system. Why? Because Apple gets its 30% if you do.
Its one thing if you want to argue that the 30% cut pays for all the fees, bandwidth, and exposure of your app to the millions of iOS customers out there. But its an entirely different thing to suggest that Apple deserves 30% off all transactions that take place inside those apps, especially if you're the one who has to manage those purchases, and serve the data with your own servers and bandwidth.
If developers had a choice weather to use in-app purchase or not, that's fine. That's what we've had for almost 2 years now. But that isn't the case any longer. Apple is essentially forcing a 30% tax off all eCommerce withing the iOS environment, and not letting developers have a choice. You do anything within your app to make money, and Apple wants a cut.
Typical POS systems charge around 3% per transaction. Apple wants 30%. Do the math and figure out why these companies are upset.
This is bullshit. If it makes Kindle books 30% more expensive I'm going to go totally Cambodia.
That makes at least 2 of us. While I prefer the iBook reader, the fact is that the Kindle store has a much wider selection of some of the authors I like.
The mall owner charges rent. The walmart in the mall takes a commission from each product sold in the form of a mark up. It's not a difficult business model to understand. The OP explained is very well.
Does no one here have any retail or business experience! Slme of the comments this evening are beyond naive and show a complete lack of how retail works.
Additionally, apple are trying to broaden their book selection, unfortunately anti-competitive deals by companies such as amazon are forcing publishers to decide between apple or amazon, yet I dint see anyone criticising amazon fir blackmailing publishers - you sell on apple, you don't see with us as well... Now THAT is anti-competitive.
Find out what rent is and get back to me. Rent is a fixed fee, not a percentage based on sales. Is Apple the mall owner or the Walmart in the mall, or is it both? This is where the issue lies. Because I don't know how heavily Apple want to curate/dictate what I can and can't buy from the store and how much it'll cost. Seems like a bait and switch - not to me, but to the content providers. I don't care unless it results in higher prices... which it will.
In relation to your final point - you mentioned Amazon, not Sony. Why is the Kindle Store still on the app store, when Sony's store is not allowed? I understand you want to justify Apple's actions here, but my point is and will always be that they need to be more clear about App store policies.
are you that dumb? blah blah.... you can play any music on itouch ever heard of ripping cd in itune. or imported music.
Well, what's stopping Apple from simply saying, "Going forward, only music and movies purchased on iTunes can be played on iOS?" or "Content sellers are going to have to start paying 30% of whatever music you sell to Apple to allow your content to be synced to the device?" I mean, that's just as much of an arbitrary change of heart as this news is today. Apple was once fine letting these readers now, and now that they're successful, they want their cut.
What am I missing? iOS is an *operating system.* The only resale channels we're talking about are Amazon/B&N and Apple (iBooks).
Funny how e-readers were perfectly fine with Apple until they started a competing (and much more limited) ebook store.
iOS is the operating system. App store is the trading platform. Amazon/B&N are the vendors. You are the customer.
Vendors have always paid, and is paying, and will continue to pay, owners of trading platform for access to customers. The only variables are exactly how much to pay, who ultimately comes up with the money, and how it is paid.
Amazon can always choose not to have an App if they find it unsustainable.
Apple taking 30% out of Amazon's sale price would render a large percentage of books unprofitable for Amazon -- between Apple and the rights holder, Amazon would be left with no revenue for themselves.
Amazon not having an app makes the iPad a less attractive device. This Apple policy would, in effect, remove a function I use my iPad for -- reading books from the far-superior Kindle store in the far-superior Kindle software. iBooks is a pale substitute.
Quote:
Apple didn't beg Amazon to creat an app in their store to sell Amazon's books.
Apple benefits from having software on the iOS store. Apple needs those apps as a marketing tool. Apps like Kindle provide real value to users and make Apple's product more attractive, which improves sales.
Quote:
Their store, their rules. You either follow the rule or find some other place to set up shop.
Apple has a right to set rules. But this rule will hurt consumers who will see their options diminish and the best option for ebooks, Amazon, likely go away.
Nice example, but where does the mall owner get a fixed percentage of all sales made by the retailer? Not sure how 30% is "reasonable and affordable". The "overheads" argument falls flat as 1) the books aren't hosted by Apple and 2) a £13 book should have the same overhead as a £5 book.
