or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple denies claim that Sony Reader, Kindle in danger on iOS App Store
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple denies claim that Sony Reader, Kindle in danger on iOS App Store - Page 6

post #201 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Let's put it another way.
"Microsoft has started enforcing a rule that any program that has access to a web sale MUST sell the items through Microsoft TakeOurCut, arguing the sale is only made thanks to its Windows Operating System."

You are aware of XBLA?

1) MS takes a 70% slice of the revenue.
2) It does not allow any "stores within a store"
3) It's not illegal.

C.
post #202 of 399
Why am I not surprised that (brain) DED is defending Apple here? What right does Apple have to tell me what apps I can or can't run on my own phone? What right does Apple have to tell me that I can't buy DRMed music from anyone other than Apple? What right does Apple have to force developers to jump through these hoops?

I hope people wake up and start dumping their iOS devices. The hardware and OS are nice, but Apple's policies get more draconian by the day. Maybe if the company is knocked down a peg or two they'll relent.
post #203 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

I don't know why everyone is upset! This is good for users. It gives choice.. isn't that what we always hear.. choice?!
As a user you have the choice to buy from the App using your iTunes account OR through the developers website (outside the apps). It is not my problem as a user who take that 30% cut. If Amazon, Sony, B&N, and other decided to charge 30% more for In-App purchase then be it. I still have the choice of buying out of the App.


This is not a real choice, now is it. Firstly there is no way that Apple are going to let people have an App Store price different to the website price. Otherwise apps could charge $1000 for all in-app purchases, and the proper price for the website purchases.

If the price is the same it means that users will have no reason to go outside the app, and they wont. Because it takes longer.


Quote:
t is not my problem as a user who take that 30% cut

It is if the vendor pulls his app.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #204 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

I don't know why everyone is upset! This is good for users. It gives choice.. isn't that what we always hear.. choice?!
As a user you have the choice to buy from the App using your iTunes account OR through the developers website (outside the apps). It is not my problem as a user who take that 30% cut. If Amazon, Sony, B&N, and other decided to charge 30% more for In-App purchase then be it. I still have the choice of buying out of the App.

Let's hope those 30% aren't shared on both sides of the sales, as with a nice guideline of let's not confuse the user and have the same price on both sides XD

And by the way, unless I'm mistaken, two revenue streams for the same product means twice the accounting. Even that is already spending my money, if i'm a shareholder of the company required to use Apple's "offered" service.
Hell, yes, I'd sue that company for not suing... the second after I sold their stock. And I'd ask for huge damage...

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #205 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

... It's about the same as saying that Nikon should have a cut on any picture taken with a Nikon camera...

There's nothing I hate more than a bad analogy, and this is one of the worst I've seen in these forums. Just to review, for an analogy to be valid it must share characteristics with the thing or situation it is supposed to be analogous to. Taking pictures with a camera doesn't have any common characteristics to selling eBooks on smartphones and tablets.
post #206 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Even if Apple change that figure tomorrow this is still an unholy cockup. Apps have been rejected all week based on these new guidelines which were never broadcast to anyone nor in fact was the wording even changed, and a major developer - Sony - has pulled it's app already.

Sony had it's app pulled, because it's web portal does not do book sales at all.
(Try it!)

C.
post #207 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

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.

You are making this up.


Quote:
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.

They say rules are subject to change.


Quote:
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.

Those apps do not make in-app purchases. Ebay, Netflix, BofA are mostly a native user interface for their web services. Your are not buying anything through the app itself.


Quote:
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.

I haven't read any times that an app steals your info. There were reports of apps that secretly monitored information without the users permission. That was primarily for advertising and it wasn't specific information about the user. That is not the same as stealing info for malicious reasons.

Quote:
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.

Your figures make no sense. When you buy something at a store you are paying for more than the credit card transaction. The store has marked up the cost so it can make actually profit to keep the store open and you pay taxes.

Quote:
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.

I don't understand how this relates to what I said previously.

Quote:
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.

Show me where you can find specific information on Amazon and its deals with all of its publishers.
post #208 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

Yes it is fair. It's not like you download iTunes from Microsoft's servers. Microsoft doesn't have to pay anything to let you run iTunes on your PC.

You do, however, download the Sony Reader app from Apple's servers. Apple is paying for hosting the app and the bandwidth to allow you to download it.

