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 9

post #321 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

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.

You mean like when the cashier asks you "cash or credit"? Based on what others are saying, this only impacts the payment process since Amazon, for instance, does the fulfillment.
post #322 of 399
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.

We agree 100% here.

I suspect we may find out more at The Daily event.
post #323 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

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.

I have no "strange buying habits". I simply decide based on my perception of value offered for a price. If I don;t like the value proposition, I look elsewhere.
post #324 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by lggeek View Post

Apple is becoming abusive with their position , just because you buy a record player from someone doesn't mean they can say you can't play any records not bought from us. It's time for the federal government to look into Apple's practice with the app store and their effort to squash any alternative stores ( Cydia).

Did you bother to read the article? All I read was that an app could not require the user to purchase from an external vendor. If an outside source (like the Kindle store at Amazon) was made available, then the app would have to offer the same items from within the app. This would obviously allow Apple to make more money but it also makes such purchases less tedious for people who value simplicity (I don't, but I can understand why one might).

No one is required to participate unless they want to be in an app store that Apple runs. For instance, you could make an HTML5 web app that runs on iOS devices or apps that run native on webOS or Android. As a consumer even iOS apps with in-app purchase option would be fine with me if external options are also available (like the Kindle store). I like having both options.
post #325 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

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...

It's actually Amazon and others who will set the price.

What I suspect will happen is that Apple will collect a small percentage for providing the payment processing. Amazon could likely leave prices as is and simply pay that processing fee to Apple since they would not be charged for that payment on their end. It might cost Amazon an addition 1% (I'll assume Amazon pays about 2% for their payment processing and Apple will charge 3%).
post #326 of 399
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?

Edit: I mean, I realize that is a bit of an extreme example, but that could potentially be the case for someone out there.

I would not be okay with that. But I would not allow it to shutdown my business (btw, I have run my own businesses for over 20 years).

But I don't think it comes to this. Apple is not going to ask for 30%. They want Amazon and B&N and Sony in their App Store. The problem is that people are assuming that Apple is absolutely intractable with regards to the cut they will take. I believe they will make a smart business choice which will look mostly look like business as usual except the customer will have a choice of "debit" (Amazon) or "credit" (iTunes).
post #327 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

They would almost have to. That's the only way I can see this move by Apple working in any way, shape, or form.

And Apple isn't stupid. They want this content available through their App Store.
post #328 of 399
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.

It's somewhat humorous that Sony is both victim and villain in this thread.
post #329 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

You mean like when the cashier asks you "cash or credit"? Based on what others are saying, this only impacts the payment process since Amazon, for instance, does the fulfillment.

More like, "how would you like me to charge your credit card"?
post #330 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

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

I do understand anti-trust. The first thing to realize is that Apple is not the dominant player in e-books. The second thing is that Apple is not eliminating other avenues for purchase of the product.

I think the one thing you overlook is that the Kindle app is a merchandising platform and Apple would like to get a cut if you buy through iTunes (hell, let's be honest and admit Apple would really like a cut for all sales through the Kindle app). I don't think this is going to be much of an issue because i think Apple's cut is going to be reasonable.

What most amuses me is that Apple, once again, gets all kinds of free press and will again when they announce lower fees.
post #331 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

It's somewhat humorous that Sony is both victim and villain in this thread.

They brought it on themselves xD. My initial reaction to the news this morning was Sony was trying to stir up some FUD against Apple to make themselves look like the victim in the face of all the negative press they're receiving surrounding the PS3 jailbreak. If it weren't for the WSJ blog post, I'd still believe that right 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 #332 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

HOA = Home Owner's association?

Yes, it is.
post #333 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

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.

Amazon has the option to simply not play in Apple's garden.

I made my money this morning so I get to play now.
post #334 of 399
I don't understand where all the hostility is coming from. It's very simple. If you have an app that accepts purchases from outside the App store (like Kindle, books from Amazon's website) there also must be a way to purchase them from inside the app. Yes, currently Apple takes 30%. The prices may be higher then buying them directly. It has a couple great advantages though. I don't have to give my credit card info to anyone else, make another account or deal with another website. I don't have to figure out how to get the purchase onto the iOS device. (Granted in some cases like Kindle it's pretty easy) You still have the choice to buy it directly and maybe pay less.

