Apple denies claim that Sony Reader, Kindle in danger on iOS App Store - Page 4

By your logic, there should also be a 30% charge for any purchases made using the Ebay app.

The app store on the iPad is creating tens of millions of Kindle sales for Amazon.

How much is that worth to Amazon?

a) Zero?
b) Nothing.
c) Not a penny
d) A tidy sum

I'd argue that Apple is certainly entitled to something. And of course, having control of the platform means that Apple is entitled to demand it.

Is Apple entitled to 30% of the retail value?
Nope. No way. That would be unsustainable. It would leave Apple making more money from a sale than Amazon.

But who said anything about 30%?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is called a negotiating position.

It's not about yay, or nay. It's about how much.

C.

That's a myth. There are mischievous apps that phish for your information and sneak unwarranted features on your device, like a game that farms your entire contacts database or a flashlight app that enables tethering. The idea that trusting Apple to vet the app doesn't guarantee security in the slightest. Wasn't there an iTunes account breech a few months ago?



Correct. But now you must make that same book directly available in the app store (probably for the same price, since the language is vague), in which case Apple does get 30%. They don't manage the transactions, they don't serve up the content, yet they're going to charge 10x what a typical POS system does for the exact same content.



Apple doesn't provide it for free. You have to pay to enter the developer program and tune your app to comply with Apple's strict, and ever-changing, policies. Had this been the case since the app store's inception, I could follow your argument, but a *major* change like this can dramatically change or even destroy business that are currently relying on Apple's hardware who otherwise have been playing by the rules for years.

If Amazon has to suddenly make every kindle book they sell available for purchase on iOS, that requires renegotiation with every content provider, since the agreements they had before were only involving splitting money with Amazon. If publishers don't want to go along, suddenly the app you're running on your device today could stop functioning all together, and that vast library of books that you've been purchasing for years on Kindle becomes useless if your only used iOS devices.

This hurts consumers and publishers. Again, if Apple had planned it this way from the start, the tone of the conversation might be different. But to me, this is classic bait and switch. Exploit your developers to create amazing services and content on your platform, and then when it hits big, start forcing yourself into the equation and start taking your cut.

You stay classy, Apple.

Uhhh.....no....not the same thing.

I doubt Apple would (or could) expect 30% from the Dick Tracy secret decoder ring scored on Ebay.

Apples locked platform allows for free apps to be attained through their system. With this choice they have opened themselves up for funding the bandwidth to supply these pieces of software, including those who make money for the programmers -outside of- apples channel (advertising, out of app purchasing).

Said free apps allow people to purchase books via a web browser outside of apples channel, servers, bandwidth.

Said browser can be on any platform.

Saying apple is ok taking 30% of revenues forever, to fund the initial deployment of the free app is taking the piss. If apple doesnt like it, remove the free applications from the app store. Otherwise they are costing apple money.

Why not? ebay is making money through Apple.

Precisely. Unlike application sales, in-app purchases are essentially POS transactions. You are responsible for tracking the purchases and serve and maintain your own delivery systems (servers, bandwidth, etc). Apple has *nothing* to do with in-app sales other than the transaction itself.

The idea that Apple can get away charging 10x what a typical POS system does is laughable at best, especially when they have zero to do with the actual service that runs on their device THAT THEY WERE PERFECTLY CONTENT WITH ALLOWING BEFORE. (I hate typing in caps, btw xD)



Apple should have never allowed it from the beginning, then. The part that angers me the most is Apple was perfectly fine allowing this to go on while iOS and the App Store was growing. This change is a classic bait-and-switch. Developers who were following the rules and playing nice with Apple are now suddenly supposed to pay more, which in some cases, could completely destroy a business.

why not, ebay and the seller are both making profit from a free app, that requires apples bandwidth and storage.

Apple didn't just hang a sign on the Internet one day that said app store. They had to design phones and tablets that stood out. And boy did they do that. Now they are charging third parties for access to their customers. The determination of what amazon has to foot the bill for is a product of what they are able to negotiate not some calculation you make as to what it costs apple to to host amazons app. I use the word negotiate but in this case apple has a standard policy-30%.

Next Netflix, Hulu, Bank of America, ec.

All of them are making money

Its a myth because it cannot happen.

No the alert of the breach itself was a phishing scam.



How does Apple get 30% if Amazon is selling the same book for the same price and Apple gets none of the money?

I have no clue of how you came up the 10X figure. Seeing as books on Kindle are typically $3-$5.




You really think that $99 developer fee really covers the costs of doing any of this?

Its simply a barrier to keep some of the riff raff out.


No they don't the 30% comes out of Amazon's end. The publisher isn't involved in that.

The reason Apple hosts free apps is because it makes their hardware more attractive. A lot of people buy an iPad and not a Kindle because the iPad can also be a Kindle. Apple shouldn't drive away third party content, which helps it sell devices.