Well, iTunes for Windows is then unfairly using Microsoft Windows... and Microsoft spends a lot of money ensuring Windows stays up to date, in order to allow iTunes to work fine....

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #209 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Kindle could easily embed their store in the app, or (less easily) re-do the store UI in-app as native code and handle their own credit card transactions. That is banned under App Store rules.

From the rest of them. So you are missing the point.

As mentioned, Apple will likely have to look at their percentage-take on publications due to this change, but I'm sure it will all be resolved in the end to everyones benefit.
post #210 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

They are not capable of delivering content into the curated part of the iPad.
Not without Apple's consent.

Just as Apple are not capable of delivering iBooks onto the Kindle reader without Amazon's cooperation.

Key word there: Consent.

Gwidion was partially correct. Amazon has the technical capabilities to deliver just as many copies of the Kindle app without any assistance from Apple whatsoever. (Beyond normal developer support which is necessary for every single platform.)

The ONLY reason they go through the App Store is that Apple does not permit any other option.

Another key difference is that the iOS devices are general computing platforms. The Kindle is a dedicated single purpose device.

Apps can be put onto iOS devices because they're designed for that purpose. Apps cannot (generally) be put onto the Kindle because it was designed to do only one thing, but to do that very well.

If Apple wants to put content on the Kindle, they can do so without involving Amazon and extra costs and without having to jailbreak the Kindle. (Download the file from Apple's servers and copy it to the Kindle via USB transfer.) Or if Apple chooses, Apple can sell content for the Kindle through Amazon. In that case, Amazon gets paid only for the transactions which they actually handle.

The problem here is that Apple is forcefully inserting themselves between the content providers and the end users and demanding a rather large payment for doing so. The only reason they can do so is the very word you used: Consent.
post #211 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr View Post

Why am I not surprised that (brain) DED is defending Apple here? What right does Apple have to tell me what apps I can or can't run on my own phone? What right does Apple have to tell me that I can't buy DRMed music from anyone other than Apple? What right does Apple have to force developers to jump through these hoops?

If you use one of the many phones that wasn't created by Apple, then you are correct they have no right to dictate what you do with it.

Quote:
I hope people wake up and start dumping their iOS devices. The hardware and OS are nice, but Apple's policies get more draconian by the day. Maybe if the company is knocked down a peg or two they'll relent.


The more draconian the rules, the more iOS devices they seem to sell.
post #212 of 399
That's not true. Amazon could create a web app that felt like a native app on the iPhone and iPad. They would not be subject to Apple's rules at all.

That wouldn't be as elegant as a native app.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

The ONLY reason they go through the App Store is that Apple does not permit any other option.
post #213 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Calm down!
Amazon is not going to shut down all those potential book sales. And Apple certainly does not want to irritate its user base.

This is a negotiation. And a middle ground will be found. The end consumer will not notice any difference. Apart from a slightly improved purchasing experience.

C.

Someone who gets it.
post #214 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

There's nothing I hate more than a bad analogy, and this is one of the worst I've seen in these forums. Just to review, for an analogy to be valid it must share characteristics with the thing or situation it is supposed to be analogous to. Taking pictures with a camera doesn't have any common characteristics to selling eBooks on smartphones and tablets.

Oh, yes, it is a good analogy.
The point is exactly the one you just made. Selling ebooks on smartphones and tablets has NO characteristics that should warrant that 30% cut.
Just as taking photos with a Nikon has NO characteristics that should warrant that 30% cut.
Except one.

That smartphone is so wonderful that it's thanks to it that the sale was made.
That camera is so wonderful that it's thanks to it that the picture was made.

As you MAY have noticed through your amazing skills, those phrase have an impressive degree of similarity, otherwise known as "common characteristics".

Just for review, for a critic to valid, it should be written while using your brains, anonymouse, not your fanboy-cheatsheet.

You're forgiven for your mistake

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #215 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

Key word there: Consent.

Exactly. In this brave new world, if you own a platform, you can monetize it how you see fit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

The ONLY reason they go through the App Store is that Apple does not permit any other option.

Not exactly true. Web apps are not curated. You can put anything you want on the web-side of your iPad, with Apple's blessing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

Another key difference is that the iOS devices are general computing platforms. The Kindle is a dedicated single purpose device.

