No, they are not saying the market value is 10%. It says their flat rate fee is 10%.
Sorry I should have said that's how much they feel the service is worth.
Quote:
Since you seem so caught up on this 30% fee and how greedy and unfair Apple is being... You do realize that before Apple introduced iBooks with its normal iOS payment cut of 70/30, Amazon's fee was 70% and even today, they still take up to 70%+ for some content?
I never said 70/30 was a bad deal for eBooks or iPad only magazines. I said it was a bad deal for cross-platform services and your Amazon example includes them hosting the content something Apple isn't doing.
I never said 70/30 was a bad deal for eBooks or iPad only magazines ... and your Amazon example includes them hosting the content something Apple isn't doing.
iBooks is exactly the same as Kindle. Apple does host iBook content and handles transactions and still has a flat 30% fee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2
I said it was a bad deal for cross-platform services
Except it's not really a cross-platform service being provided here.
Kindle is a platform in its own right. Kindle content cannot be read in another reader, such Apple's iBooks (DRM free content can be, probably). Amazon wants to take advantage of Apple's iOS platform to push its own Kindle platform. And they have been doing that without paying Apple anything.
The bigger issue you're trying to argue is that Apple shouldn't charge Amazon as much as everyone else, because they are a reseller. That doesn't seem fair to publishers and authors who make their content available directly to Apple's platform through their own apps or via one of Apple's media stores.
Apple is saying, they don't care what your business model is, or where the content originated from, if you want to provide content for iOS users, you must make it available in-app and you must pay a 30% fee. It is not Apple's problem or concern where that content originated from and at what cost. If Amazon wants to make money, they can either raise their own prices or take a larger chunk from the content providers. OR abandon their iOS app and stick to their own devices and any other devices they're on. Or try as hard as hell to persuade Kindle users to use the Kindle Store rather than purchasing content in-app.
It is not Apple's responsibility or obligation to make sure Amazon makes a profit from its Kindle platform.
They also have magazines featured the way they do with other apps. And don't forget that they are doing the payment system and the renewal system as well as the hosting of the downloads. The publisher does none of that.
mel-
For subscription content, the publisher is delivering the content. For instance, The Daily's content is pushed by NewsCorp servers. They sort of made a big deal of this indirectly during the launch by stating that they could push updates or even a new front page at any time during the day.
Apple may well offer to provide distribution to smaller players in which case I think they deserve a higher cut.
No, they are not saying the market value is 10%. It says their flat rate fee is 10%. They'll make up the rest in other areas. Just as with Android, it's "free", but there is always a cost to such things. They just come later and sometimes unbeknownst to the user. Google's main source of revenue is advertising. Two of the most important factors of advertising are #1 distribution, and #2 consumer information. Offering the OS and other services for free means more MAY use it, that's #1. And by using it, the licensing terms dictate that Google has the right to track and gather your information and habits, that's #2.
One way is which Google will inflate their take is by forcing customers and publishers to use Google Checkout. For a small publisher, this could add an additional 2.9% plus 30 cents per transaction.
One way is which Google will inflate their take is by forcing customers and publishers to use Google Checkout. For a small publisher, this could add an additional 2.9% plus 30 cents per transaction.
mjtomlins link above a few posts lists Google's Google Editions book store planned pass through to publishers as 63%, or 45% if there was a referral via a Google partner. At those rates Apples mere 30% looks pretty good, competitively superior even.
Interesting how Apple takes the heat for beating the competitions prices, but for the last 8 months Amazon and Google got a free pass on some pretty nasty publisher gouging.
For subscription content, the publisher is delivering the content. For instance, The Daily's content is pushed by NewsCorp servers. They sort of made a big deal of this indirectly during the launch by stating that they could push updates or even a new front page at any time during the day.
Apple may well offer to provide distribution to smaller players in which case I think they deserve a higher cut.
As far as I know, the mag comes from Apple's store. They may push updates during the day from their own servers though.
When you have an update notice from the store it's from Apple. Otherwise, it might be from the publisher, or not.
Suddenly, my old PC laptop looks attractive again. Because I do not need to ask uncle Steve if it is OK to read my Kindle books there. Or I might start to look for alternative tablets.
What galls me, is that I have bought an iPad under false pretenses. Stupid as I am, I bought the iPad as a laptop replacement. I knew about the App store, and that I could not install executable code outside the App store. But never in my wildest dreams did I imagine uncle Steve wanted to restrict access to content (Kindle eBooks and whatever).
