or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › European publishers upset over Apple's iTunes subscription fees
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

European publishers upset over Apple's iTunes subscription fees

post #1 of 46
Thread Starter 
A group of European newspaper publishers has warned Apple that a 30 percent commission on iTunes subscription revenue and restrictive conditions would be unfair, according to a new report.

The BBC reports that the European Newspaper Publishers' Association has expressed concern over Apple's revenue split for iTunes digital periodical subscriptions and possible restrictions limiting whether iPad users can subscribe to a periodical through the company's own website.

The ENPA warns that Apple is demanding too large a cut of publishers' profits while potentially banning newspapers from taking subscriptions via their own websites.

"Consumers may only have access to the newspaper of their choice via the iTunes store, where the transaction would be subject to commission," said the ENPA in a statement.

"Newspaper publishers should have freedom of choice of payment systems for their readers and the possibility to negotiate pricing levels for their digital publications," the statement read.

Apple announced an in-app subscription service for its App Store last week alongside News Corp's The Daily digital newspaper. Regarding the service, iTunes chief Eddy Cue said Apple would provide more details in the near future.

Prior to The Daily's launch event, reports emerged that Apple had denied an eBookstore app from Sony on the grounds that its in-app sales were not routed through iTunes. However, Apple denied the claim, asserting that its developer terms or guidelines had not been changed.

"We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase," said Apple spokesperson Trudy Miller.

According to News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch, The Daily, which will be the first iOS app to utilize the new subscription feature when it goes live, has the usual 70 - 30 revenue split agreement with Apple for the first year, though Murdoch expressed hopes that future negotiations with Apple could diminish its cut.

European publishers apparently feel "betrayed" by Apple and are planning a summit for later this month to "compare notes" on Apple's subscription rules for iOS.

According to Grzegorz Piechota, the European president of the International Newsmedia Marketing Association, Apple has been inconsistent in how it has communicated and implemented its new policies.

Apple saidthat in their policy with Sony Reader, they are not changing anything, just enforcing existing rules. But when they talk to publishers direct, they are saying something else," said Piechota.

Apple has been contacting some publishers, and not contacting some. Some get emails, others get informal phone calls, he continued. The whole process of accepting or rejecting apps is not transparent. Its very hard to explain why some apps are being accepted and some are being refused; some apps allow you to read content that is bought somehwere (sic) else and others that wont let you do this.

Last month, Belgian economy minister Vincent Van Quickenborne called for an antitrust probe of Apple on possible abuses by the iPad maker to dominate the newspaper market.

Last year, US publishers expressed frustration over the lack of an iPad subscription feature. Conde Nast, Hearst and Time have all been mentioned as being in discussions with Apple, though a deal has yet to be reached, according to a report by The New York Times last month.
post #2 of 46
I think what Murdoch said is the way this will play out...

I think part of Apple's strategy is taking this larger cut at the beginning but knowing there's a chance they may drop it in the future. Apple makes so much money on hardware and I'm sure they'll be wanting to keep content producers happy.

The real question is how much does it cost Apple to serve content (iTunes, storage, etc.) and what profit margin is reasonable on top of that? any ideas? lol
post #3 of 46
psssah, if they don't want to pay the price of admission, I say they should go publish on the 'open' android market. I'm sure there are enough Galaxy Tabs to cover their subscriber needs. lol.

Or, if that doesn't suit them, make their own damn tablet.
:-D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reply
:-D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reply
post #4 of 46
Is this deja vu all over again, or is AI just having another senior moment, with this story?
post #5 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Is this deja vu all over again, or is AI just having another senior moment, with this story?

So, it wasn't just me thinking this.
post #6 of 46
Like the music industry, Apple was supposed to save the publishing industry but it turns out Apple will be killing the them.
post #7 of 46
Go Europe. More restrictive rules that don't really help anyone. Apple created an awesome product and gives businesses opportunity to make money hand over fist, and they whine that Apple takes too large a percentage. 30% isn't that outrageous to create the software, create the store, take care of billing, etc.

