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 13

post #481 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.

But we aren't discussing the "App Store" in general, we are discussing in-app purchases within an app sold in the App Store. So we did leave the greater mall and entered a single store, in my analogy a grocery store -- maybe a Target Greatland if that makes you feel better since they are attached to malls all over.

Try to be careful and not miss the actual content of the thread.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #482 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

The revenue split is a great deal for publisher. They get to keep more money than publishing through other channels. And the iPad delivers a large number of active consumers.

It's good for consumer too. The one-click in-app purchasing is more convenient and they don't have to face the prospect of their personal details being re-sold.

This is a not a great deal for middle-men. Those companies who take content from publishers, and then want to re-publish it are going to find themselves squeezed.

If a publisher wants their content on an iPad, why would they want to share revenue with a middle man? They can do better publishing it directly.

It's possible the move could alienate some vendors. But it's going to attract more content.

C.

If it's such a good deal, it doesn't have to be forced on everyone. People will willingly exercise the option to use it.

The middle men being squeezed are the same ones that have done the most for online streaming video. I want to see online streaming video succeed, and it doesn't only affect middle men. It affects any cross-platform service. If a network wanted to start streaming their channel live online for a monthly fee, and offered an app to stream to the iPhone, Apple would require them to add an in app subscription button where they'd take 30% of the subscription fee.

It's quite convenient for Apple that the companies hit hardest with this happen to be in competition with Apple's Music, Video and Print sales. If Apple has sufficient influence over the market (this is different from market share) I still think there could be some valid anti trust claims in there.

There is a way out though. It's HTML5 (I guess it's just HTML now) and DRM free sales. Online video can be served through HTML5 sites and eBooks and other media sold DRM free could be read by any app that could read the file type and apps not associated with the online store couldn't feature in-app purchasing. I guess standardized DRM, like what Adobe is trying to do for eBooks could also work but DRM free would be better. If Apple does drive companies to do this, I'll be happy with the end result, but I doubt that is Apples intention.
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 #483 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipt View Post

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

Don't be not-sure. be very sure that an incredible number of posters have no clue about the terms they use on this board. They just spout self-serving pseudo-logic built on personal definitions of terms, not reasoned use of carefully, precisely, legally defined terminology.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #484 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.

Mel, I think he's saying the opposite, the Apple is a monopoly folks are out to lunch.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #485 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

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).

This is bandied about in several places, yet I fail to see any way that this alarming possibility is the least bit likely. Easy to state hard to justify.

Your statement about preventing other devices from working with iTunes is blatantly false. Many devices over the years have worked with iTunes, leveraging off the iTunes XML metadata and processing that in a third party application. What Apple didn't allow was Palm faking a Pre-as-an-iPod over the USB bus so Palm wouldn't have to write any of their own iTunes sync software. A move the USB consortium threatened Palm with expulsion over if they did not cease the illicit ID faking because it broke consortium contracts.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #486 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.

Yes, they are. Via the appearance of those entities in the App Store. How narrow minded you are to not see that.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #487 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.

While I agree with a significant chunk of your post, the "After Apple's cut of 30%, Amazon will not be left with anything!" is bogus and based on overly naive arithmetic.

Amazon's pass thru to the supplier is 70%. If Apple gets 30% of the retail cost, Amazon's wholesale cut is 70% of which the pass-thru is 70% of that (~49% overall which is pretty close to the retail norm). If Amazon has any contracts that preclude that those items would rightfully be excluded from iOS in-app purchases by Amazon just not displaying them at all in-App. There is no scenario where Amazon will be forced to sell something and never get anything for the trouble. That's just a sloppily constructed, quite broken, bad example.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #488 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

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.

Yeah, but you conveniently miss the mention of the quoted professor that outlined several ways that this likely isn't an anti-trust problem.

The accurate way to summarize the article is -- WSJ examined the anti-trust issues and the expert professor outlined both sides of the issue with compelling reasons why it probably isn't an actual anti-trust problem.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #489 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voight-Kampff View Post

I know there's no way for this to not sound... "Trollish," but if you defend Apple on this, then you are biased. You are an Apple fanboy.