If my Aunt or Uncle downloaded the Kindle app, believe me, you do not want to have to explain that you have to go to Amazon to buy a book. I know it's crazy simple for the readers here, but they just don't get it. Requiring that in app purchases are available means the whole ecosystem is enclosed if the user chooses it to be. This is a good thing to have, but it's also good that it isn't the only system available.

For some online services that have paid accounts I'd love to be able to pay through the App store even if it is 30% more. Simplify my billing and avoid having to pass my credit card info to too many places.
post #335 of 399
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?

Edit: I mean, I realize that is a bit of an extreme example, but that could potentially be the case for someone out there.

That would be horrible if that's what Apple was saying but they aren't. What they are saying is that they want customers to be able to get your content and use your app without creating additional accounts or having to supply their credit card information. (It also means that people without credit cards that use gift cards can buy content) To support that they have to have an in app purchase system.

Apple isn't requiring that it be the only way to purchase content or that the prices are the same. It may not be fair for Apple to take 30% in all cases, but as a consumer I want the option to pay for any services or content from an app through the store, regardless of it is costs more or not. I don't EVER want to be required to hand over my credit card information for content/service destined to an iOS app.
post #336 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

Naive nonsense.

Apple are not and never have been about Market share, they have been about profit which allows for a massive r and d budget which keeps them, constantly, ahead of the competition - the same competition who have been playing catch up since the original iMac. Where are all this iPod killers of ten years ago? The same place the iPad killers will be in the next four years. Samsung galaxy tab anyone?!

Would you rather own shares in apple or google?

A boutique company who are the second most cash rich in the world! What rock are you living under?

Anyone can give away their product to achieve Market share. Not a great business model though, is it?!

Great Post!!! Whenever I buy ANY product, I don't chose the BEST one, I ALWAYS buy whatever product will allow the manufacture to make the most profit so that their stock price goes up!

No, you're not brainwashed, not much!
iMac 24" (Late 07), iMac 17" G5, Mac mini (Early 09), MacBook (Mid 07), iPad WiFi 32, iPhone 4, iBook G4 1.2, HP Compaq 610 Laptop, eMachine W5233, (1) Xserve G5 and (1) Xserve G5 Cluster node with...
Reply
iMac 24" (Late 07), iMac 17" G5, Mac mini (Early 09), MacBook (Mid 07), iPad WiFi 32, iPhone 4, iBook G4 1.2, HP Compaq 610 Laptop, eMachine W5233, (1) Xserve G5 and (1) Xserve G5 Cluster node with...
Reply
post #337 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by n42 View Post

exactly -- free apps help Apple by keeping people involved with their products. free apps with ads pay for the service Apple provides by giving them a cut of ad revenue. free apps that make money and do nothing to support Apple?

why is Apple supposed to supply a user base, platform, servers to host the app, bandwidth for the thousands of people downloading the Kindle app -- and let Amazon/Sony/etc profit directly?

I do feel very conflicted about this.

I'll tell you why - the iBookstore is 2nd rate. They have a fraction of the titles Amazon and B&N do, and without them the iPad is semi-useless as an ebook reader.

The Kindle and Nook apps greatly enhance the value of the iPad itself as an ereader - THAT is what Apple gets out of it. Apple is basically a hardware company - they make their money selling iPads, not ebooks. And they sell more iPads because Amazon offers a huge catalog of ebooks for the iPad without Apple having to lift a finger. Apple is a day late and a dollar short with their deficient ebook selection, and they should be GRATEFUL to Amazon for providing it for them. And you folks DO realize if Apple wants their 30%, it will just be tacked on to what YOU have to pay. Amazon's margins are too thin for them to be able to cut Apple in for 30% of what they currently charge.

But of course it still remains to be seen what will actually happen. At this point I have a hard time imagining Apple pulling this nonsense - are they really going to somehow recall the millions of copies of the Kindle app? Unlikely. I would keep a close eye on any future Kindle "updates" to be safe.
post #338 of 399
Half the people on this forum can't freaking read.

It won't make Kindle Books 30% more expensive, because you'll still be able to buy them on the Amazon website. There must have been at least 10 people who claimed that.

Ironic really; all these people complaining about books, who can't read.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #339 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

Half the people on this forum can't freaking read.

It won't make Kindle Books 30% more expensive, because you'll still be able to buy them on the Amazon website. There must have been at least 10 people who claimed that.

Ironic really; all these people complaining about books, who can't read.

I'm not sure you understood what was written.

