And they already have paid the developer fee for the privilege of having an app in the App Store.
So Apple deserves a cut from Lufthansa if I buy a ticket from Safari Mobile? It is a storefront, isn't?
The developer fee is dirt cheap and is not intended to cover the costs of the App Store nor pay Apple for the privilege of selling to Apple's customers through Apple's storefront. It is, rather, intended to pay for the developer tools and keep lowlife devs from spamming the store.
Safari is not a storefront. It is a web browser, which means it can view and access content from third-parties, including storefronts.
The App Store and Apple's In-App API service is Apple's storefront.
Emmm, what cost incur Apple when I buy a book from Safari browser?
I'm not sure if you actually "don't understand" or are just trying to purposely "muddy the waters" by making nonsensical posts.
I will try to make this as simple as I can ... just for you.:
Safari is a browser .... not the storefront that everyone here is talking about ... well, except you.. the app store is what the article is talking about. If a developer sells through safari browser that links to his/her own "storefront ... no problem.
What Apple is saying is this:
We have created a storefront that has 100 + million accounts .... and counting .... and we spend a considerable amount of $$$$ to build and maintain it .... so if you want to reach a potential customer by accessing our client data base .... we expect our share of revenue generated by said access. This is done by any store I know of.
Imagine what Walmart would say if I approached them and said I want to put my products in their store, because I know they have a lot of "foot traffic" .... but not sell them 'thru their store ... but instead , just put up a sign "directing the interested customer to my car in the parking lot where I will be glad to complete the transaction, while avoiding giving Walmart any of the $$$$ earned.
The developer fee is dirt cheap and is not intended to cover the costs of the App Store nor pay Apple for the privilege of selling to Apple's customers through Apple's storefront.
The iOS Developer Program provides you with the ability to distribute your apps on the App Store. Offer your free or commercial apps to millions of iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch customers around the world. Extend the ability to generate revenue from your apps on the App Store with In-App Purchases, iAd rich media ads, volume purchases and more.
Apple really needs to introduce a different charging structure for content resellers if they want to move those transactions into the App Store.
I'm sure this anaology is full of holes, but.... I'm starting to view Apple in the same light as the music labels we all despise so much. Who is this middle man who gets in between the guy creating the art (music, books, applications) and me? And why do they think they should get such a huge cut of the revenue. And in terms of content distribution (the actual music or book) Apple does even less than a music label does as they don't have to handle any manufacturing, inventory management, etc.
And we all know what this lead to in the music industry, essentially a revolt against The Man. Only this time, it's not Apple coming to the rescue, because now Apple is The Man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Not sure of the wisdom of taking iOS users out of the AppStore altogether and sending them to the vendor's site instead. Of course you do have to assume that Apple thought all this thru when they created the rule. FWIW, Apple may not really want Amazon, B&N, etc in the AppStore anyway, which may be part of the reason for the policy in the first place.
I think Apple created the rule to see the reaction, just like they did when they tried to ban applications generated from Flash conversion tools. In both cases, their bluff was called and they've backed down. And I suspect they will have further backing down in this latest issue, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unkown Blogger
Let's see. Apple provides the infrastructure to host their apps, but the vendors don't want to support that infrastructure by paying 30% of their price - they want a free ride.
Now what would they do if they were in Apple's position? I doubt any of them would want to incur costs to support someone else's business, particularly when those businesses are competitors (e.g., Amazon or B&N vs. iBooks).
I don't think anyone here would argue that Apple shouldn't get some compensation. But I think most would argue that 30% is far too high for the services they provide.
Apple's attitude is that the hardware/OS (platform) is adding value to the software/content, but then they deny that the software/content is adding value to the platform. I'd argue that, at least as far as the subscription content we are discussing here goes, the software adds far more value to the platform than the other way around. I can play Angry Birds and read the Wall Street Journal on any number of platforms, an iDevice is entirely optional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
So you don't buy any apps for the iphone/ipad, for your Mac via MAS and no itunes media. Cause the same 30% rule applies.
The developers, studios, labels etc know the rules when they sign up. Including the rule that the rules can be changed.
