Quote:
Originally Posted by
asdasd 
Its not really that difficult to get the head around virtual space for people of average intelligence.
If we wanted to bypass the non-physical Apple Store and the associated stuff you mentioned which your barely warmed up IQ has apparently just managed to grasp then
we can do that using the Kindle Store.
Thats the subject of this thread. To put it in your unweidly prose. When we buy something in the Kindle store ( in Safari) as it now stands they handle the v
irtual space, physical servers, bits and bytes, pipelines, Intellectual Property, license agreements, end-user agreements, and all that crazy stuff and Apple are taking, if this IAP is applied to Kindle, 30%.
Well done on understanding downloads and what content providers have to do. Thats fairly kindergarten level. What you should now concentrate on is the subject of this thread - whether Apple has a right to the 30% for doing none of the stuff you list.
Its not as if the fact that the App Store has nothing to do with eBook downloads has not been pointed out in every page on this damned thread.
Do irony much? I thought there were a few clues in my unwieldy, tongue-in-cheek prose, which was for the benefit of someone who apparently thought (and I still find this unbelievable) that the App Store was
his -- but mostly it was for everyone else's entertainment. Although my effort might have been in vain, I do try to vary my style on occasion, or from page to page, or even between one post and the next. From the sum of your copious output on this thread, I am rather receiving an incessant droning, like perhaps a needle is stuck somewhere. Perhaps this is why I now begin to sound like a pompous pedant. Forgive me that my forbearance for you is so short-lived. But now that we have established who has the barely warmed up IQ (both the one with the Store in his pocket and the one whom irony escapes), I'll address your point:
I
know what you guys have said on every page of this thread. We have yet to see any proof that Apple was/is/shall ever try to take 30% of out -of-app purchases. It's not even clear that they will ask for 30% of everything sold through in-app purchases, other than the music, movies, books and other media that
is actually stored on their servers. What has
also been reiterated page after page on this thread is this:
Apple is asking developers who use its platform, Store, SDK, IP, business model and everything else, to include in-app purchasing
along side out-of-app purchasing in their native, iOS apps which would not exist as a potential source of revenue for the developer without Apple. In-App purchasing provides the consumer (Apple's customer after all) a streamlined, consistent user experience, particularly appreciated by those who do indeed like using their iTunes Store account and getting one bill on one card. It also happens to help Apple maintain and develop the platform and store for all those who create apps, free and paid alike. And it's Apple's prerogative.
I
know the stuff bought through the in-app purchase may or may not be on Apple's server. If Amazon and Sony want access to 160 million paying customers, this is simply what they are asked to do. If they go, they go. That is not my preference. I would miss them (but, believe it not, I wouldn't throw my iPad away; because unbelievable as it may be, I didn't buy it primarily for books). If Sony and Amazon
do leave, Apple may make adjustments. On the other hand, Sony may simply be posturing and the NYT may be blowing it out of proportion. Who knows, Sony and Apple may be working it out as we speak.
(look asdasd, no caps! aren't you proud of me? See how compliant and amenable I am?) [Don't answer, that was rhetorical
and ironic. In fact, please just don't answer.]