Ebooks purchased via Apple would have an additional 30% cost imposed by Apple. Because of that cost difference, ebook sellers (such as Amazon) must EITHER:

A) Charge an additional 30% for ebooks purchased "In App" over the price of books purchased directly from the seller

OR

B) Raise the price of all ebooks to cover the additional cost of "In App" purchases

OR

C) Some combination of A and B.

I can't see Apple being at all happy about "In App" prices being 30% higher than direct purchases, so it's quite possible that may insist on "In App" purchase prices being the same as direct prices. If that happens, we'll either see option B put into playpunishing everyone who buys an ebook with higher prices, even if they never use an iDeviceor reader apps pulled from iOS.

Either way, higher costs for eBook sellers will be the inevitable result of "In App" purchases, and those costs will have to be covered by higher prices somewhere in the system. Even if Apple doesn't insist on equal pricing, it seems likely that option C will come into play, if for no other reason than preemptively trying to prevent Apple from getting ticked off at the lack of sales due to such a high price difference.
post #340 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmac47 View Post

If Apple keeps this sort of behavior up, they are going to have an exciting anti-trust suit on their hands. Major corporations with competing products -- Sony, Amazon -- are not going to simply standby and allow their business models undermined by Apple, especially if that means Apple is going to take a cut of every purchase.

Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong..

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #341 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

I'm not sure you understood what was written.

Ebooks purchased via Apple would have an additional 30% cost imposed by Apple. Because of that cost difference, ebook sellers (such as Amazon) must EITHER:

A) Charge an additional 30% for ebooks purchased "In App" over the price of books purchased directly from the seller

OR

B) Raise the price of all ebooks to cover the additional cost of "In App" purchases

OR

C) Some combination of A and B.

I can't see Apple being at all happy about "In App" prices being 30% higher than direct purchases, so it's quite possible that may insist on "In App" purchase prices being the same as direct prices. If that happens, we'll either see option B put into playpunishing everyone who buys an ebook with higher prices, even if they never use an iDeviceor reader apps pulled from iOS.

Either way, higher costs for eBook sellers will be the inevitable result of "In App" purchases, and those costs will have to be covered by higher prices somewhere in the system. Even if Apple doesn't insist on equal pricing, it seems likely that option C will come into play, if for no other reason than preemptively trying to prevent Apple from getting ticked off at the lack of sales due to such a high price difference.

You are going a little far that the company MUST do one of those three things. They could negotiate with suppliers, authors or just eat the costs. As far as 30% goes, you'd actually have to increase the cost by about 43% to get the original cost after Apple takes 30%. If the original cost is $10 ($10 = x * 70%), x ends up being $14.29.

I don't think the companies would raise all prices. They'd just charge more in the app store. If people had no choice but to buy it from the App store they could do it at least. I have a feeling that it would help negotiate better terms with Apple. We'll see what Apple ends up doing.
post #342 of 399
Seems like this wording has a bazillion loopholes. For in-app purchases, couldn't a developer just put it someone very obscure in the app and have prices be really high. Even telling the user. Buy "in-app" for $100 or buy "from Amazon" for $5 This would make Apple look very bad. It seems like they will have to clarify further what this really means. As stated, the rules don't seem that scary for content providers. It says specifically that you must have the same "product" it says nothing of prices. In addition, it says nothing about 'in-app' purchasing must be easier in your app. Perhaps you could even just have a setting that changed all links to in-app purchases?
post #343 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatunike View Post

Seems like this wording has a bazillion loopholes. For in-app purchases, couldn't a developer just put it someone very obscure in the app and have prices be really high. Even telling the user. Buy "in-app" for $100 or buy "from Amazon" for $5 This would make Apple look very bad. It seems like they will have to clarify further what this really means. As stated, the rules don't seem that scary for content providers. It says specifically that you must have the same "product" it says nothing of prices. In addition, it says nothing about 'in-app' purchasing must be easier in your app. Perhaps you could even just have a setting that changed all links to in-app purchases?

I think you can assume that Apple will require comparable pricing in the App Store.

However, I just can't see Apple doing anything that costs them content partners. In the absence of an effective iBookstore, Apple needs to have this content from other sources and it seems highly unlikely they will make any decision that damages those relationships.
post #344 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

It's nauseating stuff and I really hope some sort of regulatory body steps in and gives Apple a thoroughly good slapping for it. Microsoft wouldn't be able to behave like this anymore so Apple shouldn't be allowed to either. Play fair Apple, once an iPad is sold it belongs to the user, not to you. So keep your filthy hands off it.