You're right you are a outright troll. Any idiot which cones into a conversation and says ~ If you don't agree with me you are a ____________~ is a worthless troll.

The rest of your post is poorly crafted bashing that ignores the totality of business reality. I won't even dignify it with quoting it.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #490 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

Well, if they can make $75M selling same stuff outside of iTunes (which is still more than what they are left with, after Apple cuts their share)... why would they stay?

For me, question is not if Apple can try to pull that sort of move... it is more like, can that move be good for Apple and their users, in the long run?

Because maybe they sell $90Million with an App too.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #491 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Doesn't the Amazon book store have an unfair advantage on the Kindle reader?

C.

Shhh! Don't rock the trolls with their own logic!
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #492 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by eswinson View Post

No, but I can buy a "Auto Trader" magazine off the magazine rack in Walmart and buy a car from it and Walmart does not get a cut. Walmart sells iPhones and iPods. Does apple give them a 30% cut of all the music and apps sold on those devices after they are purchased? After all If Walmart didn't have it on the shelf to be sold those subsequent purchases would not have happened.

The analogy breaks when you try to go two levels down and past the target of the real world. The discussion is on in-App purchases of subscriptions. The broken second step is that I have yet to see anything that actually states Apple is asking for 30% of every other transaction Amazon or any other online retailer makes. Your statement makes for a nice alarming sound-bite, but it's not what is going on.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #493 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by joindup View Post

Hypothetical Situation:

I create a free iOS App to read e-magazines sold on my website.

3 questions:

QUESTION 1:
Can I replace my "Buy on website" button with a big message, saying "Buy magazines from our website URL"?

QUESTION 2:
We decide to fall into line and introduce IAPs. If the economics of the sale of an issue of a magazine were this:

Bought-on-website issue sells for $10.
Costs are $2.
We give 75% of margin to the author and publisher = $6.
We keep 25% of margin = $2.

Under the new rules, if we added IAP and absorbed the IAP fees equally between us, this would result in:

IAP issue sells for $10.
Costs are $2.
We give $3 to Apple.
We give 75% of margin to the author and publisher = $3.75.
We keep 25% of margin = $1.25.

Does this announcement mean we just have to accept lower profits?

BUT

If we also wanted to sell the same magazine on our website slightly cheaper like this, spending more on marketing to support that effort:

Bought-on-website issue sells for $9.
Costs rise 50% to $3 (to accommodate additional web marketing).
We give 75% of margin to the author and publisher = $4.50.
We keep 25% of margin = $1.50.

Both we and the publishers make more money - even if the additional web costs rise 50%.

QUESTION 3:

Would Apple insist we must charge $10 for it to match the IAP price?
If so, how is it in the customers' interests to force a price rise?

Or do people think we would be allowed to charge $10 IAP and $9 on the website under these rules for non-subscription content?

Not taking sides, just asking.....


This is just a rehash of earlier naive reasoning, the rebuttal is: post 258 this thread

It's a long thread so I won't harangue you for missing it. Your missing dollar is essentially an advertising cost for a wider market exposure.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #494 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

There is a way out though. It's HTML5 (I guess it's just HTML now) and DRM free sales. Online video can be served through HTML5 sites and eBooks and other media sold DRM free could be read by any app that could read the file type and apps not associated with the online store couldn't feature in-app purchasing. I guess standardized DRM, like what Adobe is trying to do for eBooks could also work but DRM free would be better. If Apple does drive companies to do this, I'll be happy with the end result, but I doubt that is Apples intention.

Apple have always promoted Web apps as the simple free un-curated way to get onto iDevices.

But publishers who *want* to monetize their content will benefit from going through the app store.

70% of a lot is often a lot more than 100% of nothing.

C.
post #495 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

He actually laid out three criteria of how resellers would have to handle this issue. There has been a lot of shouting about trolls since, but nobody has really argued coherently against his position.

