or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple unveils subscriptions for iOS App Store, bans links to out-of-app purchases
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple unveils subscriptions for iOS App Store, bans links to out-of-app purchases - Page 9

post #321 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

But Amazon/B&N/Netflix/etc doesn't have any store on the App Store

Not true! I have two Amazon shopping apps. One is directly to the store, with some conveniences. The other is a new shopping app, which is hard to describe. Assuming you actually have an Apple product, go to the app store, and type in Amazon, and they will come up.
post #322 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

I do. In any case argue the facts. Thats a generalised ad hominem.

He asked a question ...

QUESTION TO THE PEOPLE SAYING IT'S "UNFAIR":
Many many of you work in, own or have ever owned, a business?

He didn't say "you are an idiot" or anything like that .... I think you're just being picky.
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #323 of 571
http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-tr...4257521-1.html

In general, magazines surrender 30%+ of the list price of a magazine in a store. So a $6.00 magazine in the rack surrenders $2.00 to the store and oh by the way eats the cost of unsold magazines. Is the Apple Store more like a Grocery Store sales rack.

However, magazines to promote sales and to gather personal information are willing to steeply discount a magazine sale for a subscription, 1/3 to 1/2 off retail pricing is not a surprise. This is really not a big deal, since if they sold the same magazine in store that is all they would get.

If their main goal is advertising volume, then neither model has income from magazine being an issue. If you look at distribution costs for a magazine, e.g., shipping [and returning unsold magazines] as well as mail shipping and handling to homes, it is hard to see that not being a big cost to the magazines.

So Apple offers no shipping costs, no return unsold magazines, a huge market place, etc., and if a customer elects to subscribe to the magazine [or newspaper], then they pay 30% of the cost to Apple. By the way no financial transaction costs, pure 70% cash in a very timely manner. HHmm sounds like a great deal, EXCEPT

Here is where I think the magazines are going nuts - it is NOT the cost or 30%, this is either a wash or might be a savings, its not getting all that personal information that they can sell to advertisers, not to mention loose and drive consumers nuts with identity theft.

So Apple is saying you business model is not messed up on subscriptions costs, advertizing, etc. in fact, the potential audience is huge and this is super convenient to buy, but rather your model of getting and using personal subscriber information will be diminished. Perhaps bad to magazines, but in my mind really good for subscribers.
post #324 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Not true! I have two Amazon shopping apps. One is directly to the store, with some conveniences. The other is a new shopping app, which is hard to describe. Assuming you actually have an Apple product, go to the app store, and type in Amazon, and they will come up.

And this apps are using Apple resources? They don't use Apple servers to host the content, they don't use Apple servers for transaction processing.

Is Best Buy or eBay apps stores on Apple App Store?
post #325 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc would be fine without the App Store. Apple shouldn't stomp on the toes connected to the hands that feed them. The iPhone needs high profile apps, if they leave, many customers will follow them.


That's fine .... that's "democracy at work". But let's not "complain" because Apple wants to operate in a democratic fashion.
btw .... I'd love it if you would post a pic of that customer with "his toes connected to his hands" ....
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #326 of 571
Apple needs to not be in the habit of one changing the rules for developers of apps for it's iOS devices. Instability is bad for business. Also, this move is ridiculous why should I be paying apple for something they didn't earn. Amazon stores all my files and works out deals with publishers etc... I paid Apple for my Ipad already. Having an Amazon app in the App Store is the cost of doing business in the case of publishers.

This move is bad and Apple will reverse it's position but will it be too late. They haven't even justified why they made this move.
post #327 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

He's damn right.
You make it sound like it's stupid, but just think. Whatever the cost to produce the thing, factor in a profit, that's C+P. Add Apple's cut, that's C+P+A, with A= 30% of C+P.
Still following?
Price can't be higher on the app store per the Apple rule aforementionned, which means i
By pure mathematics, O is now higher than it was earlier.napp = C+P+A < O, with O the outside price.
And since the reseller is NOT going to sell at a loss, and it's highly doubtful P<A with A, remember, equal to 30% of the whole price, you get (C+P+A+O)/2 > original price.

