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 7

post #241 of 399
You are already paying for that service, its built into the price.

Amazon builds these same charges into the cost of the book if you buy it from them. They just don't tell you that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

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 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.
post #242 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

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

Very true. And as I stated, that cost might even extend to other customers through contamination, via the equal prices on webstore and in-app store possibility.

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 #243 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

Except these business models are presently incompatible.

Incompatible in what way? Apple is simply insisting that customers using its merchandising platform (the Kindle app in the App Store) be offered a choice for making payment either the existing way or in-app.
post #244 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

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?

1) Apple is providing payment processing at a 30% rate.
2) Out-of-app purchases directly through Amazon at a 3% rate.

If you were selling a product, and you had the choice of someone either charging you 3% of your total revenue or 30% of your total revenue, why the heck would you even give the 30% guy another look? Well, you would only do it if you had no choice, and that's what Apple is enforcing.

By the way, we're *not* guessing how Apple handles in-app purchases. Its in the developer agreement - developers are responsible for delivering any and all in-app purchase content to iOS devices. If you buy a song inside the Tap Tap Revenge applications, your song is being downloaded from Tapulous, not Apple. Apple only handles the payment process, which again, is 30%, 10 times more expensive than any traditional Point of Sale system currently used.
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 #245 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr View Post

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.

While you're at wal mart you should get a Sony playstation or an xbox and see how
"open" their platforms are. In fact Sony just had the courts confiscate George Hotz's (geohot) computer and an injunction to keep him off the web for showing people how to jailbreak their ps3.
post #246 of 399
Apple has stated that they want apps to offer both options. The rest of what you are saying is purely speculation with no evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

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.
post #247 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You are already paying for that service, its built into the price.

Amazon builds these same charges into the cost of the book if you buy it from them. They just don't tell you that.

Yes, that's my point Tenobell. I _already_ pay. So I DO NOT want another option, that will increase what I pay... They're not offering a service, they're forcing it on content providers, and in the end, I'll pay for it. I'll be forced to pay for it, even though, you said so, I already pay for the SAME service...

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 #248 of 399
Yes I totally agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

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.
post #249 of 399
If you purchase through the App Store, why would Amazon need to charge you for credit card transaction and bandwidth when they themselves are not paying for those costs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Yes, that's my point Tenobell. I _already_ pay. So I DO NOT want another option, that will increase what I pay... They're not offering a service, they're forcing it on content providers, and in the end, I'll pay for it. I'll be forced to pay for it, even though, you said so, I already pay for the SAME service...
post #250 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

While you're at wal mart you should get a Sony playstation or an xbox and see how
"open" their platforms are. In fact Sony just had the courts confiscate George Hotz's (geohot) computer and an injunction to keep him off the web for showing people how to jailbreak their ps3.

Yes, you are right. It doesn't make that injuction valid, and actually there are huge chances that Geohot might win. It's called scare tactics, and Microsoft among others use it. How does it make it legal?
Wait for the court decision before you use a legal example. All we know right know is Sony asserted that it has legal rights. Geohot asserts the contrary. If he loses, you are right. If he wins, you are wrong. Let's talk about it again, in a few months...

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 #251 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Apple has stated that they want apps to offer both options. The rest of what you are saying is purely speculation with no evidence.

No, what Apple is saying is they don't want people using their platform to skirt around the 30% cut they otherwise would get, so now they're going to force the issue onto developers and publishers.

Apple isn't all magic and unicorns you know - they're a corporation. Their sole purpose in existence is to be as greedy and profitable as they can to their shareholders. They're not out to save the world.
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 #252 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Yes, that's my point Tenobell. I _already_ pay. So I DO NOT want another option, that will increase what I pay... They're not offering a service, they're forcing it on content providers, and in the end, I'll pay for it. I'll be forced to pay for it, even though, you said so, I already pay for the SAME service...

You might not want this option but I am sure many would love to use their iTunes credit to buy ebooks from Amazon and others.
post #253 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

If you purchase through the App Store, why would Amazon need to charge you for credit card transaction and bandwidth when they themselves are not paying for those costs?