1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple doesn't get 30% for iTunes music/movies. I thought that was closer to 10%, but I've not seen a recent figure. And in that case Apple is actually storing and delivering the content (in some cases fairly large files). If I understand correctly, subscription media for iOS applications is more like the podcast model. Apple provides the method for finding and subscribing, but the provider provides the storage and bandwidth to deliver the content.
2. Knowing that the rules can change, and liking the changed rules are two different things. Apple changed the rules, content providers don't like the rules and are reacting. The risk is that Apple will start to be viewed like MS...as a very unreliable partners. How many twists and turns did MS put it's partners through with all the different flavors of DRM for music players, continually changing the rules. Sooner or later, developers and providers will get gun shy and start to delay iOS releases for fear the rug will get pulled off from under their feet again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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.
Not quite. If I may be allowed to reword your statement a bit:
Quote:
What they are trying to prevent is app publishers circumventing the revised revenue sharing agreement they were forced to entered into when Apple changed the rules after they had already published their apps through the app store.
It's perfectly within Apple's rights to change the rules. I'm sure they had such a clause in the original agreement. But to suggest that the publishers knew what the rules were going to be long after they had already released their apps is not a fair statement. This is a fairly big change in the rules as it would complete up-end the business model you had designed your app around. It's borderline "bait-and-switch". And as mentioned above, it makes Apple a very unreliable partner.
Yes, it's less convenient purchasing subscriptions and books via the browser. Yes, it's annoying having dozens of different apps for magazines and books.
But to me, it's not worth paying an extra 30% just for the convenience of having this streamlined. I hope the publishers don't give in to Apple's demands and raise rates, even if it means a clunky workaround experience once a year when I renew.
I was looking forward to Newsstand, but I'm guessing it will be just as big of a flop as iBooks and AppleTV.
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.
By your logic Apple has to pay MS for every song I buy using iTunes on my Windows machine. {ad hom attack removed}
The iOS Developer Program provides you with the ability to distribute your apps on the App Store. Offer your free or commercial apps to millions of iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch customers around the world. Extend the ability to generate revenue from your apps on the App Store with In-App Purchases, iAd rich media ads, volume purchases and more.
The iOS Developer Program provides you with the ability to distribute your apps on the App Store. Offer your free or commercial apps to millions of iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch customers around the world. Extend the ability to generate revenue from your apps on the App Store with In-App Purchases, iAd rich media ads, volume purchases and more.
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.
Do you know what percentage the online aggregators used to charge before Apple came on the scene?
Around the time of the App Store's birth, for instance, Handango and Pocketgear were the top online stores for app distribution and sales, and were charging small developers around 55% (and amazingly, the large ones like EA around 70%!).
Why do you reckon there was such a large exodus to the Apple platform in such a short period of time in the first place?
Talk about greed, pffft!
Amazon for one doesn't allow any other aggregators to ply their trade on its storefront.
By your logic Apple has to pay MS for every song I buy using iTunes on my Windows machine. Way to go genius.
No, because Windows is an OS.
If your analogy was that iTunes is sold (free) and downloaded from the "Windows Store" (a digital storefront... do they have this? not sure, but it's hypothetical), then yes, Microsoft could say they wanted a percentage of every song sold if Apple wants to have the right to use Microsoft's "Windows Store".
In that case, Apple wouldn't distribute their app on the "Windows Store". Just like these companies don't have to distribute their apps on the App Store. In this instance, both Apple and Microsoft would be providing a service and delivering customers, and can therefore charge whatever they feel like, and developers can choose whether or not the value proposition is worth it.
You forot to include the rest of the story .... from the same link. ...Huh .. imagine that.
You pick the price
You get 70% of sales revenue
Receive payments monthly
No charge for free apps
No credit card fees
No hosting fees
No marketing fees
THIS should get posted more. THIS is the value proposition, and Apple says it is valued at 30% of revenues (including app purchases and in-app purchases).
If the developer signs up, they obviously feel it is worth is.
And by the way, that list should also include "Access to 100,000+ users with credit cards on file"...
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?
The revenue sharing part of the "rules" is the part of the developer agreement where you agree to let Apple have 30% of the revenue your app generates.
. . .the Google Books application may also have been affected by Apple's newly enforced restrictions. The software is no longer available on the App Store, but a spokesman for the search giant reportedly declined to comment.
Googgle Books is back in the App Store, sans their direct link button, just as the others did.