Prices, hence are higher on the iPad because Apple "won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site", Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Example: C=20 P=10 O=30 30% of O = 9 = A
C+P+A<O or 20+10+9=39 Your formula is severely flawed.
Should be C+P-A=O-A or 20+10-9=30-9

Your analysis is too simplistic to be useful. How much would publisher save on existing marketing, administrative fees and existing commissions using appstore? How many new subscriptions would be gained be exposure in appstore?

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...

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...

Reply
post #328 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

What I'm hearing here is that investors are very worried, as they should be.

There is no way this model is going to survive anti-trust laws.
Apple is starting with 30% knowing full well it's just a number to begin negotiations with.
The anti-competitive policies of not allowing people to have a link to their website etc... are also just there as bargaining chips for the inevitable class action law suit.

The real question is - how desirable is an iDevice that has no content? Because as smart as some people here think they are with all their 'business smarts and clairvoyance'... they always leave out the human factor.

Remember that? The human factor... it's why the Macintosh went from 80% market share to 1.2% in less then a decade.

Make no mistake, Apple is repeating history. iPad will be less then 5% market share in 3 years. I guarantee it (if they stay on this course).

Nobody wants to be on a platform with no content.

This is bollox from word one. Not a single thing in there is true. Not even the 80% to 1.2% It's all just plain made up around the merest kernel of almost historical truth.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #329 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Wow, they have to be happy for being allowed to be on App Store.

A concept that you are not aware of, I guess .... kinda like a manufacturer who just got an order that allows his product to be sold through a major retail chain .... see how that works?
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #330 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Ok, let's talk about that 30%. Apple does what every business would love to do. That is, make money on every product and service. That's the way it's supposed to be. Publishers wish they could do that. But it's not in their business model. It never was once magazines came out. And even further back, even books carried many Ads in the back pages, because the book price couldn't keep the company afloat.

But what is Apple actually getting here? 30%? Well, sort of. They've had 10 billion downloads since the App Store first opened. But while two thirds of the apps are paid apps, only 20 tp 25% are bought, rather than downloaded for free. So Apple gets 30% of 20 to 25% of the downloads, or about 6 to 7.5% on average. That's not much! If we look t all the free updates and upgrades they have to host, the percentage drops to under a percent per download.

So while 30% sounds high, it really isn't when everything is considered. And magazine stores get more than 30%.

Out of that Apple insists on running the store at a small profit. If what some here want, they might run it at a loss. I don't see why they should have to do that.

Once again, we come back to the problem that Apple doesn't get money for free apps. I mentioned this many many posts ago. Should Apple really be getting 30% of subscription revenue for content they don't provide to help make up for the billions of free app downloads when they are merely processing the transaction for the subscription?

Look at it another way:
In iBooks, I believe Apple takes 30% of the total sale and 70% goes to the developer.

If Amazon had a similar deal, they'd get nothing on a sale through the app store, as 70% would go to the publisher and 30% would go to Apple.

On the other hand, if the publisher took a portion of Amazons revenue instead of the total sale, Amazon would get 21% of the total sale, 49% of the total sale would go to the publisher, and 30% would go to Apple. While Amazons hit may be acceptable in this scenario, I don't think the publisher would like this.

Either Amazon makes no money on an iOS sale, yet they must still supply the content, or the publisher makes a lot less from an Amazon iOS sale. Both scenarios make Kindle App uncompetitive on a iOS device. What incentive is there for them to stay on iOS? And what are the consequences of not being on iOS? Amazon is put between a rock and a hard place because of Apple flexing its muscle. Amazon is forced to find strike a better deal with publishers than Apple has, just to compete. If Apple didn't stand to gain from this with iBooks, I'd be a lot less worried about it, but as it stands this is anti-competitiveness at its finest.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #331 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

They dont host any content.

( is it worth replying to every moron, I wonder?)

Nor do any of our affiliates. We still pay them 50% commission for any sales they refer AND we pay them 50% commission for new products that their leads may buy. We do the mailing the affiliate gets the $.

All the affiliate does is send us people who may buy our product.

When we get our iPad add done, we'll gladly give Apple 30% as they'll be sending us customer that we would never get on our own.

Put simply, we'd rather take 70% of a much larger pie, than 100% of a much smaller pie.

The cut we pay to affiliates and will pay to Apple is due to their lead generation efforts.
post #332 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcompuser View Post

Nor do any of our affiliates. We still pay them 50% commission for any sales they refer AND we pay them 50% commission for new products that their leads may buy. We do the mailing the affiliate gets the $.