This kind of thing was not what MS was penalised for, so there is no comparison. Even though MS and Apple both make an OS / patform, the closer comparison would be between MS and Amazon in this case...

What MS was not allowed to get away with would be as though Amazon said, "hey Apple, you know how the Kindle App helps you sell iPads? Well, you can't have it in your store unless you refuse the Sony or Barnes and Noble book apps. And you better not let me see you bundling iBooks on your home screen, either." Of course, an OS is just a little more critical than that.

Apple in no way dictates what Amazon or Sony or anyone else does on other devices or platforms. Amazon is perfectly free to make an Android app or its own web app and sell through any of the *fantastic and popular* Android stores, and through its own website, while continuing to sell books in the Apple Store.

I am sure MS would rightly protest if a licensee or certified technician were to try to bypass it's services and system and yet profit from his MS accreditation. If I had a PC, and I whined like others around here that it was my machine that I bought with my own money, therefore I can do what I like with it... Should I expect to be able to take up these software deals I hear about through spam, which I imagine involve pirated software? Should I be able to go to a licensed MS service dealer who can install Office on the side for 100 bucks and who keeps all the profit because he has access to MS serial numbers which he uses over and over again? Or is MS going to expect that the service rep is going to charge me full rate for Office and pass the appropriate amount on to MS? (in case you think I am equating MS own product with a third party book that is not Apple's, I'm not; I'm comparing the auspices under which the vendor is operating when running a particular app or service. The IT vendor may well provide cheap services on the side, and he may well supply Open Office or equivalent; but as long as he is operating as a MS-certified IT tech or reseller and that's why people come to him, then he should do right by MS according to his agreement as much as that might suck. The tech invests in MS training and certificates in order to build his business; Amazon invests in iOS SDK and App Store agreements in order to build theirs, rather than focusing on the pain of developing for a fragmented platform like Android, which has no viable store.)

Hey, why should I go through the channels that MS has set up when it is going to make the same product or repair service 10 times more expensive for me? Who the heck does MS think it is. Bad, bad MS. Every MS certified tech should slip me something under the table, it's my right to bypass the system. Hey, while I am at it, why don't I sue MS when the pirated software (viz a vis jail broken iPhones) causes BSOD and my PC crashes irreparably? (oh, yeah, probably because that is par for the course with PCs and MS would rightly have been out of business long ago IF THEY DID NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON DESKTOP PCs ACROSS ALL PC HARDWARE OEMs IN THE WHOLE WORLD! You do realize that PCs, which require an OS, are made by, get this, OTHER COMPANIES, don't you? They are not MS' OWN product! The fact that an OS is required and that MS had the monopoly, meant that MS could LEVERAGE this monopoly into other monopolies over office applications and browsers, etc. as well. They did not have to compete on merit. Whoa, who could imagine? I'd love to see how many negative comments that would have gotten if blog sites were around then).

Thank God for Apple, the one rebel in the bunch; personal computing might have always remained in the dark ages.
post #345 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

I agree completely. Android is going to lay waste to iOS by year end.
Apple is making the exact same mistake it did with Microsoft and desktop computing. Exact.

Apple is determined to be a boutique technology company under Steve Jobs.

You are so right on...NOT completely though.

Android will dominate without a doubt.

However... NOBODY will be making any money on it except the carriers (PERIOD).

ALL books, movies, music, content, apps will be FREE for the user. They are now, and it won't change. What will change, but will be cracked as soon as it does, is that DRM will raise it's ugly head again.

Oh... and tell me again how Apple made a mistake with their "new" strategy after ~2001...?!

Apple will rightly so still be as you call it, "a Boutique". A very fine, desirable, and PROFITABLE one I might add. More than likely, the only PROFITABLE one of it's kind on the planet, as it is today.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #346 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post

This kind of thing was not what MS was penalised for, so there is no comparison. Even though MS and Apple both make an OS / patform, the closer comparison would be between MS and Amazon in this case...

What MS was not allowed to get away with would be as though Amazon said, "hey Apple, you know how the Kindle App helps you sell iPads? Well, you can't have it in your store unless you refuse the Sony or Barnes and Noble book apps. And you better not let me see you bundling iBooks on your home screen, either." Of course, an OS is just a little more critical than that.

