or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › European publishers feel 'betrayed' by Apple's iOS app subscriptions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

European publishers feel 'betrayed' by Apple's iOS app subscriptions - Page 4

post #121 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


All that Apple is saying is that Sony must offer that option.

So, big change.
post #122 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Lifeline? Are you joking? Basically submitting all their business to one man, one company, one platform.

Also why is apple forcing publishers to charge for the subscriptions through iTunes? I still don't understand why a subscriber to a physical magazine will not be allowed to access the iPad version too.

Luckily with honeycomb getting rave reviews from today's preview there is going to be another viable option very soon.

Why is it that as android is getting better and better, apple is getting more and more draconian?

WHY shoould Apple give free access? The publisher sold the subscription and pocketed all the money not Apple.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
post #123 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Once the app is downloaded it need have nothing to do with the app store ever again. Apps can do their own distribution. Apple wants a cut.

That's completely irrelevant. Again, the App Store is not based on a fee for services model, it is based on a revenue sharing model. You need to read that previous sentence a few times until it sinks in.

So, the important thing is not whether Apple has to do anything to "earn its cut" for any particular transaction. The important question is: Is the app generating revenue? If it's generating revenue, as a developer, you agreed to share that revenue with Apple. Not offering users in-app purchasing means that you are, to use an analogy, hiding your revenue in offshore accounts.

Again, Apple distributed these apps to users through the App Store. They fulfilled their part of the contract that was signed. Amazon, Sony, et al. are essentially cheating the system and leaving other developers to pay the costs of running the App Store.
post #124 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

Who says it will be 30% - I think Eddy Cue said that an announcement is forthcoming. This sounds somewhat reminiscent of before apps were done on the iPhone at all. Everyone has a solution and many predicted gloom and doom. Looks like it turned out pretty good to me. How many apps could you buy (for anything) before the iPhone app price brought prices down to as low as $0.99 and a lot lof them for $2.99 or less?

Good for consumers, good for Apple, not so so great for the people putting in the work to produce apps. If you are an independent developer and you price your app at 79p you will pay 23.7p to Apple and 15.8p in tax leaving you with 39.5p. After that you also have to pay income tax (in the UK thats about 40%) so your then going to loose another 15.8p from what you had left leaving you with 23.7p. Apple has made exactly the same as you but they didn't do anything. Now some people are going to say they provided the platform and are hosting it for you in iTunes. Well that's true however they also made higher profits than any other phone manufacturer to pay for the phone and the developer already paid around £60 to Apple in a yearly fee to have his app in the app store. Or to put it another way the developer has to sell 254 copy's of their app just to make back the money they paid to Apple to have the app in the app store. Yes you can still make money but you've really got to be at the top.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Because the App Store does not operate under a fee for services model, it operates under a revenue sharing model. If your app and it's content, in and of itself, generates revenue, you agree to share that revenue with Apple.

If your profit margin on content that you make is only 35% why should Apple get to take 30% of that for not actually doing anything? After all you do pay Apple a fee to have the app in the app store. Once the app is on the phone it doesn't really have anything to do with apple any more. It like the landlord of a shop saying you have to pay me rent plus 30% of anything you sell, irrespective of if you make a loss or not.
post #125 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

... If your profit margin on content that you make is only 35% why should Apple get to take 30% of that for not actually doing anything? After all you do pay Apple a fee to have the app in the app store. Once the app is on the phone it doesn't really have anything to do with apple any more. It like the landlord of a shop saying you have to pay me rent plus 30% of anything you sell, irrespective of if you make a loss or not.

No, it's like taking on a partner in your store and agreeing to split the revenue with him. What you are suggesting is that it's ok to sell stuff out the back door and not give him the agreed to percentage of those sales, because you didn't ring them up at the register.
post #126 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Lifeline? Are you joking? Basically submitting all their business to one man, one company, one platform.