I'm sure this anaology is full of holes, but.... I'm starting to view Apple in the same light as the music labels we all despise so much. Who is this middle man who gets in between the guy creating the art (music, books, applications) and me? And why do they think they should get such a huge cut of the revenue. And in terms of content distribution (the actual music or book) Apple does even less than a music label does as they don't have to handle any manufacturing, inventory management, etc.
And we all know what this lead to in the music industry, essentially a revolt against The Man. Only this time, it's not Apple coming to the rescue, because now Apple is The Man.
Actually no, in software sales Apple is not the man, Apple is the anti-man. Apple is allowing small indy developers access to a population of users that they could never have reached before. It offers promotions, and marketing - most important of all it promises trust, so that you can buy that $1 app without worrying about malware.
The result is a bonanza for small devs that is unprecedented in the history of the software industry. Apple is not the man - and while 30% might seem high, compared to what developers would have had to pay in the past for a global distribution system, micropayment system and quality assurance system it's a bargain.
The people being disadvantaged here aren't the little guys, they're the big content resellers and they're quite capable of advertising their external content sites elsewhere. They just can't use free apps in the App store as a source of free advertising.
Even if you buy, using a windows machine .... you still buy 'thru the IiTunes store, genius
MSFT has nothing to do with it.
You really don't know what is going on. Amazon used to sell through it's own store, which it still does. Apple have stopped them linking to their own store in safari.
Comments
But it seems that Apple is preventing other avenues to purchase "content".
You switch to the browser to buy that content. That's not preventing anything.
And they already have paid the developer fee for the privilege of having an app in the App Store.
So Apple deserves a cut from Lufthansa if I buy a ticket from Safari Mobile? It is a storefront, isn't?
The developer fee is dirt cheap and is not intended to cover the costs of the App Store nor pay Apple for the privilege of selling to Apple's customers through Apple's storefront. It is, rather, intended to pay for the developer tools and keep lowlife devs from spamming the store.
Safari is not a storefront. It is a web browser, which means it can view and access content from third-parties, including storefronts.
The App Store and Apple's In-App API service is Apple's storefront.
Emmm, what cost incur Apple when I buy a book from Safari browser?
I'm not sure if you actually "don't understand" or are just trying to purposely "muddy the waters" by making nonsensical posts.
I will try to make this as simple as I can ... just for you.:
Safari is a browser .... not the storefront that everyone here is talking about ... well, except you.. the app store is what the article is talking about. If a developer sells through safari browser that links to his/her own "storefront ... no problem.
What Apple is saying is this:
We have created a storefront that has 100 + million accounts .... and counting .... and we spend a considerable amount of $$$$ to build and maintain it .... so if you want to reach a potential customer by accessing our client data base .... we expect our share of revenue generated by said access. This is done by any store I know of.
Imagine what Walmart would say if I approached them and said I want to put my products in their store, because I know they have a lot of "foot traffic" .... but not sell them 'thru their store ... but instead , just put up a sign "directing the interested customer to my car in the parking lot where I will be glad to complete the transaction, while avoiding giving Walmart any of the $$$$ earned.
How well do you think that would go over ???
If a developer sells through safari browser that links to his/her own "storefront ... no problem.
And this is what Amazon, B&N or Spotify apps did
The developer fee is dirt cheap and is not intended to cover the costs of the App Store nor pay Apple for the privilege of selling to Apple's customers through Apple's storefront.
The iOS Developer Program provides you with the ability to distribute your apps on the App Store. Offer your free or commercial apps to millions of iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch customers around the world. Extend the ability to generate revenue from your apps on the App Store with In-App Purchases, iAd rich media ads, volume purchases and more.
http://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/distribute.html
Safari is not a storefront. It is a web browser, which means it can view and access content from third-parties, including storefronts.
The App Store and Apple's In-App API service is Apple's storefront.
The Nook site or the Amazon site on Safari, is a storefront of course.
Apple really needs to introduce a different charging structure for content resellers if they want to move those transactions into the App Store.
I'm sure this anaology is full of holes, but.... I'm starting to view Apple in the same light as the music labels we all despise so much. Who is this middle man who gets in between the guy creating the art (music, books, applications) and me? And why do they think they should get such a huge cut of the revenue. And in terms of content distribution (the actual music or book) Apple does even less than a music label does as they don't have to handle any manufacturing, inventory management, etc.