Apple in no way dictates what Amazon or Sony or anyone else does on other devices or platforms. Amazon is perfectly free to make an Android app or its own web app and sell through any of the *fantastic and popular* Android stores, and through its own website, while continuing to sell books in the Apple Store.

I am sure MS would rightly protest if a licensee or certified technician were to try to bypass it's services and system and yet profit from his MS accreditation. If I had a PC, and I whined like others around here that it was my machine that I bought with my own money, therefore I can do what I like with it... Should I expect to be able to take up these software deals I hear about through spam, which I imagine involve pirated software? Should I be able to go to a licensed MS service dealer who can install Office on the side for 100 bucks and who keeps all the profit because he has access to MS serial numbers which he uses over and over again? Or is MS going to expect that the service rep is going to charge me full rate for Office and pass the appropriate amount on to MS? (in case you think I am equating MS own product with a third party book that is not Apple's, I'm not; I'm comparing the auspices under which the vendor is operating when running a particular app or service. The IT vendor may well provide cheap services on the side, and he may well supply Open Office or equivalent; but as long as he is operating as a MS-certified IT tech or reseller and that's why people come to him, then he should do right by MS according to his agreement as much as that might suck. The tech invests in MS training and certificates in order to build his business; Amazon invests in iOS SDK and App Store agreements in order to build theirs, rather than focusing on the pain of developing for a fragmented platform like Android, which has no viable store.)

Hey, why should I go through the channels that MS has set up when it is going to make the same product or repair service 10 times more expensive for me? Who the heck does MS think it is. Bad, bad MS. Every MS certified tech should slip me something under the table, it's my right to bypass the system. Hey, while I am at it, why don't I sue MS when the pirated software (viz a vis jail broken iPhones) causes BSOD and my PC crashes irreparably? (oh, yeah, probably because that is par for the course with PCs and MS would rightly have been out of business long ago IF THEY DID NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON DESKTOP PCs ACROSS ALL PC HARDWARE OEMs IN THE WHOLE WORLD! You do realize that PCs, which require an OS, are made by, get this, OTHER COMPANIES, don't you? They are not MS' OWN product!
Thank God for Apple, the one rebel in the bunch; personal computing might have always remained in the dark ages.

Fanatics still justifying the loss of content on their owned devices, I see.

Seriously the loss of the Sony E-Reader harms you. And eventually it will harm Apple. The loss of Kindle will see a massive exodus. If it happens.

And what do Apple have to do to piss off some people? What if they put in a laser gun and shot every 5th user?

Quote:
The fact that an OS is required and that MS had the monopoly, meant that MS could LEVERAGE this monopoly into other monopolies over office applications and browsers, etc. as well. They did not have to compete on merit. Whoa, who could imagine? I'd love to see how many negative comments that would have gotten if blog sites were around then).

Apple is a monopoly supplier of iOS and Tablets. In both cases it produces Applications which compete with developers - iBooks vs Sony e-reader.

This is an uncompetitive act.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #347 of 399
PLus arguing incoherently IN CAPITALS, and deflecting the issue at hand with nonsensical and irrelevant attacks on MS as a monopoly is not addressing the case here.

Making us all look bad. You are.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #348 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong..

Its always useful to explain why people are wrong. Saying they are wrong without explanation is not a valid argument.

( he is, of course, right).
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #349 of 399
This seems quite outrageous. Selling content through a separate website that then gets downloaded into the app has absolutely nothing to do with Apple. Even if the app is free, developers still pay a yearly fee to have their app in the app store and it helps Apple sell more iOS devices.

To then require apps to offer in-app purchases through Apples systems and let Apple take a 30% cut (before tax!) is a joke. What have Apple actually done to deserve that money? Plus it doesn't even take into account what the profit margin actually is on the product. If it's lower than 30% then the store would be making a loss, or lets say Sony have a 40% profit margin on there books. Why should Apple get 3 times the amount in profit over Sony on something that doesn't even need to touch Apples servers.
post #350 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

What have Apple actually done to deserve that money?

They have enabled the customer to get to the content.

For instance, imagine that half of all Amazon's kindle books were actually purchased on iOS devices.

That's worth something to Amazon.

I agree it's not worth 30%. But that number is not carved into a tablet of stone.

C.
post #351 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

They have enabled the customer to get to the content.