Because there is no argument against utterly broken logic. His post failed of its own weight and attempted narrow definitions that ignore how business really works. When you cherry-pick the assumptions you can say all kind of crazy and stupid things.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #496 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Shhh! Don't rock the trolls with their own logic!

I love how anyone who disagrees with a move Apple makes is a troll. I have some different metrics to determine who's trolling. One of them is more than 3 consecutive posts and yet you've done TEN (10!) consecutive posts?!?!

Seriously, that's more than I've ever seen tekstud (or any of his subsequent user names) use. Use multi-quote next time.

As an aside, the Kindle example hardly applies. Apple still only allows one music store on iOS and that's iTunes and just like iTunes will accept any DRM free mp3, the kindle will accept any DRM free eBook it can read as well. We're discussing a much broader topic than one content store. We're talking about an entire development platform, something that Amazon is just getting into with the Kindle.
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 #497 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by joindup View Post

Hypothetical Situation:

Under the new rules, if we added IAP and absorbed the IAP fees equally between us, this would result in:

IAP issue sells for $10.
Costs are $2.
We give $3 to Apple.
We give 75% of margin to the author and publisher = $3.75.
We keep 25% of margin = $1.25.

How about this one?

IAP issue sells for $10.
Apple gets $3
Publisher gets $7.

That seems to be the best deal for the publisher!

C.
post #498 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Apple have always promoted Web apps as the simple free un-curated way to get onto iDevices.

But publishers who *want* to monetize their content will benefit from going through the app store.

70% of a lot is often a lot more than 100% of nothing.

C.

Not if your other costs are greater than 70% of the sale.

It may be a good deal for publishers who want to get in on iOS sales without developing a cross platform service, but it's a bad deal for cross-platform services who already have to operate their own payment and subscription infrastructure for purchases outside iOS.
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 #499 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

As an aside, the Kindle example hardly applies.

It really does.

Apple have created a general purpose device which is capable of all sorts of content.
Amazon have created a less flexible device - which is essentially locked to their bookstore.

Amazon have not opened their device to rival vendors at all. Why should they? They have designed built and executed a platform for their content - and their business model.

They know exactly how hard it is to do this.
It's kind of odd to suggest that they should be able to sit on Apple's coat-tails and suddenly get a free ride.

C.
post #500 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Not if your other costs are greater than 70% of the sale.

It may be a good deal for publishers who want to get in on iOS sales without developing a cross platform service, but it's a bad deal for cross-platform services who already have to operate their own payment and subscription infrastructure for purchases outside iOS.

Could you describe a scenario like this?

C.
post #501 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Could you describe a scenario like this?

C.

The oft mentioned Amazon comes to mind.

70% to publishers, 30% to Apple, Amazon left footing the bill for hosting the content. Then there's Rhapsody who's already stated that they would lose money in this scenario. Coming up with other examples would require more digging than I'm willing to do.

You're right that a lot probably still would make money, but 30% is way too much for the service they're providing. Google will do it for 10% and still give them some subscriber information. Why can't Apple also do it for 10%, but side with the consumer and keep subscriber information? If it was 10%, I still wouldn't like the idea that it is forced, but at least the terms would be reasonable.

Lastly, if Apple really wants to provide an appealing service they have to bring the iTunes payment system outside of iTunes and iOS. With Apple forcing app developers to use the iTunes payment system, any cross platform service has to use at least two different payment systems which is hardly convenient or cost effective. It would be pretty damn convenient for the customer too.
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 #502 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

The oft mentioned Amazon comes to mind.

If a publisher with an e-book goes to Amazon they'll gain access to all of Amazon's Kindle readers - and that's great.

But when Amazon re-pushes the content to the iPad, they are not really adding much value. If I were a publisher, I'd be much more tempted to take my content to the iPad directly. Why share revenue with Amazon?

Whatever Amazon chooses as a business model, it's really not Apple's job to support it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

You're right that a lot probably still would make money, but 30% is way too much for the service they're providing. Google will do it for 10% and still give them some subscriber information. Why can't Apple also do it for 10%, but side with the consumer and keep subscriber information? If it was 10%, I still wouldn't like the idea that it is forced, but at least the terms would be reasonable.