Please, do not give me the crap about a choice to use the App store or not. Apple's terms are unacceptable to content providers, where the iPad is just one device among many.
What you all have to realize, is that the iPad is not a laptop replacement. Instead, it is a closed environment for a captive audience, where uncle Steve decides what (and what not) you should read, and what you shall pay. Competition (Amazon and others) are banned in practice, because Steve's terms are unacceptable.
Suddenly, my old PC laptop looks attractive again. Because I do not need to ask uncle Steve if it is OK to read my Kindle books there. Or I might start to look for alternative tablets.
What you say makes sense .... intuitively.
But in practice that intuition is wrong.
The iOS market has cause a huge amount of new software and new content to become available.
In just a year, a gigantic catalog of new software and new services has become available. In that same period, what has changed in PC land?
I can see that people object to this kind of monetization on a political basis.
Suddenly, my old PC laptop looks attractive again. Because I do not need to ask uncle Steve if it is OK to read my Kindle books there. Or I might start to look for alternative tablets.
What galls me, is that I have bought an iPad under false pretenses. Stupid as I am, I bought the iPad as a laptop replacement. I knew about the App store, and that I could not install executable code outside the App store. But never in my wildest dreams did I imagine uncle Steve wanted to restrict access to content (Kindle eBooks and whatever).
Please, do not give me the crap about a choice to use the App store or not. Apple's terms are unacceptable to content providers, where the iPad is just one device among many.
What you all have to realize, is that the iPad is not a laptop replacement. Instead, it is a closed environment for a captive audience, where uncle Steve decides what (and what not) you should read, and what you shall pay. Competition (Amazon and others) are banned in practice, because Steve's terms are unacceptable.
Your post is factually incorrect and uninformed, then thoroughly biased against what is actually going on and the frosting on the cake is "do not give me the crap about a choice to use the App store or not." Well, that's true, you can or not.
Sideloading content is fully allowed meaning you don't need to pejoratively ask Uncle Steve anything. It is quite obvious you had no intention of actually participating in a real discussion. Troll. Go Away.
Your post is factually incorrect and uninformed, then thoroughly biased against what is actually going on and the frosting on the cake is "do not give me the crap about a choice to use the App store or not." Well, that's true, you can or not.
Sideloading content is fully allowed meaning you don't need to pejoratively ask Uncle Steve anything. It is quite obvious you had no intention of actually participating in a real discussion. Troll. Go Away.
I had absolutely no intention of being a troll. My observations are factual and to the point. You obviously are brainwashed or thoroughly misinformed.
Please disregard this "contributor". He plays dominance games, invoking the troll word whenever he feels his opinions are challenged. What an utterly contemptible person.
Please disregard this "contributor". He plays dominance games, invoking the troll word whenever he feels his opinions are challenged. What an utterly contemptible person.
Says the 3 post wonder that wades in attacking anything in sight. I am truly please I touched a nerve.
As advice I give to all trolls: debate with out distorting and ignoring fact, lose the histrionics. Show basic respect on the boards even when you don't agree. Decide to play on the wrong side of that line and a few of us here will expose you to no end, rehabilitate yourself and you will have no problems. It is a simple cause and effect relationship, remember -- timestamps and post order don't lie.
I had absolutely no intention of being a troll. My observations are factual and to the point. You obviously are brainwashed or thoroughly misinformed.
OK, we shall examine in detail.
[
Quote:
Originally Posted by NilsO
Suddenly, my old PC laptop looks attractive again. Because I do not need to ask uncle Steve if it is OK to read my Kindle books there. Or I might start to look for alternative tablets.
As I already posted here560 in response to you, sideloading is allowed, was explicitly mentioned by Apple as being allowed and proves false your first very pejorative opening statement that you the user needs "Uncle Steve's" permission to read Kindle books. And in the future there isn't even a means where that can become untrue, because if Amazon doesn't want to sell via the App Store all they need to do is remove the web link to their site from the App and it becomes a legal sideload only pure reader (compared to the reader+storefront it is now).
Since none of this is new or the least bit hard to miss, the only logical conclusion is that you are intentionally stirring the pot from the very beginning. Are you really saying you are socially inept and unable to express your fears without blaming others despite information to the contrary all over the public and especially this thread?