If they don't want to pay, all they have to do is create a website and let people log in there. Don't use an app and it costs you NOTHING.
post #8 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjojade View Post

Go Europe. More restrictive rules that don't really help anyone. Apple created an awesome product and gives businesses opportunity to make money hand over fist, and they whine that Apple takes too large a percentage. 30% isn't that outrageous to create the software, create the store, take care of billing, etc.

If they don't want to pay, all they have to do is create a website and let people log in there. Don't use an app and it costs you NOTHING.

There are many unanswered questions about who does what.

In the case of The Daily, Apple appears to be only providing the payment processing so 30% is rather a lot. If Apple also provides distribution then 30% is not so much - periodicals already forfeit a good portion of their cover price to existing distribution channels.

We won't really know much of what the details are until Apple announces its subscription plans in the next few weeks. So, I think the European publishers are, for now, just trying to shape opinion.
post #9 of 46
If they don't like it, why don't they STFU and publish on Android? Oh, they can only sell for free with ads?
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
post #10 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuwafuwa View Post

If they don't like it, why don't they STFU and publish on Android? Oh, they can only sell for free with ads?

Well put...
post #11 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjojade View Post

If they don't want to pay, all they have to do is create a website and let people log in there. Don't use an app and it costs you NOTHING.

Exactly. I don't understand their whining. Isn't it simple enough to put your material online, and use HTML5 for any specialized content? If they cannot get people to subscribe for access to a web site, how is a dedicated application going to help them?
post #12 of 46
It's simple. If you don't want to pay the cut through an app and Apple's app store, then forget about the app and sell your subscriptions through a web browser instead. Millions of sites sell subscriptions every day using only a browser. But if you want to play in Apple's sandbox, you have to pay the owner.
post #13 of 46
Quote:
The ENPA warns that Apple is demanding too large a cut of publishers' profits while potentially banning newspapers from taking subscriptions via their own websites.

"Consumers may only have access to the newspaper of their choice via the iTunes store, where the transaction would be subject to commission," said the ENPA in a statement.

So Apple has stated there is a 30% cut for subscriptions?
post #14 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

So Apple has stated there is a 30% cut for subscriptions?

No, Murdoch stated in an interview that Apple gets 30% for the first year and that he hopes to renegotiate that percentage in the future.

Apple is supposed to announce the specifics of their subscription features and pricing in the next few weeks. It's fine for Apple to get 30% if they are also doing the content delivery but, to me, they should get a lower percentage if they are just handling the payment processing with the publication doing the content delivery.
post #15 of 46
As someone above stated... and I'll add a few:
  • forget Apple... go Android and Windows Tablets... see how that works out.
  • stick to your web-strategy, which is currently working fantastic... right?
  • make a "touch-friendly, mobile-browser Web-App": It's free, and you can do anything you want with it regarding subs and pricing. That'll work... or maybe not.
Realize that your publishing empire is dying, no one wants ALL of their news through ONE source, and think "aggregator" and "news syndication" like TRVL and FlipBook.

Do nothing. And please, just STFU and fold already. Game over. Retire. Go down to Spain. Meet your buddy executives. Talk and reminisce about the "Old Days"...... OR....

...take Apple's bait and give up the 30% cut, and see what happens.

Considering 2 major paper price hikes just last year, gas prices and EU-Printer Union Tarifs on the rise... why do I think you just might come out ahead... IF....IF....

you actually create a quality publication that people want to read rather than giving out free bird-cage liners and table-leg extensions.
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 #16 of 46
Nowhere do I see the cost of a traditional paper from paper, printing, distribution and delivery compared to the 30% cut on iTunes.
I suspect that the only reason for the papers unease is the lack of feedback on their subscribers.
Apple and the papers should be able to work out a solution to please the newspapers enough to stop complaining.

If not it is only sour grapes and envy of Apple making a fair return on all the work they do to get their paper read.
post #17 of 46
I see this FlipBook mentioned when talling about newspapers. On the Canadian iTunes store it is a cartoon animation app.

What FlipBook are you all talking about?
post #18 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charel View Post

Nowhere do I see the cost of a traditional paper from paper, printing, distribution and delivery compared to the 30% cut on iTunes.
I suspect that the only reason for the papers’ unease is the lack of feedback on their subscribers.
Apple and the papers should be able to work out a solution to please the newspapers enough to stop complaining.

