Originally Posted by melgross
There are many apps available for iOS that are fronts for stores of various kinds. These apps are all free. Should Apple therefor take a cut when you buy an air conditioner through them? You don't really believe that.
This is mainly about digital content being purchased from and delivered to an iOS device. Apple doesn't sell air conditioners. Why would Apple be worried about users buying air conditioners? Apple does sell digital books. They should worry about their competition getting a free ride on their own platform. They are essentially giving their competition an advantage. Does Amazon allow other book stores on the Kindle device? Nope. So maybe Apple should just completely ban other book stores. Wouldn't that be more fair? Or maybe Apple should make an iBook "e-book" device, that's the EXACT same thing, but not allow other book stores? There are other platforms that are more closed than Apple's, but for some reason only Apple is evil and controlling!?
I don't know why some people think that just because something can be delivered in digital form it's different, and should be charged differently. It shouldn't. A product is a product. A book is a book. And if you aren't buying that book through Apple's app store, then Apple should have no right to a cut. We're not using Apple's servers. Apple isn't an ISP.
Hmm... not sure if referring to physical vs. digital in this argument? With physical media there are materials, manufacturing, printing, and shipping. That's overhead that doesn't exist with digital. So there is a huge cost difference.
While you may be using your own store to sell items through, you're still using Apple's massive distribution channel (i.e. platform) to sell through.
How would you howl if Apple started charging developers for every free app of theirs that gets downloaded, as using your philosophy, they should be doing? Then there would be no free apps. Estimates are that a good two thirds of those 10 billion downloaded apps were free ones. Apple can apparently afford that. So they can afford this as well, particularly as it's one of the reasons for buying an Apple production the first place. If anything, if it's a problem, it should be relegated to advertising and marketing.
Hmmm... apparently you missed something in my post, because that was not my philosophy. My thinking leans more towards others making a profit at Apple's expense and then, only when they are a direct competitor to what Apple offers. See, for every Kindle book sold through the Kindle iOS app is a sales lost for the same book in the iBook Store. Free apps only make money through advertising (which Apple has the ability to extract revenue through iAd).
Personally, I don't agree with what Apple is doing, but I do understand why they feel the need to. Just a reminder, this in no way affects the user, except forces these other companies to offer the user direct sales and downloads in the app. What they've been doing before is pushing the user to a web site from within the app to make the purchase, then syncing with the server to gain access to the content. That is a loop hole to get around Apple's In-App-Purchasing rule.
Furthermore, these companies should be able to create a free "reader" that doesn't give access or link to the store from within the app. It would only allow you to access/sync and then view that content. Apple can't do anything about that.