[[QUOTE=NilsO;1812380What galls me, is that I have bought an iPad under false pretenses.[/QUOTE]
Uh oh! galling is literally spewing of bile. And what pretenses might we be dealing with, Apple advertised and sold the iPad as a media consumption device. Does it not do that? Wait it does and does so well! Another notch against your truthiness! Now onto the details of your galling:
[
Quote:
Originally Posted by NilsO
Stupid as I am, I bought the iPad as a laptop replacement. I knew about the App store, and that I could not install executable code outside the App store. But never in my wildest dreams did I imagine uncle Steve wanted to restrict access to content (Kindle eBooks and whatever).
MOre falsity. Go back to the top of the post and weep again at the sideloading issue. Amazon can provide a Kindle reader with no problems and no restrictions. The only restriction is on how a Kindle store can be implemented within an App. Nothing at all to do with your ability to read content you load from anywhere else.
[[QUOTE=NilsO;1812380Please, do not give me the crap about a choice to use the App store or not. Apple's terms are unacceptable to content providers, where the iPad is just one device among many.[/QUOTE]
Trying to force everyone to submit to only your position, that's all. Very trollish handbook behavior. Even if you turn out to not be a troll is is an anti-social comment to make saying you don't want to be convinced you are actually misinterpreting or incorrect on something. The truly laughable part is that your final line is something the markets will determine with serious finality, and getting all bent out of shape and over the top in forcing that opinion on anyone her or elsewhere will only make it less likely the market will side with your personal agenda because the agenda is exposed as emotional not logical.
[
Quote:
Originally Posted by NilsO
What you all have to realize, is that the iPad is not a laptop replacement. Instead, it is a closed environment for a captive audience, where uncle Steve decides what (and what not) you should read, and what you shall pay. Competition (Amazon and others) are banned in practice, because Steve's terms are unacceptable.
More pejorative "Uncle Steve" comments with an extra dollop of calling those of us who do have an iPad a captive audience under the control of said "Uncle Steve". Gee, not trying to bend the facts at all here are we? I have never been told by Apple I have to pay anything other than the original purchase price. It has always been a choice as to which App I but or download. Apple never set any of those prices so I don't see the problem actually being there in the real world. It is only there in your skewed personal world where you publicly state you will refuse to be convinced otherwise (see above.)
Need I dissect more? it really was a pretty pathetic attempt of a trollish post. Your technique is sloppy and trivially countered. You even go to the lengths of announcing to us your unwillingness to debate and discuss, and we are not supposed to come to the obvious conclusion fact breaking and unwillingness to debate and discus brings us?
Hiro: I think we have you exposed. Thank you. Now please get a life.
<looks down> No, I can see I still am fully clothed, and I have a fine life thankee sai.
Interesting that you have no responses to the detailed post dissection I made above. I assume that means you capitulate each of those points as they are unrefutable.
Good! Now we are on common ground.
I don't quite see the point of linking TechCunch article. The author is making an appeal that Apple is insanely greedy, but admits it is all quite aboveboard. That's where he differs from you. Kincaid tells us his opinion on the matter and lets us know he understands the facts and legalities and that they all fall on Apple's side of the fence. While I don't agree with his opinion, it is a reasonable article without drama or hyperbole. Seems he thinks differently than you on almost all the points, and the only thing that is even in the same zip code as your anti-Apple stance is different as well -- his identified personal opinion of Apple as greedy. So his article lends no factual or substantive support to your posts, although we can see they give you the tiniest bit of moral support.
I wonder if Amazon can make a purely sideloading Kindle app and still meet the requirements. The app would still be tied to the Kindle store by name.
Fortunately or unfortunately Amazon owns Stanza...oddly though, Amazon has not licensed Lexcycle their DRM. That's one reason why I'm not all that annoyed that Amazon is taking one in the shorts.
They deliberately bought out the best ebook reader on iOS and locked out ePub w/Adobe DRM and neutered it. All the anti-competitive moves made by Apple recently are extremely mild in comparison with those made by Amazon a year ago when they thought they had an unassailable market dominance.
A good deal of the anger against Apple's charging of 30% on subscriptions is based on the stupid chimera (illusion) that Apple is "dictating" terms. Nobody has that power in capitalism, unless they are a wealthy company that spreads a lot of money around for corrupt bargains in Washington. If you total up the amount of money that Apple spends on lobbying, I think you'll find that it actually pays very little to lobbyists, if any. Google spends a LOT. Microsoft spends a LOT.
