You don't, the content provider does. Apple was cunning enough to forbid companies to sell items at a higher price in the app store.
THIS is one issue where I think Apple's 30% across the board arrangement is out of wack. Some of these Subscriptions and Content providers are not getting a big markup -- some are.
But I figure, if I get a Comic Book app, and I "buy" a new comic for the kids -- then a 15% markup makes more sense. It shouldn't be ZERO for Apple, but then again, a company like Marvel is selling THEIR content, and the platform is not the reason anyone is buying it.
I think there needs to be differentiation between "selling away" -- basically, making an app store within an app, and CONTENT -- which is defined ahead of time by the application and doesn't do an end-run around the store.
But basically, they don't want an APPLICATION creating a new storefront on iPads and iPhones -- and I think that is EXACTLY what the danger is with these "in-app" purchases.
It also doesn't guarantee the "walled garden" -- which can cause support issues for Apple -- not that money isn't their main concern.
The BANDWIDTH isn't the issue here -- it's Apple's marketplace they've created.
But basically, they don't want an APPLICATION creating a new storefront on iPads and iPhones -- and I think that is EXACTLY what the danger is with these "in-app" purchases.
It also doesn't guarantee the "walled garden" -- which can cause support issues for Apple -- not that money isn't their main concern.
The BANDWIDTH isn't the issue here -- it's Apple's marketplace they've created.
It seems to me that Apple is asking for too much here. Understood that if Apple is hosting the content and the payment process they should get a cut. But it seems that Apple is preventing other avenues to purchase "content". I think this is too restrictive. It is understandable that Apple wants to control the applications to avoid malware/virus situations, but when it comes to reading content I question it a bit more.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but it seems like Apple's solution is not the best one.
It seems to me that Apple is asking for too much here. Understood that if Apple is hosting the content and the payment process they should get a cut. But it seems that Apple is preventing other avenues to purchase "content".
No, they aren't 'preventing other avenues to purchase "content"'. The article detailed how some of those affected intend to provide "other avenues".
What they are trying to prevent is app publishers circumventing the revenue sharing agreement they entered into when they published their apps through the app store. And, they're even being lenient in that regard by allowing outside, just not in-app, purchase avenues.
As has been pointed out numerous times before, the App Store is not a fee for services system, it's a revenue sharing system. Those like Amazon who post free apps and sell content outside the system are "cheating" on the agreement they made with Apple at the expense of other developers.
What they are trying to prevent is app publishers circumventing the revenue sharing agreement they entered into when they published their apps through the app store. And, they're even being lenient in that regard by allowing outside, just not in-app, purchase avenues.
Can you show me where in the App Store rules was nothing about revenue sharing for content synced like Amazon or B&N books purchased on an iMac or in Safari Mobile?
Read the quote in the below for my original contribution in this post. Apparently the moderator couldn't decide if he should punish me for a one-word insult or for "writing nonsense" about Apple....
Look {ad hom removed}, you and the other 1.000+ Apple shareholders that recycle the same tired line are WRONG. It's MY device. I bought it and paid for it and I didn't get a discount for allowing Apple to intervene and suddenly change the rules about how I can use MY device. Understood?
I will report Apple to my local regulatory body to oversee anti-competitive behaviour for this the moment I get the chance.
Well, I guess you told him.
While you're at it you should report Sony(playstation) for controlling how you use YOUR device. Same with the xbox.
Apple are being dicks about this, plain and simple. A 30% cut of content revenue is insane, unsustainable and outright greedy. I am surprised things have gone this far. People may pay a premium for high quality devices, but who wants to pay 30% more every time you buy content.
you do pay that. every time you buy an apple product. why do you think they have so much cash on hand these days? stop complaining.
This is a negative effect of Apple's change in terms, leading to poorer customer experience and reducing the benefit of the iPad.
Having the Kindle and Nook apps on the iPad is a big plus. And although the apps are still there, they are being updated to comply with the terms, so there will be no way to buy a book directly from the app now. The user will have to know how to buy the books in the browser (and then do you sync them to the iPad?)
Bad decision on Apple's part.
I don't see how it's Apple's fault.
Any of these apps can stay in the store if they decide to sell the product through the Apple store.
Any of these magazines and newspapers could also make an HTML app that goes around all these restrictions and integrates with the web sites that they seem to prefer to push anyway. Ironically, they will reach more people by being on the app store and probably make more money selling through the app store than they will on the web, but if they want to get out of Apple's grip, then lower sales is the price they have to pay.
If you want access to Apple's customers, it's fair to pay Apple for the privilege.
This changes little. Few buy iPads for Amazon, B&N etc anyway. Anyone who says Apple can't make the rules should have read the iOS TOS. Any reseller who thinks they can create their own storefront on iOS devices should have known Apple wasn't going to let it happen without a cut. Either they'll come clamoring back or they'll become irrelevant. Good luck selling books exclusively on the Kindle Nook, etc. Apple's customers will just use the iBook store.
Why not just have an in app link to the Kindle store that says "Buy for $10" and an in app purchase option tha says "Buy for $13". How many people would choose to pay 30% more for the convenience of buying "in app".