Also why is apple forcing publishers to charge for the subscriptions through iTunes? I still don't understand why a subscriber to a physical magazine will not be allowed to access the iPad version too.

Luckily with honeycomb getting rave reviews from today's preview there is going to be another viable option very soon.

Why is it that as android is getting better and better, apple is getting more and more draconian?



Why do people find it strange that Apple wants to charge these publishers for using App store to distribute content, and publishers somehow find the fee unacceptable? Aren't they used to paying printing firms to produce their paper products, shipping company to ship their paper products, and distributors to actually deliver the products? So Apple provides them a way to bypass all of that, but they won't pay for that?
post #127 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

Why do people find it strange that Apple wants to charge these publishers for using App store to distribute content, and publishers somehow find the fee unacceptable? Aren't they used to paying printing firms to produce their paper products, shipping company to ship their paper products, and distributors to actually deliver the products? So Apple provides them a way to bypass all of that, but they won't pay for that?

I agree that it's mystifying why people find this strange, but I think you misunderstand why they shouldn't. All the examples you give are "fee for services" arrangements. The App Store doesn't operate under a fee for services arrangement, it operates under a revenue sharing arrangement. Amazon and others are basically gaming the system to hide revenue and avoid paying their share toward the operation of the App Store, a share they agreed to pay when they signed the developer agreement and began distributing their apps through the App Store.
post #128 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

That's completely irrelevant. Again, the App Store is not based on a fee for services model, it is based on a revenue sharing model. You need to read that previous sentence a few times until it sinks in.

So, the important thing is not whether Apple has to do anything to "earn its cut" for any particular transaction. The important question is: Is the app generating revenue? If it's generating revenue, as a developer, you agreed to share that revenue with Apple. Not offering users in-app purchasing means that you are, to use an analogy, hiding your revenue in offshore accounts.

So, ebay app or best buy apps must share their revenue with Apple
post #129 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

Why do people find it strange that Apple wants to charge these publishers for using App store to distribute content, and publishers somehow find the fee unacceptable?

They aren't distributing content though the app store
post #130 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I agree that it's mystifying why people find this strange, but I think you misunderstand why they shouldn't. All the examples you give are "fee for services" arrangements. The App Store doesn't operate under a fee for services arrangement, it operates under a revenue sharing arrangement. Amazon and others are basically gaming the system to hide revenue and avoid paying their share toward the operation of the App Store, a share they agreed to pay when they signed the developer agreement and began distributing their apps through the App Store.

So, I buy a kindle book though Safari on OS X and sync it to my iPhone and then I buy a kindle book though Safari on iOS and sync it to my iPhone. What's the difference?
post #131 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

So, ebay app or best buy apps must share their revenue with Apple

"Real world goods" are exempt, prohibited in fact, from using Store Kit and the in-app purchasing system.
post #132 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

So, I buy a kindle book though Safari on OS X and sync it to my iPhone and then I buy a kindle book though Safari on iOS and sync it to my iPhone. What's the difference?

There's no difference. Apple actually allows them to sell stuff out the back door. All they are saying is that they have to give customers the option of paying at the register too. Sounds pretty reasonable of Apple to let Amazon, et al. cheat them out of some revenue, as long as they make it possible that Apple won't be cheated out of all of it.
post #133 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

"Real world goods" are exempt, prohibited in fact, from using Store Kit and the in-app purchasing system.

So this is not true: The important question is: Is the app generating revenue?
post #134 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

There's no difference. Apple actually allows them to sell stuff out the back door. All they are saying is that they have to give customers the option of paying at the register too. Sounds pretty reasonable of Apple to let Amazon, et al. cheat them out of some revenue, as long as they make it possible that Apple won't be cheated out of all of it.

They're not cheating, it's a concept not difficult of understand
post #135 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

So this is not true: The important question is: Is the app generating revenue?