For one Apple isn't competing with ebay and ebay does not provide a product for direct use on iOS.

Let's get this straight, Amazon wouldn't sell anything from competitor's store, Apple does while charging a fee. And you find problem with what Apple is doing?

Whether Amazon can make it profitable doing business on Apple's store is NOT Apple's concern. Just like it's not really the mall owner's duty to let you setup your shop for free because otherwise your business can't turn a profit.



What would really maximize value for Apple's users is for Amazon and the like to offer their books for free. Then they don't have to pay Apple 30%, and you get whatever you want. It would probably kill Apple's iBook if it still charge money for books. Users would be real happy, and Apple's platform should be real popular then, wouldn't it? So why aren't you crying to Amazon/Sony asking when free books are coming?

I agree 100%, my reading experience is better with a kindle, it's made for reading... Plus it's much lighter and certain models have 3G (believe it's currently not in stock)

How exactly is Apple going to charge them 30% for their services?

This is more akin to the commonplace slotting fees paid by manufacturers to retailers for (premium) shelf space. Apple wants a shot at being compensated for providing the shopping venue as well as recovering their costs for providing infrastructure.

Apple have built a empire working closely with content creators, and providing them with platforms to profitably sell their content.

But it has to be profitable for both parties.

I suspect something has happened which demands a slightly more forthright negotiating tactic.

C.

You're missing the point. When you buy a kindle book, you're not Apple's customer, you're Amazon's. Imagine buying an iPad, knowing how wonderful it is that you can buy your books through Amazon's vast library and enjoy reading them on your device, and suddenly that application changes dramatically so that only select books that have been authorized to use Apple's in-app purchase can be allowed, you might find you are now unable to read most of your library. Or worse, what if Apple demanded all or nothing, and suddenly the Kindle application disappeared. You would be upset, no?

That's the type of situation we could find ourselves in if we take this statement from Apple at face value.

Like they want to do with Amazon, B&N and Sony?

The U.S. Department of Justice is watching for any ANTITRUST violations from Apple.

Freedom of choice is important to create competition between sellers and lower prices for consumers.

It's great to know that the U.S. Department of Justice is watching so that we can get better prices when we buy from Apple.

As you point out, they are free to not participate on the iOS platform. I am sure that would cause some hurt for Apple.

I have no problem with Apple demanding a shot at the sale based on their promotion of the product. I do think that the numbers will need to be reworked for this kind of in-app sales.

Oh most definitely I would as would many many others.

An even bigger consideration are those who do not yet own any IOS devices.
This has been a big deciding factor in my next tablet purchase.
The more Apple closes itself off and makes it difficult for the end user to actually use their devices the fewer end users they will have.

This is why I have a Roku box instead of an Apple TV.
This is why I prefer Kindle to iPad.
This is why my next cell phone purchase will most likely be Android based.

Granted I`ll be missing out on Apples excellent, elegant craftsmanship but my devices will actually do what I need them to do without costing me an arm and a leg.

Endeavor to think the different circumstances through rather than treating these two companies as equal in all regards. Not only does this make questionable business sense for Apple (I'll assume for the time being that they have a damn good reason for this, or that there's some misunderstanding, because this is both uncharacteristic and Apple knows damn well what it is doing most of the time) it also diminishes the appeal of their platform and reduces the functionality of their devices for us, the users. It would be an especially unsavory blow to people who replaced their Kindles with an iPad, for example.

Apple has a right to do this. I don't think many here are contesting that. But it would represent a downright shitty thing to do to their customers. I adore this company, but when they're doing something which sucks for me it is my pleasure to express my disagreement.


Are you trying to be offensive? This did succeed in being insolent and immature.


Except these business models are presently incompatible.

If you want to post advertisement for your product in a popular place, you pay for that privilage. Google charges advertisers not for product sold, but simply click throughs or even just impressions. Are you crying about it? Do you think the stores you go to through Google Ads aren't passing on the cost to you?

Now Apple isn't even charging for potential customers, but actual customers, using Apple's purchasing platform for that matter. Yet you somehow think Apple is doing something wrong?

And Amazon has paid their developer license.

And Amazon is not posting any advertisement

So you believe thinking only in terms of what customers finds useful and appealing is being insolent and immature? Thank you for proving my point. Anybody who think Apple's course of action should be dictated only by what a "user" finds useful or appealing isn't thinking straight.

Wow...some people make comments without even knowing what they're talking about.

Some malls charges rent + a percentage of gross receipts. You even have to pay for your own electricity and personnel. And every year, they review your sales and they require that you sales has to increase a certain percentage to keep the store. Otherwise, you're out.

The merchandise the store sells aren't hosted or sourced by the mall owner. But they get a cut to. The retailers has to factor in those cost.

This is usually the case for malls that are in demand with a lot of retailers waiting to get in, which is what the App Store is at the moment.

I'm pretty sure if the App Store isn't as popular as it is now, they would be more lenient in their rules. But such is the way of capitalism is it not?