If not it is only sour grapes and envy of Apple making a fair return on all the work they do to get their paper read.

I totally agree, apple is providing the market and the distribution for their product. To me the math is pretty simple. 70% profits on a expanding subscriber base vs. the current 100% profits on an exponentially decreasing subscriber base. The printed newspaper is practically dead and if news organizations want to survive they are going to have to embrace the new technology. I imagine these issues go a lot deeper than just subscription revenue and has a lot to do with how ads are targeted to readers and how the ad marketing data is collected and shared.
post #19 of 46
This view that an owner can do what he wants with the product as per a form of capitalisme sauvage is an American centric view which is not shared in the European Union or in most other Western countries.

The test is whether a company with a dominant position abuses that dominance. Microsoft abused their position with Windows and the EU took action over it. Even though no-one was forced to buy a Windows computer, their dominance in the market place reduced competition and led to unfair practices. The suggestion that a person or a consumer builds their own tablet or operating system is unrealistic.

If Apple are abusing a dominant position and following unfair practices then it is no defence to say that it owns the product. The promotion of fair practice and competition is important and the EU has taken action against American and European companies that have attempted to behave unfairly or abusively.
post #20 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

No

My point exactly.
They are complaining about 30% when it has not been said it's 30%.
post #21 of 46
There's actually a LOT at stake here. Firstly, there are three very different types of Apps. (a) Apps from businesses that have competing hardware (Amazon, B&N, Sony) and Apps that do not (Zinio, PixelMags) and Apps that are individual titles (The Daily, The Australian) etc.

In the case of the first, it would not be unreasonable for Apple to expect the full 30% of In-App sales because they are competitors. If 30% wipes out the profit margin on an Amazon eBook, Amazon are free to remove their App from the iOS Store. If, as is more likely, the App is a loss leader, Amazon would trade on iOS at a loss as users would likely also buy eBooks from Amazon.com - it is worth it for access to the market of Apple users. I would be surprised to see iBooksstore App on a Kindle. Equally, would you expect Barnes and Noble to approve putting iBookstore on a Nook?

For the Zinio's of the world, these virtual newsagents have a very different model. They do not make hardware. Their profit per book or magazine is likely much smaller. They likely have a website selling subscriptions to download content to the App. Here the choice is less clear on how to proceed. Apple could enforce the "IAP required for approval" position, but they would likely have to drop the commission to a rate where the business could ever hope to afford, possibly as little as 5%. Alternatively Apple could choose to approve the App if the ONLY way to buy content for it was on that provider's website, BUT perhaps require the App to NOT be free. In this scenario, Apple are a shop window for a clearing house, so economics dictates that 30% is unlikely to fly for In App Purchases (IAP) those types of Apps - these Apps also have the added distinction of bringing new content and customers to Apple's hardware, where in the first type of Apps, that is debatable.

Finally, you have single title Apps. This seems a simpler situation, where there is no competing hardware equation and the title is probably available on multiple platforms. Here, again, it is just economics whether Apple can provide enough users to warrant 30% fees. Each title will have to make that economic judgement and factor it in to their price. As Mr Murdoch said, The Daily will pay 30% for year one, but expects to negotiate for year 2 plus. This makes sense as Apple arguably bring more to the table in the relationship at this precise point, but IF The Daily can chalk up reasonable sales on other platforms, or if it proves to be the case that even a News Corp backed title can't turn a profit with a 30% IAP fee, then you would expect all parties to negotiate going forward.

Kindle App is not Zinio is not The Daily - flexibility will be required in the App Store rules to bring all parties to a financially and strategically satisfactory position.
post #22 of 46
I forgot to add, I think Apple wants to encourage single title Apps, where a 'clean' 30% fee is deducted from the price of the App, not an IAP, as it is a straight swap for the costs of distributing the paper versions previously - hence why Apple are holding News Corps hand so much with the launch of The Daily. If every book, newspaper or mag was able to publish as an App easily, it makes it a straight fight between hardware and purchase UX - areas Apple thinks it can win.
post #23 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregoriusM View Post

I see this FlipBook mentioned when talling about newspapers. On the Canadian iTunes store it is a cartoon animation app.