And we all know what this lead to in the music industry, essentially a revolt against The Man. Only this time, it's not Apple coming to the rescue, because now Apple is The Man.
Not sure of the wisdom of taking iOS users out of the AppStore altogether and sending them to the vendor's site instead. Of course you do have to assume that Apple thought all this thru when they created the rule. FWIW, Apple may not really want Amazon, B&N, etc in the AppStore anyway, which may be part of the reason for the policy in the first place.
I think Apple created the rule to see the reaction, just like they did when they tried to ban applications generated from Flash conversion tools. In both cases, their bluff was called and they've backed down. And I suspect they will have further backing down in this latest issue, too.
Let's see. Apple provides the infrastructure to host their apps, but the vendors don't want to support that infrastructure by paying 30% of their price - they want a free ride.
Now what would they do if they were in Apple's position? I doubt any of them would want to incur costs to support someone else's business, particularly when those businesses are competitors (e.g., Amazon or B&N vs. iBooks).
I don't think anyone here would argue that Apple shouldn't get some compensation. But I think most would argue that 30% is far too high for the services they provide.
Apple's attitude is that the hardware/OS (platform) is adding value to the software/content, but then they deny that the software/content is adding value to the platform. I'd argue that, at least as far as the subscription content we are discussing here goes, the software adds far more value to the platform than the other way around. I can play Angry Birds and read the Wall Street Journal on any number of platforms, an iDevice is entirely optional.
So you don't buy any apps for the iphone/ipad, for your Mac via MAS and no itunes media. Cause the same 30% rule applies.
The developers, studios, labels etc know the rules when they sign up. Including the rule that the rules can be changed.
1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple doesn't get 30% for iTunes music/movies. I thought that was closer to 10%, but I've not seen a recent figure. And in that case Apple is actually storing and delivering the content (in some cases fairly large files). If I understand correctly, subscription media for iOS applications is more like the podcast model. Apple provides the method for finding and subscribing, but the provider provides the storage and bandwidth to deliver the content.
2. Knowing that the rules can change, and liking the changed rules are two different things. Apple changed the rules, content providers don't like the rules and are reacting. The risk is that Apple will start to be viewed like MS...as a very unreliable partners. How many twists and turns did MS put it's partners through with all the different flavors of DRM for music players, continually changing the rules. Sooner or later, developers and providers will get gun shy and start to delay iOS releases for fear the rug will get pulled off from under their feet again.
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.
Not quite. If I may be allowed to reword your statement a bit:
What they are trying to prevent is app publishers circumventing the revised revenue sharing agreement they were forced to entered into when Apple changed the rules after they had already published their apps through the app store.
It's perfectly within Apple's rights to change the rules. I'm sure they had such a clause in the original agreement. But to suggest that the publishers knew what the rules were going to be long after they had already released their apps is not a fair statement. This is a fairly big change in the rules as it would complete up-end the business model you had designed your app around. It's borderline "bait-and-switch". And as mentioned above, it makes Apple a very unreliable partner.
But to me, it's not worth paying an extra 30% just for the convenience of having this streamlined. I hope the publishers don't give in to Apple's demands and raise rates, even if it means a clunky workaround experience once a year when I renew.
I was looking forward to Newsstand, but I'm guessing it will be just as big of a flop as iBooks and AppleTV.
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.
By your logic Apple has to pay MS for every song I buy using iTunes on my Windows machine. {ad hom attack removed}
And this is what Amazon, B&N or Spotify apps did
What they did was link from the App Store directly to their website using a "buy here" link .... no ???
The iOS Developer Program provides you with the ability to distribute your apps on the App Store. Offer your free or commercial apps to millions of iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch customers around the world. Extend the ability to generate revenue from your apps on the App Store with In-App Purchases, iAd rich media ads, volume purchases and more.
http://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/distribute.html
Sure, but that's not really what is for. If that was the case, Apple wouldn't charge 30% on app purchases. Use some common sense.
And Prof. Peabody did not say that Safari is a storefront. He said that certain webpages are storefronts.
Safari =/= the Nook Store website
Safari is nothing more than a browser to view content.