Prices are never really based on costs. They are based on market value. The value of the App store is not hosting, or payment services. The value derives from the massive and eager customer base. As I said before, 70% of a lot is often more than 100% of not very much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Lastly, if Apple really wants to provide an appealing service they have to bring the iTunes payment system outside of iTunes and iOS. With Apple forcing app developers to use the iTunes payment system, any cross platform service has to use at least two different payment systems which is hardly convenient or cost effective. It would be pretty damn convenient for the customer too.

It's this part, I don't think I fully understand. If one leg of your cross platform is web delivery, surely you can avoid apps altogether and deliver it to the iPad via a web interface?

If you absolutely and definitely must use the app store for your paid content, then surely you should pay for that?

C.
post #503 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

If a publisher with an e-book goes to Amazon they'll gain access to all of Amazon's Kindle readers - and that's great.

But when Amazon re-pushes the content to the iPad, they are not really adding much value. If I were a publisher, I'd be much more tempted to take my content to the iPad directly. Why share revenue with Amazon?

Whatever Amazon chooses as a business model, it's really not Apple's job to support it.

So we are back to the model of buying a book for every device we own? Great, I thought everyone said Apple was there for the consumer. Amazon does has a web app in the works though, so all is not lost. I doubt we'll see the app remain in the app store, which sucks since it won't allow for offline reading, but at least I won't need to consider an iBooks version too.

The Kindle App sold a lot of iPads. You say it's not Apples job to support it, but not providing reasonable terms to Amazon could have a much greater impact on their bottom line. I don't think the web app will be as successful for selling iPads, but Amazon has no reason to take a loss just to have a native app on the iPad.

Quote:
Prices are never really based on costs. They are based on market value. The value of the App store is not hosting, or payment services. The value derives from the massive and eager customer base. As I said before, 70% of a lot is often more than 100% of not very much.

Google says the market value of such a service is 10% and their service is even better because it is cross-platform (I do wish they kept subscriber information private though).


Quote:
It's this part, I don't think I fully understand. If one leg of your cross platform is web delivery, surely you can avoid apps altogether and deliver it to the iPad via a web interface?

Native apps can offer a superior experience to web apps. Yes, they could offer content on the web and I suspect many will because of these changes. I'm not sure why I should be looking forward to an inferior experience just because Apple got greedy.

Quote:
If you absolutely and definitely must use the app store for your paid content, then surely you should pay for that?

But should they pay 30% though? Every iOS developer already pays $99 a year for access to iOS and in turn Apple gets a bunch of free apps that sell their iOS products for them. Apple doesn't get a commission on every piece of Mac OS software sold and every subscription sold within it, why should they get it for iOS?

Now they do get 30% for products downloaded through the Mac App Store and the iOS App Store (and the App Store happens to be the only way to install a program on iOS) but that's fair because they are providing the apps and updates to customers as well as processing payments. With subscriptions they are not doing that, they are merely processing the payments, yet they are telling developers that they have to enable in-app payments and subscriptions if they want to remain in the iOS App Store. Would that fly in the Mac App Store? Absolutely not. The big players would leave. Even with the limitations that web apps bring, I'd expect many to leave the iOS App Store.

This isn't about whether or not Apple deserves to be paid. Clearly they do, and they are being paid already. It's about whether or not they deserve to be paid what they are asking for and whether or not the tactics used to acquire these payments are appropriate? My answer to the last two questions would be no.
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 #504 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

He actually laid out three criteria of how resellers would have to handle this issue. There has been a lot of shouting about trolls since, but nobody has really argued coherently against his position.

There's been no shouting about trolls. But he's trolling. There's no doubt about that. He may even be correct about a point or two, but that doesn't change the way he went about it.
post #505 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Mel, I think he's saying the opposite, the Apple is a monopoly folks are out to lunch.

