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 11

post #401 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Ah, but the reality is that they de facto force the in-app purchase making difficult to make it outside the app if using the iPhone or iPad.

Last I checked, iPad and iPhone have a very good mobile browser, arguably the best. Don't see how difficult it is to access a Amazon's website or a Magazine site and sign up for a subscription. You do surf the internet, don't you? You add it to your iTunes library, just like you do with many things now (I have a few Audible audio books), and sync. Of course it is a bit more of a hassle than in-App purchases: that's the point! Apple created the platform and store, and expects to gain from it. Why is this so difficult for some of you to understand?

Use a webpage. The only thing Apple has stipulated in order to get your iApp accepted, is that the webpage not be linked to directly from within the iApp. They also ask that the in-App purchase option reflect the same price as on your website. Amazon can persuade iOS users to purchase outside the app as much as it likes -- on its own website, on TV, in magazines, in newspapers, on billboards, etc.

That will net Amazon a few more dollars on those particular sales. However, they will probably gain much more by playing ball with Apple, than were they to have no in-app purchases, because they will likely make many more sales, since iOS users will probably prefer the convenience of using their iTunes account, and giving less data to Amazon.

Really wonder why y'all are so worried for Amazon.
post #402 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

But is this not exactly what Amazon does? I dare say they are not creating content and then selling it. The are buying it at wholesale prices, marking it up and selling it to make a buck. Why shouldn't Apple be able to do the same thing? Why is it evil for Apple to do this but OK for Amazon? Amazon is bummed because a site that they paid nothing to sell before now says "hey if you are going to use us to facilitate the sale we want our share". Maybe you feel that is not fair but artists/writers/musicians have said the same thing about getting their product sold for a long time. You can either use the service or not. It is left as a choice - but don't give away an app as a vehicle to generate sales for yourself and expect someone else to tote the line for you.

It's not evil. But it does border on monopolistic. Apple is fully within their rights to do so. But basically slapping a 30% tax on every media distribution app (what most subscriptions services are) that competes with iTunes brings up some rather interesting anti-trust issues.
post #403 of 571
The worst thing about this is that people are using it to bandwagon-bash apple.

It's still developing, and it's certainly not finished shaking out. But Apple isn't doing anything anti-consumer here.

Apple is saying they will ban the app if the company undercuts the app store by offering a better price outside. I highly doubt that companies like Amazon or Netflix will raise their price to EVERYONE as a result; at least, not in the near future.

What's more likely is that companies, like Rhapsody is claiming, will withdraw from the App Store. Which is perfectly fair. And if Apple wants them back, they'll have to change their policies.

It's absurd that people are saying that 30% is outlandish. There's no basis for comparison. This isn't comparable to a 2.5% credit card transaction. The App Store is a form of reseller, attracting new customers and providing service to existing ones. They're not simply processing a payment any more than a brick and mortar retailer is.

That being said, it concerns me because I don't want to see providers like Netflix pulling out of the App Store as a result. Either Apple's policies are fair, and the major providers will stick it out, or they will push back.
post #404 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

If Apple thinks it's not fair to host an app for free, they can charge for hosting and bandwith costs, but why is fair to charge for sometimes they aren't providing?

The disagreement comes in your thinking that Apple isn't providing anything for their cut, and my thinking that they are. Since we're not going to convince each other on this point, perhaps we should abandon it.


Quote:
Where do you want i send the iMac, Macbook, iPhone, Mac Mini receipts?

I just want a better feeling that your familiar with all this, because I don't have that feeling. You seem very distant about all of it.
post #405 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post

Does Apple receive 30% of the monthly Netflix subscription cost or do they just get the initial subscription cost when you sign up?

It depends how it's implemented, Apple cannot get a cut of DVD rental subscriptions as that breaks their own policy. Apple only wants a cut of content that is playable on the device itself. So I would guess that the Netflix app will only offer IAP streaming services through its app, of which Apple will get a 30% cut of for as long as that subscription is still active.

So if someone signs up to Netflix through their app, there will be only one IAP option, streaming. For other services, they should be able to provide a link to their website.
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 #406 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post

I don't agree with you on this one Mel. My iPad 2 purchase will be put on hold if Amazon, B&N, Netflix content goes bye-bye.

Well, I did say that some people would be affected by that. Just not very many. After all people are buying this in record numbers, and a number of these things weren't available earlier on when sales were ramping up rapidly.