Well that's very convenient.
But I don't entirely buy the idea that it's okay to monetize a single-purpose device, but not a multi-function device?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

Apps can be put onto iOS devices because they're designed for that purpose. Apps cannot (generally) be put onto the Kindle because it was designed to do only one thing, but to do that very well.

If Apple wants to put content on the Kindle, they can do so without involving Amazon and extra costs and without having to jailbreak the Kindle. (Download the file from Apple's servers and copy it to the Kindle via USB transfer.) Or if Apple chooses, Apple can sell content for the Kindle through Amazon. In that case, Amazon gets paid only for the transactions which they actually handle.

Not true. The Kindle has an API for app developers. It wanted to encourage app development. They all do.

I suggest you download it and create your own store on a Kindle.

Let's see how far you get.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

The problem here is that Apple is forcefully inserting themselves between the content providers and the end users and demanding a rather large payment for doing so. The only reason they can do so is the very word you used: Consent.

We have no idea how large or small the payment is.

C.
post #216 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

That's not true. Amazon could create a web app (...)
That wouldn't be as elegant as a native app.

Then how is that "not true"... the ONLY way to have the same service is to go through Apple, you just agreed to that...

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #217 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Apple is gaining by the popularity of the Kindle app. Amazon has given them an app which was developed for free, and handles downloads of the biggest library of digital e-books in the world. A position not likely to be challenged anytime soon. This has driven hardware sales.

If Amazon removes that app, the people buying tablets primarily as an e-book reader with benefits will flee the platform.

And this is exactly why Apple will not face any anti-trust issues. They are not the dominate e-book seller and they are only insisting that a purchasing option be included.
post #218 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tmarks11 View Post

I am looking forward to ipad2, but if the kindle reader is affected by this nonsense, then I will start looking at some other brand of tablet.

You can still buy your books from Amazon. You do not have to purchase them from iTunes.

Quote:
Why should apple get any direct benefit from someone's app being popular? Apple gets hardware sales out of the deal. You are allowing yourself to be brainwashed into believing that Apple has some moral right to continuous revenue streams for everything.

This isn't direct revenue for Apple. That 30% pays for the App Store itself.
post #219 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

This is not a real choice, now is it. Firstly there is no way that Apple are going to let people have an App Store price different to the website price. Otherwise apps could charge $1000 for all in-app purchases, and the proper price for the website purchases.

You don't know that. Apple has never interfered with how developers price their apps and contents.

Quote:
If the price is the same it means that users will have no reason to go outside the app, and they wont. Because it takes longer.

They will if they have to pay for the same item.


Quote:
It is if the vendor pulls his app.

They won't. It is a competitive area and pulling out the app will mean users with iOS devices will move to the competitor.
post #220 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Oh Amazon will certainly withdraw Kindle if the 30% level is maintained. They can sell on many devices, rather than one with no margins for them unless they increase costs by 43%.

(we may get new pricing models tomorrow).

One reason why I'm rocking a Droid X after owning an iPhone for two years is for that very reason - I want alternative platforms to succeed, to grow and improve. Android and WP7 are the best thing for Apple - it forces them to compete fairly.

...though a 30% markup is hardly what I consider fair .


Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You are making this up.

In reference to Kindle ebooks outselling paperback books for the first time last quarter, here's the source:

(CNET) Amazon: Kindle books outselling paperbacks
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20029839-1.html

Don't really have to go into the rest, friend.
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
post #221 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

If you use one of the many phones that wasn't created by Apple, then you are correct they have no right to dictate what you do with it.

Oh, I THINK I just read "if you want to use an iPhone without being forced by Apple to pay 30% more on the content streamed, just don't use an iPhone". Hey, guess what. I love my iPhone. I don't see why I should pay 30% more for the content without any added value.
So, no, thanks. I don't want any other phone. But I can give you my bank number if you feel like giving me the price difference on the things I buy.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #222 of 399
You could read your Kindle books online. It would work. Just not as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Then how is that "not true"... the ONLY way to have the same service is to go through Apple, you just agreed to that...
post #223 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The more draconian the rules, the more iOS devices they seem to sell.

Less than the more open alternative. Which, up to now, I didn't like.
With these rules, the end game is in sight. Apple will be niche once again, its over-loyal fan base defending it to the death with warped logic they wouldnt apply anywhere else as it slides into irrelevance.


