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 2

post #41 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:17am
Kindle does not allow the sale of iBooks on the Kindle, nor does it allow you to read iBooks on Kindle.

Apple is simply returning the favor. Unfortunately for those of us who installed the Kindle app and bought books to read on the iPad, it looks like we may be hosed in the near future.

I don't think it's particularly unfair, it just sucks.

I am curious to see whether they apply the restrictions to the different e-commerce apps such as eBay or other retailers that sell physical goods through purchases made in app. I actually believe that Apple will simply turn a blind eye to Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu Plus and allow them to exist outside of the rules.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #42 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

Leave it up to Dilger to spin this in an innocent way. Requiring in-store iOS purchases as an option in, say, the Kindle app, would wreck Amazon's profit margin on books and would either require that they charge higher prices for in-app purchases (hard to see that innocently) or that they pull out from iOS.

Amazon is extorting rather high margins from the writers whose work it sells. So from your perspective, Amazon should get all this profit just because it is applying a brand name and DRM? Why shouldn't Apple take a cut for doing all the retailing heavy lifting for in-app purchases made through iTunes?

It's ridiculous to suggest that Amazon has some right to profit from all the stuff being sold through iTunes. If Amazon created a store within a store inside Border's books, should Borders hand all the profits to Amazon? Does Apple earn all the profits from Macs sold through Best Buy?

Your position is absolutely ridiculous.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:19am
Nice analysis of Apple's decision here at a strategic / platform level:

Apple wants its App Store cut e-book platforms take note
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by akf2000 View Post

This is bullshit. If it makes Kindle books 30% more expensive I'm going to go totally Cambodia.

That Cambodia is nice this time of year. And that you can buy ebooks there as well from Sony.

Sorry - more to the point, since Amazon is weighing in on platforming for Android purchases, how is it in Apple's best interest to continue to turn a blind eye to their content purchases landing external to the App Store? As competition increases between competing purchase platforms (not to mention OS/ecosystems) why shouldn't Apple act in their own best interest. The per cent charges for running the App Store covers overhead and if you were listening to the fincial reporting, is not a major revenue stream for Apple.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

if Apple decide to sell iTune content through Amazon store, would not Amazon demand a cut of the proceed, 6-25% as stated by Amazon's policy?

So what's so surprising about Apple demanding sellers in its market not circumventing their policy?

Amazon is not selling any content through the App Store
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

Well this is certainly a sad state of affairs. Apple's pissed that competitors are skirting around their 30% cut by offering purchases outside the App Store, so now they're enforcing a rule that they were keen to ignore earlier. Talk about bait and switch. Let's have all these successful models enjoy freedom on iOS for a year, then suddenly impose the keeper's fee.

This is a shakedown if you think about it. Apple doesn't like people selling products on their turf, so now they want their cut.

If B&N sold iPods or iPads at their store, aren't they entitled to piece of the sale price? Should retailers be made to sell someones product a zero markup? Weird sort of business model your are proposing.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:28am
Apple is unequivocally repeating their mistakes of the past.

They would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for Google. Steve had the right plan to take down Microsoft, RIM, and others... but I truly believe he was blindsided by Google directly competing against their walled pen strategy with an open range strategy.

Now, it's just a matter of time. Apple is going to be laid siege to by content providers. Will they continue to extort, or will they become flexible. Has Apple already pushed too hard too fast and alienated the rest of the industry?

Remember, ego nearly destroyed Apple before.
Superior technology / user experience & commanding market share didn't win out over free market last time - it is a GAMBLE to assume they will this time.

Look for Google and RIM to surge this year. Apple will remain strong - look for iad to be scrapped or completely revamped.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigelian View Post

It seems that Apple's plans would impact Kindle and Nook. Apparently Apple is insisting on their 30% cut.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...book-sales.ars

Are you folks reading the same article I am reading? Apples states that IF a store wants to sell outside the App Store then they also must give the OPTION of selling the same thing in the app (where Apple gets 30%).

The MAGIC WORD is OPTION...as a consumer you can CHOOSE to leave the iOS stores and purchase the content and then return to the app.