There are too many other things in the store, and in iTunes for most people to care about a few.
post #407 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

If they already have to maintain their own site for other platforms, why should they also have to have the in-app purchasing arrangement with Apple?

They don't have to be in the App Store at all. It's their choice.
post #408 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

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.

Publishers aren't allowed to have direct pay kiosks in bookstores or attached to magazine racks that avoid having a transaction go through the local cash register. This is the electronic version of that. And the publisher is still allowed to keep their normal and totally independent by-mail and website subscription process just like they always did.

So if it's not a problem in meatspace, why should it suddenly become a problem in cyberspace?
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #409 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Publishers aren't allowed to have direct pay kiosks in bookstores or attached to magazine racks that avoid having a transaction go through the local cash register. This is the electronic version of that. And the publisher is still allowed to keep their normal and totally independent by-mail and website subscription process just like they always did.

So if it's not a problem in meatspace, why should it suddenly become a problem in cyberspace?

If you want to use real world analogies, the app store is more like at shopping mall than a store.
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 #410 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

They don't have to be in the App Store at all. It's their choice.

I hope they exercise that choice and Apple reconsiders.
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 #411 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Publishers aren't allowed to have direct pay kiosks in bookstores or attached to magazine racks that avoid having a transaction go through the local cash register. This is the electronic version of that. And the publisher is still allowed to keep their normal and totally independent by-mail and website subscription process just like they always did.

So if it's not a problem in meatspace, why should it suddenly become a problem in cyberspace?

But in "meatspace" when I see an ad in a magazine and respond, the corner store where I bought said magazine does not get a cut of the transaction.

I think it's reasonable to charge where Apple is providing some service (content hosting, payment processing, etc.). But 30% seems a bit much. We'll see very soon, how reasonable content providers think that charge is.
post #412 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

They wouldn't get to that point because Apple requires the in app purchase feature to be implemented.

So, you are worried about iOS customers who have downloaded an Amazon iApp of their own free will, because they enjoy dedicated Apps and have certain expectations of them (which does not include loads of junk Ads and links inside)? You are worried that said customer won't "get to that point", and find out about this oh-so-wonderful option of dealing with Amazon direct -- the very thing thye chose to avoid by downloading the App in the first place! The very thing they rejected by not buying a Kindle eReader in the first place! Oh, they want to do something with their device besides reading books purchased solely from Amazon, how novel? But, surely, these iOS Device users... they don't want to be productive, do they -- don't they know that media tablets are for consumption, and don't they know that Amazon is the king of distribution? How dare they collude with the bad Apple to leave Amazon out in the cold. Amazon deserves free reign wherever we may focus our eyeballs, just like Google does, too. I mean, I paid for that device, dang it, so I can be harangued by Amazon whenever I want. Heck, all the free Apps should be forced to carry Amazon ads, too. Heck, Apple should pay Amazon to sell its wares all over the iTunes Store, because that's what's selling iPads for Pete's sake!

Poor Amazon! Assuming iOS users will never browse their website any more (a big assumption), what are we saying? Amazon has no recourse to shove their direct sales down my throat! Why, they can just send me a bunch of email spam because I once purchased something on their site... oh, wait, they already do! Oh me oh my, it is so difficult for me to read the email blast from Amazon, click on the Amazon link, and buy something on their site! Man, I might get lost on the way; and poor Amazon would lose a sale.

I know, I should feel really bad about this awful situation that Amazon is forced into. I should boycott the in-App purchase and buy directly on the Amazon site (which, don't worry, I am familiar with, because after all, that's only how I have been buying stuff for like 10 years. But you know, I really appreciate the effort that Apple has put into their platform and UX, so I just might go with the in-App purchase, what can I say. What a dilemma, huh? Oh, wait, Amazon do make money every time I buy something with their iApp, just not as much.

Somehow, Amazon managed to get their products in front of me -- because I opted for their iApp, and I don't like their direct mail emails or going to their site, especially; I don't want Amazon to send me suggestions of what they think I might like, and I unsubscribe or ignore their emails whenever possible. But hey, Amazon made a sale off me anyway, what do you know?
post #413 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, I did say that some people would be affected by that. Just not very many. After all people are buying this in record numbers, and a number of these things weren't available earlier on when sales were ramping up rapidly.