What FlipBook are you all talking about?

It's FlipBoard.
post #24 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by de Villiers View Post

This view that an owner can do what he wants with the product as per a form of capitalisme sauvage is an American centric view which is not shared in the European Union or in most other Western countries.

The test is whether a company with a dominant position abuses that dominance. Microsoft abused their position with Windows and the EU took action over it. Even though no-one was forced to buy a Windows computer, their dominance in the market place reduced competition and led to unfair practices. The suggestion that a person or a consumer builds their own tablet or operating system is unrealistic.

If Apple are abusing a dominant position and following unfair practices then it is no defence to say that it owns the product. The promotion of fair practice and competition is important and the EU has taken action against American and European companies that have attempted to behave unfairly or abusively.

Come now provided it is Apple, and Apple's "sandbox" ( not your device you own) then it is ok. Everybody else bad. Apple good. Of course this is restraint of trade.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #25 of 46
The mathematics of this is not understood.

Lets work out how unviable the Apple Store is for Amazon if their margins are 50%. Lets say Amazon sell a popular e-book at 50% margin. The book costs em $5 ( all costs, including righs, labour, distribution etc. averaged out. Its an average cost). Cost to consumer $7.50

Amazon sell a million. Heres the stats

sales $7.5M
cost $5.0M
profit before Apple $2.5M

I think that people are naively thinking that the profit after Apple is 70% of $2.5M that is $1.75 and wondering what the problem is. Wrong. The 30% is on the original price.

profit after Apple is 2.5M - $7.5M * 0.3 ( $2.25M) = 0.25M.

Margins are reduced from 50% to 5%. At 43% margins your profit dissappears.


How many does it have to sell on an Android device to match this profit?

Not 1 million, but 100,000. So if Amazon's margins are 50% per e-book and if Android is more than 10% at the end of the year then Android becomes the viable platform. It gets worse if the margins are lower.

Long term this will effect iPad sales. And it will become the cause celebre of the Apple is Not Open camp.

And with justification, since this will have much greater effect on the iPad experience than lack of Flash. I am pretty sure that the competitors will make justified mileage from it.

( Also the publishers are the publishers of important and world read magazines, periodicals, and newspapers. Lets see if their editorial line on Apple changes.)

So Apple should just get out of IAP for people who dont need it and concentrate on selling the damned hardware.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #26 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

The mathematics of this is not understood. ...

Everyone understands the mathematics, we also understand that you're upset that you failed to read your developer agreement before you submitted your app and got rejected and are not now fully in possession of your faculties when discussing this topic.
post #27 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Everyone understands the mathematics, we also understand that you're upset that you failed to read your developer agreement before you submitted your app and got rejected and are not now fully in possession of your faculties when discussing this topic.

Lol.

I made my money. I am a contractor. The contract is over. I am paid. New job next week. I am angry for my ex- employers, and so are they, but they are a multi-million dollar company with vast resources to piss on Apple from their ownership of a lot of European webprint and some television real estate. Thats a bad move by Apple.

( Do you think that all developers are in their bedrooms? Those days are pretty much over. And no developer producing an app for content providers would be a solo dev - think about who owns or buys e-books, magazines, and music and video rights).

Besides dealing in Ad homimems, far too easily allowed on this forum you do little else in a coherent argument.

In fact, you present no argument whatsoever, except fan boy slavishness. I present a post on figures. You reply with an ad-homimen: some fuckwitted wank about how my ex-employer ( a famous UK content provider,) did not read the "developer agreement" when even a genetically retarded two year old would understand that Apple changed the terms, but not the wording, of the agreement in the last few weeks. Which is why Sony is banned for what Kindle was ( and is) doing already.

Go to ignore, you cultish halfwit.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #28 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by macdaddykane View Post

I totally agree, apple is providing the market and the distribution for their product. To me the math is pretty simple. 70% profits on a expanding subscriber base vs. the current 100% profits on an exponentially decreasing subscriber base. .

Your math is wrong. Those numbers are REVENUES, not profits.