Why is this such a big deal? A smart customer will by-pass Apple's in-app purchase if they wish to avoid giving Apple 30% of the sale. While I am sure there are folks who will chose the in-app option because they want to have Apple's baby...the rest of us will ignore this and do what we have done in such situations as with the Kindle.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:38am
It would make the experience a little bit disjointed, but would it be within the legal realm/developer agreements for Amazon to offer "30%ish discounts" if you bought the book directly from them rather than directly from the iOS device?

"Buy this book for $12.99 in the in-app store OR click this link to get it for $9.99!"

It would suck for the end user because the experience wouldn't be fluid, but Amazon could keep their profit margins considering most users would click the link instead of just buying it on the device.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post

This is totally unfair to Sony, because Amazon and B&N don't have to play by these same rules, and that will bring extra development cost to Sony. This is definitely a change in Apple's policy, regardless of what Apple claims. Ridiculous.

I wonder if Kindle and Barnes isn't grandfathered in...
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:41am
Under these rules:

Scenario 1
Like today, I would be able to buy a book online at the Sony/Amazon/Barnes & Noble bookstore and it will sync with my device.

Scenario 2
If I want to buy a book on my device, it simply goes through the standardized in-app purchase process, instead of redirecting me to another website.

All this does is apply more consistency across the platform and makes that experience even more consistent for existing customers. It makes total and complete sense.

None of us posting on here are likely typical users, and redirects become confusing, and could create potential security issues as well.

It all makes sense...
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:42am
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.

I have to post again. Let me preface by stating I do have an iPhone, a Mac Mini and an AL Macbook. My next phone likely will be an Android phone (with an iPod Touch as a dedicated music player), so...

HOW is this in ANY WAY Anti-Trust? How are these companies' business models going to be undermined? Apple is simply requiring an in-app OPTION to purchase the same content as is sold outside the iOS store. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO MAKE THE IN-APP PURCHASE (thereby bypassing Apple getting a cut).....Just click the "buy outside the store" button and then all is well.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Amazon is not selling any content through the App Store

Where is Amazon's iOS app located? Is it not inside the Apple's App store?

If you bring a list of books into a bookstore, then direct customers inside the store to a truck you have ouside, because your books don't have to pay bookstore's markup, you think the store owner won't call police to kick you out or arrest you?
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by makemineamac View Post

Under these rules:

Scenario 1
Like today, I would be able to buy a book online at the Sony/Amazon/Barnes & Noble bookstore and it will sync with my device.

Scenario 2
If I want to buy a book on my device, it simply goes through the standardized in-app purchase process, instead of redirecting me to another website.

All this does is apply more consistency across the platform and makes that experience even more consistent for existing customers. It makes total and complete sense.

None of us posting on here are likely typical users, and redirects become confusing, and could create potential security issues as well.

It all makes sense...

Do they have to pay the 30% for each book sold or do they just have to go through Itunes? I'm kinda lost here. I don't want to pay 30% more just to go through apple's store.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Because it is common courtesy. Apple sell you the platform and then you should be able to choose how you want to use it.

Let's look at the mac then. Why should apple let you install software on your mac that is not from the mac app store where apple gets a 30% cut. EXACTLY the same.

You are a victim of apple marketing. Why should the mobile platform be so so different?

Apple is getting more and more like '1984' every day.

They have banned people who have a magazine subscription from getting free access on the equivalent iPad apps for God sake. It's a joke.

They should be happy making stonking big profits on great consumer products not being even more greedy to weed out a little extra on ebooks. Bloody hell.

explains quite a bit your reaction. You apparently have not run very successfully any sort of business operation. Let me provide an example:

A firm purchases land and use rights to create a very nice bit of shopping mall. They have well-paved carparks, lot's of green space, convenient services, nice events, nice seating for weary shoppers, areas where children can amuse themselves while parents rest and chat. Perhaps they blend in some entertainment, perhaps some nice amusement rides, theaters, music venues, etc. They then advertise to retailers to come and set-up shop, picking and choosing a few good established and popular retailers to anchor and then opening up smaller more affordable space for more cutting-edge, adventuresome or simply different retailers to try out being in business there. The firm is responsible for maintenance, crowd control, and upkeep on the property. In order to do this they ask for and receive a small portion or percentage of the intake by the retailers above the standard rental for the storefront. They are in this for the long-haul so they keep everything reasonable and fairly affordable for most. They will object however if a retailer puts up a large sign that sends its customers to another , cheaper retail storefront to do the purchases when the customers are in the mall, thus circumventing the per cent charge required for operational overhead and what little profit the firm may get out of that fee. That's the App Store and that's the apps using the App Store for the retail space and customer base.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:43am
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).

It's not 'the' app store, it's apples app store. As every reseller on the planet, they have the right to sell within their own guidelines as made clear in supplier contracts. This isn't abusive or anti competitive. If you don't like the way apple run their business model, then use a different company's products. Apple do not have a monopoly. There is no issue, nor has there been a change to the guidelines. The NYT are spreading FUD and Sony have tried to flaunt the very clear rules.

It really is that simple.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by captbilly View Post

I Predicted last summer that it would only take a year before Android passed IOS for the number of users. I was wrong, Android has already passed IOS, and every other smart phone OS. My next prediction is that Android will pass IOS as the most popular tablet OS within 6 months. Remarkably Android already has 15% of the tablet market. The reason I say surprisingly is that Google is still about a month away from even releasing a version of Android that they would even recommend for tablets. Once Android 3.0 is released, and with it a bunch of new really good tablets, IOS on tablets will drop precipitously.

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.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

They have banned people who have a magazine subscription from getting free access on the equivalent iPad apps for God sake. It's a joke.

Not really, try walking into 7-11 and pick up a newspaper or magazine and tell them your not going to pay for it because you already have a subscription.
Go into B&N and pick up a book and say you are not going pay because you already bought the kindle version or vice versa.
Go tell you're cable company that you want to watch the In-Demand movie for free because you already payed for it at the theater.
You are buying content delivery. If you don't want to pay, go scan your subscribed magazine or newspaper and put it on your device.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChronoFlare View Post

It would make the experience a little bit disjointed, but would it be within the legal realm/developer agreements for Amazon to offer "30%ish discounts" if you bought the book directly from them rather than directly from the iOS device?

"Buy this book for $12.99 in the in-app store OR click this link to get it for $9.99!"

It would suck for the end user because the experience wouldn't be fluid, but Amazon could keep their profit margins considering most users would click the link instead of just buying it on the device.

I can really see Apple letting that idea fly.

Once the app is on my device (you know, the one I bought with my dollar), why can't I source my data for it elsewhere? Apple are artificially imposing themselves in the relationship between me and the vendor.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by captbilly View Post

It feels like these articles in "Apple Insider" come straight from Apple HQ. If they don't then the writers are either under a lot of pressure from Apple to make Apple sound good, or they are under some sort of trance that makes them see Apple as the eternal benevolent dictator of what we want and what we can do.

Maybe the success of the iOS App Store, and the failure of Google's Android store, should figure in to your wildly ideological opinion of what people really want.



Quote:
I Predicted last summer that it would only take a year before Android passed IOS for the number of users. I was wrong, Android has already passed IOS, and every other smart phone OS. My next prediction is that Android will pass IOS as the most popular tablet OS within 6 months. Remarkably Android already has 15% of the tablet market. The reason I say surprisingly is that Google is still about a month away from even releasing a version of Android that they would even recommend for tablets. Once Android 3.0 is released, and with it a bunch of new really good tablets, IOS on tablets will drop precipitously.

The percentage of phones being sold with code from Android is rather meaningless. Google hasn't achieved something new here. It's just displacing the former platform of a number of phones formerly sold by failures (Motorola, Sony Ericsson) who can't write software. Before Android, they were running WiMo or Flash Lite or Symbian or the legitimate JavaME.

So now the same losers are running a new, recognizable brand. You really think Apple is running scared? It has the majority of the WORLD'S mobile (not just smartphone) profits, and all of the tablet profits.