For instance, imagine that half of all Amazon's kindle books were actually purchased on iOS devices.

That's worth something to Amazon.

apple we have not changed our gidelines
I agree it's not worth 30%. But that number is not carved into a tablet of stone.

C.

It's Apple they do whatever they like.
post #352 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by iOSreaper View Post

It's Apple they do whatever they like.

Absolutely. Sony charge nearer 70% to put content on PSN.

But if Apple charge Amazon 30% - then Apple would be making a lot more from the transaction than Amazon themselves.

So for Amazon, that would be unaffordable. They'd have no alternative but to withdraw from the iOS platform.

I don't think anyone would benefit from that happening. Apple, Amazon and consumers would all lose out.

The more likely outcome is that Apple is in the process of rolling out a more sophisticated revenue sharing model for large content providers.

C.
post #353 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

Bad Apple rears it's very ugly head again. So if I understand this correctly, the Kindle app will be required to give the user two options - buy from the Amazon web page at Amazon prices, or buy from an in-app store with 30% higher prices just so Apple can steal some money from something which doesn't concern them in the slightest.

It's nauseating stuff and I really hope some sort of regulatory body steps in and gives Apple a thoroughly good slapping for it. Microsoft wouldn't be able to behave like this anymore so Apple shouldn't be allowed to either. Play fair Apple, once an iPad is sold it belongs to the user, not to you. So keep your filthy hands off it.

1. The could easily be the same, in-app or not - Apple would simply get 30% of the in-app price...there is no guarantee Amazon would raise in-app prices. BUT if they did...

2. DON'T BUY THE DAMNED BOOK IN-APP!!! How hard is this concept to grasp???

Really...WHO would pay a higher price in-app just for the convenience of not leaving the iOS/app??? Very few, and they would be idiots.

WHY is this an issue considering the customers have a CHOICE of which option to use when purchasing???
post #354 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

1. The could easily be the same, in-app or not - Apple would simply get 30% of the in-app price...there is no guarantee Amazon would raise in-app prices. BUT if they did...

2. DON'T BUY THE DAMNED BOOK IN-APP!!! How hard is this concept to grasp???

Really...WHO would pay a higher price in-app just for the convenience of not leaving the iOS/app??? Very few, and they would be idiots.

WHY is this an issue considering the customers have a CHOICE of which option to use when purchasing???

If the prices are the same, which may be enforced by Apple, then the cost is to the vendor. If the cost is different it seems like a useless rule.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #355 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

I'm not sure you understood what was written.

Ebooks purchased via Apple would have an additional 30% cost imposed by Apple. Because of that cost difference, ebook sellers (such as Amazon) must EITHER:

A) Charge an additional 30% for ebooks purchased "In App" over the price of books purchased directly from the seller

OR

B) Raise the price of all ebooks to cover the additional cost of "In App" purchases

OR

C) Some combination of A and B.

I can't see Apple being at all happy about "In App" prices being 30% higher than direct purchases, so it's quite possible that may insist on "In App" purchase prices being the same as direct prices. If that happens, we'll either see option B put into playpunishing everyone who buys an ebook with higher prices, even if they never use an iDeviceor reader apps pulled from iOS.

Either way, higher costs for eBook sellers will be the inevitable result of "In App" purchases, and those costs will have to be covered by higher prices somewhere in the system. Even if Apple doesn't insist on equal pricing, it seems likely that option C will come into play, if for no other reason than preemptively trying to prevent Apple from getting ticked off at the lack of sales due to such a high price difference.

If this does raise prices all around then people can just go back to printed books. Also (again) just don't make in-app purchases and then Apple won't make a penny. Simple solution.
post #356 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

You just don't get it it. Why should Apple allow someone to advertise on iTunes to sell a product somewhere else exclusively -

The answer is simple - because their rules do not allow you to buy apps anywhere except iTunes.

Furthermore, they are not advertising in iTunes - not the products they are selling - only the app itself.

The problem is, this whole thing is a quagmire. No rule can fairly cover all situations. It makes a lot of sense to me, that bookstores provide and access app to their products, even periodicals that give access to members for offline purchases of memberships. They are merely providing access to an existing service. To my mind, it is not reasonable that Apple take a cut (certainly not 30%). These services are, after all, providing value to Apple by increasing the reading opportunities for iPad owners.

But what would happen if this were to take place in say a game. The developer could place the game for free, paying nothing to Apple, and then have all upgrade purchases done outside the appstore effectively having Apple distribute for them free. THAT would be taking advantage of Apple.