From the 70% of selling price they get from Apple, they have to subtract the cost of content creation and their own overheads.

From the 100% of revenue for selling through normal channels, they have to subtract the cost of content creation and their own overheads PLUS the cost of buying paper and ink, the cost of running and maintaining big printing presses and facilities, the discount that they give to normal retailers, shipping costs, and so on.

Chances are that they make more money if Apple gives them 70% of revenues than if they sell it through normal channels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

The mathematics of this is not understood.

Lets work out how unviable the Apple Store is for Amazon if their margins are 50%. Lets say Amazon sell a popular e-book at 50% margin. The book costs em $5 ( all costs, including righs, labour, distribution etc. averaged out. Its an average cost). Cost to consumer $7.50

Amazon sell a million. Heres the stats

sales $7.5M
cost $5.0M
profit before Apple $2.5M

I think that people are naively thinking that the profit after Apple is 70% of $2.5M that is $1.75 and wondering what the problem is. Wrong. The 30% is on the original price.

profit after Apple is 2.5M - $7.5M * 0.3 ( $2.25M) = 0.25M.

Margins are reduced from 50% to 5%. At 43% margins your profit dissappears.

No, the only problem is that you're making up numbers that have no bearing on reality. Furthermore, you're using figures from a reseller rather than a publisher. It is not surprising that Amazon is not going to do too well selling through iTunes. Amazon is Apple's competitor - why should Apple be offering them a great deal?

So let's look at the PUBLISHERS rather than an Apple competitor.

Selling through iTunes, publisher gets to keep 70% and has to pay only content creation costs (and overheads).

Selling through conventional channels, they have their own overheads and content creation cost PLUS the cost of buying paper and ink, the cost of running and maintaining big printing presses and facilities, the discount that they give to normal retailers, shipping costs, and so on.

Considering that it's not unusual for the retailer alone to keep 50%, it is not difficult to see that a publisher might be making MORE via iTunes. Of course, even that is incomplete because the selling price is different and ad revenues are different for the two channels.

Bottom line is that it is not at all clear that the publishers can't make money on iTunes, but if they can't, no one is forcing them to use it. Apple is offering them a choice of how they might distribute their product. I really don't get all the whining about how unfair it is.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #29 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"Consumers may only have access to the newspaper of their choice via the iTunes store, where the transaction would be subject to commission," said the ENPA in a statement.

Doesn't this answer his complaint?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase," said Apple spokesperson Trudy Miller.

If you are only on the iTunes store, open your own store too!
All Apple says is that if you sell things outside of iTunes, you have to provide that in iTunes as well. If the only way someone can get your content is through iTunes, shouldn't Apple get their commission for bringing the eyes to you?

Nothing is stopping you from making it available to anyone everywhere with your own payment system where Apple does not get a cut!
post #30 of 46
To my mind, a 30% fee would be exorbitant. I am not sure if the content is delivered via iTunes to the app or via the publisher's resource. Especially if the latter, the fee should be reduced. Subscriptions are very different from other types of content. Also, with news, it is necessary to keep the price low and have very high subscription rate. There are huge costs that can only be amortized over a large subscription base. I imagine that no one would complain if Apple's fee was in the 10-12% range.
post #31 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

... In fact, you present no argument whatsoever ...

It's already been explained to you ad nauseam why your "math" is beside the point. There's no point in trying to reason with someone who isn't open to it, and no point in repeating the same arguments that were given the last time AI published this story.
post #32 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiomusic View Post

Doesn't this answer his complaint?



If you are only on the iTunes store, open your own store too!
All Apple says is that if you sell things outside of iTunes, you have to provide that in iTunes as well.

Nothing is stopping you from making it available to anyone everywhere with your own payment system where Apple does not get a cut!

Yes, but the people who are all bent out of shape about this aren't thinking rationally.
post #33 of 46
I just don't get this debate, maybe I'm missing something. Take my favourite magazine T3. I can purchase the iTunes In App iPad version for £2.99 or the Zinio digital version for Mac/iPad for £2.49. Or I could just buy the paper version for £4.25. Presumably when other 10" tablets are released later this year they will sell a version for whatever software marketplace they use to accomodate those users. Alternatively they could just sell a digital/pdf version via their website or put the content behind a paywall. Where is the monopoly?
post #34 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

The mathematics of this is not understood.