You think the Galaxy Tab's fake sales numbers are a problem? You think the collective counting of all the third rate loser mobile makers somehow counters the fact that Apple is growing far faster than any other mobile maker?

Sounds like you're the one steeped in religious delusion, not DED.
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Do they have to pay the 30% for each book sold or do they just have to go through Itunes? I'm kinda lost here. I don't want to pay 30% more just to go through apple's store.

You pay a percentage mark up every time you shop in a store. To sell your product through a reseller results in overheads. It is for the product manufacturer to ensure these prices are absorbed to result in a sensible price for the end customer. When you buy coke from walmart, there is a mark up that enables walmart to function as a business. This is no different.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigelian View Post

It will be interesting to see what happens if Amazon, Sony, Borders or Barnes and Noble make the app store purchase available reflecting the cost of the 30% cut that Apple is insisting on. What do you think most consumers would do under those circumstances?

Generally I find the whole thing fascinating. I have no doubt that it is entirely legal, I have no doubt that it is within the contract language of Apple's contract with developers for Itunes, I have no doubt that at the margin it may make the Apple platform less valuable for end users. At the margin such practices will spur more sales of Kindles, Nooks, Sony Readers and Android tablets. The practice would be particularly pernicious if there were no other distribution markets available...but there are.

Some stores carry a product with no mark up just to get people in the door. I guess apple would have to determine the value of that for themselves. That would include loss of sales due to people buying nooks etc, and giving up retail space that they could use for other items.
It certainly is fascinating as you say. In fact I find your entire post logical and to the point. If the app store was the only game in town it would be pernicious.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:51am
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.

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?!
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I don't think it unreasonable for developers that profit from the App Store to contribute to its upkeep.

If you could download the app directly from Amazon, Apple would have no relationship in the transaction at all. The user's iPad and Amazon would have an exclusive relationship without Apple. Since Apple's App Store is the only way for Amazon to deliver the original FREE app, Apple has forced itself into the relationship that normally would be exclusively between Amazon and the end user, which I'm sure most users would prefer. Although some people might like a three-way , I personally think that there should be exceptions to the App Store for mega corporations like Amazon offering free apps.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #65 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

Where is Amazon's iOS app located? Is it not inside the Apple's App store?

Where are ebooks located, where can you buy the ebooks (a clue, not on Kindle App)
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:53am
Nothing more; nothing less, besides everyone knows you cannot buy an eBook inside the app itself- it throws you into Amazon's website via Safari.
Only the regular Amazon app allows you to make purchases for everything and anything. Does Apple get a cut of Amazon, Best Buy, Ebay, etc?? I don't think so.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

I can really see Apple letting that idea fly.

Once the app is on my device (you know, the one I bought with my dollar), why can't I source my data for it elsewhere? Apple are artificially imposing themselves in the relationship between me and the vendor.

Apple is not imposing themselves. You have to choose to use in app purchase for that to happen. Apps can still maintain their own payment methods, if you choose to use it.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Apple is unequivocally repeating their mistakes of the past.

They would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for Google. Steve had the right plan to take down Microsoft, RIM, and others... but I truly believe he was blindsided by Google directly competing against their walled pen strategy with an open range strategy.

Now, it's just a matter of time. Apple is going to be laid siege to by content providers. Will they continue to extort, or will they become flexible. Has Apple already pushed too hard too fast and alienated the rest of the industry?

Remember, ego nearly destroyed Apple before.
Superior technology / user experience & commanding market share didn't win out over free market last time - it is a GAMBLE to assume they will this time.

Look for Google and RIM to surge this year. Apple will remain strong - look for iad to be scrapped or completely revamped.

Good lord I don't even know where to begin with this! Ego? You are way out in left field playing soccer on a baseball diamond. There was no free market "last time" in whatever fevered and distorted universe you draw that from. Apple has been under siege by content providers locked into their own draconian business models from the inception of the iPod - or did you miss that bit of product history? RIM will not surge and Google is gaining marketshare from the featurephone segment, not raiding the other smartphone competitors. They will drive cheaper "smartphones" to get as many Android devices as they can into the product stream and erode down the featurephone segment. Marketshare doesn't dictate success, profitshare does, as the major PC brands are discovering as they race to the bottom price-wise.