What Apple is doing, actually, is negotiating, in public, with its partners. A lot of people are going nuts, thinking that "Netflix, Pandora," and so on, as well as other services, may LEAVE. The recent e-mail that purports to be from Jobs would seem to say that they announced a policy for magazines and newspapers, not for services like Netflix. Nothing is final until June 30, I believe. That's a long time. Lots of time for this publication or that to make their own cases to be allowed a button, for instance, or to offer a subscription for paper subs and iPads simultaneously for a reduced rate.
The iPad, and other tablets, are a new thing in the world. How to handle subsciptions is a major question, and Apple is entitled to a share. Might the terms be different, or individually adapted by the deadline? You bet. There are those in these forums who pretend to know a lot of things they don't, because nobody knows. Not surprisingly, some corporations are "crying poor mouth," as they say, as a way of trying to get leverage.
When the iPad came along, and book publishers started signing up, Apple was able to get some traction by offering to collect ONLY 30% for being on iBooks. Up until then, Amazon, alone in the field, was collecting 70%.
Remember "only the Cocoa development kit" can be used to make iOS apps? That was part of a large set of conditions that Apple announced along with the "Notes on Flash," just as Adobe brought out CS5. What happened? They relented on some things. You can now use Adobe tools to make iOS apps.
A good deal of the anger against Apple's charging of 30% on subscriptions is based on the stupid chimera (illusion) that Apple is "dictating" terms. Nobody has that power in capitalism, unless they are a wealthy company that spreads a lot of money around for corrupt bargains in Washington. If you total up the amount of money that Apple spends on lobbying, I think you'll find that it actually pays very little to lobbyists, if any. Google spends a LOT. Microsoft spends a LOT.
No, Amazon did have the market power to do so and it did dictate terms to content producers. Hence the whining by content producers in senate hearings.
Likewise Walmart has sufficient market power to dictate terms to suppliers.
Apple has sufficient market power to dictate terms for music content producers and to a certain extent hardware component manufacturers. The later appears to be in the forms of too many truckloads of money to say no to.
Apple offered 7.8 truckloads (assuming a billion dollars in $100 bills fits in a semi) of this to Samsung:
Quote:
What do I call that? Hard-ass negotiations.
True. And you're correct that the dictats have limits even for Walmart, Amazon and Apple. Push too hard and the suppliers have to revolt. 30% revenue sharing isn't pushing too hard...or hardly at all.
There are some folks with completely unrealistic business plans that rely on someone else footing a hugh chunk of the costs and they get to reap all the revenue...that sort of thing is great while it lasts but rarely lasts very long.
Comments
No, they are not saying the market value is 10%. It says their flat rate fee is 10%.
Sorry I should have said that's how much they feel the service is worth.
Since you seem so caught up on this 30% fee and how greedy and unfair Apple is being... You do realize that before Apple introduced iBooks with its normal iOS payment cut of 70/30, Amazon's fee was 70% and even today, they still take up to 70%+ for some content?
Amazon Raises Kindle Pay Rate
I never said 70/30 was a bad deal for eBooks or iPad only magazines. I said it was a bad deal for cross-platform services and your Amazon example includes them hosting the content something Apple isn't doing.
I never said 70/30 was a bad deal for eBooks or iPad only magazines ... and your Amazon example includes them hosting the content something Apple isn't doing.
iBooks is exactly the same as Kindle. Apple does host iBook content and handles transactions and still has a flat 30% fee.
I said it was a bad deal for cross-platform services
Except it's not really a cross-platform service being provided here.
Kindle is a platform in its own right. Kindle content cannot be read in another reader, such Apple's iBooks (DRM free content can be, probably). Amazon wants to take advantage of Apple's iOS platform to push its own Kindle platform. And they have been doing that without paying Apple anything.
The bigger issue you're trying to argue is that Apple shouldn't charge Amazon as much as everyone else, because they are a reseller. That doesn't seem fair to publishers and authors who make their content available directly to Apple's platform through their own apps or via one of Apple's media stores.
Apple is saying, they don't care what your business model is, or where the content originated from, if you want to provide content for iOS users, you must make it available in-app and you must pay a 30% fee. It is not Apple's problem or concern where that content originated from and at what cost. If Amazon wants to make money, they can either raise their own prices or take a larger chunk from the content providers. OR abandon their iOS app and stick to their own devices and any other devices they're on. Or try as hard as hell to persuade Kindle users to use the Kindle Store rather than purchasing content in-app.