Overall, looks like Apple wants to make sure someone doesn't do to them what they did (with the help of iTunes) to Windows. If it wants to become serious about being the provider for books, maybe they'll broaden their selection.
especially specialty malls like Mall of America in Bloomington, MN, US, or Easton Town Center in COlumbus OH, US, or Mid Valley Megamall in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, as examples.
Affordability depends on your business model - if you are offering discount product, you generally find the cheapest available storefront and offer that there. Just as Barnes & Noble offer their books at pricing that reflects the cost of operations and a reasonable level of profitability, while they have storefronts in many popular malls all over. The cost of being in that mall is reflected in their pricing, obviously, so the cost of offering ebooks in the App Store via their "free" app, reflects the cost of being there as well, or simply is another cost to absorb in their overall cost of doing business.
I'm not sure what Apple has done to Windows in your reference above. They still are a minority player in Microsoft's majority control of the PC desktop space. Apple is delivering against the model that works best for them, they learn, tweak and build on what they learn over time, like all successful businesses. They build the profitability they want to see for the products and services they offer, same as Microsoft, GE or Exxon.
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.
Do you feel its fair for Apple's iTunes to directly profit from Windows users while contributing nothing back to Microsoft?
Microsoft takes a licensing cut from every Xbox 360 game. In doing so, it is simply copying the model launched by Nintendo and copied by Sony, which Apple is also now using on iOS.
Microsoft does not charge a licensing fee or any kind of cut from Windows developers, because it copied that business model from Apple, which never charged Mac developers a fee (quite the opposite, it groveled for their attention).
Microsoft invented the idea of selling DOS/Windows at retail. The Mac OS was always free until (sort of) 1990, and nobody really started paying for it until Steve Jobs began marketing Mac OS 8 as worth buying in 1998.
Not all business models work the same. When you buy gas, you pay per gallon. When you buy Coke, you pay for convenience (a 500mL bottle is often more expensive than a 2L bottle). When you buy printer ink, you pay hundreds per gallon, but you're not paying for the liquid, you're paying for the expertise in delivering it though a precision printer cartridge at 300dpi.
When you make absurdist arguments, it just makes it clear you aren't intellectually honest. Apple has full rights to benefit from its efforts, and is doing so in a pretty fair manner, even if the Android fans think this is "Evil" and that they should be able to steal everything they use, from apps to carrier bandwidth to original hardware designs and the software patents Apple has in iOS.
THAT'S what it really boils down to. Either you believe in free enterprise or you think everyone else should pay for the stuff you get for free. That's how the soviets and chinese viewed technology, and its exactly how Android fans think.
iOS is the operating system. App store is the trading platform. Amazon/B&N are the vendors. You are the customer.
Vendors have always paid, and is paying, and will continue to pay, owners of trading platform for access to customers. The only variables are exactly how much to pay, who ultimately comes up with the money, and how it is paid.
My God, NO, App Store is not the trading platform since I have to use Safari to purchase a book.
Amazon can always choose not to have an App if they find it unsustainable.
I love it. The take-your-bat-and-ball-and-go-home answer. It always reduces to this.
Quote:
You as a customer can always go directly to Amazon website. Apple didn't beg Amazon to creat an app in their store to sell Amazon's books. Their store, their rules. You either follow the rule or find some other place to set up shop.
The problem is the rules change and you can spend a long time building up a successful business strategy only to have it dashed by selective enforcement of policy.
Quote:
As for incentives, I would certainly hope Apple doesn't allow a price difference. But if Amazon can't find a way to creat incentives for people to buy their stuff through their own store, then they are too stupid at it, and is probably better off paying Apple 30% for the customers anyway.
Well, what's stopping Apple from simply saying, "Going forward, only music and movies purchased on iTunes can be played on iOS?" or "Content sellers are going to have to start paying 30% of whatever music you sell to Apple to allow your content to be synced to the device?" I mean, that's just as much of an arbitrary change of heart as this news is today. Apple was once fine letting these readers now, and now that they're successful, they want their cut.
let me explain, no let me summarize:
Business sense will dictate how Apple conducts business - if a decision strikes the balance as being good for their business( which means effectively attractive to their customers, and reasonably profitable) they will do it.
This has been in place and agreed to by all the developers for the storefront which is the App Store. While Apple has been lax in enforcing it as the platform matures they have chosen at this time to require compliance. Not an arbitrary change, a business decision.