Nice try. But that phrasing was simply shorthand for what I had stated earlier in the thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Because the App Store does not operate under a fee for services model, it operates under a revenue sharing model. If your app and it's content, in and of itself, generates revenue, you agree to share that revenue with Apple.

Selling "real world items" is not generating revenue, "in and of itself"; they obviously aren't used within the app. A reader app that allows you to use purchased content (eBooks) to be read in the app is generating revenue, "in and of itself".


Here's a very simple test I posted about yesterday to determine if Apple should get it's share:

Quote:
I think there's a fairly straightforward test to determining which sorts of purchases should be part of the cost sharing and which ought to be exempt:

Does the purchase enhance the functionality of the app?

Case A: Purchasing an air conditioner, or a physical book, does not enhance the functionality of the app. The app does what it does and the purchase has no effect on it.

Case B: Purchasing an eBook, or game levels, clearly adds functionality to the app itself: the making available to the user, within the app, content the user can interact with.

Case A should be exempt. Case B ought not be.


This may not be the exact test Apple is using, but I think it's fairly close. It also makes sense and is totally reasonable.
post #136 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

They're not cheating, it's a concept not difficult of understand

No, they are cheating Apple out of the revenue the app generates from digital content. And Apple isn't trying to completely stop them, they're just saying, "Stop forcing the customers to go around back and buy this stuff in the alley."
post #137 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applecation View Post

..... users will take the easy approach, and would rather click a button rather than go thru a web site.
If I were the app developer, I would make the ability to get a subscription via the web very prominent in the app, and make it more difficult to find the subscription via iTunes button.

That's a great "business model" .. I. Identify what your customers want/don't want ... 2. Make it difficult for them to get what they want.. 3. Make it easy to get what they don't want. .. Brilliant, .. who do I make the check out to ???
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #138 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, they are cheating Apple out of the revenue the app generates from digital content. And Apple isn't trying to completely stop them, they're just saying, "Stop forcing the customers to go around back and buy this stuff in the alley."

They are not cheating Apple out of anything. They dont owe Apple anything for "going around back to the Alley" since they are doing the fulfilment themselves. Apple neither owns nor distributes the content nor has to get involved in credit card transactions. They shouldnt owe Apple anything for using their own in app purchase either, except Apple disallows that.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #139 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

That's a great "business model" .. I. Identify what your customers want/don't want ... 2. Make it difficult for them to get what they want.. 3. Make it easy to get what they don't want. .. Brilliant, .. who do I make the check out to ???

Well it is either that or take an Apple tax which wipes out your margins. Agreed that it is a bad UI model, but so is any combination of 2 buttons. If there is one button and that is IAP, then content providers have no business model.

Somethings gotto give. Apple will probably give. If not the iPad is 5% this time next year.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #140 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

That's completely irrelevant. Again, the App Store is not based on a fee for services model, it is based on a revenue sharing model. You need to read that previous sentence a few times until it sinks in.

So, the important thing is not whether Apple has to do anything to "earn its cut" for any particular transaction. The important question is: Is the app generating revenue? If it's generating revenue, as a developer, you agreed to share that revenue with Apple. Not offering users in-app purchasing means that you are, to use an analogy, hiding your revenue in offshore accounts.

Again, Apple distributed these apps to users through the App Store. They fulfilled their part of the contract that was signed. Amazon, Sony, et al. are essentially cheating the system and leaving other developers to pay the costs of running the App Store.

I see. So apparently the argument is this: because Apple forces it developers to distribution through the App Store ( rather than, as with the Android market via the store, Web, or any way you want really) then every single subsequent transaction undertaken by that application to generate revenue - even if it uses it's own servers, distributes it's own content, handles it's own encodings and streaming, charges it's own credit card transactions, it still "owes" Apple money as some sort of rent for being on the system in the first place.

Not only does Apple not see the people who buy the device as owners, apparently it sees it's developers as serfs subject to a land tax for renting space on the land. This isnt about the ( genuine) costs that Apple has in the original distribution, it is feudalism on revenue earned afterwards.