All the affiliate does is send us people who may buy our product.

When we get our iPad add done, we'll gladly give Apple 30% as they'll be sending us customer that we would never get on our own.

Put simply, we'd rather take 70% of a much larger pie, than 100% of a much smaller pie.

The cut we pay to affiliates and will pay to Apple is due to their lead generation efforts.

But Apple is not referring or sending any buyer.
post #333 of 571
Meh, its all a storm in a tea cup.

Look at it this way, you make a free App, publish it on iTunes App store and no one makes any money, yet Apple have to provide the bandwidth, hosting and transaction tracking etc for it. So you make nothing, Apple makes nothing and it actually costs Apple more that the developers $99 per annum to distribute the App.

So, subscriptions and in app purchases. Again, your App is 'free' but offers a way to buy additional content or a subscription. If you buy this through the app then Apple, again, foots the bill for the hosting payment transaction yada yada yada, and what? you expect them to do this for nothing whilst the developers coin it in?

I don't see any issue with this whatsoever, with millions of devices and essentially customers out there for these publishers to sell to surely its worth paying that 30% considering that the publishers are now in a dying business and would have been unlikely to have picked up a large proportion of these users otherwise. I expect google to follow suit with subscriptions on their store too as they too don't let you run a store within their store etc.
post #334 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Is Best Buy or eBay apps stores on Apple App Store?

Best Buy is, I use it regularly.

eBay has an app, but I don't have it installed.
post #335 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by gprovida View Post

http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-tr...4257521-1.html

In general, magazines surrender 30%+ of the list price of a magazine in a store. So a $6.00 magazine in the rack surrenders $2.00 to the store and oh by the way eats the cost of unsold magazines. Is the Apple Store more like a Grocery Store sales rack.

However, magazines to promote sales and to gather personal information are willing to steeply discount a magazine sale for a subscription, 1/3 to 1/2 off retail pricing is not a surprise. This is really not a big deal, since if they sold the same magazine in store that is all they would get.

If their main goal is advertising volume, then neither model has income from magazine being an issue. If you look at distribution costs for a magazine, e.g., shipping [and returning unsold magazines] as well as mail shipping and handling to homes, it is hard to see that not being a big cost to the magazines.

So Apple offers no shipping costs, no return unsold magazines, a huge market place, etc., and if a customer elects to subscribe to the magazine [or newspaper], then they pay 30% of the cost to Apple. By the way no financial transaction costs, pure 70% cash in a very timely manner. HHmm sounds like a great deal, EXCEPT

Here is where I think the magazines are going nuts - it is NOT the cost or 30%, this is either a wash or might be a savings, its not getting all that personal information that they can sell to advertisers, not to mention loose and drive consumers nuts with identity theft.

So Apple is saying you business model is not messed up on subscriptions costs, advertizing, etc. in fact, the potential audience is huge and this is super convenient to buy, but rather your model of getting and using personal subscriber information will be diminished. Perhaps bad to magazines, but in my mind really good for subscribers.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... where has this post been all day! The end... apple is doing what others have done for years except not exploiting its customers personal info....
post #336 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngjm View Post

Apple provides the platform and the experience for the publishers to promote their subscription. In some ways we can equate this to the paper the magazine is printed on. Magazine publishers have to pay the paper suppliers. The price may be higher on the iOS but it is a similar analogy in my mind.

Nope, a far better analogy is that of a car.

Say you bought your car from Toyota. You paid Toyota and now you own the car. Aside from servicing this is the last you'll ever see of Toyota. When you go to fill your car with fuel, you pay the fuel company, not Toyota. This is exactly as it should be, as Toyota had nothing to do with making the fuel or supplying it.

When you buy a Kindle book Amazon pays for EVERYTHING. They handle the credit card transaction, the download, the book rights, the DRM stuff.... Apple plays no part in it at all.

Now Apple say they want 30% of the price of every Kindle book, the trouble with that is that it will leave Amazon with 0% profit, and so they will have no choice but to pull the Kindle app from iOS. When that happens, iOS will be massively wounded and I suspect will only recover when Apple, tail between it's legs, admits it was very, very wrong.

Excessive greed never ends well. Unless of course, you're an investment banker, but that's another story.
post #337 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

[/B]That's fine .... that's "democracy at work". But let's not "complain" because Apple wants to operate in a democratic fashion.
btw .... I'd love it if you would post a pic of that customer with "his toes connected to his hands" ....

