The full Amazon website looks "great?" I wasn't aware it looked good on anything, let alone an iPad.
I find it hard to even think of a more confusing, craptastic, chock-full of ads & BS web site in existence than Amazon. Amazon is the MySpace of commerce websites.
Often I disagree with you Professor, but on this I can only add - Amen brother.
People like to point out that the iTunes Store and App Store are basically break even propositions. You can't really "freeload" (which apps don't since they add value to Apple's products) when there's no real expectation that the store is going to make any money or not. People really need to make up their minds. Does Apple expect to make a profit on the App Store or not?
Of course you can freeload, if you saddle Apple with all the distribution costs and none of the revenue. Apple may not expect a big profit on the App Store, but it certainly doesn't want to make a loss.
As for the 'adds value' argument, that's great - try that argument with Amazon and see if they'll let you launch a rival eBook service on the kindle. Apple adds at least as much value to Amazon by providing a huge base of potential eBook customers as Amazon adds to Apple in providing content.
Considering how picayune this restriction is from Apple people are making a ridiculously big deal.
It's not final yet, but the 1-click patent was recently ruled invalid also. Not unique enough to be patentable and prior art exists etc. Amazon is still fighting it and it isn't final, but the smart money is on one-click being history very soon.
Hmm - are you sure? I know that a lot of claims were ruled invalid in 2007, but Amazon then was able to rephrase them and have them reinstated. The last I heard it was settled and the somewhat modified but still idiotic patent still stood.
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 some people get how higher percentage 30% is for what is essentially a payment gateway. The usual price is around 2.5%!
You also have to remember the app owner is also going to pay out around 20% in tax on these purchases so they only recieve 50% of the selling price. So if you consider the app owner should recieve more than Apple, lets say they get 40% as their profit that means the unit cost has to be around 10% of the selling price. Are you ok paying a 90% markup on products?
I don't think some people get how higher percentage 30% is for what is essentially a payment gateway. The usual price is around 2.5%!
Don't confuse credit card transaction fees with "shelf space" in a store that has over 100 million credit approved customers who fall into the "right sales demographic".
Can you explain me how an item sold through Safari is revenue owed by Apple?
This is my post, they no free riding if Safari is used.
Are you really so dense that you cannot tell the difference between a web browser (safari) and an online store (appstore) .... please, say it isn't so .... you're just pretending, right?
Are you really so dense that you cannot tell the difference between a web browser (safari) and an online store (appstore) .... please, say it isn't so .... you're just pretending, right?
Are you really so dense taht you cannot tell the difference between IAP and using a browser.
Amazon, B&N, Spotify weren't using IAP, they were using a browser.
And stop insulting, please, but I suppose is easy when you're behind a computer.
Of course you can freeload, if you saddle Apple with all the distribution costs and none of the revenue. Apple may not expect a big profit on the App Store, but it certainly doesn't want to make a loss.
The Kindle app is 8.2MB in size. What do you think the distributions costs are for that? Maybe 10 cents a download and I'm probably be massively generous with that amount. Amazon would be happy to host the Kindle app on their own site, but that's not allowed for iOS devices. Does the Kindle add 10 cents of value to iOS devices?
Quote:
As for the 'adds value' argument, that's great - try that argument with Amazon and see if they'll let you launch a rival eBook service on the kindle.
That's a ridiculous argument considering that the Kindle device is a single purpose device that derive much of their real value via sales of eBooks. That's hardly comparable to an iOS device where the real value to Apple is simply in the device being sold.
Quote:
Apple adds at least as much value to Amazon by providing a huge base of potential eBook customers as Amazon adds to Apple in providing content.
I'm pretty sure the number of registered Amazon.com accounts vastly outnumbers iTunes accounts. Amazon doesn't need Apple. Further, Amazon could never afford to support in-app purchases since 30% is the entire profit of the eBook. At which point it's Apple freeloading off of Amazon since Amazon has to handle those distribution costs you value so much.