What you have described doesn't functionally exist in reality and your references are highly in error. Apple has never been the majority in the smartphone segment, over-shadowed by either RIM or Nokia, depending on which numbers you wish to view. Whether it is Android or RIM in the top spot doesn't affect Apple's decisions or how it does business. Which is obvious to anyone who is actually looking at what is going on and not taking as writ what the tech blogs are throwing out there.

Try again.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

I can really see Apple letting that idea fly.

Once the app is on my device (you know, the one I bought with my dollar), why can't I source my data for it elsewhere? Apple are artificially imposing themselves in the relationship between me and the vendor.

You can source your data elsewhere. Music, pitcures, video and books. They just need to be in the formats that the iOS supports so epub etc. Nothing stopping you getting these and syncing them from your computer. Apple are exercising their legal right to run THEIR store as they see fit under the clear guidelines that are available to all developers. No one is forced to buy apple or use the app store. You buy a diesel car, you need to run it on diesel... Is that anti-competitive?
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:56am
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.

Google is merely giving away software in the hopes of creating an ad platform. Guess who pays a cut for this? We do!

In advertising, VIEWERS are the product, Google is the iTunes Store, and advertisers are the buyers. WE PAY THE 30% CUT to use Android phones by wading through all the ads.

Apple has set up an alternative to free-for-all adware. We pay for good hardware designed to work well, we buy apps a very low prices, and developers give Apple a cut of their profits to maintain the sales and marketing of their software and content through iTunes. THEY PAY!

People keep taking about Apple's 30% cut like its some sort of extra tax. Do they have no idea how profit margins work? When you improve or finish a good, or add a service or some other layer of value, you get a piece of the action. Apple deserves its cut. It doesn't make things cost more!

The bottom line is that Apple is adding value: creating the iPhone, developing the iTunes Store, making devices people want and services people will pay for. Google may be including its software on devices being dumped in China and sold as BOGO by Verizon, but it isn't creating the same value and so isn't earning the profits Apple is. And it doesn't deserve to.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLiver View Post

Nothing more nothing less.

Nope, not damage control. Just introducing clear fact where others are spreading FUD. Can Sony developers not read? Are they that stupid? They didn't follow the submission guidelines. The app was rejected. What damage is there to control?
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Do you feel its fair for Amazon and B&N to directly profit from the App Store while contributing nothing back to the App Store?

Do you feel its fair for Apple's iTunes to directly profit from Windows users while contributing nothing back to Microsoft?
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 #73 of 399
2/1/11 at 11:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

explains quite a bit your reaction. You apparently have not run very successfully any sort of business operation. Let me provide an example:

A firm purchases land and use rights to create a very nice bit of shopping mall. They have well-paved carparks, lot's of green space, convenient services, nice events, nice seating for weary shoppers, areas where children can amuse themselves while parents rest and chat. Perhaps they blend in some entertainment, perhaps some nice amusement rides, theaters, music venues, etc. They then advertise to retailers to come and set-up shop, picking and choosing a few good established and popular retailers to anchor and then opening up smaller more affordable space for more cutting-edge, adventuresome or simply different retailers to try out being in business there. The firm is responsible for maintenance, crowd control, and upkeep on the property. In order to do this they ask for and receive a small portion or percentage of the intake by the retailers above the standard rental for the storefront. They are in this for the long-haul so they keep everything reasonable and fairly affordable for most. They will object however if a retailer puts up a large sign that sends its customers to another , cheaper retail storefront to do the purchases when the customers are in the mall, thus circumventing the per cent charge required for operational overhead and what little profit the firm may get out of that fee. That's the App Store and that's the apps using the App Store for the retail space and customer base.

Nice example, but where does the mall owner get a fixed percentage of all sales made by the retailer? Not sure how 30% is "reasonable and affordable". The "overheads" argument falls flat as 1) the books aren't hosted by Apple and 2) a £13 book should have the same overhead as a £5 book.