It is not Apple's responsibility or obligation to make sure Amazon makes a profit from its Kindle platform.
They also have magazines featured the way they do with other apps. And don't forget that they are doing the payment system and the renewal system as well as the hosting of the downloads. The publisher does none of that.
mel-
For subscription content, the publisher is delivering the content. For instance, The Daily's content is pushed by NewsCorp servers. They sort of made a big deal of this indirectly during the launch by stating that they could push updates or even a new front page at any time during the day.
Apple may well offer to provide distribution to smaller players in which case I think they deserve a higher cut.
No, they are not saying the market value is 10%. It says their flat rate fee is 10%. They'll make up the rest in other areas. Just as with Android, it's "free", but there is always a cost to such things. They just come later and sometimes unbeknownst to the user. Google's main source of revenue is advertising. Two of the most important factors of advertising are #1 distribution, and #2 consumer information. Offering the OS and other services for free means more MAY use it, that's #1. And by using it, the licensing terms dictate that Google has the right to track and gather your information and habits, that's #2.
One way is which Google will inflate their take is by forcing customers and publishers to use Google Checkout. For a small publisher, this could add an additional 2.9% plus 30 cents per transaction.
One way is which Google will inflate their take is by forcing customers and publishers to use Google Checkout. For a small publisher, this could add an additional 2.9% plus 30 cents per transaction.
mjtomlins link above a few posts lists Google's Google Editions book store planned pass through to publishers as 63%, or 45% if there was a referral via a Google partner. At those rates Apples mere 30% looks pretty good, competitively superior even.
Interesting how Apple takes the heat for beating the competitions prices, but for the last 8 months Amazon and Google got a free pass on some pretty nasty publisher gouging.
mel-
For subscription content, the publisher is delivering the content. For instance, The Daily's content is pushed by NewsCorp servers. They sort of made a big deal of this indirectly during the launch by stating that they could push updates or even a new front page at any time during the day.
Apple may well offer to provide distribution to smaller players in which case I think they deserve a higher cut.
As far as I know, the mag comes from Apple's store. They may push updates during the day from their own servers though.
When you have an update notice from the store it's from Apple. Otherwise, it might be from the publisher, or not.
What galls me, is that I have bought an iPad under false pretenses. Stupid as I am, I bought the iPad as a laptop replacement. I knew about the App store, and that I could not install executable code outside the App store. But never in my wildest dreams did I imagine uncle Steve wanted to restrict access to content (Kindle eBooks and whatever).
Please, do not give me the crap about a choice to use the App store or not. Apple's terms are unacceptable to content providers, where the iPad is just one device among many.
What you all have to realize, is that the iPad is not a laptop replacement. Instead, it is a closed environment for a captive audience, where uncle Steve decides what (and what not) you should read, and what you shall pay. Competition (Amazon and others) are banned in practice, because Steve's terms are unacceptable.
Suddenly, my old PC laptop looks attractive again. Because I do not need to ask uncle Steve if it is OK to read my Kindle books there. Or I might start to look for alternative tablets.
What you say makes sense .... intuitively.
But in practice that intuition is wrong.
The iOS market has cause a huge amount of new software and new content to become available.
In just a year, a gigantic catalog of new software and new services has become available. In that same period, what has changed in PC land?
I can see that people object to this kind of monetization on a political basis.
But no one is suffering from a lack of choice.
C.
Suddenly, my old PC laptop looks attractive again. Because I do not need to ask uncle Steve if it is OK to read my Kindle books there. Or I might start to look for alternative tablets.
What galls me, is that I have bought an iPad under false pretenses. Stupid as I am, I bought the iPad as a laptop replacement. I knew about the App store, and that I could not install executable code outside the App store. But never in my wildest dreams did I imagine uncle Steve wanted to restrict access to content (Kindle eBooks and whatever).
Please, do not give me the crap about a choice to use the App store or not. Apple's terms are unacceptable to content providers, where the iPad is just one device among many.
What you all have to realize, is that the iPad is not a laptop replacement. Instead, it is a closed environment for a captive audience, where uncle Steve decides what (and what not) you should read, and what you shall pay. Competition (Amazon and others) are banned in practice, because Steve's terms are unacceptable.
Your post is factually incorrect and uninformed, then thoroughly biased against what is actually going on and the frosting on the cake is "do not give me the crap about a choice to use the App store or not." Well, that's true, you can or not.