I don't have to understand the mathematics of how a publisher calculate their profit, I just know a simple fact, book sellers, such as B&N, Borders, charges publishers 50% on hard cover books sold through their shelves, as stated in this NY Times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/bu.../01ebooks.html

Apple is only taking 30%.
post #35 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiomusic View Post

If you are only on the iTunes store, open your own store too!
All Apple says is that if you sell things outside of iTunes, you have to provide that in iTunes as well. If the only way someone can get your content is through iTunes, shouldn't Apple get their commission for bringing the eyes to you?
Nothing is stopping you from making it available to anyone everywhere with your own payment system where Apple does not get a cut!

Can I sell content on my own store front for X and then sell on iTunes through IAP for 1.3*X? This would appear to meet the rules of the developer agreement.

If so, then I see no problem and this would make sense. If, however, Apple is saying that the outside store and IAP have to have the same price, then that does seem problematic because Apple should not have the ability to dictate the price of someone else's software.
post #36 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Lol.

I made my money. I am a contractor. The contract is over. I am paid. ....... BLAH BLAH BLAH.....

Go to ignore, you cultish halfwit.

Wow, easy..... you've really worked yourself up into a lather there!

Why don't you run along, learn the difference between say, revenue and profit, for starters. Then come back and teach us 'math.'
post #37 of 46
Unfair? Seriously? What are we, five years old? This is a business. Businesses exist for one purpose, and one purpose only - to make money.

If Apple has done something illegal, then their feet should be held to the fire. But if you don't like the 30% cut or you don't like the app approval process (which admittedly appears to be pretty stupid) then take your business elsewhere, like over to Android or WP7. Why the whining?

It reminds me of how the entire technology industry responded to Microsoft - their illegal behavior aside, if M$ did stuff developers/partners/providers didn't like, they'd bellyache about it, but none of them had the balls to take their business elsewhere. Try it for a change!

But, but, Mr(s) Elected Official, it's, it's, it's not fair! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! We're stupid, we don't know how to deal with change in our industry. Fix our problems for us! Waaaaaaaaaaaah!

...I don't think Apple's approach is a winning strategy long term. 30% is too steep, app approval is inconsistent and unreliable, and they're a PITA to deal with as a company. If they don't pull their heads out, Apple is the one who'll eventually lose. Publishers stop whining. Take your stuff to Android and tell Apple to f-off if you don't like their model. It's really that simple.
post #38 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

I don't have to understand the mathematics of how a publisher calculate their profit, I just know a simple fact, book sellers, such as B&N, Borders, charges publishers 50% on hard cover books sold through their shelves, as stated in this NY Times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/bu.../01ebooks.html

Apple is only taking 30%.

You're not looking at the whole picture, however. Think of Amazon as that bookstore. If it wants to continue to stay on the Apple app store, they have to allow Apple to take 30% of the cost of the book, which eats into whatever revenue is generated for Amazon's ebooks. Think about it... either Amazon gives a 30% cut from their existing sales to Apple, or else they don't have a reader on iOS anymore.

Apple is saying "give us a cut of whatever your business is, or you don't do business." Its one thing for Apple to take 30% from the publisher directly (that's what iBooks is for). Its another thing to take 30% from literally *anyone* who wants to do business on iOS, regardless of existing agreements.
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 #39 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Everyone understands the mathematics, we also understand that you're upset that you failed to read your developer agreement before you submitted your app and got rejected and are not now fully in possession of your faculties when discussing this topic.

Are you going to the Apple Fan Boi convention dressed as Apple's first USB mouse (hockey puck) again? What flavor this year?
post #40 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Are you going to the Apple Fan Boi convention dressed as Apple's first USB mouse (hockey puck) again? What flavor this year?

I always go bondi blue, but this year I'll have my (also bondi blue) hockey puck mouse yo-yo with me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • European publishers upset over Apple's iTunes subscription fees
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › European publishers upset over Apple's iTunes subscription fees