Overall, looks like Apple wants to make sure someone doesn't do to them what they did (with the help of iTunes) to Windows. If it wants to become serious about being the provider for books, maybe they'll broaden their selection.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 399
2/1/11 at 12:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

Do you feel its fair for Apple's iTunes to directly profit from Windows users while contributing nothing back to Microsoft?

Do learn the diffence between a software resale channel and an operating system.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 399
2/1/11 at 12:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Where are ebooks located, where can you buy the ebooks (a clue, not on Kindle App)

You should get a clue. There's nothing in Apple's policy that stops Amazon's kindle app from using their own webstore. Only thing they require now is provider users the option of using in-app purchase through Apple.

That's a very generouse policy in fact. In the real world, if you want to setup advertisment stand in stores to direct business your way, the store owners demand a cut, in the form of a fee, regardless of whether the customer actually make any purchase at all. If you place ads on Google, you have to pay Google for click through, or even just impressions. Where's your outrage then?
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 399
2/1/11 at 12:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robodude View Post

Nice example, but where does the mall owner get a fixed percentage of all sales made by the retailer? Not sure how 30% is "reasonable and affordable". The "overheads" argument falls flat as 1) the books aren't hosted by Apple and 2) a £13 book should have the same overhead as a £5 book.

Overall, looks like Apple wants to make sure someone doesn't do to them what they did (with the help of iTunes) to Windows. If it wants to become serious about being the provider for books, maybe they'll broaden their selection.

The mall owner charges rent. The walmart in the mall takes a commission from each product sold in the form of a mark up. It's not a difficult business model to understand. The OP explained is very well.

Does no one here have any retail or business experience! Slme of the comments this evening are beyond naive and show a complete lack of how retail works.

Additionally, apple are trying to broaden their book selection, unfortunately anti-competitive deals by companies such as amazon are forcing publishers to decide between apple or amazon, yet I dint see anyone criticising amazon fir blackmailing publishers - you sell on apple, you don't see with us as well... Now THAT is anti-competitive.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 399
2/1/11 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Because it is common courtesy. Apple sell you the platform and then you should be able to choose how you want to use it.

Let's look at the mac then. Why should apple let you install software on your mac that is not from the mac app store where apple gets a 30% cut. EXACTLY the same.

To play Devil's Advocate here, it's not exactly the same. Apple isn't paying anything to host the Mac app on a third party site. Apple isn't marketing or featuring the third party app at all.

Apple is hosting the Sony app. It costs Apple money to have the Sony Reader app on their store.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 399
2/1/11 at 12:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robodude View Post

Nice example, but where does the mall owner get a fixed percentage of all sales made by the retailer? Not sure how 30% is "reasonable and affordable". The "overheads" argument falls flat as 1) the books aren't hosted by Apple and 2) a £13 book should have the same overhead as a £5 book.

Overall, looks like Apple wants to make sure someone doesn't do to them what they did (with the help of iTunes) to Windows. If it wants to become serious about being the provider for books, maybe they'll broaden their selection.

I agree. If Amazon sells 1 million $10 books through Apple's channels, Apple just made $3 million. Multiply that by millions more and Apple gets to rake in some serious cash. I don't think if costs quite that much for Apple to maintain the overhead that the Kindle app creates on the App Store.

Apple really wants to profit off of this, and hey, that's business. But for people to use the overhead argument is mostly nonsense.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 399
2/1/11 at 12:04pm
Apple is starting to adopt a very high risk strategy with certain partners. Obviously Apple is in a great position right now with the popularity of its iOS devices, but they certainly don't have an insurmountable lead. If they start driving the likes of Amazon away from supporting iOS devices, that will quickly start lessening the appeal of owning an iPhone or iPad.

Let's face it. The risks are already sky high building applications for iOS. The approval process is basically a lottery where rules may or may not be rigorously applied depending on the mood of the person reviewing your application on a given day. If you start making the risk to reward even less enticing, you will eventually drive talent away to building solely for other platforms.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 399
2/1/11 at 12:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

Do you feel its fair for Apple's iTunes to directly profit from Windows users while contributing nothing back to Microsoft?

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

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