What a comedian you are.

Do you usually make your points by twisting what a person says into a completely irrational extreme, and then turn around and declare some kind of fictional personal victory when they respond, understandably so, by pointing out how ridiculous your statement was?

Grow up.

Do you feel it fair that I need to go to Apple's App Store and Apple's App Store ONLY in order to put an app on MY phone in the first place?
Apple should give my a cut then for every time I download an app from them - like airline points.

No, comedians are fanboys like you. My God, Apple can piss over you and you will thank and say it's raining.

Possibly, yes. Depending on apples business strategy, which includes what apple believes the value of those services are to their platform.

Is Amazon capable of distributing the same volume of that Kindle app through their own systems without involving Apple at all? Why or why not?

Sorry for being off topic everyone, couldn't let it go..

Maybe not Apple, but other box giants, you better believe they get a deal. Happens all the time. Another example...states undercutting other states with specific business tax incentives and subsidies to get employment.

Race to the bottom baby, enjoy your ride!

Taking an argument and stretching it to the extreme is the perfect method for finding the absurdity in them. Someone argued Apple shouldn't charge the 30% because Amazon might have to leave because it might not afford it, , thus making his iPad less useful or appealing. My counter is if what what he think is useful or appealing is the only concern, he should find it even more useful or appealing if Amazon give out all books for free. Obvisouly you find that position absurd, which is entirely the point.

If you don't believe Amazon should sacrifice its interest for your enjoyment, why should Apple?

Actually, comedians are people who make other people laugh intentionally. You are not, because you don't even know what you are doing that's halirious.

hint: go find out the definition of advertisement. It helps in discussing what is and what is not an advertisement.

Apple makes money by selling the devices. It is Apple's job to make the value proposition as appealing as possible in order to be able sell as many of those devices (at a profit) as possible.

Simple put:

High value/Low price = High sales
Low value/High price = Low sales

Apple is selling a computing device. The more things it can do, the higher its value is to the buyer of that device. More apps = Higher value.

The more Apple chases away or raises the costs of using an app, the lower the value of the device becomes, and the more it will hurt sales.

Something did happen - Amazon last quarter started selling more Kindle books than paperback for the first time ever. Apple isn't able to make the deals with publishers fast enough with their limited, competing iBookstore, so rather than compete, they'll just start taking a cut off Amazon and Sony. Good for Apple, bad for everyone else, including us.


Apple should have thought of that before they allowed developers to develop on their platform. Also, Apple does *NOT* provide the infrastructure for services like Kindle - Amazon does. Apple only provides bandwidth for the application, which obeyed and followed all the rules set by Apple. Now, Apple is changing the rules. Again.



Every in-app purchase gives 30% of the transaction to Apple. If Amazon and Sony have to start providing in-app purchase options to all of their books in order to remain in the App Store, that means Apple starts taking a major chunk of their revenue on any sale that takes place inside the app. Not every transaction, but enough to affect your business.



Dude.... Apple vetting applications doesn't ensure security. That's a fallacy. How many times have you read stories of applications that steal your info or otherwise break app store rules still being approved, but then later removed from the store? Vetting an app doesn't guarantee security. Its better than the wild west, but not perfect. Don't kid yourself.


Again, in-app purchases give Apple 30%.


The 10x figure refers to POS systems, which stand for "Point of Sale." They're the services that handle the transactions you make on your credit or debit card. Typically, these services charge around 3% of your transaction. Apple's in-app purchase does the same thing and charges 30%, hence, 10x the cost just to handle the credit card.


If Apple felt that the $99 fee isn't enough, they shouldn't have come up with that figure in their development program. Apple is a corporation, friend. They're some small startup that's getting exploited and bullied by bigger companies. Apple sets a price, developers sign an agreement with them to follow the rules, and Apple provides the service. Its no more complicated than that.


The publisher is absolutely involved with that. Amazon is authorized to sell books through their own channel. By allowing in-app purchase, Amazon is now involving Apple through the sale of books. Do you really think publishers are going to allow revenue from the sales of their products go to another company (Apple) without permission? Absolutely not. Take a business course at your local community college and they will teach you about this sort of stuff.

Viewing life through black and white when it is generally shades of gray is a great way to sustain one's personal ignorance. Generally, when you take something which has little impact on the involved parties, and turn it into something wholly irrational on one side, and unsustainable for the other party, you change its meaning.


Sorry buddy, but this type of behavior is not the sort of thing consumers should encourage or congratulate. As for the rest see above.


As consumers, we purchase products which we think we will offer something to our lives. Changes which impact this perspective amount to the most important matters from a customer's perspective. They are also relevant from the business's perspective as well because it impacts customer loyalty and the way that company is perceived. My personal view on this is clearly shared by many, and this is especially so when it comes to Amazon.

Anyway, you're far too rude, dismissive, and biased to have conversations with.

Thank heavens for ignore lists.