It was difficult to tell where he was going with that post which is why I asked him to define it, which he did properly, and tell us how this related to our discussion here. It did look to me as though he was stating that Apple was a monopoly, and abusing it.

He didn't get to the second part.
post #506 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

I love how anyone who disagrees with a move Apple makes is a troll. I have some different metrics to determine who's trolling. One of them is more than 3 consecutive posts and yet you've done TEN (10!) consecutive posts?!?!

Seriously, that's more than I've ever seen tekstud (or any of his subsequent user names) use. Use multi-quote next time.

As an aside, the Kindle example hardly applies. Apple still only allows one music store on iOS and that's iTunes and just like iTunes will accept any DRM free mp3, the kindle will accept any DRM free eBook it can read as well. We're discussing a much broader topic than one content store. We're talking about an entire development platform, something that Amazon is just getting into with the Kindle.

Consecutive posting has nothing to do with trolling. There are some who like to read ALL the posts in a thread. I often do that as well. But if you can't get to the thread more than once or twice a day, and it's a very active thread, as this one is, you might be posting responses to a lot of others when other posters are not as active, and so your posts pile up, one after the other.

A troll is someone who starts a post by accusing others of being fanboys if they don't agree with his "obvious" correctness. Often the troll doesn't bother to respond to posts disagreeing, but sits back at the computer screen basking in the light of the annoyance he's caused.

About the Kindle remake you've made; of course it matters! If Apple didn't allow any other book sellers in the App Store, this issue wouldn't have come up in the first place.
post #507 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

So we are back to the model of buying a book for every device we own? Great, I thought everyone said Apple was there for the consumer. Amazon does has a web app in the works though, so all is not lost. I doubt we'll see the app remain in the app store, which sucks since it won't allow for offline reading, but at least I won't need to consider an iBooks version too.

I don't own a Kindle reader, but like most people, I prefer the Kindle app, because it actually has books in it. I don't think the Kindle app will leave the iPad. But I can see Amazon having to rethink it's revenue sharing model.

And in the longer term, I can see more publishers placing their content in the iBooks store, because it's a better deal for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

The Kindle App sold a lot of iPads. You say it's not Apples job to support it, but not providing reasonable terms to Amazon could have a much greater impact on their bottom line. I don't think the web app will be as successful for selling iPads, but Amazon has no reason to take a loss just to have a native app on the iPad.

The Kindle device is a lot cheaper than an iPad. A lot. So if people *did* buy the iPad just to read books, they probably are not very cost-conscious.
It'll be interesting to see what Amazon do. They already know how much money they are making from the iPad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Google says the market value of such a service is 10% and their service is even better because it is cross-platform (I do wish they kept subscriber information private though).

iOS developers find that Android apps generate about 1/5 the revenue of iOS apps. They have to have lower rates, because they are delivering less revenue.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Native apps can offer a superior experience to web apps. Yes, they could offer content on the web and I suspect many will because of these changes. I'm not sure why I should be looking forward to an inferior experience just because Apple got greedy.

I think the word "greedy" in any business context is pretty unhelpful.
Are Microsoft greedy for wanting a 70% share of XBLA revenues? Are Sony greedy? Are Amazon greedy for keeping their Kindle reader to themselves?

That superior experience is a direct consequence of Apple's investment in this platform. If you want to take advantage of it, you pay. If you don't want to, no charge. Every business looks to monetize its investments. You can call that greed if you want, but it's pretty universal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

But should they pay 30% though? Every iOS developer already pays $99 a year for access to iOS and in turn Apple gets a bunch of free apps that sell their iOS products for them. Apple doesn't get a commission on every piece of Mac OS software sold and every subscription sold within it, why should they get it for iOS?

That $99 doesn't cover the processing cost for a submission of a single version of a single app. App submissions are free with Apple. Submit a game to Sony, and each submission will cost $1000s.