None of this is arbitrary or capricious. None of this is any different than when Barnes and Noble open a store in a mall and have to pay to be in the mall. IN what way are Sony now successful that requires Apple to respond as you surmise - Sony has the smallest and least popular ebook selection of the major ebook sources.
Your response makes no sense in any way a successful business person would accept.
Comments
Do learn the diffence between a software resale channel and an operating system.
What am I missing? iOS is an *operating system.* The only resale channels we're talking about are Amazon/B&N and Apple (iBooks).
Funny how e-readers were perfectly fine with Apple until they started a competing (and much more limited) ebook store.
This is bullshit. If it makes Kindle books 30% more expensive I'm going to go totally Cambodia.
Apple wants iOS users to have the option to purchase in-app.
YOU don't have to.
You can go to Amazon.com and pay less. No problem.
That's your choice.
Apple's goal is to make in app purchases easier for customers and thus encourage sales.
Price sensitive shoppers have the freedom to take the long road and save a buck or two.
Apple wants to provide the best experience for customers.
Being redirected to a web page to finish your purchase is not a great experience.
Arguing that Apple deserves a 30% cut of every book Amazon sells that ends up on an iPad is completely illogical. Those same books could be read in Amazon's software on Windows. Does Microsoft deserve a 30% cut for allowing the Kindle app to be installed on Windows? Does Apple deserve a 30% cut of book sales if the user has installed the Kindle app on their Mac through the Mac App Store?
Of course not.
Apple doesn't deserve a cut in the transaction because Apple *hasn't done anything*. If I'm on my iPad, and I am reading The Road by Cormac McCarthy and decided "Hey, I'd like to read 'No Country for Old Men,'" and go back to the Kindle app and hit "Store" which takes me to Safari where I buy the book, Apple has in no way facilitated the purchase. Amazon is handling the entire process, covering the cost of transmitting the file to me, and picking up the credit card processing fees and managing the payment of related taxes. Apple has done nothing. They don't deserve a 30% cut.
Would Apple deserve a 30% cut if I bought that same book through Amazon's website on my computer, and then opened it up and read it on my iPad? In that scenario, iOS wasn't even involved in the transaction, how can you argue that Apple deserves a cut?
Some argue that Apple deserves a cut for allowing Amazon to offer its software for iOS through the App Store. If that's the case, then doesn't it also deserve a cut when I buy on the Mac, since Kindle is in the Mac App Store? There's no logic to that position. You're effectively arguing that for the act of allowing the Kindle app to exist on iOS, Apple is entitled to a significant share of all the revenue that the user of the app sends to Amazon.
If the argument is that Apple deserves to be compensated solely because they allow the software to exist at all, that's an argument against allowing free apps on the iOS store, not an argument that logically justifies Apple screwing up a situation that has been very beneficial to iPad users.
The truth is that Apple and Amazon *both* benefit from the Kindle app being available on the iOS App Store. Amazon benefits from having a wider array of devices capable of reading books from its store. Apple benefits from the fact that the Kindle app makes the iPad a better ereader by providing access to a much, much better selection of books than iBooks provides. The iPad with a Nook app, a Kindle app and the iBooks app is the *best* possible ereader. Remove the Kindle and Nook apps, as this policy by Apple may well do, and the iPad becomes an *terrible* ereader because iBooks has a terrible selection. That makes the iPad a less compelling product.
As I see it, there are two possible ways this scenario plays out, if Apple doesn't do the right thing and allow users to continue using the Kindle and Nook apps in the current "everyone wins" scenarios:
1. Amazon adds an in-app book store, but charges 30% more for books to cover Apple's fees. So that $9.99 book now costs $14.25. This is not good for Amazon, as some users will not buy books over the $9.99 price Amazon has fought hard to establish as the high end price expectation for ebooks. This is not good for Apple, because someone looking at the in-app stores on an Android tablet and the iPad tablet will see that every Kindle book offered is significantly cheaper on Android. And this is not good for many consumers, who won't understand that there's a second method to buy books, so they end up spending more than they should.