The iOS Developer Program provides you with the ability to distribute your apps on the App Store. Offer your free or commercial apps to millions of iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch customers around the world. Extend the ability to generate revenue from your apps on the App Store with In-App Purchases, iAd rich media ads, volume purchases and more.
http://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/distribute.html
You forot to include the rest of the story .... from the same link. ...Huh .. imagine that.
You pick the price
You get 70% of sales revenue
Receive payments monthly
No charge for free apps
No credit card fees
No hosting fees
No marketing fees
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.
Do you know what percentage the online aggregators used to charge before Apple came on the scene?
Around the time of the App Store's birth, for instance, Handango and Pocketgear were the top online stores for app distribution and sales, and were charging small developers around 55% (and amazingly, the large ones like EA around 70%!).
Why do you reckon there was such a large exodus to the Apple platform in such a short period of time in the first place?
Talk about greed, pffft!
Amazon for one doesn't allow any other aggregators to ply their trade on its storefront.
Go figure...
By your logic Apple has to pay MS for every song I buy using iTunes on my Windows machine. Way to go genius.
No, because Windows is an OS.
If your analogy was that iTunes is sold (free) and downloaded from the "Windows Store" (a digital storefront... do they have this? not sure, but it's hypothetical), then yes, Microsoft could say they wanted a percentage of every song sold if Apple wants to have the right to use Microsoft's "Windows Store".
In that case, Apple wouldn't distribute their app on the "Windows Store". Just like these companies don't have to distribute their apps on the App Store. In this instance, both Apple and Microsoft would be providing a service and delivering customers, and can therefore charge whatever they feel like, and developers can choose whether or not the value proposition is worth it.
It is a free market, right?
By your logic Apple has to pay MS for every song I buy using iTunes on my Windows machine. Way to go genius.
Even if you buy, using a windows machine .... you still buy 'thru the IiTunes store, genius
MSFT has nothing to do with it.
You forot to include the rest of the story .... from the same link. ...Huh .. imagine that.
You pick the price
You get 70% of sales revenue
Receive payments monthly
No charge for free apps
No credit card fees
No hosting fees
No marketing fees
THIS should get posted more. THIS is the value proposition, and Apple says it is valued at 30% of revenues (including app purchases and in-app purchases).
If the developer signs up, they obviously feel it is worth is.
And by the way, that list should also include "Access to 100,000+ users with credit cards on file"...
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?
The revenue sharing part of the "rules" is the part of the developer agreement where you agree to let Apple have 30% of the revenue your app generates.
... If I may be allowed to reword your statement a bit: ...
You aren't rewording my statement, you're simply making up the fantasy version that represents your distorted and mistaken view.
. . .the Google Books application may also have been affected by Apple's newly enforced restrictions. The software is no longer available on the App Store, but a spokesman for the search giant reportedly declined to comment.
Googgle Books is back in the App Store, sans their direct link button, just as the others did.
I'm sure this anaology is full of holes, but.... I'm starting to view Apple in the same light as the music labels we all despise so much. Who is this middle man who gets in between the guy creating the art (music, books, applications) and me? And why do they think they should get such a huge cut of the revenue. And in terms of content distribution (the actual music or book) Apple does even less than a music label does as they don't have to handle any manufacturing, inventory management, etc.
And we all know what this lead to in the music industry, essentially a revolt against The Man. Only this time, it's not Apple coming to the rescue, because now Apple is The Man.
Actually no, in software sales Apple is not the man, Apple is the anti-man. Apple is allowing small indy developers access to a population of users that they could never have reached before. It offers promotions, and marketing - most important of all it promises trust, so that you can buy that $1 app without worrying about malware.
The result is a bonanza for small devs that is unprecedented in the history of the software industry. Apple is not the man - and while 30% might seem high, compared to what developers would have had to pay in the past for a global distribution system, micropayment system and quality assurance system it's a bargain.
The people being disadvantaged here aren't the little guys, they're the big content resellers and they're quite capable of advertising their external content sites elsewhere. They just can't use free apps in the App store as a source of free advertising.
Even if you buy, using a windows machine .... you still buy 'thru the IiTunes store, genius
MSFT has nothing to do with it.
You really don't know what is going on. Amazon used to sell through it's own store, which it still does. Apple have stopped them linking to their own store in safari.
Also, post reported.