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 8

post #281 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

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.

Hey, you missed my point here too.
I can ignore the in-app. I can't however ignore the price increase due to the in-app, unless you have a magic trick to explain to me.

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 #282 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

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.

Forcing the user to choose between two distinct payment 'workflows' violates all principles of the avoiding user confusion mumbo jumbo mantra which is often spouted.
Reply
Reply
post #283 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:28pm
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.

You are completely misstating this. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.

Yes, any app that offers out-of-app purchases will now need to add an in-app option. However, the customer can still chose to use the out-of-app option and Apple will get zip, zero, nada.
Reply
Reply
post #284 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

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

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

No, they aren't. Those details are paid for by the 30% cut Apple takes on the price of apps. If your app is free, then it's paid for by your ADC (cheap) rent.
Let me put it another way. 400 000 apps mean 10 billion app downloads. It means an ecosystem, it means more iPhone sales. Those pay for these costs.

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 #285 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:29pm
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.

You are correct. I chose Apple products instead. You can chose other products if you don't like Apple's alternatives.
Reply
Reply
post #286 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

You are completely misstating this. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.

Yes, any app that offers out-of-app purchases will now need to add an in-app option. However, the customer can still chose to use the out-of-app option and Apple will get zip, zero, nada.

Provided the out-of-app option price point doesn't go up due to the in-app "option", then, you are right.
However, this needs some clarifying by Apple, which should happen soon.

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 #287 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:31pm
Interesting enough you didn't have any answers to my questions.

Calling someone a troll is much easier than having facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #288 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

You are correct. I chose Apple products instead. You can chose other products if you don't like Apple's alternatives.

You are right. I chose Apple products too. Please choose other alternatives, if you're making my Apple products more expensive due to strange buying habits, like being willing to pay for services unneeded.

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 #289 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Interesting enough you didn't have any answers to my questions.

Calling someone a troll is much easier than having facts.

Interestingly enough, I did have answers to your questions. I suggest you read them, unless you're just trolling, in which case please go on.

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 #290 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

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!!

I would not be the least bit surprised at The Daily launch that Apple announces new lower costs for subscription and in-app purchases.
Reply
Reply
post #291 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:34pm
You are making a totally unfounded assumption that the price will go up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Provided the out-of-app option price point doesn't go up due to the in-app "option", then, you are right.
However, this needs some clarifying by Apple, which should happen soon.
Reply
Reply
post #292 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

I would not be the least bit surprised at The Daily launch that Apple announces new lower costs for subscription and in-app purchases.

I would expect Apple to announce NO cost for in-app purchases on content providing, since it's a special case they have certainly seen coming for a long time. It's Apple, not Microsoft...

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 #293 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:35pm
Those weren't answers you just repeated what I said.

How do you figure that $99 would cover all of Apple's costs. I seriously doubt a free app that is downloaded hundreds of thousands of times is covered by $99.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Interestingly enough, I did have answers to your questions. I suggest you read them, unless you're just trolling, in which case please go on.
Reply
Reply
post #294 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You are making a totally unfounded assumption that the price will go up.

I am not. This was part of a logical reasoning with two opposite trails. You selected one of them and blame me for your not taking the other in account., though I did. How is that not a troll?

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 #295 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

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.

As I've said a few times, I suspect we will see lower rates for some of the in-app content purchases.

And you do have an option: if you do not like the rate that Apple charges, then you forego the App Store.
Reply
Reply
post #296 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:39pm
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?

Do you not understand the difference between application purchases and in-app purchases?

Quote:
Exactly what proof do you have that this will be some huge problem fro Amazon?

Okay... I'm going to go real slow here, so even you can follow along. I'm going to use a little math here...

Amazon puts a server on the internet. They fill that server with digital books. Now, after all the negotiations with the content providers, and all the costs of paying for the servers, Amazon has two ways to process credit cards. They can pay a standard, industry rate of under 3% to process that transaction through their own system, *or*, they can pay Apple to do the transaction and pay 30%. Either way, Amazon has to keep track of that purchase, and has to pay for the server and the bandwidth to deliver that purchase to you, so the ONLY difference between the two payment methods is how much they have to pay to process a single transaction.

You following? Amazon has the content, pays for the server, pays for the bandwidth, pays for the internal infrastructure to support their own book service, and has to deal with all the publisher fees and contracts.... and now they're being told they have to spend potentially up to 30% more of their total revenue to accomplish the same goal that they were doing when they only had to pay 3%....