They are connected, just not directly (but I never said they were).

PS: Democracy is a political system, not an economic one.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #338 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by gprovida View Post

http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-tr...4257521-1.html

In general, magazines surrender 30%+ of the list price of a magazine in a store. So a $6.00 magazine in the rack surrenders $2.00 to the store and oh by the way eats the cost of unsold magazines. Is the Apple Store more like a Grocery Store sales rack.

However, magazines to promote sales and to gather personal information are willing to steeply discount a magazine sale for a subscription, 1/3 to 1/2 off retail pricing is not a surprise. This is really not a big deal, since if they sold the same magazine in store that is all they would get.

If their main goal is advertising volume, then neither model has income from magazine being an issue. If you look at distribution costs for a magazine, e.g., shipping [and returning unsold magazines] as well as mail shipping and handling to homes, it is hard to see that not being a big cost to the magazines.

So Apple offers no shipping costs, no return unsold magazines, a huge market place, etc., and if a customer elects to subscribe to the magazine [or newspaper], then they pay 30% of the cost to Apple. By the way no financial transaction costs, pure 70% cash in a very timely manner. HHmm sounds like a great deal, EXCEPT

Here is where I think the magazines are going nuts - it is NOT the cost or 30%, this is either a wash or might be a savings, its not getting all that personal information that they can sell to advertisers, not to mention loose and drive consumers nuts with identity theft.

So Apple is saying you business model is not messed up on subscriptions costs, advertizing, etc. in fact, the potential audience is huge and this is super convenient to buy, but rather your model of getting and using personal subscriber information will be diminished. Perhaps bad to magazines, but in my mind really good for subscribers.

Yes. We have been over the the basic issue already and like most intelligent points in the midst of recalcitrant trolls, it has been ignored totally: post 258, this thread. You add some more nice depth to the topic too.

The argument only rages on because the trolls don't want to acknowledge basic retail business models because that would be counterproductive to their bashing. It's a sorted dead issue that will go on for several more pages for no reasonable reason whatsoever.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #339 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

I expect google to follow suit with subscriptions on their store too as they too don't let you run a store within their store etc.

They allow in app purchases not going through them, Kindle app has in app purchasing
post #340 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

this is anti-competitiveness at its finest.

You're absolutely right, Amazon does not let any other book store on its Kindle device!

Talk about anti-competitive.

Perhaps we can just drop the whole anti-competitive issue, if Apple were to flat out reject the Kindle app and any other store that competes with Apple's content stores?
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #341 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

But Apple is not referring or sending any buyer.

What??? If you are using the App store... Apple is facilitating the transaction. In fact they have done all the work for you and you didn't have to DO ANYTHING!
post #342 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc would be fine without the App Store. Apple shouldn't stomp on the toes connected to the hands that feed them. The iPhone needs high profile apps, if they leave, many customers will follow them.

Considering that the overwhelming majority of i device purchasers could care less and impulse buy from the store because, 'hey, its only 99 cents' or 'hey, its free' companies who don't provide their app on the itunes store will be at a major disadvantage.

It would be like pulling your products from walmart and best buy and selling out of an obscure specialist retail store that few people frequent.
post #343 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

Example: C=20 P=10 O=30 30% of O = 9 = A
C+P+A<O or 20+10+9=39 Your formula is severely flawed.
Should be C+P-A=O-A or 20+10-9=30-9

Your analysis is too simplistic to be useful. How much would publisher save on existing marketing, administrative fees and existing commissions using appstore? How many new subscriptions would be gained be exposure in appstore?


Been there done that, been totally ignored. They don't want to know reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Not so much. Let's try again.

No, lightknight pulled the logical equivalent of saying 1 == 2 via indirection. In reality C+P+A != O.

C+P+A+AdditionalSales == O. Apple is charging (A) 30% for processing and increased impulse buy opportunities.

How much do you think US, People and the Enquirer pay grocery stores to be placed right at the checkout line??? Same principle, drive tons of impulse buys for content that would far sell less otherwise. Premium shelf space (sometimes just regular shelf space) -- wait for it -- COSTS the manufacturer! Standard everyday retail operating procedure. And no, it wasn't the grocery store that chose what goes there to increase grocery store sales, it was the manufacturers that bought those positions because it maximized their sell through, with the grocer effectively making money twice on every transaction.