Can you explain me how an item sold through Safari is revenue owed by Apple?
This is my post, they no free riding if Safari is used.
You're assuming that this change was aimed at Amazon/B&N etc, but I don't think that's likely. The content sellers while important are actually an edge-case here and they're barely impacted by the change because anybody downloading their app already knows about their content store on the web.
However the creator of a freemium game could indeed free-ride using safari because all he has to distribute from his web-store is his in-game currency/special items. All the big data delivery is being done by Apple, all he has to do is distribute a few unlock codes.
Now a freemium game is far likelier to be discovered from within the App Store, so this rule change is likely to impact them significantly and result in them moving their sales of magic peach trees or whatever into IAP.
Oh and for those who think that Apple's 30% is unreasonable, get a load of Amazon's commission structure - it's far worse.
Developers would still get to say what they?d like to sell their application for, an MSRP if you will. But Amazon does not guarantee that?s what its customers will pay. Instead, the retailer may choose to sell the app at a discount ? just like Amazon does for other items on its site ? or even give it away for free.
The developer would receive 70% of the selling price, or 20% of the MSRP, whichever is greater. So for example if a developer wants $5 for his or her app, but Amazon sells it for $3, the developer gets $2.10. If Amazon decides it wants to charge nothing for it for whatever reason, the commission drops to $1
Not only does Amazon keep 30%, they can also discount your app without your agreement!
However the creator of a freemium game could indeed free-ride using safari because all he has to distribute from his web-store is his in-game currency/special items. All the big data delivery is being done by Apple, all he has to do is distribute a few unlock codes.
Now a freemium game is far likelier to be discovered from within the App Store, so this rule change is likely to impact them significantly and result in them moving their sales of magic peach trees or whatever into IAP.
Are you really so dense that you cannot tell the difference between a web browser (safari) and an online store (appstore) .... please, say it isn't so .... you're just pretending, right?
Otherwise, Gwydion .... meet Alan Greenspan.
Post reported. Although, AI doesn't seem to be interested in ad hominens defending APple.
Anyway, he is hardly "that dense". As has been pointed out to you about 100 times, the Kindle app store runs in safari. That is still the case. It doesn't need Apple's credit card transactions. There is no "shelf" space issue, either. The only Apple related shelf space is the App Store which vends apps. In this case thefree Kindle app store, hosted in Safari vends books. Once downloaded Apple should get nothing, unless people want to use IAP.
The content within any app is their own "store", similar to the iTunes store on a windows machine. . There is absolutely no difference, except that Apple force apps on the iPad to be sold through the app store.
I know the counter argument is that the iPad is not an OS. Thats an argument not made that much when we are trying to work out where iOS is compared to Android, or windows, or if Apple 's OS PC market share is being calculated to include the iPad. In that case a lot of people suggest that we could iPad as a computer and work out Apple's computer share using iPad figures.
Oh and for those who think that Apple's 30% is unreasonable, get a load of Amazon's commission structure - it's far worse.
Developers would still get to say what they’d like to sell their application for, an MSRP if you will. But Amazon does not guarantee that’s what its customers will pay. Instead, the retailer may choose to sell the app at a discount — just like Amazon does for other items on its site — or even give it away for free.
The developer would receive 70% of the selling price, or 20% of the MSRP, whichever is greater. So for example if a developer wants $5 for his or her app, but Amazon sells it for $3, the developer gets $2.10. If Amazon decides it wants to charge nothing for it for whatever reason, the commission drops to $1
Not only does Amazon keep 30%, they can also discount your app without your agreement!
You are comparing a paid app, with a free retailer app. For a standard paid for app, it is totally legitimate to demand payment for hosting, credit cards etx; however Apple have decided to allow free apps be costless for the app provider. 30% is not insignificant either - Amazon's margins are 30% which leaves it with a profit of 0%. Its a reseller not a creator of content. It needs to pay the content providers.