Do you get me now?
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 #297 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Those weren't answers you just repeated what I said.

How do you figure that $99 would cover all of Apple's costs. I seriously doubt a free app that is downloaded hundreds of thousands of times is covered by $99.

It definitely is not. However, its existence participates in making the iphone more desirable than for example Android.

Apple makes hardware,gorgeous hardware, with amazing software. But APPS sell the hardware.
Apple makes 55% of the world profits in smartphones.

THIS pays for these costs. I already said so, but since you did not understand, I'll make it clear: this answers your question.

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 #298 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

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

As has been explained NUMEROUS times just in this thread alone, Amazon is still the host of the content, not Apple. They also have to use their systems to recognize the customer purchase, add it to the purchase history, pay their providers, incur the bandwidth charges to transfer the ebook to the end user and so forth.

Apple DOES NOT host the ebooks! In fact, in another thread, it was pointed out that Apple's contract explicitly states that they are NOT responsible for hosting such content.

Amazon bears the bulk of the costs in this situation, not Apple, but Apple wants the bulk of the profits.
Reply
Reply
post #299 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

As I've said a few times, I suspect we will see lower rates for some of the in-app content purchases.

And you do have an option: if you do not like the rate that Apple charges, then you forego the App Store.

If the AppStore is more expensive, which it should be.

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 #300 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

As I've said a few times, I suspect we will see lower rates for some of the in-app content purchases.

And you do have an option: if you do not like the rate that Apple charges, then you forego the App Store.

Do business or don't do business. That's basically what you're saying. So again, if a service that was intended for iOS-only devices and was playing by the rules with Apple for years was suddenly told they'll either need to start allowing Apple to take 30% of their revenue or have their application, and their business, shut down... you would be okay with that?

Edit: I mean, I realize that is a bit of an extreme example, but that could potentially be the case for someone out there.
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 #301 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

As has been explained NUMEROUS times just in this thread alone, Amazon is still the host of the content, not Apple. They also have to use their systems to recognize the customer purchase, add it to the purchase history, pay their providers, incur the bandwidth charges to transfer the ebook to the end user and so forth.

Apple DOES NOT host the ebooks! In fact, in another thread, it was pointed out that Apple's contract explicitly states that they are NOT responsible for hosting such content.

Amazon bears the bulk of the costs in this situation, not Apple, but Apple wants the bulk of the profits.

If Amazon agrees to that, sell Amazon stock, buy Apple stock ...
Anyway, just do 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 #302 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

Do business or don't do business. That's basically what you're saying. So again, if a service that was intended for iOS-only devices and was playing by the rules with Apple for years was suddenly told they'll either need to start allowing Apple to take 30% of their revenue or have their application, and their business, shut down... you would be okay with that?

I agree.
Put another way:
Suppose you're a shareholder of that business. Apple just stated they want 30% of your shares' return. Funny joke.

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 #303 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

I would not be the least bit surprised at The Daily launch that Apple announces new lower costs for subscription and in-app purchases.

They would almost have to. That's the only way I can see this move by Apple working in any way, shape, or form.
Reply
Reply
post #304 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

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.

They are simply taking their markup as all retailers do. If you don;t like their markup, try to find the product at a different store. Don't like Macy's markup, check out their competition.
Reply
Reply
post #305 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

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?

I do think Apple may need to reconsider their cut for in-app content purchases.
Reply
Reply
post #306 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

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...

My point wasn't that it makes anything legal. My point was that there are platforms out there that are more restrictive than iOS like playstation and xbox. Add to that the fact that Sony has managed to get someones property removed and their rights restricted. I certainly hope geohot wins but even if he does sony will still have a more closed platform than iOS.
Reply
Reply
post #307 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

They are simply taking their markup as all retailers do. If you don;t like their markup, try to find the product at a different store. Don't like Macy's markup, check out their competition.

You seem to not understand antitrust. The point is, if you go at Macy's, the highway doesn't charge you for the product.

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 #308 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

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.

Based on the highlighted issue, I would say that Apple will be the initial loser since Amazon content will not be available until Amazon reaches new agreements with publishers.
Reply
Reply
post #309 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

My point wasn't that it makes anything legal. My point was that there are platforms out there that are more restrictive than iOS like playstation and xbox. Add to that the fact that Sony has managed to get someones property removed and their rights restricted. I certainly hope geohot wins but even if he does sony will still have a more closed platform than iOS.