There are too many other things in the store, and in iTunes for most people to care about a few.

Apple didn't have competition then. It does now. What do you think will happen if services like Netflix, Kindle, Hulu Plus decide to stick it to iOS and move to Android? What about new services starting out, that decide the Apple subscription tax is too much? It's Apple's customers that will lose out.

It's their right to charge as they wish. Doesn't mean it'll benefit for their customers. And if such moves don't benefit customers, I can't see why most would stick around when there are (increasingly viable) alternatives.

But let's see how all this shakes out.
post #414 of 571
If these companies just remove their app, then they will for sure make $0 from purchases from the iphone/ipad. I guess the choice is $0 and the lost of millions of users or some money but losing some control and information.

I would think that the 30% is not only the cost of the transaction, but also for bringing new customers. Everyone gets paid a cut for bringing new customers.

I don't see how this is different from the developers being charged 30% cut for each app purchased.
post #415 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

It's not evil. But it does border on monopolistic. Apple is fully within their rights to do so. But basically slapping a 30% tax on every media distribution app (what most subscriptions services are) that competes with iTunes brings up some rather interesting anti-trust issues.


How so?

Name one competing music or movie store on iOS?

There isn't one. Why? Because Apple said from the very beginning they weren't going to allow it. In spite of all the original restrictions, developers still flocked to the platform. There is not an anti-trust issue here. They've been clear from the beginning.

Even when IAP was first introduced almost two years ago, they made it clear that all content used within the app must be purchased through Apple's IAP system.

These issues are now coming to light and being enforced, because Apple has implemented a subscription model in order to make money from publishers who charge a minuscule amount for subscriptions, but rake in a ton of money from advertising, specifically magazines.

Apple has overlooked apps like Kindle, because there wasn't a need to enforce the rule, now they don't have a choice. You can't force some content distributors to pay and not others.
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 #416 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post
It's not evil. But it does border on monopolistic. Apple is fully within their rights to do so. But basically slapping a 30% tax on every media distribution app (what most subscriptions services are) that competes with iTunes brings up some rather interesting anti-trust issues.

I'm not sure people fully grasp what a monopoly is or anti-trust.
post #417 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

But in "meatspace" when I see an ad in a magazine and respond, the corner store where I bought said magazine does not get a cut of the transaction.
.

But the magazine where you saw the ad may get a cut.

Search for "per-inquiry advertising." Applies to radio, tv, magazines and print publications.
post #418 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

If you want to use real world analogies, the app store is more like at shopping mall than a store.

Like paying rent to be in the mall.
post #419 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipt View Post

Like paying rent to be in the mall.

$99 a year plus 30% of your sales and any in app purchases you choose to enable.

Suggesting that Apple should get a 30% cut of forced subscription revenue in addition to that is just as reasonable as suggesting Apple should get a 30% cut of AdMob revenue.
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 #420 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

If you want to use real world analogies, the app store is more like at shopping mall than a store.

That's interesting. In a certain sense, I agree with that.

But store owners pay rent. Should Apple charge a good amount for these now free apps? How should they decide, by the amount of sales going through the apps? There isn't any way to look at space the way rent is decided.
post #421 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

Apple didn't have competition then. It does now. What do you think will happen if services like Netflix, Kindle, Hulu Plus decide to stick it to iOS and move to Android? What about new services starting out, that decide the Apple subscription tax is too much? It's Apple's customers that will lose out.

It's their right to charge as they wish. Doesn't mean it'll benefit for their customers. And if such moves don't benefit customers, I can't see why most would stick around when there are (increasingly viable) alternatives.

But let's see how all this shakes out.

It doesn't have competition yet. If the Pricing we're seeing from the majors holds true, they won't sell many.

But, assuming they do, there's little evidence that Android owners are willing to pay for anything. So how will it work over there? Free app, free books and magazines? What's happening here may be a paradise compared to what may happen there.
post #422 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipt View Post

I'm not sure people fully grasp what a monopoly is or anti-trust.

Why don't you tell us then? Explain how Apple is a monopoly, if that's what you're trying to do. I'd be very interested in what you say.
post #423 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psych_guy View Post

Your reply makes no sense. Throughout the history of commerce, there have always been middlemen. Apple is no different. They provide the opportunity for you to buy, they get a cut. You don't want to use them, then to go the website. It's as simple as that.