Android at 95% next year. iOS at 5%. No content providers touching it with a barge pole.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #141 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

They are not cheating Apple out of anything. They dont owe Apple anything for "going around back to the Alley" since they are doing the fulfilment themselves. Apple neither owns nor distributes the content nor has to get involved in credit card transactions. They shouldnt owe Apple anything for using their own in app purchase either, except Apple disallows that.

Apparently you still didn't get the memo about the App Store being based on revenue sharing, not fee for services.
post #142 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Apparently you still didn't get the memo about the App Store being based on revenue sharing, not fee for services.

Apparently you are the only person with this memo.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #143 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

I see. So apparently the argument is this: because Apple forces it developers to distribution through the App Store ( rather than, as with the Android market via the store, Web, or any way you want really) then every single subsequent transaction undertaken by that application to generate revenue - even if it uses it's own servers, distributes it's own content, handles it's own encodings and streaming, charges it's own credit card transactions, it still "owes" Apple money as some sort of rent for being on the system in the first place.

Not only does Apple not see the people who buy the device as owners, apparently it sees it's developers as serfs subject to a land tax for renting space on the land. This isnt about the ( genuine) costs that Apple has in the original distribution, it is feudalism on revenue earned afterwards.

It sees the developers as business partners with whom it has reciprocal contractual obligations. If Apple simply turns a blind eye to out-of-app purchases, more and more developers will game the system like Amazon is doing: Give out a free "shell" app so Apple makes nothing on the "sale", then, sell the actual content of the app in the alley so Apple doesn't get any of that either. Amazon, and anyone following the same model, is freeloading on the App Store and making big profits in the process.
post #144 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Apparently you are the only person with this memo.

That's odd, it was quoted in your post above.
post #145 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

That's odd, it was quoted in your post above.

No, I quoted what you were saying, and worked out the implications.

lets try a specific example.

NBC own content. They pay for a TV programs. They hire directors. They hire actors. They product all this content and sell it on TV ( sell the advertising) and on the website. Also an advertising model.

Now they want to produce an app for the app store. For paid content. Well, Flash doesnt work ( I wonder if this is the reason) so they spend money on encoding everything for Apple live streaming. They have a credit card system. They host and stream the content. All in all they reckon that each program ( or season) bought on their app garners 30% margin.

Apple say that they need to add the IAP button. Apple wants the 30%.

Now you say that Apple "deserves" this money. I say NBC own the content, Apple deserves nothing and frankly, Apple should be glad that NBC are on the iPad and have paid developers to make the device more useful.

Enforce this rule and NBC will be on HoneyComb, and most definitely not on iOS.

By God Google must be falling about laughing at this major major cockup. If Apple do subsequently reduce the tax from 30% it will still not necessarily placate the content owners. Apple have proven they can read the guidelines as they want, any time they want.

Game over. Android has won.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #146 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

I see. So apparently the argument is this: because Apple forces it developers to distribution through the App Store ( rather than, as with the Android market via the store, Web, or any way you want really) then every single subsequent transaction undertaken by that application to generate revenue - even if it uses it's own servers, distributes it's own content, handles it's own encodings and streaming, charges it's own credit card transactions, it still "owes" Apple money as some sort of rent for being on the system in the first place.

Why do you keep misstating this issue? Apple has made it abundantly clear that you can distribute however you like but you must also allow Apple a shot at the sale with an in-app purchase option. Please stop trying to make it sound like Apple has removed the other options.
post #147 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

There's no difference. Apple actually allows them to sell stuff out the back door. All they are saying is that they have to give customers the option of paying at the register too. Sounds pretty reasonable of Apple to let Amazon, et al. cheat them out of some revenue, as long as they make it possible that Apple won't be cheated out of all of it.