Actually, it's why there aren't 400 000 apps for the Playstation.

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 #310 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

Based on the highlighted issue, I would say that Apple will be the initial loser since Amazon content will not be available until Amazon reaches new agreements with publishers.

You are making the assumption that Apple hasn't a plan it will announce. I hope you are wrong, and Apple will again amaze us with its keen vision...

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 #311 of 399
2/1/11 at 4:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Do you know what estoppel is? (EDIT: Its applicability varies, but it would be food for thought where i live)

I do know what estoppel is and I doubt it would apply. There is a signed contract and Apple has not made any actions or statements to void any part of that contract.

Look at it this way. You live in a community whose HOA requires that you pick up after your pet or else receive a fine. You cannot argue that they have not been enforcing the rule o they cannot fine you now.
Reply
Reply
post #312 of 399
2/1/11 at 5:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

Based on the highlighted issue, I would say that Apple will be the initial loser since Amazon content will not be available until Amazon reaches new agreements with publishers.

Wrong. Apple will continue to sell phones and iPads just fine without Kindle. Its the consumer that will lose in the short term... potentially long term as well.
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 #313 of 399
2/1/11 at 5:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

I do know what estoppel is and I doubt it would apply. There is a signed contract and Apple has not made any actions or statements to void any part of that contract.

Look at it this way. You live in a community whose HOA requires that you pick up after your pet or else receive a fine. You cannot argue that they have not been enforcing the rule o they cannot fine you now.

I don't know about you, but here, there is a legal period after which you can. Rather long though, 30 years. But still, it exists.

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 #314 of 399
2/1/11 at 5:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

I do know what estoppel is and I doubt it would apply. There is a signed contract and Apple has not made any actions or statements to void any part of that contract.

That's one view. An alternative is that they have chosen not to assert certain rights in the contractual relationship. The other side has acted in reliance of the right not being asserted. At some point a court is going to say either:

1. you obviously didn't think the clause was important enough to enforce. You can't now seek to enforce the term
2. the clause is clearly not essential to the continued existence of the contract, we will strike the clause from the contract.

This is of course a theoretical view, and I originally posited it as such.

Quote:
Look at it this way. You live in a community whose HOA requires that you pick up after your pet or else receive a fine. You cannot argue that they have not been enforcing the rule o they cannot fine you now.

HOA = Home Owner's association?
Reply
Reply
post #315 of 399
2/1/11 at 5:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

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

Seems pretty straight-forward to me. The actual work involved is:
Quote:
8. Enter the Bundle Identifier portion of your App ID in the Properties Pane of your Target in Xcode.

9. Use the new iOS Development Provisioning Profile associated with your App ID.

The rest seems to be about doing the paperwork and testing.
Reply
Reply
post #316 of 399
2/1/11 at 5:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

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

Exactly! And you can visit that web store. Amazon does not have to participate in the App Store at all.
Reply
Reply
post #317 of 399
2/1/11 at 5:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

Exactly! And you can visit that web store. Amazon does not have to participate in the App Store at all.

Wrong. You seem to have forgotten the news. Amaon DOES have to "participate". See the other posts for WHY it MIGHT make the webstore more expensive than it would be WITHOUT that necessity. And you can answer again, but I'll be working now... some of us have money to make, you see.

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 #318 of 399
2/1/11 at 5:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

Seems pretty straight-forward to me. The actual work involved is:


The rest seems to be about doing the paperwork and testing.

Yes. That's the part that's expensive when we're talking about content, extra work for every content bit.


Was fun arguing with you, see you on another thread.

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 #319 of 399
2/1/11 at 5:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Actually, it's why there aren't 400 000 apps for the Playstation.

You've missed my point twice in a row now. This time it seems intentional.
Reply
Reply
post #320 of 399
2/1/11 at 5:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Hey, you missed my point here too.
I can ignore the in-app. I can't however ignore the price increase due to the in-app, unless you have a magic trick to explain to me.

I have no magic tricks. I also have no concrete information about what Apple intends to charge for in-app content purchases. And I further have no data showing that Amazon would feel any compelling need to participate in the App Store with anything other than a reader which does not do any purchasing. There are a lot of unknowns and I think people are getting unnecessarily worked up because the only number we have ever heard is 30%. Personally, I think that number will change.

We'll have to wait and see how much this all will affect the prices but I doubt a $10 book is suddenly going to be $13. Apple wants to make money and adding that much is counter-productive for them.
Reply
Reply
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