Sideloading content is fully allowed meaning you don't need to pejoratively ask Uncle Steve anything. It is quite obvious you had no intention of actually participating in a real discussion. Troll. Go Away.
Your post is factually incorrect and uninformed, then thoroughly biased against what is actually going on and the frosting on the cake is "do not give me the crap about a choice to use the App store or not." Well, that's true, you can or not.
Sideloading content is fully allowed meaning you don't need to pejoratively ask Uncle Steve anything. It is quite obvious you had no intention of actually participating in a real discussion. Troll. Go Away.
I had absolutely no intention of being a troll. My observations are factual and to the point. You obviously are brainwashed or thoroughly misinformed.
Stupid as I am ......
Yep !
Please disregard this "contributor". He plays dominance games, invoking the troll word whenever he feels his opinions are challenged. What an utterly contemptible person.
As advice I give to all trolls: debate with out distorting and ignoring fact, lose the histrionics. Show basic respect on the boards even when you don't agree. Decide to play on the wrong side of that line and a few of us here will expose you to no end, rehabilitate yourself and you will have no problems. It is a simple cause and effect relationship, remember -- timestamps and post order don't lie.
I had absolutely no intention of being a troll. My observations are factual and to the point. You obviously are brainwashed or thoroughly misinformed.
OK, we shall examine in detail.
[
Suddenly, my old PC laptop looks attractive again. Because I do not need to ask uncle Steve if it is OK to read my Kindle books there. Or I might start to look for alternative tablets.
As I already posted here560 in response to you, sideloading is allowed, was explicitly mentioned by Apple as being allowed and proves false your first very pejorative opening statement that you the user needs "Uncle Steve's" permission to read Kindle books. And in the future there isn't even a means where that can become untrue, because if Amazon doesn't want to sell via the App Store all they need to do is remove the web link to their site from the App and it becomes a legal sideload only pure reader (compared to the reader+storefront it is now).
Since none of this is new or the least bit hard to miss, the only logical conclusion is that you are intentionally stirring the pot from the very beginning. Are you really saying you are socially inept and unable to express your fears without blaming others despite information to the contrary all over the public and especially this thread?
[[QUOTE=NilsO;1812380What galls me, is that I have bought an iPad under false pretenses.[/QUOTE]
Uh oh! galling is literally spewing of bile. And what pretenses might we be dealing with, Apple advertised and sold the iPad as a media consumption device. Does it not do that? Wait it does and does so well! Another notch against your truthiness! Now onto the details of your galling:
[
Stupid as I am, I bought the iPad as a laptop replacement. I knew about the App store, and that I could not install executable code outside the App store. But never in my wildest dreams did I imagine uncle Steve wanted to restrict access to content (Kindle eBooks and whatever).
MOre falsity. Go back to the top of the post and weep again at the sideloading issue. Amazon can provide a Kindle reader with no problems and no restrictions. The only restriction is on how a Kindle store can be implemented within an App. Nothing at all to do with your ability to read content you load from anywhere else.
[[QUOTE=NilsO;1812380Please, do not give me the crap about a choice to use the App store or not. Apple's terms are unacceptable to content providers, where the iPad is just one device among many.[/QUOTE]
Trying to force everyone to submit to only your position, that's all. Very trollish handbook behavior. Even if you turn out to not be a troll is is an anti-social comment to make saying you don't want to be convinced you are actually misinterpreting or incorrect on something. The truly laughable part is that your final line is something the markets will determine with serious finality, and getting all bent out of shape and over the top in forcing that opinion on anyone her or elsewhere will only make it less likely the market will side with your personal agenda because the agenda is exposed as emotional not logical.
[
What you all have to realize, is that the iPad is not a laptop replacement. Instead, it is a closed environment for a captive audience, where uncle Steve decides what (and what not) you should read, and what you shall pay. Competition (Amazon and others) are banned in practice, because Steve's terms are unacceptable.
More pejorative "Uncle Steve" comments with an extra dollop of calling those of us who do have an iPad a captive audience under the control of said "Uncle Steve". Gee, not trying to bend the facts at all here are we? I have never been told by Apple I have to pay anything other than the original purchase price. It has always been a choice as to which App I but or download. Apple never set any of those prices so I don't see the problem actually being there in the real world. It is only there in your skewed personal world where you publicly state you will refuse to be convinced otherwise (see above.)
