Originally Posted by ranReloaded
Actually, it is way better because Apple still allows you to sell through other channels as well.
Which I clearly stated in my 2nd paragraph which you conveniently deleted from your reply to my post. Don't selectively quote someone just so you can have an excuse to be argumentative. You've contributed nothing to this conversation.
My orignal post:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
IF you think about it, Apple's behavior here isn't that much different than MS telling PC manufacturer's that they must pay for a license to install Windows on every PC they sell, even if the customer only wanted Linux and not Windows on their computer.
Apple still allows purchases outside of iTunes, as long as the iTunes option is also available. That's the only thing keeping them out of hot water...but they are dangerously close to getting the attention of regulators and losing the trust of developers and customers. (In my opinion.)
Originally Posted by nunyabinez
Imagine this scenario. I create a magazine app and put it on the app store for free. Then I sell issues every month to all the people who downloaded it via a web link. What has Apple gotten from it? Nothing. What did Apple provide me with? A distribution channel where my customers can buy things from me that I don't have to pay for. Apple pays for the servers, the maintenance, associated with the app store and got nothing out of it.
So, they say, "hey since we are providing you with new customers and incurring expenses on your behalf, how about you make it an option for your customers who want to, to buy in app?". We will take our usual cut, but if they want to go to the browser and use extra steps, we won't worry about it. Just how is this unfair? What is unfair is companies making money of the back of Apple and not wanting to pay them for the new revenue that they are sending their way. If you don't like it, then just don't have a purchase option in the app at all. Have customers purchase it from their computer and Apple won't care. These publishers should be happy that there is some mechanism to save their dying print business not biting the hand that is going to feed them.
And if I only subsquently purchase 1 issue (or even none) vs if I then purchase 100 issues over the next couple of years, why should Apple be compensated 100x more when the original app was only downloaded once? Apple created the problem buy insisting all app distribution goes through them. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but they also need to recognize the problems it creates. A 30% cut is probably reasonable for applications because of the marketing iTunes provides. But it's unreasonable for content if all Apple is doing is act as a data pipe from the application to the providers content. If I recall, the estimates for music was that Apple got about 10% of the sale price, the rest went to the content owner. Why then 30% for a magazine or book?
If Apple were trying to be "fair" (vs just plain greedy), they would create a more flexible pricing structure. A few possibilities:
1. Charge a lower commision (ie, 10%) for in-app content
purchases via the iTunes infrastructure than for application sales (30%).
2. No longer allow free commerical applications. You'd need to define "commercial"...such as an application which was meant to generate revenue for the developer via content subscriptions. This would allow Apple to be compensated for distributing the orignal application which is currently free.
3. (Not sure if the current rules already allow for this one) Allow the developer to have different prices for in-app content purchases via iTunes vs. non-iTunes distribution of content. So I could charge $10 for my content if you get if from me, $13 if you get it from Apple. This lets the customer decide if Apple's channel is enough of a convenience to justify Apple getting a 30% cut.
#2 isn't really feasible. #3 creates confusion for the user and would make Apple look bad for being greedy for "taxing" content purchases through their store. #1 seems like the best, most "fair" solution.
If it were MS doing something like this, every single person here would be calling them pure evil for it. To pretend otherwise would be naive Apple fanboy-ism.