I am amazed by how shallow and ignorant of business many of the posters are. Not that I would expect a bunch of MBA's to debate things. But to equivocally state things as above and miss such basic business retail principles is laughably sad.

Corollary -- if you don't have knowledge, training or education and therefore don't "know", and then have limited ability to analyze a situation, don't make absolute pronouncements.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #344 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Meh, its all a storm in a tea cup.

Look at it this way, you make a free App, publish it on iTunes App store and no one makes any money, yet Apple have to provide the bandwidth, hosting and transaction tracking etc for it. So you make nothing, Apple makes nothing and it actually costs Apple more that the developers $99 per annum to distribute the App.

So, subscriptions and in app purchases. Again, your App is 'free' but offers a way to buy additional content or a subscription. If you buy this through the app then Apple, again, foots the bill for the hosting payment transaction yada yada yada, and what? you expect them to do this for nothing whilst the developers coin it in?

I don't see any issue with this whatsoever, with millions of devices and essentially customers out there for these publishers to sell to surely its worth paying that 30% considering that the publishers are now in a dying business and would have been unlikely to have picked up a large proportion of these users otherwise. I expect google to follow suit with subscriptions on their store too as they too don't let you run a store within their store etc.

There's no problem with Apple charging for that service. The problem exists with forcing app developers to use that service even though they already have existing web stores and subscription models in place.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #345 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarker99 View Post

What??? If you are using the App store... Apple is facilitating the transaction. In fact they have done all the work for you and you didn't have to DO ANYTHING!

My God, Apple is FORCING to use the App Store for in app purchases. Amazon, Nertflix, Spotify weren't using Apple resources to sell they subscriptions or goods.
post #346 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Considering that the overwhelming majority of i device purchasers could care less and impulse buy from the store because, 'hey, its only 99 cents' or 'hey, its free' companies who don't provide their app on the itunes store will be at a major disadvantage.

It would be like pulling your products from walmart and best buy and selling out of an obscure specialist retail store that few people frequent.

NO, just the opposite. It would be like putting your stuff in the checkout aisle where the retail stores make an absolute killing on impulse buys. Why does Fry's, Borders and Best Buy (among others) make you walk through a very long maze past the candy and magazines to get to the checkouts? Because customers buy a crapload of stuff they wouldn't otherwise.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #347 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

But Apple is not referring or sending any buyer.

You don't think so?

From http://www.pixelmator.com/weblog/

Pixelmator Grosses $1 Million on the Mac App Store

In case it's not clear enough:

http://www.pixelmator.com/transition/

And, because it offers so many benefits to our customers, we are fully committed to supporting the Mac App Store by completely moving Pixelmator sales and distribution to the Mac App Store in the upcoming months.


I regularly buy stuff from the Mac App store and the App Store - stuff that I wouldn't have purchased otherwise.
post #348 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Considering that the overwhelming majority of i device purchasers could care less and impulse buy from the store because, 'hey, its only 99 cents' or 'hey, its free' companies who don't provide their app on the itunes store will be at a major disadvantage.

It would be like pulling your products from walmart and best buy and selling out of an obscure specialist retail store that few people frequent.

Netflix, Amazon (Kindle), and Hulu represent impulse buys? Really? I wasn't talking about small developers and $0.99 apps, I was talking about established services (like the ones I listed in the post you quoted...) pulling out of the App store. Obviously they wouldn't want to, but if these moves force them out, Apple will suffer as well. It's a stupid, greedy, and shortsighted move.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #349 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Meh, its all a storm in a tea cup.

Look at it this way, you make a free App, publish it on iTunes App store and no one makes any money, yet Apple have to provide the bandwidth, hosting and transaction tracking etc for it. So you make nothing, Apple makes nothing and it actually costs Apple more that the developers $99 per annum to distribute the App.

So, subscriptions and in app purchases. Again, your App is 'free' but offers a way to buy additional content or a subscription. If you buy this through the app then Apple, again, foots the bill for the hosting payment transaction yada yada yada, and what? you expect them to do this for nothing whilst the developers coin it in?

I don't see any issue with this whatsoever, with millions of devices and essentially customers out there for these publishers to sell to surely its worth paying that 30% considering that the publishers are now in a dying business and would have been unlikely to have picked up a large proportion of these users otherwise. I expect google to follow suit with subscriptions on their store too as they too don't let you run a store within their store etc.