Need I dissect more? it really was a pretty pathetic attempt of a trollish post. Your technique is sloppy and trivially countered. You even go to the lengths of announcing to us your unwillingness to debate and discuss, and we are not supposed to come to the obvious conclusion fact breaking and unwillingness to debate and discus brings us?
You sir are most deserving of this:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/16/why...fending-apple/
The article is focusing on some of the problematic aspects with Apple's policy.
Hiro: I think we have you exposed. Thank you. Now please get a life.
<looks down> No, I can see I still am fully clothed, and I have a fine life thankee sai.
Interesting that you have no responses to the detailed post dissection I made above. I assume that means you capitulate each of those points as they are unrefutable.
Good! Now we are on common ground.
I don't quite see the point of linking TechCunch article. The author is making an appeal that Apple is insanely greedy, but admits it is all quite aboveboard. That's where he differs from you. Kincaid tells us his opinion on the matter and lets us know he understands the facts and legalities and that they all fall on Apple's side of the fence. While I don't agree with his opinion, it is a reasonable article without drama or hyperbole. Seems he thinks differently than you on almost all the points, and the only thing that is even in the same zip code as your anti-Apple stance is different as well -- his identified personal opinion of Apple as greedy. So his article lends no factual or substantive support to your posts, although we can see they give you the tiniest bit of moral support.
Fortunately or unfortunately Amazon owns Stanza...oddly though, Amazon has not licensed Lexcycle their DRM. That's one reason why I'm not all that annoyed that Amazon is taking one in the shorts.
They deliberately bought out the best ebook reader on iOS and locked out ePub w/Adobe DRM and neutered it. All the anti-competitive moves made by Apple recently are extremely mild in comparison with those made by Amazon a year ago when they thought they had an unassailable market dominance.
What Apple is doing, actually, is negotiating, in public, with its partners. A lot of people are going nuts, thinking that "Netflix, Pandora," and so on, as well as other services, may LEAVE. The recent e-mail that purports to be from Jobs would seem to say that they announced a policy for magazines and newspapers, not for services like Netflix. Nothing is final until June 30, I believe. That's a long time. Lots of time for this publication or that to make their own cases to be allowed a button, for instance, or to offer a subscription for paper subs and iPads simultaneously for a reduced rate.
The iPad, and other tablets, are a new thing in the world. How to handle subsciptions is a major question, and Apple is entitled to a share. Might the terms be different, or individually adapted by the deadline? You bet. There are those in these forums who pretend to know a lot of things they don't, because nobody knows. Not surprisingly, some corporations are "crying poor mouth," as they say, as a way of trying to get leverage.
When the iPad came along, and book publishers started signing up, Apple was able to get some traction by offering to collect ONLY 30% for being on iBooks. Up until then, Amazon, alone in the field, was collecting 70%.
Remember "only the Cocoa development kit" can be used to make iOS apps? That was part of a large set of conditions that Apple announced along with the "Notes on Flash," just as Adobe brought out CS5. What happened? They relented on some things. You can now use Adobe tools to make iOS apps.
What do I call that? Hard-ass negotiations.
A good deal of the anger against Apple's charging of 30% on subscriptions is based on the stupid chimera (illusion) that Apple is "dictating" terms. Nobody has that power in capitalism, unless they are a wealthy company that spreads a lot of money around for corrupt bargains in Washington. If you total up the amount of money that Apple spends on lobbying, I think you'll find that it actually pays very little to lobbyists, if any. Google spends a LOT. Microsoft spends a LOT.
No, Amazon did have the market power to do so and it did dictate terms to content producers. Hence the whining by content producers in senate hearings.
Likewise Walmart has sufficient market power to dictate terms to suppliers.
Apple has sufficient market power to dictate terms for music content producers and to a certain extent hardware component manufacturers. The later appears to be in the forms of too many truckloads of money to say no to.
Apple offered 7.8 truckloads (assuming a billion dollars in $100 bills fits in a semi) of this to Samsung:
What do I call that? Hard-ass negotiations.
True. And you're correct that the dictats have limits even for Walmart, Amazon and Apple. Push too hard and the suppliers have to revolt. 30% revenue sharing isn't pushing too hard...or hardly at all.
There are some folks with completely unrealistic business plans that rely on someone else footing a hugh chunk of the costs and they get to reap all the revenue...that sort of thing is great while it lasts but rarely lasts very long.