2. Apple doesn't allow Amazon to price in-app books more than through-the-web books, in which case Amazon basically *has* to remove the Kindle app from the iOS store. For many books, particularly lower-priced books, Amazon splits revenue with publishers or authors in a 30/70 split, with the 30% going to Amazon. If Amazon sells me a $4.99 book and they have to give Apple 30% on top of the 70% they're giving the rightsholder, that leave them with, oh, 0% of the revenue, but 100% of the costs. That's obviously not viable.
Will Apple allow Amazon to price in-app purchases higher to offset the unnecessary costs Apple is now foisting on them? Or is Apple well aware of Amazon's financial structure in regards to its ebooks, and using this "in-app option" requirement to drive Kindle off the iOS platform?
I love Apple products. In the 17 years I've been using computers, I've owned nine Macs, three iPhones, two AppleTVs and an iPad. I am a huge advocate of the iPad, but this is a policy change that, to me, would greatly reduce the value of the device.
I want the iPad to be a device where I can read books from any ebook store, a device where I can watch my iTunes movies, my Hulu episodes and fun stuff on Netflix, not a device where the only approved content is that which gives Apple it's 30% revenue cut. Right now, the iPad is the device I want. This new policy from Apple will make it far less attractive. Which sucks, because I love the tablet form factor, and Android tablets are awful, and likely will continue to be.
In the past, Apple has used its iOS platform rules to do things that, in my mind, help the consumer. They've blocked Flash and all its problems. They've required apps to follow practices that improve security and stability.
This policy change won't help consumers. It will hurt them. This isn't using the rules to make iOS a better platform. This is using the rules to try to make more money for a company that last year posted over $16 billion in profits.
I love Apple, but that's not cool.
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.
Way off base. iOS is flourishing because app store developers are protected and payed for their efforts which continues to push development of quality apps forward.
Though Android based devices are experiencing great unit sales, their app delivery channels are floundering.
The freedom and "open-ness" that Android users tout does not necessarily = app/developer profits.
Unless Android can create solid revenue streams for developers, Android isn't going to lay waste to anything except itself, and eventually cannibalize itself down into a couple "not-so-open and free" app retail channels (most likely Google itself) that manage to turn a profit for developers.
Remember, without the apps, either platform is just a shiny phone.
I think you're really splitting hairs there. If you have to offer the in-app purchasing, even if there are alternatives (like skipping out to the web to buy the item yourself), then they are definitely imposing themselves.
You'd be kidding yourself if Apple will allow apps to provide an incentive (such as a price differential) to induce the purchase outside of the ecosystem.
Amazon can always choose not to have an App if they find it unsustainable. You as a customer can always go directly to Amazon website. Apple didn't beg Amazon to creat an app in their store to sell Amazon's books. Their store, their rules. You either follow the rule or find some other place to set up shop.
As for incentives, I would certainly hope Apple doesn't allow a price difference. But if Amazon can't find a way to creat incentives for people to buy their stuff through their own store, then they are too stupid at it, and is probably better off paying Apple 30% for the customers anyway.
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).
are you that dumb? blah blah.... you can play any music on itouch ever heard of ripping cd in itune. or imported music.
Apple wants iOS users to have the option to purchase in-app.
YOU don't have to.
You can go to Amazon.com and pay less. No problem.
That's your choice.
Apple's goal is to make in app purchases easier for customers and thus encourage sales.
Price sensitive shoppers have the freedom to take the long road and save a buck or two.
Apple wants to provide the best experience for customers.
Being redirected to a web page to finish your purchase is not a great experience.
Users wouldn't have to be redirected to a web page if Apple simply allowed transactions to take place inside the app itself. They don't want you to use your own system - they want you to use their system. Why? Because Apple gets its 30% if you do.
Its one thing if you want to argue that the 30% cut pays for all the fees, bandwidth, and exposure of your app to the millions of iOS customers out there. But its an entirely different thing to suggest that Apple deserves 30% off all transactions that take place inside those apps, especially if you're the one who has to manage those purchases, and serve the data with your own servers and bandwidth.
If developers had a choice weather to use in-app purchase or not, that's fine. That's what we've had for almost 2 years now. But that isn't the case any longer. Apple is essentially forcing a 30% tax off all eCommerce withing the iOS environment, and not letting developers have a choice. You do anything within your app to make money, and Apple wants a cut.
Typical POS systems charge around 3% per transaction. Apple wants 30%. Do the math and figure out why these companies are upset.
This is bullshit. If it makes Kindle books 30% more expensive I'm going to go totally Cambodia.