The Kindle app can handle it's own retail and credit card transactions, and does that now. It used to direct to Safari. Now you have to go there.
For that reason - and the fact that iAP allows only about 999 different product ids - Kindle was never going to get an iAP button. However Apple have managed to reduce the Kindle app's functionality, in order to promote their own (inferior) product. Result: misery. 1 star reviews. An agry Gruber. About the only defenders are the Apple can do no wrong cabal of AI, but here is 0.001% of Apple's market.
I suppose it could be argued that the new Kindle Amazon Tablet will not have iBooks. True. However Apple may be cutting off their nose to spite their face here. If Amazon advertises that their Android Tablet is fully functional with a Kindle app which allows you to buy inside the app - and points out that Apple prohibits this is the iPad, it will not work in Apple's long term favour.
I suppose it could be argued that the new Kindle Amazon Tablet will not have iBooks. True. However Apple may be cutting off their nose to spite their face here. If Amazon advertises that their Android Tablet is fully functional with a Kindle app which allows you to buy inside the app - and points out that Apple prohibits this is the iPad, it will not work in Apple's long term favour.
Will the Amazon tablet have iBooks? We will never know, since Apple does not write apps for other companies' platforms (with the exception of iTunes for Windows - any others?). Otherwise, it would have been a way cool scenario to watch from the sidelines. Would Amazon block or handicap the iBooks app? Would they even allow it? Alas, we will never see this one battle materialize.
But then, this may be Apple's rationale - I don't bring my dog onto your lawn; so ....
You are comparing a paid app, with a free retailer app. For a standard paid for app, it is totally legitimate to demand payment for hosting, credit cards etx; however Apple have decided to allow free apps be costless for the app provider. 30% is not insignificant either - Amazon's margins are 30% which leaves it with a profit of 0%. Its a reseller not a creator of content. It needs to pay the content providers.
No, I'm saying that the 30% in general isn't onerous. Would it be reasonable for content resellers? No it wouldn't, but Apple stepped back from requiring Amazon to sell their content on IAP. All that is required now is that the user be able to bring up safari. For content creators 30% is reasonable.
Quote:
For that reason - and the fact that iAP allows only about 999 different product ids - Kindle was never going to get an iAP button. However Apple have managed to reduce the Kindle app's functionality, in order to promote their own (inferior) product. Result: misery. 1 star reviews. An agry Gruber. About the only defenders are the Apple can do no wrong cabal of AI, but here is 0.001% of Apple's market.
Misery? People have to open safari and select a bookmark? Oh the humanity! Won't somebody think of the children? Seriously people give 1 star app reviews for any reason at all, which is the reason nobody in their right mind looks at the star rating anymore. My position is that Apple never aimed this at Kindle, if they wanted to drive Kindle off iOS they could have but they didn't. This lack of a link is less than a gnat bite. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it - this policy isn't aimed at Kindle, it's aimed at things like freemium games or 'demo versions'. In those cases the App Distribution becomes in effect free advertising, and Apple isn't in the business of delivering that.
Quote:
I suppose it could be argued that the new Kindle Amazon Tablet will not have iBooks. True. However Apple may be cutting off their nose to spite their face here. If Amazon advertises that their Android Tablet is fully functional with a Kindle app which allows you to buy inside the app - and points out that Apple prohibits this is the iPad, it will not work in Apple's long term favour.
And Apple can point out that unlike Kindle they support multiple generic e-reader apps. Being tied to a single e-reader will not work in Amazon's long term favour. Sorry but 'we've got a button that brings up chrome' isn't deep integration or a huge selling point. If Amazon want to integrate better on iOS they could start with better support for collections, which I've found no way to organize on the iPhone reader. One of the few things that makes me consider iBooks is the ease of organizing shelves.
Comments
The full Amazon website looks "great?" I wasn't aware it looked good on anything, let alone an iPad.
I find it hard to even think of a more confusing, craptastic, chock-full of ads & BS web site in existence than Amazon. Amazon is the MySpace of commerce websites.