I would suggest the following resolution. Sony and Kindle, etc, sell their apps for $35, which come with $35 credit at the bookstore, and Apple releases them from in-app purchase rule. That way Apple gets something for distributing the app. Alternatively, they could come up with a policy of "recurring purchases" where an app that is for the purpose of accessing repeating purchases would have a different set of rules/tariffs. This would differentiate them from vendors where the in-app purchases are extensions of the product itself (i.e. a game, etc.)
post #357 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmmx View Post

To my mind, it is not reasonable that Apple take a cut (certainly not 30%).

If a substantial fraction of all Kindle sales were on the iPad... Would you still argue that Apple didn't deserve even a tiny cut?

C.
post #358 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

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.

Simple, because the profits generated through agency model sales, such as those at Amazon, are insufficient (vastly insufficient) to cover the cost of another agency model layer on top (e.g. Amazon paying a 30% cut to Apple). Something will have to give if this is going to work, and the most appropriate course would be Apple, who announced that this cost was to cover expenses, recognizing that their role and expense in in-app purchases is not as appreciable, charging a smaller fee (perhaps more along the lines of a credit card transaction fee). This is a tough pill to swallow, though, as a look at the top grossing charts demonstrates that a fair amount of their income for the App Store will be coming from in-app sales (although in these cases it is through the sale of virtual 'Smurfberries', or whatever it is companies have found a way to peddle to their customers).

John Gruber came out this morning with some pretty good coverage of this.

If it really is this cut and dry (excepting the possibility that Apple has something viable in the works, such as might be announced or devised as soon as today) it could be construed as Apple attempting to force these competing services out or take such a share of their profits as to render their existence on iOS as little more than a value-added feature for them and a profit-maker for Apple instead. It is hard to see it from any angle as something positive for iOS users.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

If this does raise prices all around then people can just go back to printed books. Also (again) just don't make in-app purchases and then Apple won't make a penny. Simple solution.

'Just go back to printed books' is not a commendable solution to this problem. It would be a shame to see the digital transition held up by greed or artificial roadblocks. And any effort to 'not make in-app purchases' will be fairly meaningless as the majority of users wouldn't be aware of such an interest on the internet, or wouldn't care enough to bother with it. They'll make whatever choice feels most convenient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

If a substantial fraction of all Kindle sales were on the iPad... Would you still argue that Apple didn't deserve even a tiny cut?

A cut may be appropriate, but probably more along the lines of what you usually see in referral bonuses. A 30% share in this industry is the sort of cut that a company in the place of Amazon or Apple—the one distributing the publishers' content—would take. There isn't enough profit for it to be applied a second time.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #359 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

It is hard to see it from any angle as something positive for iOS users.

I think this is actually Apple's motivation.

If this works, iOS users will get a single billing model for all content. With a single account and a consistent robust interface.

It takes away the crappy and unpredictable aspects of paying for stuff online and would improve the user experience for typical consumers.

Of course if it drives content vendors away from the platform, that would be a disaster. But I don't think Apple are really that dumb.

C.
post #360 of 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Absolutely. Sony charge nearer 70% to put content on PSN.

But if Apple charge Amazon 30% - then Apple would be making a lot more from the transaction than Amazon themselves.

So for Amazon, that would be unaffordable. They'd have no alternative but to withdraw from the iOS platform.

I don't think anyone would benefit from that happening. Apple, Amazon and consumers would all lose out.

The more likely outcome is that Apple is in the process of rolling out a more sophisticated revenue sharing model for large content providers.

C.

The interesting thing that folks forget is that Amazon has rather predatory rules covering ebook sales as well based on their market position. Hence Macmillan's rebellion and the 3 days where Amazon pulled all of Macmillan's titles...physical and ebook.

Funny that was about a year ago and the other shoe drops.

Zhu is right, two agency models don't play well together but allowing Amazon, Sony and B&N stores compete directly against iBooks on Apple's own hardware without compensation isn't too great for the ecosystem either.

The question, I guess, would be whether Amazon and B&N would allow the iBook store on their devices...assuming Steve would allow that in the first place. Amusingly, once rooted you can run the Kindle app on the Nook. That probably annoys the hell out of B&N.

What would be of value to all consumers is if ebook DRM was harmonized as opposed to completely balkanized.
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