The iPad is a curated platform and them's are the rules. If it's a bad idea, it won't work. If it's a good idea, then developers, Apple and consumers all benefit. Market forces are quite Darwinian in how they weed out the weak and unfair ideas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

This isn't about whether or not Apple deserves to be paid. Clearly they do, and they are being paid already. It's about whether or not they deserve to be paid what they are asking for and whether or not the tactics used to acquire these payments are appropriate? My answer to the last two questions would be no.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Like I said earlier, I think this will be an improvement for consumers and for publishers. The only losers are middle men, who want to exploit the platform for free. They may go, but I am not sure they'll be missed.

C.
post #508 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Like I said earlier, I think this will be an improvement for consumers and for publishers. The only losers are middle men, who want to exploit the platform for free. They may go, but I am not sure they'll be missed.

C.

Hulu won't be missed? Netflix won't be missed? Amazon outsells iBooks by a ridiculous margin, they won't be missed? I'm not saying all these services are leaving, but they definitly would be missed if they did.

This isn't just about "middle men" either. If Fox decides to stream their channels online for a fee, are they a middle man? This affects everyone who wants to sell video, text, music, or any other content across multiple platforms using services other than Apples regardless of whether or not they are distributing it on behalf of themselves are a third party.
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 #509 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

This isn't just about "middle men" either. If Fox decides to stream their channels online for a fee, are they a middle man? This affects everyone who wants to sell video, text, music, or any other content across multiple platforms using services other than Apples regardless of whether or not they are distributing it on behalf of themselves are a third party.

Publishers of content are used to paying far more than 30% to get access to market. For publishers its a no-brainer.

The accountants look at the spreadsheet.

Accountant 1: How much money will we make on the iPad using the app store?
Accountant 2: Amazingly it will be 100Million dollars, minus Apple's cut, that's $70M.

Accountant 1: Really? And how much will we make if we withdraw from the stupid platform.
Accountant 2: (punches buttons) errmmm...hold on. (more taps)... Zero dollars!

Accountant 1: Interesting! I reckon we go on the App store.

C
post #510 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

So we are back to the model of buying a book for every device we own? Great, I thought everyone said Apple was there for the consumer. Amazon does has a web app in the works though, so all is not lost. I doubt we'll see the app remain in the app store, which sucks since it won't allow for offline reading, but at least I won't need to consider an iBooks version too.

We don't know if that would happen. People keep forgetting that this entire business model is just beginning. In the beginning, we couldn't lend books at all, now we can, to a limited extent. But we can move it from one of our own devices to another, if we buy from iBooks, for example. It's all still evolving, so we can't say what you did and know that it would be the case.

Quote:
The Kindle App sold a lot of iPads. You say it's not Apples job to support it, but not providing reasonable terms to Amazon could have a much greater impact on their bottom line. I don't think the web app will be as successful for selling iPads, but Amazon has no reason to take a loss just to have a native app on the iPad.

I'm reading that here as well, and I don't see anyone proving it's true. Book reading on the iPad is an important activity for some, but I haven't yet seen figures quantifying how much the Kindle or Nook apps affect sales. Until we do, it's just a guess, nothing more, and can't be stated as fact.

You also don't know Amazon's numbers, so that's all a guess as well.

Quote:
Google says the market value of such a service is 10% and their service is even better because it is cross-platform (I do wish they kept subscriber information private though).

First of all, I haven't seen conformation that Google will charge anything. So we can get that out of the way for now. That was just something said by someone who claimed to know.

But either way, it says little. Google is obviously doing this as a reaction to what Apple is doing. They need to offer much better terms, because as is well known, Android users are very adverse to paying for anything. That includes apps, games, content, etc. How will publishers make money on Android users who don't want to pay for it? Will advertising cover all their costs? Doubtful.

Even as far as Ad dollars are concerned, a new report says that iOS users are more valuable than Android users. What a surprise!

Quote:
Native apps can offer a superior experience to web apps. Yes, they could offer content on the web and I suspect many will because of these changes. I'm not sure why I should be looking forward to an inferior experience just because Apple got greedy.