I guess I'm a bit tainted as a shareholder. Anytime I see Apple doing well to make a profit, I'm good, and if they have the market power to outgun Amazon, Sony or whoever, well, then more power to them. They've earned it.

You're wrong if you believe that Apple should be adhering to some sort of social propriety of yours. What? They should make business easy for Amazon or Sony? Because why? No shrewd business would ever do that. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand business.

They're in this business to make money. Get over it.

However, middleman is usually adding his part of pie on top of supplier's price; he is not taking his cut out of supplier's price.

From that point of view, purchases from within the app should be more expensive, for exact amount of middleman's income. It should boil down to:

You can purchase from web site which is a bit more complicated/time consuming, but cheaper

or

You can purchase from the app which is uber-cool and simple and fast, but will cost you more.

As it is, for the same price majority of users will be purchasing through app, especially that there is no link to the web site from within the app. That puts Sony, Amazon... in a bit of paradox situation, as they are expected to invest money in creating application (which is usually free to download from App Store) only to see their income being reduced because people are using that app.

Someone mentioned Sony, Amazon... will be making money even if Apple rips off 30%. Well that might be true, but they will be making much less. Is it going to be enough for them to pay their staff, premises, whatever expenses they have? In that case, why would Apple not sell their products with, say, 5% margin instead of margin they have now - they would still be making profit, right?

I don't know... maybe because I am only iPhone user and don't see SJ as anything else than just another CEO (albeit deadly capable one), but this looks really nasty to me; Apple is exercising their muscles (and showing greed) just a bit too much for my taste.
post #424 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by phalanx View Post

Are you out of your mind. Should Microsoft charge any app 30% for making money on Windows???

I like your point. MS should charge 30% of any online payment made from Windows, or at least Internet Explorer.
post #425 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Lets all look at it this way:

This will kill Kindle, Skype, Audible, a bunch of other premium services that we bought our iPads and iPhones for.

Any online service that sells services outside the AppStore must now allow iOS users to buy those services inside the app and thus be subject to a 30% fee. If this is enforced as stated in the article, it could have huge consequences for the content available on the iTunes store.

I would say it is not impossible that Apple actually wants that - force them out and move users to iBooks. I think that would be very much in line with other moves Apple did in the past (like preventing Apple devices to work with anything else but iTunes).
post #426 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Why don't you tell us then? Explain how Apple is a monopoly, if that's what you're trying to do. I'd be very interested in what you say.

A monopoly is when there is a single entity that has a majority share of a market to the degree that its actions can influence how that market behaves.

Antitrust is when an entity has taken advantage of a situation to promote anti-competitive behavior.
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 #427 of 571
Wiggin,

You keep repeating yourself.

Don't buy the products of greedy companies, as you seem to think.

No one can force you to buy Apple products. You have choices -- for e-Readers, there's Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Sony, etc.

I "heard rumors" that those new tablets from all other companies will offer free access to their own Apps store. After all, it won't cost Google, and those companies anything, as you say. You may order Android, Windows 7 tablets and those products touted by Samsung, HP, even Dell has several choices, and Nokia is coming out SOON with their own Windows-based mobile systems.

After all, "everyone" likes products other than Apple's, the greedy company, as you say.

And, if you do not like the choices, there is as posted here, the choice of reading all those papers online -- via their traditional websites. That's what I do, right now. Cost me nothing at all -- except all those annoying Ads, and malwares, sometimes, etc., etc.

If you still maintain that doing what Apple does is almost nothing at all, you can always band together with people like yourself and collaborate with companies that will offer this services, for almost nothing at all...

This is a free world, you can establish your own company. Offer your services, "for almost nothing at all"

And, if you make any success out of "nothing at all", share it with us, the services that your group and cohorts will offer "for almost nothing at all".

But please, DO NOT assume that what you believe in, is also what other Apple users believe in. I surely don't. I am hard up financially but I still buy Apple products, if I need them.



Apple Ecosystems

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

For the original discovery and purchase, sure. But in-app we are usually talking about renewals. What does Apple do to earn 30% of a renewing customer's subscription? Almost nothing!



It might be easier, but they are being forced to use it and your subscription costs, whether you get it in app or or the publisher's web site, just increased by 30% because of Apple.