Often I disagree with you Professor, but on this I can only add - Amen brother.
People like to point out that the iTunes Store and App Store are basically break even propositions. You can't really "freeload" (which apps don't since they add value to Apple's products) when there's no real expectation that the store is going to make any money or not. People really need to make up their minds. Does Apple expect to make a profit on the App Store or not?
Of course you can freeload, if you saddle Apple with all the distribution costs and none of the revenue. Apple may not expect a big profit on the App Store, but it certainly doesn't want to make a loss.
As for the 'adds value' argument, that's great - try that argument with Amazon and see if they'll let you launch a rival eBook service on the kindle. Apple adds at least as much value to Amazon by providing a huge base of potential eBook customers as Amazon adds to Apple in providing content.
Considering how picayune this restriction is from Apple people are making a ridiculously big deal.
It's not final yet, but the 1-click patent was recently ruled invalid also. Not unique enough to be patentable and prior art exists etc. Amazon is still fighting it and it isn't final, but the smart money is on one-click being history very soon.
Hmm - are you sure? I know that a lot of claims were ruled invalid in 2007, but Amazon then was able to rephrase them and have them reinstated. The last I heard it was settled and the somewhat modified but still idiotic patent still stood.
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
Yap, I didn't forgot
Yap, I didn't forgot
Is there a point to this post ??? .... I can hardly wait.
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 some people get how higher percentage 30% is for what is essentially a payment gateway. The usual price is around 2.5%!
You also have to remember the app owner is also going to pay out around 20% in tax on these purchases so they only recieve 50% of the selling price. So if you consider the app owner should recieve more than Apple, lets say they get 40% as their profit that means the unit cost has to be around 10% of the selling price. Are you ok paying a 90% markup on products?
Is there a point to this post ??? .... I can hardly wait.
Can you explain me how an item sold through Safari is revenue owed by Apple?
This is my post, they no free riding if Safari is used.
I don't think some people get how higher percentage 30% is for what is essentially a payment gateway. The usual price is around 2.5%!
Don't confuse credit card transaction fees with "shelf space" in a store that has over 100 million credit approved customers who fall into the "right sales demographic".
Can you explain me how an item sold through Safari is revenue owed by Apple?
This is my post, they no free riding if Safari is used.
Are you really so dense that you cannot tell the difference between a web browser (safari) and an online store (appstore) .... please, say it isn't so .... you're just pretending, right?
Otherwise, Gwydion .... meet Alan Greenspan.
Are you really so dense that you cannot tell the difference between a web browser (safari) and an online store (appstore) .... please, say it isn't so .... you're just pretending, right?
Are you really so dense taht you cannot tell the difference between IAP and using a browser.
Amazon, B&N, Spotify weren't using IAP, they were using a browser.
And stop insulting, please, but I suppose is easy when you're behind a computer.
Of course you can freeload, if you saddle Apple with all the distribution costs and none of the revenue. Apple may not expect a big profit on the App Store, but it certainly doesn't want to make a loss.
The Kindle app is 8.2MB in size. What do you think the distributions costs are for that? Maybe 10 cents a download and I'm probably be massively generous with that amount. Amazon would be happy to host the Kindle app on their own site, but that's not allowed for iOS devices. Does the Kindle add 10 cents of value to iOS devices?
As for the 'adds value' argument, that's great - try that argument with Amazon and see if they'll let you launch a rival eBook service on the kindle.
That's a ridiculous argument considering that the Kindle device is a single purpose device that derive much of their real value via sales of eBooks. That's hardly comparable to an iOS device where the real value to Apple is simply in the device being sold.
Apple adds at least as much value to Amazon by providing a huge base of potential eBook customers as Amazon adds to Apple in providing content.
I'm pretty sure the number of registered Amazon.com accounts vastly outnumbers iTunes accounts. Amazon doesn't need Apple. Further, Amazon could never afford to support in-app purchases since 30% is the entire profit of the eBook. At which point it's Apple freeloading off of Amazon since Amazon has to handle those distribution costs you value so much.