Why not just have an in app link to the Kindle store that says "Buy for $10" and an in app purchase option tha says "Buy for $13". How many people would choose to pay 30% more for the convenience of buying "in app".
I see this from the point of view of a job applicant. There are very few places hiring so the prospective employee agrees to unfriendly terms of employment just to get a job. Work or starve.
Though corporations wouldn't starve, they do realize just how much they would loose by not having an app in the app store, thus they agree to the unfriendly terms.
Though the contract is binding it isn't fair.
Apple doesn't own the internet and shouldn't tell companies they can't send people to some other place on the web to make a purchase. That is what Apple is doing by preventing links to outside of the app locations. This is a first amendment of the US Constitution violation. Apple is restricting the speech of the companies by telling them what they can't say to potential customers. They are not Apple employees or even subcontractors.
The companies should all have their own web apps that can run on the idevices located on their home pages instead of in the app store. That way people can have the apps they want for free and the vendors won't need to bow down to Apple. Is this possible? Are only jail broken devices capable of doing this? I don't own an idevice yet. I just own a Mac right now.
All of the companies should get together and demand Apple change its terms to a pay per click or pay per app download model. If Apple refuses then they should just leave the app store. When Apple looses enough willing participants it will change or just earn less money.
Charging 30% is a huge amount of money considering there is no actual store location. Even shopping malls don't charge anywhere near that amount to their tenants and they have a physical location to maintain. Already the prices of electronic books is outrageous. Selling an e-book for $13.00 instead of buying the paperback version for $2.95 plus free shipping is crazy. If a profit can be made on a physical product selling for $2.95 with free shipping (or even paid shipping), why is an e-book so expensive?
Magazine subscriptions can be had for about 80 cents per issue for a physical item shipped to your mailbox once per month. Some cost a bit more depending on which magazine it is. The online subscriptions are selling for ten times that amount or more and they're still full of advertisements. It's just insane what publishers are expecting people to pay for a few electrons.
The question is whether this decision will stop you from buying an iDevice in the future?
I personally don't think it changes the value proposition for buying an iOS device, but it could negatively affect the user experience. I have a Kindle 3G, so I can buy books directly from the Kindle (but it's clunky and slow). I've also purchased Kindle books from the Amazon website and sent it to my iPad running the Kindle app. It is is faster and more flexible because you are on the full amazon.com website, which looks great on the iPad. Based on that experience, no, it's not necessarily something I miss.
Comments
You don't, the content provider does. Apple was cunning enough to forbid companies to sell items at a higher price in the app store.
THIS is one issue where I think Apple's 30% across the board arrangement is out of wack. Some of these Subscriptions and Content providers are not getting a big markup -- some are.
But I figure, if I get a Comic Book app, and I "buy" a new comic for the kids -- then a 15% markup makes more sense. It shouldn't be ZERO for Apple, but then again, a company like Marvel is selling THEIR content, and the platform is not the reason anyone is buying it.
I think there needs to be differentiation between "selling away" -- basically, making an app store within an app, and CONTENT -- which is defined ahead of time by the application and doesn't do an end-run around the store.
No, no Apple servers were used
Well, it's a poor choice of words on my part.
But basically, they don't want an APPLICATION creating a new storefront on iPads and iPhones -- and I think that is EXACTLY what the danger is with these "in-app" purchases.
It also doesn't guarantee the "walled garden" -- which can cause support issues for Apple -- not that money isn't their main concern.
The BANDWIDTH isn't the issue here -- it's Apple's marketplace they've created.
Well, it's a poor choice of words on my part.
But basically, they don't want an APPLICATION creating a new storefront on iPads and iPhones -- and I think that is EXACTLY what the danger is with these "in-app" purchases.
It also doesn't guarantee the "walled garden" -- which can cause support issues for Apple -- not that money isn't their main concern.
The BANDWIDTH isn't the issue here -- it's Apple's marketplace they've created.
How Safari is a storefront?
I'm not sure what the solution is, but it seems like Apple's solution is not the best one.
-I AM IQ78
It seems to me that Apple is asking for too much here. Understood that if Apple is hosting the content and the payment process they should get a cut. But it seems that Apple is preventing other avenues to purchase "content".
No, they aren't 'preventing other avenues to purchase "content"'. The article detailed how some of those affected intend to provide "other avenues".
What they are trying to prevent is app publishers circumventing the revenue sharing agreement they entered into when they published their apps through the app store. And, they're even being lenient in that regard by allowing outside, just not in-app, purchase avenues.
As has been pointed out numerous times before, the App Store is not a fee for services system, it's a revenue sharing system. Those like Amazon who post free apps and sell content outside the system are "cheating" on the agreement they made with Apple at the expense of other developers.
Its Apples devices <HARDWARE>
If thy don't wanna join at Apple's standard pricing.
Then don't join.
9
What they are trying to prevent is app publishers circumventing the revenue sharing agreement they entered into when they published their apps through the app store. And, they're even being lenient in that regard by allowing outside, just not in-app, purchase avenues.
Can you show me where in the App Store rules was nothing about revenue sharing for content synced like Amazon or B&N books purchased on an iMac or in Safari Mobile?