But they *ARE* paying those costs... they pay for the bandwidth to serve the books to you. Pay attention already, sheesh. Its embarrassing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

You might not want this option but I am sure many would love to use their iTunes credit to buy ebooks from Amazon and others.

Look, if Apple offered a fair alternative or rate for processing transactions, this wouldn't be that big of an issue. Apple should take no more than the cost of doing the transaction, which I would guess would be no more than 5%. Certainly not 30%.

I know its convenient for you, and that's one of the points that Apple will use to strongarm content creators into doing, but this is bad for developers (once again) and content creators. Many use Amazon or someone else to sell their products because, frankly, they can't afford the 30% markup that Apple enforces.
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 #254 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Yes I totally agree.

Well, the European Union lawyers as well as the Feds did not, it seems. And they're probably better suited to that kind of assesments as both of us, even if we put our brains together

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 #255 of 399
Did the Times writers bother to check with Apple before publishing this story? If not, it is a serious breach of journalistic standards at best, and anti-Apple propaganda at worst.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #256 of 399
They do add these charges.

When you buy a computer you are paying a small percentage for its manufacture, you are paying for licensing fees, you are paying for shipment and transportation, you are paying for storage. The manufacturer and wholesaler pass these costs on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

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.
post #257 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

You might not want this option but I am sure many would love to use their iTunes credit to buy ebooks from Amazon and others.

Maybe, but please explain why I should pay more so that those pesky other users may use their iTunes card credit... Damn, I wanna be the only person in the world with an iPhone.
Genie, please erase other users from the planet, please. That will be my third wish!

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 #258 of 399
You do not understand what anti-trust is.

MS wasn't punished for being a monopoly. They were punished for abusing their position and stifling competition in the market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Well, the European Union lawyers as well as the Feds did not, it seems. And they're probably better suited to that kind of assesments as both of us, even if we put our brains together
post #259 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

They do add these charges.

When you buy a computer you are paying a small percentage for its manufacture, you are paying for licensing fees, you are paying for shipment and transportation, you are paying for storage. The manufacturer and wholesaler pass these costs on.

Yes, but as per my Nikon example, and my Windows example, the "platform" argument doesn't hold.
I don't pay a small (or 30%-small, indeed) tax on everything I create with my Nikon, nor with my Windows.
Of course, I don't create anything with a Windows, I play games with it. But it's not my point.

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 #260 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Maybe, but please explain why I should pay more so that those pesky other users may use their iTunes card credit... Damn, I wanna be the only person in the world with an iPhone.
Genie, please erase other users from the planet, please. That will be my third wish!

You are just speculating. You don't know if you will pay more for purchases through Amazon.com and there is no reason for you to pay more if you buy your ebooks using Amazon.com. If you don't want to go through the in app purchase process then you can fire up your Safari browser from iOS and buy the book through Amazon website. When you open the kindle app you will see you new purchase.
post #261 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

The fact they haven't exercised their rights under the agreement is interesting, if the right was there all along (Apple are assuming it must have been because they haven't changed the agreement, but have stated they are enforcing it). At what point can a person who has entered a contract with Apple say: you have never relied on this clause before, and you haven't for some time. Why are you now enforcing the contract after letting innumerate apps on the apps store which are no longer (and arguably, never) were compliant with the developer agreement? At what stage can a developer claim an estoppel on Apple?

They can't. The clause was agreed to so it is enforceable.
post #262 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You do not understand what anti-trust is.

MS wasn't punished for being a monopoly. They were punished for abusing their position and stifling competition in the market.

I do understand what antitrust is. And of course, you can't punish people for being a monopoly, because, for example, they're the best. Think google for search, and you'll see there are monopolies.

However, if Apple takes a cut of anything that goes through an iPhone on the grounds its their platform, they ARE abusing their position, which is anti-trust material.

Then again, maybe you are right, and I am wrong. But you'll CERTAINLY understand that I think either Apple will clarify it's position or the EU/Feds will act.

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 #263 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

And like I said, if Apple decides it doesn't want to confuse the idiot consumer by allowing a price differential between in-app and external purchases, then ALL prices will go up. They have to, as Apple is charging 30% for what is essentially a payment service.