I agree with what you've said except the part about greed. We know that Apple makes very little profit on the 30% they charge. That's not greed. That's wanting to cover their expenses, and insure that they do by running slightly in the black. Every company should be doing this. You may be unhappy about what Apple is doing, but don't try to characterize it that way, because you know it's not true.

Quote:
But should they pay 30% though? Every iOS developer already pays $99 a year for access to iOS and in turn Apple gets a bunch of free apps that sell their iOS products for them. Apple doesn't get a commission on every piece of Mac OS software sold and every subscription sold within it, why should they get it for iOS?

One thing has nothing to do with the other. It costs Apple a lot of dough to run the developer program, and so they charge for that. It costs Apple a lot more to run iTunes and the App Store within, so they charge all those who are charging within it. I don''t see a problem with that.

And as Apple only gets paid for about 20% of what they host, a 30% fee to those who are making money must cover ALL the apps, free or not, which makes the percentage overall, very small. If companies think they can make money in Apple's stores, they will be there. If they don't think so, then they won't. If Apple can work it out so that lesser fees are charged, then fine, if not, then fine.

I'm not in favor of the new rules about the requirements for in app purchasing for books and such, and I've stated that in an earlier thread about this. But I understand why Apple is doing it, and it benefits their customers, and Apple is all about that. Not all developers are against these new rules either. It's not a unanimous thing.

Quote:

Now they do get 30% for products downloaded through the Mac App Store and the iOS App Store (and the App Store happens to be the only way to install a program on iOS) but that's fair because they are providing the apps and updates to customers as well as processing payments. With subscriptions they are not doing that, they are merely processing the payments, yet they are telling developers that they have to enable in-app payments and subscriptions if they want to remain in the iOS App Store. Would that fly in the Mac App Store? Absolutely not. The big players would leave. Even with the limitations that web apps bring, I'd expect many to leave the iOS App Store.

That's not likely correct either! If the subs are in the app store, and you download an update, where do you think that comes from? The app store! It doesn't come directly from the publisher. The update notifications come through the app store, and that's where the download is also coming from. Just think about it.

Quote:
This isn't about whether or not Apple deserves to be paid. Clearly they do, and they are being paid already. It's about whether or not they deserve to be paid what they are asking for and whether or not the tactics used to acquire these payments are appropriate? My answer to the last two questions would be no.

it seems as though you are questioning whether they should be paid. The amount is because they are a business and not a charity. If a company offers a newspaper Ot magazine, as a number have been doing, that is free, than Apple takes nothing, even though it's costing them. Why should those demanding money not have to pay what everyone else is getting?

As far as books go, it's more ticklish, but Apple want the consumer to have an equal experience across all buying apps. The amount of profit they're going to make here is trivial.
post #511 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Publishers of content are used to paying far more than 30% to get access to market. For publishers its a no-brainer.

The accountants look at the spreadsheet.

Accountant 1: How much money will we make on the iPad using the app store?
Accountant 2: Amazingly it will be 100Million dollars, minus Apple's cut, that's $70M.

Accountant 1: Really? And how much will we make if we withdraw from the stupid platform.
Accountant 2: (punches buttons) errmmm...hold on. (more taps)... Zero dollars!

Accountant 1: Interesting! I reckon we go on the App store.

C

I love your logic. "They still make money, so it's alright"

In my example, Fox would probably go with a web app, but that's neither here nor there. They would not find Apple's terms reasonable.
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 #512 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I agree with what you've said except the part about greed. We know that Apple makes very little profit on the 30% they charge. That's not greed. That's wanting to cover their expenses, and insure that they do by running slightly in the black. Every company should be doing this. You may be unhappy about what Apple is doing, but don't try to characterize it that way, because you know it's not true.

The greed part applied to the new subscription charge. That is almost pure profit relative to their income from apps now. EDIT: Perhaps the greed is really just a desire for consistency (30% across the board) and cooler heads will prevail. The service they are providing is not worth 30% from my perspective.

Quote:
That's not likely correct either! If the subs are in the app store, and you download an update, where do you think that comes from? The app store! It doesn't come directly from the publisher. The update notifications come through the app store, and that's where the download is also coming from. Just think about it.