Can you explain me how an item sold through Safari is revenue owed by Apple?
This is my post, they no free riding if Safari is used.
You're assuming that this change was aimed at Amazon/B&N etc, but I don't think that's likely. The content sellers while important are actually an edge-case here and they're barely impacted by the change because anybody downloading their app already knows about their content store on the web.
However the creator of a freemium game could indeed free-ride using safari because all he has to distribute from his web-store is his in-game currency/special items. All the big data delivery is being done by Apple, all he has to do is distribute a few unlock codes.
Now a freemium game is far likelier to be discovered from within the App Store, so this rule change is likely to impact them significantly and result in them moving their sales of magic peach trees or whatever into IAP.
Developers would still get to say what they?d like to sell their application for, an MSRP if you will. But Amazon does not guarantee that?s what its customers will pay. Instead, the retailer may choose to sell the app at a discount ? just like Amazon does for other items on its site ? or even give it away for free.
The developer would receive 70% of the selling price, or 20% of the MSRP, whichever is greater. So for example if a developer wants $5 for his or her app, but Amazon sells it for $3, the developer gets $2.10. If Amazon decides it wants to charge nothing for it for whatever reason, the commission drops to $1
Not only does Amazon keep 30%, they can also discount your app without your agreement!
http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/7052...for-developers
However the creator of a freemium game could indeed free-ride using safari because all he has to distribute from his web-store is his in-game currency/special items. All the big data delivery is being done by Apple, all he has to do is distribute a few unlock codes.
Now a freemium game is far likelier to be discovered from within the App Store, so this rule change is likely to impact them significantly and result in them moving their sales of magic peach trees or whatever into IAP.
And I agree with you in this case
If even John Gruber is negative about this move (http://daringfireball.net/linked/201...ndle-app-store), Apple really needs to rethink this.
Fixed that for you
Are you really so dense that you cannot tell the difference between a web browser (safari) and an online store (appstore) .... please, say it isn't so .... you're just pretending, right?
Otherwise, Gwydion .... meet Alan Greenspan.
Post reported. Although, AI doesn't seem to be interested in ad hominens defending APple.
Anyway, he is hardly "that dense". As has been pointed out to you about 100 times, the Kindle app store runs in safari. That is still the case. It doesn't need Apple's credit card transactions. There is no "shelf" space issue, either. The only Apple related shelf space is the App Store which vends apps. In this case thefree Kindle app store, hosted in Safari vends books. Once downloaded Apple should get nothing, unless people want to use IAP.
The content within any app is their own "store", similar to the iTunes store on a windows machine. . There is absolutely no difference, except that Apple force apps on the iPad to be sold through the app store.
I know the counter argument is that the iPad is not an OS. Thats an argument not made that much when we are trying to work out where iOS is compared to Android, or windows, or if Apple 's OS PC market share is being calculated to include the iPad. In that case a lot of people suggest that we could iPad as a computer and work out Apple's computer share using iPad figures.
Oh and for those who think that Apple's 30% is unreasonable, get a load of Amazon's commission structure - it's far worse.
Developers would still get to say what they’d like to sell their application for, an MSRP if you will. But Amazon does not guarantee that’s what its customers will pay. Instead, the retailer may choose to sell the app at a discount — just like Amazon does for other items on its site — or even give it away for free.
The developer would receive 70% of the selling price, or 20% of the MSRP, whichever is greater. So for example if a developer wants $5 for his or her app, but Amazon sells it for $3, the developer gets $2.10. If Amazon decides it wants to charge nothing for it for whatever reason, the commission drops to $1
Not only does Amazon keep 30%, they can also discount your app without your agreement!
http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/7052...for-developers
You are comparing a paid app, with a free retailer app. For a standard paid for app, it is totally legitimate to demand payment for hosting, credit cards etx; however Apple have decided to allow free apps be costless for the app provider. 30% is not insignificant either - Amazon's margins are 30% which leaves it with a profit of 0%. Its a reseller not a creator of content. It needs to pay the content providers.