That said AI is the only place where anybody is defending this.

On TUAW's comments, for instance, the mood is hostile and ugly to Apple and they are all Apple fans.

A different breed of fans here though. Hint: you can love the technology, the industrial design, the software design and falir but you dont have to agree with everything your favourite company does. It makes the claims that Apple fans are a religion seem quite accurate.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #224 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

That wouldn't be as elegant as a native app.

Nor as capable. Which is part of the point.

While I don't care about the Sony Reader, and only somewhat care about the Kindle app, there are apps which I will not do without on a mobile platform which seem to vulnerable to this policy change. Those apps cannot be done in a web page. And since I have at least 4 figures tied up in content for those apps, I can guarantee that such a change would drive me and my family away from iOS for the foreseeable future. (I'm reluctant to state what they are because I don't want to make them a target.)

As it is, I've already decided not to order the 2 iPhone 4's on Verizon this Thursday as originally planned.
post #225 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


We have no idea how large or small the payment is.

C.

the only person not sure is you. It is 30%.

Also the Sun is a medium sized star, and water is wet.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #226 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You could read your Kindle books online. It would work. Just not as well.

Until Amazon launches their new store, you can't.

www.amazon.com/kindlefortheweb
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
post #227 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

If you use one of the many phones that wasn't created by Apple, then you are correct they have no right to dictate what you do with it.

Why should they have the right to do that at all? If I buy a Samsung laptop from Wal*Mart, neither company gets to tell me how to use it. If I buy an LG DVD player from Best Buy, neither company gets to tell me what sort of content I can watch on it (e.g. nothing too political, no porn).

Why should Apple be entitled to special treatment?

Their draconian policies are exactly why I stopped using an iPhone months ago. I love my Android phone, and have no plans to buy another Apple product for the forseeable future.
post #228 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post



This isn't direct revenue for Apple. That 30% pays for the App Store itself.

It is like mole whacking.

No matter how many people post that the App Store has nothing to do with Kindle's digital purchases, which it is capable of handling on its own, ( and does) it just doesn't sink in.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #229 of 399
Come on now, how do you think prices are established?

You do realize that everything you buy has to be marked up to cover the costs of the billing transaction, storage, and its delivery to you. This is true for everything you purchase.

Either way the software developers have to pay for credit card transaction, security, licensing, and bandwidth. The 30% is to cover all of those costs. Apple offers all of this without the developer having to be bothered with it at a price cheaper than they could do it themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Oh, I THINK I just read "if you want to use an iPhone without being forced by Apple to pay 30% more on the content streamed, just don't use an iPhone". Hey, guess what. I love my iPhone. I don't see why I should pay 30% more for the content without any added value.
So, no, thanks. I don't want any other phone. But I can give you my bank number if you feel like giving me the price difference on the things I buy.
post #230 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Just to throw this in there. Amazon's margins are very very low.

from RTE.


The company posted a slight dip in operating profit for the Christmas fourth quarter as revenues rose 36%, signaling the high cost of keeping competitive in the highly promotional retail environment. Fourth-quarter operating margin declined to 3.7% from 5% a year earlier.

Digital books have better margins, but they are cheap for a reason.

Clearly Amazon cant afford this.

Yes, Amazon has lower margins than most of its competitors. But please let's not compare operating margins against gross margins.
post #231 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by 512ke View Post

If Apple disapproved of the Kindle app's purchasing mechanism, then why did Apple allow the Kindle app to thrive "as is" for a year?

Why did Apple do nothing while its loyal customers invested in buying Kindle ebooks?

Why did not the closed Apple ecosystem protect Apple's customers from purchasing Kindle ebooks?

Why did the iPad advertise its Kindle compatibility?

I humbly suggest that Apple refund to its users their investment in Kindle ebooks.

Why? Are their books going to suddenly become unusable?
post #232 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

And this is exactly why Apple will not face any anti-trust issues. They are not the dominate e-book seller and they are only insisting that a purchasing option be included.

The whole problem is here.