I'm kind of keen on that idea. Are you?

The more likely outcome is that Apple and Amazon (and others) agree to a lower fee that enables pricing to continue as is. Apple wants a cut, not to make enemies.
post #264 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

But they *ARE* paying those costs... they pay for the bandwidth to serve the books to you. Pay attention already, sheesh. Its embarrassing.

If you purchase a book through iTunes Amazon does not directly incur those costs, Apple does.

Quote:
Look, if Apple offered a fair alternative or rate for processing transactions, this wouldn't be that big of an issue. Apple should take no more than the cost of doing the transaction, which I would guess would be no more than 5%. Certainly not 30%.

How do you know what it costs Apple?

Quote:
I know its convenient for you, and that's one of the points that Apple will use to strongarm content creators into doing, but this is bad for developers (once again) and content creators. Many use Amazon or someone else to sell their products because, frankly, they can't afford the 30% markup that Apple enforces.

Apple's been charging the 30% for two and half years now and its been working fine. How will this suddenly become a huge problem?
post #265 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

You are just speculating. You don't know if you will pay more for purchases through Amazon.com and there is no reason for you to pay more if you buy your ebooks using Amazon.com. If you don't want to go through the in app purchase process then you can fire up your Safari browser from iOS and buy the book through Amazon website. When you open the kindle app you will see you new purchase.

Yes, I agree with you, I am speculating. I did explain in an earlier post that, provided as a user, I do not pay more through the webstore than I should, because of the in-app purchases, then I have NO issue with that whole affair.
However, as other posters and I have stated, it would lead to a curious situation where people have the opportunity to pay 30% more to not leave the app and go to the webstore...

Of course, some people are right when they say 30% is a share that might change. Hence, let's say X%.
However, if someone goes through in app because they use the service of "I'm not leaving the app", they WILL pay something close to (X%+(price of feature development)/(number of sales until feature development has been paid for). That money is not magically created through the process.
Either the client for that service pays for it, either other clients pay for it. In both case, someone does pay for it, and it's neither Apple nor the content provider.

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 #266 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

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.

The effort to add the new option is most likely negligible - a call to an API provided in iOS.

I'm guessing that Apple will insist on comparable pricing but I doubt Apple is looking to get 30% for content they do not host. Yes, prices might rise a bit or Amazon might consider it well-worth some modest cost to have access to Apple's iOS customers.
post #267 of 399
Apple's financials are fully disclosed to the public. Everyone can see where the money is going. You can see how much money they are making from iTunes.

Basically nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

However, if Apple takes a cut of anything that goes through an iPhone on the grounds its their platform, they ARE abusing their position, which is anti-trust material.
post #268 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

If you purchase a book through iTunes Amazon does not directly incur those costs, Apple does.

All Apple does is process your credit card, no more than any other POS system... you know what, I'm tired of explaining this to you. Done it to death already.

Quote:
Apple's been charging the 30% for two and half years now and its been working fine. How will this suddenly become a huge problem?

Because Amazon has never sold a book through Apple before. Ever. They've never needed to, and their current reader relies on a business model and agreements with all of the publishers they have signed on. By forcing in-app purchases to be an option, Amazon would have to reach new agreements with all of their publishers just to keep their application on for a single source, and would incur *HEAVY* costs to their revenue if many of the books sold go through Apple and their ridiculous 30%.

Bottom line, when you do the math, the one who incurs the cost of this move is not Apple, since it costs pennies to process a credit card, and isn't Amazon, who isn't going to tear into their already-diminishing profit margin. The one who is going to incur the cost is YOU, the consumer, because you now have to pay more for the same content. That, or have the reader pulled, and along with it, your ability to access the library of books you already purchased and own. No matter how you look at it, the consumer loses due to Apple's greed.
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 #269 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

They can't. The clause was agreed to so it is enforceable.

Do you know what estoppel is? (EDIT: Its applicability varies, but it would be food for thought where i live)
post #270 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

All Apple does is process your credit card, no more than any other POS system... you know what, I'm tired of explaining this to you. Done it to death already.

If that's all Apple does.

Then who built and maintains the App Store.