The Kindle app can handle it's own retail and credit card transactions, and does that now. It used to direct to Safari. Now you have to go there.
For that reason - and the fact that iAP allows only about 999 different product ids - Kindle was never going to get an iAP button. However Apple have managed to reduce the Kindle app's functionality, in order to promote their own (inferior) product. Result: misery. 1 star reviews. An agry Gruber. About the only defenders are the Apple can do no wrong cabal of AI, but here is 0.001% of Apple's market.
I suppose it could be argued that the new Kindle Amazon Tablet will not have iBooks. True. However Apple may be cutting off their nose to spite their face here. If Amazon advertises that their Android Tablet is fully functional with a Kindle app which allows you to buy inside the app - and points out that Apple prohibits this is the iPad, it will not work in Apple's long term favour.
I suppose it could be argued that the new Kindle Amazon Tablet will not have iBooks. True. However Apple may be cutting off their nose to spite their face here. If Amazon advertises that their Android Tablet is fully functional with a Kindle app which allows you to buy inside the app - and points out that Apple prohibits this is the iPad, it will not work in Apple's long term favour.
Will the Amazon tablet have iBooks? We will never know, since Apple does not write apps for other companies' platforms (with the exception of iTunes for Windows - any others?). Otherwise, it would have been a way cool scenario to watch from the sidelines. Would Amazon block or handicap the iBooks app? Would they even allow it? Alas, we will never see this one battle materialize.
But then, this may be Apple's rationale - I don't bring my dog onto your lawn; so ....
You are comparing a paid app, with a free retailer app. For a standard paid for app, it is totally legitimate to demand payment for hosting, credit cards etx; however Apple have decided to allow free apps be costless for the app provider. 30% is not insignificant either - Amazon's margins are 30% which leaves it with a profit of 0%. Its a reseller not a creator of content. It needs to pay the content providers.
No, I'm saying that the 30% in general isn't onerous. Would it be reasonable for content resellers? No it wouldn't, but Apple stepped back from requiring Amazon to sell their content on IAP. All that is required now is that the user be able to bring up safari. For content creators 30% is reasonable.
For that reason - and the fact that iAP allows only about 999 different product ids - Kindle was never going to get an iAP button. However Apple have managed to reduce the Kindle app's functionality, in order to promote their own (inferior) product. Result: misery. 1 star reviews. An agry Gruber. About the only defenders are the Apple can do no wrong cabal of AI, but here is 0.001% of Apple's market.
Misery? People have to open safari and select a bookmark? Oh the humanity! Won't somebody think of the children? Seriously people give 1 star app reviews for any reason at all, which is the reason nobody in their right mind looks at the star rating anymore. My position is that Apple never aimed this at Kindle, if they wanted to drive Kindle off iOS they could have but they didn't. This lack of a link is less than a gnat bite. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it - this policy isn't aimed at Kindle, it's aimed at things like freemium games or 'demo versions'. In those cases the App Distribution becomes in effect free advertising, and Apple isn't in the business of delivering that.
I suppose it could be argued that the new Kindle Amazon Tablet will not have iBooks. True. However Apple may be cutting off their nose to spite their face here. If Amazon advertises that their Android Tablet is fully functional with a Kindle app which allows you to buy inside the app - and points out that Apple prohibits this is the iPad, it will not work in Apple's long term favour.
And Apple can point out that unlike Kindle they support multiple generic e-reader apps. Being tied to a single e-reader will not work in Amazon's long term favour. Sorry but 'we've got a button that brings up chrome' isn't deep integration or a huge selling point. If Amazon want to integrate better on iOS they could start with better support for collections, which I've found no way to organize on the iPhone reader. One of the few things that makes me consider iBooks is the ease of organizing shelves.