{Nonsense removed}
Read the quote in the below for my original contribution in this post. Apparently the moderator couldn't decide if he should punish me for a one-word insult or for "writing nonsense" about Apple....
Look {ad hom removed}, you and the other 1.000+ Apple shareholders that recycle the same tired line are WRONG. It's MY device. I bought it and paid for it and I didn't get a discount for allowing Apple to intervene and suddenly change the rules about how I can use MY device. Understood?
I will report Apple to my local regulatory body to oversee anti-competitive behaviour for this the moment I get the chance.
Well, I guess you told him.
While you're at it you should report Sony(playstation) for controlling how you use YOUR device. Same with the xbox.
The moment you get the chance...
Does AI even have an editor? Again and again you see these glaring mistakes in their articles. I like the site, but clean up the copy!
I've repeatedly suggested the same and gave up. I think they are making plenty of money even with poorly written and sourced stories. Yay, capitalism!
Apple are being dicks about this, plain and simple. A 30% cut of content revenue is insane, unsustainable and outright greedy. I am surprised things have gone this far. People may pay a premium for high quality devices, but who wants to pay 30% more every time you buy content.
you do pay that. every time you buy an apple product. why do you think they have so much cash on hand these days? stop complaining.
This is a negative effect of Apple's change in terms, leading to poorer customer experience and reducing the benefit of the iPad.
Having the Kindle and Nook apps on the iPad is a big plus. And although the apps are still there, they are being updated to comply with the terms, so there will be no way to buy a book directly from the app now. The user will have to know how to buy the books in the browser (and then do you sync them to the iPad?)
Bad decision on Apple's part.
I don't see how it's Apple's fault.
Any of these apps can stay in the store if they decide to sell the product through the Apple store.
Any of these magazines and newspapers could also make an HTML app that goes around all these restrictions and integrates with the web sites that they seem to prefer to push anyway. Ironically, they will reach more people by being on the app store and probably make more money selling through the app store than they will on the web, but if they want to get out of Apple's grip, then lower sales is the price they have to pay.
If you want access to Apple's customers, it's fair to pay Apple for the privilege.
How Safari is a storefront?
The Nook site or the Amazon site on Safari, is a storefront of course.
If you want access to Apple's customers, it's fair to pay Apple for the privilege.
And they already have paid the developer fee for the privilege of having an app in the App Store.
The Nook site or the Amazon site on Safari, is a storefront of course.
So Apple deserves a cut from Lufthansa if I buy a ticket from Safari Mobile? It is a storefront, isn't?
I've repeatedly suggested the same and gave up. I think they are making plenty of money even with poorly written and sourced stories. Yay, capitalism!
I agree, I thought they hired one. It doesn't even take much time. It should be expected, espeically given that AI stories get listed on Google News.
Why not just have an in app link to the Kindle store that says "Buy for $10" and an in app purchase option tha says "Buy for $13". How many people would choose to pay 30% more for the convenience of buying "in app".
You an't put any link to purchase outside the app
Though corporations wouldn't starve, they do realize just how much they would loose by not having an app in the app store, thus they agree to the unfriendly terms.
Though the contract is binding it isn't fair.
Apple doesn't own the internet and shouldn't tell companies they can't send people to some other place on the web to make a purchase. That is what Apple is doing by preventing links to outside of the app locations. This is a first amendment of the US Constitution violation. Apple is restricting the speech of the companies by telling them what they can't say to potential customers. They are not Apple employees or even subcontractors.
The companies should all have their own web apps that can run on the idevices located on their home pages instead of in the app store. That way people can have the apps they want for free and the vendors won't need to bow down to Apple. Is this possible? Are only jail broken devices capable of doing this? I don't own an idevice yet. I just own a Mac right now.
All of the companies should get together and demand Apple change its terms to a pay per click or pay per app download model. If Apple refuses then they should just leave the app store. When Apple looses enough willing participants it will change or just earn less money.
Charging 30% is a huge amount of money considering there is no actual store location. Even shopping malls don't charge anywhere near that amount to their tenants and they have a physical location to maintain. Already the prices of electronic books is outrageous. Selling an e-book for $13.00 instead of buying the paperback version for $2.95 plus free shipping is crazy. If a profit can be made on a physical product selling for $2.95 with free shipping (or even paid shipping), why is an e-book so expensive?
Magazine subscriptions can be had for about 80 cents per issue for a physical item shipped to your mailbox once per month. Some cost a bit more depending on which magazine it is. The online subscriptions are selling for ten times that amount or more and they're still full of advertisements. It's just insane what publishers are expecting people to pay for a few electrons.
The question is whether this decision will stop you from buying an iDevice in the future?
I personally don't think it changes the value proposition for buying an iOS device, but it could negatively affect the user experience. I have a Kindle 3G, so I can buy books directly from the Kindle (but it's clunky and slow). I've also purchased Kindle books from the Amazon website and sent it to my iPad running the Kindle app. It is is faster and more flexible because you are on the full amazon.com website, which looks great on the iPad. Based on that experience, no, it's not necessarily something I miss.