Do you really believe Apple is doing this for user experience reasons? No, it's a purely out of greed. If the it was truly about a better experience worth the 30% premium, let the customer decide. And let the publisher set their own prices on their own web site.

Imagine if Best Buy told Apple they couldn't sell computers from the Apple Store for less than Best Buy sells them after they've applied whatever profit margin Best Buy wanted. Obviously they can't because they don't have the leverage. But Apple does have the leverage and they are using that leverage to dictate to someone what price they can sell their own product for outside of Apple's sales channel.

Apple is looking more and more like MS, as far as business practices go. Their products are better then MS, but their business practices are getting just as bad. In all sincerity, this is the most disturbing, greedy, anti-consumer action I have ever seen Apple take.
post #428 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

Major credit cards don't provide the visibility - which is marketing. Real big difference here. There is nothing stopping you from providing content that Kindle (or for another eReader) can read and selling it on your web site. I think Apple's bottom line is if you want to advertise it through an App (especially one that you give away for free - and generates no direct revenue for Apple) then it is fair to pay a toll. The other way you could approach this is with an iAd for advertising on the device itself or some other print or digital media outlet if you really want to avoid paying Apple all together . If you think 30% is a lot wait till you see how much it is going to cost by marketing your goods in one of these alternative ways!

What visibility Apple is providing? Are they advertising Amazon, Sony... books on iTunes? They are hardly advertising readers apps - all I have downloaded, I have read about somewhere else.
post #429 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Gizmodo actually offers some pretty good coverage of this, including this bit: "Rhapsody says straight up: 'an Apple-imposed arrangement that requires us to pay 30 percent of our revenue to Apple, in addition to content fees that we pay to the music labels, publishers and artists, is economically untenable.'"

the Giz post - "Apple's New Subscription Model Is Evil" - is stupid bullshit. for good example, it also says:

"But check it. Suppose you've never used Rhapsody before (or the NYT or Rdio or whatever), and you download the app. When you open the app, you need to buy a subscription. Do you:

A) Subscribe on the device, and start getting the stuff you want immediately?

or B) Wait until you go home and subscribe on your computer?"

the idiot couldn't even think of C) Open Safari (or other Giz-approved browser) on the device, go to Rhapsody's webpage, and sign up there for the subscription before you download/open the app.

is that so hard to figure out? is it such a terrible inconvenience to do?

yes, Rhapsody will have to give up that 30% to those who sign up via its app first. so it should focus all its marketing on bringing potential new customers to its website, not the app. as it has for years anyway. or heck, i suppose they can sign up via the Android app.

of course, Rhapsody's real problem is that is gonna die anyway (sold cheap to ?).

Gizmodo is a trashcan of the blogsphere.
post #430 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by phalanx View Post

Are you out of your mind. Should Microsoft charge any app 30% for making money on Windows???

Not the same thing. It would impossible to enforce such a thing. Microsoft promotes and licenses Windows as an open development platform, just as Apple does with Mac OS X. There are no restrictions only that each platform proprietor not be held liable for your application and its content.

Apple's iOS is not and has never made such promises. It has been a governed development platform with restrictions subject to Apple's approval.

As a more extreme example of a closed development platform, think of the iPod classics, where only those developers that Apple invited where allowed to create games for the platform.

And even more extreme, the original iPhone only allowed applications that Apple created, just as the iPod nano does now.
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 #431 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

They dont host any content.

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

It seems now everything becomes Apple product. I would laugh here, but such perspective is actually a bit scary.

I'm really happy this year will see some decent alternatives to iPad.
post #432 of 571
There are 2 models of subscription content we are dealing with here. On one side, we have the Amazon Kindle, where Apple only hosts the Kindle App - and the books themselves are just PDF files hosted by Amazon. I think Apple's new quidelines are a stretch when it comes to the Kindle books - because really, all Apple is doing is providing a platform for the Kindle App.

On the other side, there are *apps* like "The Daily". In this case, the content is an App - designed to have special effects, and user interaction beyond what regular HTML5 can offer. In this case, Apple actually has to host the content as well, because the content is published in the form of an App. Content owners cannot provide this functionality from a HTML5 website - because the user experience would be impacted badly.

I think Apple (and for that matter, us) need to distinguish between these two models. I think it is entirely appropriate to get a 30% cut on subscriptions to "The Daily", especially because it comes with a lot of convenience features - the App will be updated automatically for you as you wake up, etc. Also, Apple has to pay credit card charges, bandwidth charges, storage charges, etc.