You're wasting your breath. asdasd is just being obstinate and not paying any attention to what you're saying, nor did he even attempt to address the points I brought up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Somethings gotto give. Apple will probably give. If not the iPad is 5% this time next year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Android at 95% next year. iOS at 5%. No content providers touching it with a barge pole.

We will see. Quoted here for truth. When next year rolls around we can all laugh at your preposterous prediction. 5% huh? And written/quoted twice, so you can't claim a typo. I can't wait for your backpedaling to start on this one. Maybe if you start now...
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #148 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

... Now you say that Apple "deserves" this money. I say NBC own the content, Apple deserves nothing and frankly, Apple should be glad that NBC are on the iPad and have paid developers to make the device more useful. ...

I didn't say anything about "deserves", I said that, when you signed the developer agreement, these are the terms agreed to. You're arguing that you should be able to get all of the benefits of being a developer without fulfilling any of your obligations. Which position is rational?
post #149 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Not only does Apple not see the people who buy the device as owners, apparently it sees it's developers as serfs subject to a land tax for renting space on the land. This isnt about the ( genuine) costs that Apple has in the original distribution, it is feudalism on revenue earned afterwards.

Android at 95% next year. iOS at 5%. No content providers touching it with a barge pole.

Since the App store and Mac App store charge a similar percentage, I think the following article is interesting.

http://www.pixelmator.com/weblog/201...mac-app-store/

The story is about serfs who reduced the price on their product, and ended up grossing $1 million in 20 days.

As for 30% being too high, I know of people that have given 100% of the sales to a seller. The reason? They understand the Lifetime Value of their Customer.

So, we'll see if it's worthwhile for content providers to share 30% of a large number, vs. keeping all of a small number. The ease of purchasing has me buying many items that I wouldn't have if I had to go online. My children have also purchased apps that I know wouldn't have been purchased had the ordering system been elsewhere.
post #150 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Apple is not distributing anything in in-App purchasing. Read the manual.

Money Quote

You may choose one of the following ways to deliver digital item to users:
\tProvide the content within your app binary and enable it when the user makes a
purchase.
\tDownload the content from your servers for use by your app when the user makes a
purchase.

As long as you like money quotes ... here's one from the same manual.

Subscriptions and subscription renewals to content or services can be offered to customers for
purchase.
You can offer customers the opportunity to renew their content or service subscriptions using
In App Purchase
.....
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #151 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

At the launch of The Daily today Murdoch said that the cost was 30% to Apple for the subscription model and he expected that to last for this year. So it will for everybody.

I just watched the launch video for The Daily and no one mentioned any revenue sharing amount. I have also searched for this information and can find nothing said by either Apple or News Corp. There are plenty of articles out there asserting 30% based on the current App Store split.

So, I ask again, can you post a link to an authoritative article that spells out the revenue share for subscriptions?

My best guess is that the subscription revenue share will be part of the announcement that Eddy Cue alluded to occur within a couple of weeks.
post #152 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Apple is not distributing anything in in-App purchasing. Read the manual.

Money Quote

You may choose one of the following ways to deliver digital item to users:
\tProvide the content within your app binary and enable it when the user makes a
purchase.
\tDownload the content from your servers for use by your app when the user makes a
purchase.

The first case is providing the in app purchase from Apple servers since the unlocked content/capability is part of the app that is delivered from iTunes.

The switch to unlock that content is also from Apple servers since the App has to know the transaction went through.

So much for a money quote.
post #153 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

You're wasting your breath. asdasd is just being obstinate and not paying any attention to what you're saying, nor did he even attempt to address the points I brought up.

We will see. Quoted here for truth. When next year rolls around we can all laugh at your preposterous prediction. 5% huh? And written/quoted twice, so you can't claim a typo. I can't wait for your backpedaling to start on this one. Maybe if you start now...

The guy's a troll and I'm starting to think he's just one of the hoarded ids the usual trolls had saved up. Thus far all he's done is spread FUD.
post #154 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The guy's a troll and I'm starting to think he's just one of the hoarded ids the usual trolls had saved up. Thus far all he's done is spread FUD.