That makes at least 2 of us. While I prefer the iBook reader, the fact is that the Kindle store has a much wider selection of some of the authors I like.
The mall owner charges rent. The walmart in the mall takes a commission from each product sold in the form of a mark up. It's not a difficult business model to understand. The OP explained is very well.
Does no one here have any retail or business experience! Slme of the comments this evening are beyond naive and show a complete lack of how retail works.
Additionally, apple are trying to broaden their book selection, unfortunately anti-competitive deals by companies such as amazon are forcing publishers to decide between apple or amazon, yet I dint see anyone criticising amazon fir blackmailing publishers - you sell on apple, you don't see with us as well... Now THAT is anti-competitive.
Find out what rent is and get back to me. Rent is a fixed fee, not a percentage based on sales. Is Apple the mall owner or the Walmart in the mall, or is it both? This is where the issue lies. Because I don't know how heavily Apple want to curate/dictate what I can and can't buy from the store and how much it'll cost. Seems like a bait and switch - not to me, but to the content providers. I don't care unless it results in higher prices... which it will.
In relation to your final point - you mentioned Amazon, not Sony. Why is the Kindle Store still on the app store, when Sony's store is not allowed? I understand you want to justify Apple's actions here, but my point is and will always be that they need to be more clear about App store policies.
are you that dumb? blah blah.... you can play any music on itouch ever heard of ripping cd in itune. or imported music.
Well, what's stopping Apple from simply saying, "Going forward, only music and movies purchased on iTunes can be played on iOS?" or "Content sellers are going to have to start paying 30% of whatever music you sell to Apple to allow your content to be synced to the device?" I mean, that's just as much of an arbitrary change of heart as this news is today. Apple was once fine letting these readers now, and now that they're successful, they want their cut.
What am I missing? iOS is an *operating system.* The only resale channels we're talking about are Amazon/B&N and Apple (iBooks).
Funny how e-readers were perfectly fine with Apple until they started a competing (and much more limited) ebook store.
iOS is the operating system. App store is the trading platform. Amazon/B&N are the vendors. You are the customer.
Vendors have always paid, and is paying, and will continue to pay, owners of trading platform for access to customers. The only variables are exactly how much to pay, who ultimately comes up with the money, and how it is paid.
Amazon can always choose not to have an App if they find it unsustainable.
Apple taking 30% out of Amazon's sale price would render a large percentage of books unprofitable for Amazon -- between Apple and the rights holder, Amazon would be left with no revenue for themselves.
Amazon not having an app makes the iPad a less attractive device. This Apple policy would, in effect, remove a function I use my iPad for -- reading books from the far-superior Kindle store in the far-superior Kindle software. iBooks is a pale substitute.
Apple didn't beg Amazon to creat an app in their store to sell Amazon's books.
Apple benefits from having software on the iOS store. Apple needs those apps as a marketing tool. Apps like Kindle provide real value to users and make Apple's product more attractive, which improves sales.
Their store, their rules. You either follow the rule or find some other place to set up shop.
Apple has a right to set rules. But this rule will hurt consumers who will see their options diminish and the best option for ebooks, Amazon, likely go away.
Nice example, but where does the mall owner get a fixed percentage of all sales made by the retailer? Not sure how 30% is "reasonable and affordable". The "overheads" argument falls flat as 1) the books aren't hosted by Apple and 2) a £13 book should have the same overhead as a £5 book.
Overall, looks like Apple wants to make sure someone doesn't do to them what they did (with the help of iTunes) to Windows. If it wants to become serious about being the provider for books, maybe they'll broaden their selection.
especially specialty malls like Mall of America in Bloomington, MN, US, or Easton Town Center in COlumbus OH, US, or Mid Valley Megamall in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, as examples.
Affordability depends on your business model - if you are offering discount product, you generally find the cheapest available storefront and offer that there. Just as Barnes & Noble offer their books at pricing that reflects the cost of operations and a reasonable level of profitability, while they have storefronts in many popular malls all over. The cost of being in that mall is reflected in their pricing, obviously, so the cost of offering ebooks in the App Store via their "free" app, reflects the cost of being there as well, or simply is another cost to absorb in their overall cost of doing business.