The question we should be asking is - are these guidelines even applicable to the Kindle App. Remember, the Kindle App is the only one where this model falls apart totally. After Apple's cut of 30%, Amazon will not be left with anything! I think what Apple is doing, is that rather than create a special category for the Kindle App, they can negotiate directly with Amazon for different terms just for this app. Maybe 10% or so. We will know soon, based on whether the Kindle App stays in the store, or is pulled. Quite obviously, the existing policy does not make any sense for Amazon to continue selling in the store.

One possible option for Amazon - They can eliminate the link to Safari, and not provide any in-app purchasing capability. They can simply treat iPad subscribers as "Existing Subscribers" for whom the content is free anyway. This is a model allowed by Apple, even under the new guidelines. The only problem is that customers will be forced to buy the App separately, and then use it from the Kindle app. In such a case, the Kindle app will become a simple "Bookshelf" to display the books you own - and not a store.
post #433 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

A monopoly is when there is a single entity that has a majority share of a market to the degree that its actions can influence how that market behaves.

Antitrust is when an entity has taken advantage of a situation to promote anti-competitive behavior.

Very good! Now how does that apply to this situation?
post #434 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.

Bull. You are able to have a link to a website and allow purchasing that way. But then, of course, you pick up all the charges for bandwidth and storage, right? No problem for Amazon, for whom the expenses are baked into the price. And what's the cut that Amazon takes? Why, it was LARGER than 30%, but now with all the competition, it might be (only) 30%. If a book or newspaper is sold, how much goes to the bookstore? Hmm?

When you click inside the app and start downloading, then the bandwidth you're using comes from Apple. Are they expected to pick up all your charges and charge you nothing?

I don't see a problem with antitrust at all here. Otherwise, Amazon and other companies have the same "issues."

Again: if you download your subscription from an external website, there is a charge. It goes to the other seller, who gives *a portion* of the price to the newspaper or book publisher, according to the deal. (Think the subscription offers come from the magazine? No, they come from fulfillment houses who take a big whack out of your subscription.) You can still do this with the subscription managed outside of Apple. But Apple obliges you to make the same offer in the app, using the APIs they announced today, for the same price or less (not more). And when the sub is bought that way, Apple gets the cut, not Amazon or whatever company is involved.
post #435 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

False, Apple hosts the free app. So Apple's cut has been 30% of 0.

Now Apple's cut is 30% of in-app subscription purchases which seems fair given you can still buy the subscription outside the app.

For books both the Kindle and Nook apps are free and direct competitors with iBooks. Amazon has or had a no-lower-price policy as well. But they aren't subscriptions anyway.

In that case Apple should charge end users (or publishers, if publishers opt to keep end users' cost at zero) for every downloaded copy of application, as application is the one that gets "exposure" on App Store and is hosted by Apple.
post #436 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

What visibility Apple is providing? Are they advertising Amazon, Sony... books on iTunes? They are hardly advertising readers apps - all I have downloaded, I have read about somewhere else.

Oh no, that's not true! Apple shows these apps in their tv commercials. Developers say that it results in big sales.

In addition, just go to iTunes and the App store. You'll see featured apps, favorites and such. This also results in bigger sales.

Even in their paper Ads, you can see the names of the apps in the pictures. People buy these apps. As Apple rotates them, sales move around.
post #437 of 571
TalkingNewMedia.

I am amazed sometimes how people who have not been involved at all about the process of creating any product, including media, do not consider the cost of reaching the target audience before the internet became ubiquitous. But still every enterprising person has to be on his/her own -- to find that market and cultivate the target customer -- as you aptly outlined.

Other than the actual costs of managing the infrastructure of the Apps store along with its products, Apple offers all these enterprising individuals the much sought after audience wiling to pay premium for what they perceive as better experience and ease of use.

It is an elitist perspective but many individuals, and companies recognize the potential of such target audience. Just like customers have choices. so do individuals and companies. They can always opt not to ply their products or services through Apple.

To repeat myself, in my other response, these enterprsing individuals and companies can always turn to Android, HP, Nokia, Amazon, Sony, etc. Or, simply stick with their website to attrack subscribers.