Who reviews and approves 400,000 apps?

Where are all of these 400,000 apps stored?

Who pays for the bandwidth of streaming over 1 billion apps?

Quote:
Because Amazon has never sold a book through Apple before. Ever.

Exactly what proof do you have that this will be some huge problem fro Amazon?
post #271 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

All Apple does is process your credit card, no more than any other POS system... you know what, I'm tired of explaining this to you. Done it to death already.

Because Amazon has never sold a book through Apple before. Ever. They've never needed to, and their current reader relies on a business model and agreements with all of the publishers they have signed on. By forcing in-app purchases to be an option, Amazon would have to reach new agreements with all of their publishers just to keep their application on for a single source, and would incur *HEAVY* costs to their revenue if many of the books sold go through Apple and their ridiculous 30%.

Bottom line, when you do the math, the one who incurs the cost of this move is not Apple, since it costs pennies to process a credit card, and isn't Amazon, who isn't going to tear into their already-diminishing profit margin. The one who is going to incur the cost is YOU, the consumer, because you now have to pay more for the same content. That, or have the reader pulled, and along with it, your ability to access the library of books you already purchased and own. No matter how you look at it, the consumer loses due to Apple's greed.

Someone here gets it.

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 #272 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Apple's financials are fully disclosed to the public. Everyone can see where the money is going. You can see how much money they are making from iTunes.

Basically nothing.

Which is why I think Apple will clarify the situation.

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 #273 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

They do add these charges.

When you buy a computer you are paying a small percentage for its manufacture, you are paying for licensing fees, you are paying for shipment and transportation, you are paying for storage. The manufacturer and wholesaler pass these costs on.

Please reread what I wrote. I wasn't talking about buying the computer. I was talking about buying other things using the computer. Your reply is a non-sequitur.

BTW, I'm fine with the costs you described. Those costs are also applied the iDevices. The problem is Apple thinking it can tap us for additional money beyond those costs simply because they're the ones who built the thing.
post #274 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

The effort to add the new option is most likely negligible - a call to an API provided in iOS.

I'm guessing that Apple will insist on comparable pricing but I doubt Apple is looking to get 30% for content they do not host. Yes, prices might rise a bit or Amazon might consider it well-worth some modest cost to have access to Apple's iOS customers.

There is a guide on ADC called "adding in app purchasing". Go read it.

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 #275 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

Please reread what I wrote. I wasn't talking about buying the computer. I was talking about buying other things using the computer. Your reply is a non-sequitur.

BTW, I'm fine with the costs you described. Those costs are also applied the iDevices. The problem is Apple thinking it can tap us for additional money beyond those costs simply because they're the ones who built the thing.

Ah, it seems several people get it

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 #276 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

If that's all Apple does.

Then who built and maintains the App Store.

Who reviews and approves 400,000 apps?

Where are all of these 400,000 apps stored?

Who pays for the bandwidth of streaming over 1 billion apps?

How this feeds in to the debate about a 30% cut on in-app purchases is beyond me.
post #277 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

The effort to add the new option is most likely negligible - a call to an API provided in iOS.

I'm guessing that Apple will insist on comparable pricing but I doubt Apple is looking to get 30% for content they do not host. Yes, prices might rise a bit or Amazon might consider it well-worth some modest cost to have access to Apple's iOS customers.

You are missing the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

Yes, prices might rise a bit

That, is the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

Yes, prices might rise a bit

I don't want to pay more so that Amazon may make more money. Besides, guess what? Amazon could use its webstore. Hah.

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 #278 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

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 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.

Yu still have that option. It shouldn't be to hard to ignore the in-app option. I get tons of junk mail and I easily ignore it. Since this will be a standard feature, it's not even as difficult as sorting through junk mail.
post #279 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

How this feeds in to the debate about a 30% cut on in-app purchases is beyond me.

TenoBell has decided to be a troll. And for a troll, any argument feeds in any debate. Is that explanation clear enough?

Just tryin' to help, mate.

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 #280 of 399
These details don't just magically take care of themselves.

These are the details that the 30% is paying for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

How this feeds in to the debate about a 30% cut on in-app purchases is beyond me.
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