Apple makes it not optional to provide that option.
This has two consequences.
First, it creates a cost (minimal, htough) for the companies who need to have that feature added. You WILL pay for that overhead, you know? So, that option, which you'll pay, you should wish to decline.... but it's your money.
Second, it will also make prices on content itself higher if prices are not different on the web store and on the apple store (where, due to the cut, it SHOULD be higher).
Suppose prices are so. Then as a consumer, you'll end up spending more money if you buy on the Apple Store (in-app). If you're ready to pay a bit more to NOT leave your app, fine, that's your money, once again. The service sold is "not leaving your app". I'm okay with that...
Suppose prices are not so (eg, Apple requires prices to be the same on both stores). Then, as a client of the webstore, you get swindled, as you will pay for part of the sales made on the appstore.
That's an issue.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #233 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Less than the more open alternative. Which, up to now, I didn't like.
With these rules, the end game is in sight. Apple will be niche once again, its over-loyal fan base defending it to the death with warped logic they wouldnt apply anywhere else as it slides into irrelevance.

Are you declaring Apple doomed?


Quote:
On TUAW's comments, for instance, the mood is hostile and ugly to Apple and they are all Apple fans.

The title of that story is:

"Apple's message to eBook vendors and users isn't yet clear, but points toward only in-app purchases"

Which is completely wrong.
post #234 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Come on now, how do you think prices are established?

You do realize that everything you buy has to be marked up to cover the costs of the billing transaction, storage, and its delivery to you. This is true for everything you purchase.

Either way the software developers have to pay for credit card transaction, security, licensing, and bandwidth. The 30% is to cover all of those costs. Apple offers all of this without the developer having to be bothered with it at a price cheaper than they could do it themselves.

I'm not stupid... I know that. However, what I'm pointing out to you, since you seem to have not noticed (or are ignoring it because it doesn't suit you, as you seem intelligent...) is that I, as a customer, do not want to pay for that service you just described. i'm not interested. I just want the option of a webstore and NO in-app store. And those
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

credit card transaction, security, licensing, and bandwidth

I already pay for, through the webstore. It's ALREADY paid for. Any other cost is lost $$$ for me, and for the developer. Your argument doesn't hold.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #235 of 399
I don't think Apple does get special treatment. Apple has to compete in the open market with everyone else. If people do not like Apple's business practices, they don't have to use Apple's products.

Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr View Post

Why should Apple be entitled to special treatment?
post #236 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The title of that story is:

"Apple's message to eBook vendors and users isn't yet clear, but points toward only in-app purchases"

Which is completely wrong.

What's wrong about it? Signs are all pointing to where only applications that support in-app purchases will be allowed, and other applications and services that have gone on for almost 2 years on their own will be locked out unless they make the option to give Apple 30% of their revenue, affecting their business model and bottom line.

I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
post #237 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

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.

There will be two options:
1) In-app purchase where, at a minimum, Apple is providing the payment processing
2) Out-of-app purchase where Apple does not collect any payment

We are also guessing what services Apple will provide for in-app purchases? What if they will mirror Amazon content and provide all hosting and bandwidth?
post #238 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I don't think Apple does get special treatment. Apple has to compete in the open market with everyone else. If people do not like Apple's business practices, they don't have to use Apple's products.

I don't think Microsoft does get special treatment. Microsoft has to compete in the open market with everyone else. If people do not like Microsoft's business practices, they don't have to use Microsoft's products.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #239 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

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.



There is no anti-trust issue here since Apple is not the dominant player in e-books not has it shut out any existing alternatives.
post #240 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Exactly. In this brave new world, if you own a platform, you can monetize it how you see fit.

So you have no problem with the OS maker for your computer adding 30% to the cost of everything you use that computer to buy? How about the phone company adding 30% to the purchase price of everything you order over the phone? How about a 30% surcharge on your cell phone bill for everything you buy that way? They're all platforms.

Quote:
But I don't entirely buy the idea that it's okay to monetize a single-purpose device, but not a multi-function device?

What I'm buying from Amazon is the CONTENT. I bought the device as a way to use that content. I bought the Kindle because I wanted to use the Kindle's capabilities. I didn't need to have a Kindle to have access to the content. I could have simply used the content on my computer. Or bought it on paper.

The CONTENT is what the money goes for. The Kindle provides its own value that I am free to pay for, or not.

Apple's move is not adding VALUE to the content, just cost.

Quote:
We have no idea how large or small the payment is.

Yes we do. It's 30%. That's documented. Compared to roughly 3% max for every other payment processing system out there (which is all these In App Purchases are), that is HUGE!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple denies claim that Sony Reader, Kindle in danger on iOS App Store