Apple Ecosystems

Quote:
Originally Posted by TalkingNewMedia View Post

Your logic is crazy. You say prices will be higher on the iPad because Apple "won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site". That's your argument?

As for the 30% commission, how is it fair for Apple to charge 30% to the developers of Angry Birds, but not publishers. I'm a former newspaper and magazine publisher, and even I don't see the logic of expecting Apple to go commission-free for us publishers. We publishers get charged for distribution by newsstand distributors, we pay the USPS, we pay our printers, we pay our subscription telemarketing firms, hell, we pay everybody! . . . 30% is a bargain compared to all the other charges we face.

Magazine and newspaper publishers are lucky, damn lucky to make a 10 to 20 percent return on our products -- most don't. The 30% charge, on a price we set, seems reasonable to me. It's better than what Amazon is offering me: they will give me 30%, but they get to set the price.
post #438 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

There are 2 models of subscription content we are dealing with here. On one side, we have the Amazon Kindle, where Apple only hosts the Kindle App - and the books themselves are just PDF files hosted by Amazon. I think Apple's new quidelines are a stretch when it comes to the Kindle books - because really, all Apple is doing is providing a platform for the Kindle App.

On the other side, there are *apps* like "The Daily". In this case, the content is an App - designed to have special effects, and user interaction beyond what regular HTML5 can offer. In this case, Apple actually has to host the content as well, because the content is published in the form of an App. Content owners cannot provide this functionality from a HTML5 website - because the user experience would be impacted badly.

I think Apple (and for that matter, us) need to distinguish between these two models. I think it is entirely appropriate to get a 30% cut on subscriptions to "The Daily", especially because it comes with a lot of convenience features - the App will be updated automatically for you as you wake up, etc. Also, Apple has to pay credit card charges, bandwidth charges, storage charges, etc.

The question we should be asking is - are these guidelines even applicable to the Kindle App. Remember, the Kindle App is the only one where this model falls apart totally. After Apple's cut of 30%, Amazon will not be left with anything! I think what Apple is doing, is that rather than create a special category for the Kindle App, they can negotiate directly with Amazon for different terms just for this app. Maybe 10% or so. We will know soon, based on whether the Kindle App stays in the store, or is pulled. Quite obviously, the existing policy does not make any sense for Amazon to continue selling in the store.

One possible option for Amazon - They can eliminate the link to Safari, and not provide any in-app purchasing capability. They can simply treat iPad subscribers as "Existing Subscribers" for whom the content is free anyway. This is a model allowed by Apple, even under the new guidelines. The only problem is that customers will be forced to buy the App separately, and then use it from the Kindle app. In such a case, the Kindle app will become a simple "Bookshelf" to display the books you own - and not a store.

Free PDFs? You've got to be serious. Anything they CHARGE for is encrypted, unless it's one of those unusual works that an author brings out who is against DRM, or something so old it is in the public domain.

What Apple is saying to Amazon is, keep the link to Safari and sell that way, but leave an option that will allow a purchase within the app. How many will buy that way? Don't know. But there should be a choice. When the Apple servers are used, that means the Apple service should be paid for. Same way when the Amazon servers give you the book.
post #439 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

From that point of view, purchases from within the app should be more expensive, for exact amount of middleman's income. It should boil down to:

You can purchase from web site which is a bit more complicated/time consuming, but cheaper

or

You can purchase from the app which is uber-cool and simple and fast, but will cost you more.

No, it will not cost you more. The essential cost structure is the same with Apple and Amazon, except that Amazon can double-dip on the book sold through its site. When they sign the deal for the book, they agree to a flexible price -- they used to only sell at $9.95, but when other sellers came on the market, they were forced to be flexible, acting much more like the agencies in the bookselling business. The publisher decides the price. A lot of best sellers are $9.95, but others are more. It's still less than a book.

But that's one part of the price. The other part is the cost of bandwidth, etc. The only difference is, who earns the money for the download, etc.?
post #440 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

But is Apple fair in charging 30%?

Doesn't iBooks gain an advantage if Amazon is forced to mark up their books to accommodate Apple's 30% fee, when they are fully capable of handling the transaction themselves? It's an abuse of market position. At the very least, we the customers will pay more than we are now and Apple will have a bigger profit on their books.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...997208194.html

You are apparently not the only one thinking that way... Wall Street Journal is also thinking about possible antitrust issues.
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