Agreed. Guess it's time to mosey along to the next topic...
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #155 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The guy's a troll and I'm starting to think he's just one of the hoarded ids the usual trolls had saved up. Thus far all he's done is spread FUD.

He claimed in an earlier thread's discussion of this topic that he had an app rejected for attempting to game the system and avoid his contractual obligations. So, he may just be an enraged developer who thought he had found a way around the revenue sharing system and is mad because he got caught. Nothing pisses people off like getting caught cheating.
post #156 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The guy's a troll and I'm starting to think he's just one of the hoarded ids the usual trolls had saved up. Thus far all he's done is spread FUD.

He still has not responded to my call to prove the following outright lie:
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

At the launch of The Daily today Murdoch said that the cost was 30% to Apple for the subscription model and he expected that to last for this year. So it will for everybody.
post #157 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, it's like taking on a partner in your store and agreeing to split the revenue with him. What you are suggesting is that it's ok to sell stuff out the back door and not give him the agreed to percentage of those sales, because you didn't ring them up at the register.

How is it like taking on a partner, if you take on a partner you split the profit. Apple still takes 30% even if there is no profit. And how is it out the back door, you pay Apple to distribute your app and they also get 30% of what it sells for. After that its nothing to do with Apple. It would be like saying when I buy something from Amazon on my Mac, running Windows, using Google Chrome they've sold it to me through the back door as Apple, Microsoft and Google all haven't recieved 30% of what I paid.

This does make me wonder though, if Apple has a case for charging 30% of anything an app sells, shouldn't the carrier also be able to charge 30% for anythough bought through there network. After all they actually have a direct cost related to the puchase and currently there getting nothing.
post #158 of 164
The idiocy continues. I cant be assed with multi-quotes.

1) Calling someone a troll is not an argument but an ad hominem. Apparanty I joined years ago and started torlling on this one topic. I was saving up my IDs.
2) I have never denied the back door option except to point to it as a farce. As I pointed out it depends on the UI. I mentioned this numerous times. Lets quote me.

Quote:
Well it is either that or take an Apple tax which wipes out your margins. Agreed that [2 buttons] is a bad UI model, but so is any combination of 2 buttons. If there is one button and that is IAP, then content providers have no business model.

Apple are not going to allow two buttons with different prices as no-one will hit the higher priced button so theu would get 30%. With one button it would have to be IAP. If someone has an argument against that, please make it.

3) Murdoch said the subscription model was 30% for the Daily at the Q&A after the Daily was released. Not in the presentation.
4) The IAP guide clearly states that no content is served by Apple. There is no other way to spin that.
5) Great that Pixelamtor is doing well but it is bog all to do with this argument. Can you people read? Pixelmator is not being charged for content but the initial delivery through the app store. No-one is denying that Apple should get a percentage for anybody who uses their store for delivery. In the case of in-app content where companies can do their own delivery ( and have to per the IAP guidelines) Apple has no business taking a cut.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #159 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

3) Murdoch said the subscription model was 30% for the Daily at the Q&A after the Daily was released. Not in the presentation.

I watched the complete video of the launch available at The Daily site:
http://www.thedaily.com/launch

This video included the Q&A session and ended with them leaving (well, getting up out of their chairs). No mention was made of the 30% Apple share.

I also have searched to find any article that reported that either Apple or NewsCorp mentioned the 30% share. I can't find any. All I can find is people assuming the 30% share based on the previous cut.

You have stated that the 30% share was mentioned during the launch. Can you please point us to anything that authoritatively corroborates your claim?
post #160 of 164
Yeah, why not.

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-m...he-daily-take/


EDIT: to be fair that wasn't Q&A but a subsequent business interview on Fox.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • European publishers feel 'betrayed' by Apple's iOS app subscriptions
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › European publishers feel 'betrayed' by Apple's iOS app subscriptions