The problem in the case of Amazon or Sony is people are there for Amazon or Sony not necessarily for Apple.
post #350 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcompuser View Post

You don't think so?.

This is an actual app, no the content we are talking about.
post #351 of 571
Think of how many people would never have even purchased Ipads had it not been for Amazon and Netflix and Hulu...
post #352 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

My God, Apple is FORCING to use the App Store for in app purchases. Amazon, Nertflix, Spotify weren't using Apple resources to sell they subscriptions or goods.

If there is no money in it then why do it? People are stupid... why don't you go into a store and say 'I am not gonna buy a TV from you but could you give me a free ride to the store down the street and I will buy it from them!' Apple are doing all the work by providing the app store and the eco-system its a service/commission... blah!
post #353 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

This is an actual app, no the content we are talking about.

It doesn't matter. It's the extra exposure that you get.

Let me ask you, do you really think that the new News Corp publication would get the same number of buyers if they offered it on their own, as a PDF?

If so, then why not do so?

Or, maybe they figured that 70% of a much larger pie was better than 100% of a smaller one.
post #354 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcompuser View Post

It doesn't matter. It's the extra exposure that you get.

Let me ask you, do you really think that the new News Corp publication would get the same number of buyers if they offered it on their own, as a PDF?

If so, then why not do so?

Or, maybe they figured that 70% of a much larger pie was better than 100% of a smaller one.

Let me ask you, Amazon, Hulu or Netflix have more consumers because of the App Store, Apple has sold more iPhones/iPads because there are those applications or both of them?
post #355 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

No, they are FORCED to "accesss to content" through a billing system

No force ....The content providers have to allow a choice ..... the same price, or less, "in app" as they allow "out of app". .... Isn't that what everyone screams what is wrong with Apple .... they don't offer choice..

Make up your freakin' mind .....choice or not!
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #356 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

He's actually guilty of ignoring certain realities and simplifying others, but whatever.

Don't be shy ..... name one..... any one .... go ahead...
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #357 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

This applies equally to novels as well as magazines. Ad revenue doesn't support them, nor does it support services like Netflix.

Well, this announcement relates to subs, and we've moved widely from that point, but as for the actual topic, what I said is correct.

Books are different, I agree. But as I keep saying, none of the big booksellers in the App store have commented as yet, so we don't know what they're thinking. Maybe they're talking to Apple about this. Who knows? I'd like to wait and see what happens.
post #358 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

No force ....The content providers have to allow a choice ..... the same price, or less, "in app" as they allow "out of app". .... Isn't that what everyone screams what is wrong with Apple .... they don't offer choice..

Make up your freakin' mind .....choice or not!

Give developers with existing online storefronts the choice to implement in app purchases or not (aka their previous system) and I have no concerns with their subscription system. What you are advocating for isn't choice, but the illusion of choice.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #359 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Let me ask you, Amazon, Hulu or Netflix have more consumers because of the App Store, Apple has sold more iPhones/iPads because there are those applications or both of them?

I wouldn't care if Amazon, Hulu or Netflix weren't on the iPad.

I have Netflix but don't use it on the iPad. Netflix's own number show that more people access their service through the Apple TV, than through the iPad.

So, maybe a few people wouldn't have purchased the iPad because the above weren't available, but there is far more to the iPad than the above.
post #360 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

And this apps are using Apple resources? They don't use Apple servers to host the content, they don't use Apple servers for transaction processing.

Is Best Buy or eBay apps stores on Apple App Store?

They're using resources in that they have to be checked to be approved, have to be hosted, have to be hosted to be updated, etc. Apple doesn't get a cut on sales.

I don't know about Best Buy, as I have no interest in an app for them, but I've had the eBay app since it first came out on the iPhone, and use it all the time. I'm an active ebayer.

So you have no Apple products, yet feel qualifier to criticize them. You really should know how they work, and why they're so popular, and then you may get a feel why some of us don't agree with some of the opinion here. Apple make so much of this so easy, that we feel they deserve their cut if it's required, which it's not all the ti
Me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple unveils subscriptions for iOS App Store, bans links to out-of-app purchases
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple unveils subscriptions for iOS App Store, bans links to out-of-app purchases