I'm not sure what Apple has done to Windows in your reference above. They still are a minority player in Microsoft's majority control of the PC desktop space. Apple is delivering against the model that works best for them, they learn, tweak and build on what they learn over time, like all successful businesses. They build the profitability they want to see for the products and services they offer, same as Microsoft, GE or Exxon.
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.
Exactly! ChronoFlare in FTW!
Do you feel its fair for Apple's iTunes to directly profit from Windows users while contributing nothing back to Microsoft?
Microsoft takes a licensing cut from every Xbox 360 game. In doing so, it is simply copying the model launched by Nintendo and copied by Sony, which Apple is also now using on iOS.
Microsoft does not charge a licensing fee or any kind of cut from Windows developers, because it copied that business model from Apple, which never charged Mac developers a fee (quite the opposite, it groveled for their attention).
Microsoft invented the idea of selling DOS/Windows at retail. The Mac OS was always free until (sort of) 1990, and nobody really started paying for it until Steve Jobs began marketing Mac OS 8 as worth buying in 1998.
Not all business models work the same. When you buy gas, you pay per gallon. When you buy Coke, you pay for convenience (a 500mL bottle is often more expensive than a 2L bottle). When you buy printer ink, you pay hundreds per gallon, but you're not paying for the liquid, you're paying for the expertise in delivering it though a precision printer cartridge at 300dpi.
When you make absurdist arguments, it just makes it clear you aren't intellectually honest. Apple has full rights to benefit from its efforts, and is doing so in a pretty fair manner, even if the Android fans think this is "Evil" and that they should be able to steal everything they use, from apps to carrier bandwidth to original hardware designs and the software patents Apple has in iOS.
THAT'S what it really boils down to. Either you believe in free enterprise or you think everyone else should pay for the stuff you get for free. That's how the soviets and chinese viewed technology, and its exactly how Android fans think.
iOS is the operating system. App store is the trading platform. Amazon/B&N are the vendors. You are the customer.
Vendors have always paid, and is paying, and will continue to pay, owners of trading platform for access to customers. The only variables are exactly how much to pay, who ultimately comes up with the money, and how it is paid.
My God, NO, App Store is not the trading platform since I have to use Safari to purchase a book.
Amazon can always choose not to have an App if they find it unsustainable.
I love it. The take-your-bat-and-ball-and-go-home answer. It always reduces to this.
You as a customer can always go directly to Amazon website. Apple didn't beg Amazon to creat an app in their store to sell Amazon's books. Their store, their rules. You either follow the rule or find some other place to set up shop.
The problem is the rules change and you can spend a long time building up a successful business strategy only to have it dashed by selective enforcement of policy.
As for incentives, I would certainly hope Apple doesn't allow a price difference. But if Amazon can't find a way to creat incentives for people to buy their stuff through their own store, then they are too stupid at it, and is probably better off paying Apple 30% for the customers anyway.
Why did Apple do nothing while its loyal customers invested in buying Kindle ebooks?
Why did not the closed Apple ecosystem protect Apple's customers from purchasing Kindle ebooks?
Why did the iPad advertise its Kindle compatibility?
I humbly suggest that Apple refund to its users their investment in Kindle ebooks.
Well, what's stopping Apple from simply saying, "Going forward, only music and movies purchased on iTunes can be played on iOS?" or "Content sellers are going to have to start paying 30% of whatever music you sell to Apple to allow your content to be synced to the device?" I mean, that's just as much of an arbitrary change of heart as this news is today. Apple was once fine letting these readers now, and now that they're successful, they want their cut.
let me explain, no let me summarize:
Business sense will dictate how Apple conducts business - if a decision strikes the balance as being good for their business( which means effectively attractive to their customers, and reasonably profitable) they will do it.
This has been in place and agreed to by all the developers for the storefront which is the App Store. While Apple has been lax in enforcing it as the platform matures they have chosen at this time to require compliance. Not an arbitrary change, a business decision.
None of this is arbitrary or capricious. None of this is any different than when Barnes and Noble open a store in a mall and have to pay to be in the mall. IN what way are Sony now successful that requires Apple to respond as you surmise - Sony has the smallest and least popular ebook selection of the major ebook sources.
Your response makes no sense in any way a successful business person would accept.
My God, NO, App Store is not the trading platform since I have to use Safari to purchase a book.
If you use Safari, you weren't using the trading platform. and Amazon/B&N/Sony aren't asked to pay 30% in that case, are they?