This is a "problem" associated with all free apps. No need to single out subscriptions. A lot of free apps use AdMob ads to generate revenue. Does Apple deserve 30% of that too?
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 #513 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

I love your logic. "They still make money, so it's alright"

In my example, Fox would probably go with a web app, but that's neither here nor there. They would not find Apple's terms reasonable.

The only reason that publishers recognise is the figure at the bottom of the sheet.
70% of a lot will always win over 100% of not very much.

C.
post #514 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Hulu won't be missed? Netflix won't be missed? Amazon outsells iBooks by a ridiculous margin, they won't be missed? I'm not saying all these services are leaving, but they definitly would be missed if they did.

This isn't just about "middle men" either. If Fox decides to stream their channels online for a fee, are they a middle man? This affects everyone who wants to sell video, text, music, or any other content across multiple platforms using services other than Apples regardless of whether or not they are distributing it on behalf of themselves are a third party.

It's not about whether they would be missed. Of course they would. But what would the actual impact be? I think it would be small, not large. It would be disconcerting though.

But I think they will work with it. It's interesting that neither Amazon nor B&N has yet commented. So they must be evaluating it, working with the numbers, and even possibly talking to Apple.
post #515 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But I think they will work with it. It's interesting that neither Amazon nor B&N has yet commented. So they must be evaluating it, working with the numbers, and even possibly talking to Apple.

I also suspect that the 30% figure is not actually carved on a tablet of stone and carried down from the summit of Mount Cupertino by the Lord Jobs himself.

C.
post #516 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Hulu won't be missed? Netflix won't be missed? Amazon outsells iBooks by a ridiculous margin, they won't be missed? I'm not saying all these services are leaving, but they definitly would be missed if they did.

I wouldn't miss Netflix (or Hulu). Watching video on the tiny screen just isn't something I really care much about. I rather lose the Netflix rather than have them raise the price on me to cover the 30%. Netflix has already raised their prices since they started added titles to streaming.

Companies have a long time before they have to do anything. June 30 is months away,
post #517 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's not about whether they would be missed. Of course they would. But what would the actual impact be? I think it would be small, not large. It would be disconcerting though.

But I think they will work with it. It's interesting that neither Amazon nor B&N has yet commented. So they must be evaluating it, working with the numbers, and even possibly talking to Apple.

I'm hoping they're planning a joint press conference to announce their removal from the app store on June 30th. It's unlikely, but that's what I'd like to see at this point (not that I want to see them go, I just want to to see Apple pressured into revising their terms into something more fair).
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 #518 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

The greed part applied to the new subscription charge. That is almost pure profit relative to their income from apps now.

This is where it gets annoying. You know nothing about the numbers at all. That's pretty obvious, as Apple and financial people have all said that Apple runs the store at a very small profit. Apple will be hosting this software, and will be using bandwidth to send it, all of which they pay for. If a magazine or book is ordered sighing Apple's system, that will happen, you are simply making this up to suit your argument, but it's wrong.

I don't even mind if you say that "you think" Apple is greedy for doing this. Then it's pretty clear that it's just your opinion. But when you state it as fact, it's something else. It's not a fact. It's even wrong.

Quote:
This is a "problem" associated with all free apps. No need to single out subscriptions. A lot of free apps use AdMob ads to generate revenue. Does Apple deserve 30% of that too?

Yes, I said it applies to all apps. And Apple is acting as an Ad agency. In fact, it owns an Ad agency. I worked for a big one a long time ago. And so yes there as well. Ad agencies always get paid for their work. Apple is very involved in all the Ads placed from within iADs. You think Google isn't getting paid for all the Ads on Android? They make, according to a report recently, 97% of their money from Ads. Do you object to that as well? If not, why?
post #519 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

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

PS: Democracy is a political system, not an economic one.

Communism is a political system too .... try "earning your fortune" under it.
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #520 of 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

I'm hoping they're planning a joint press conference to announce their removal from the app store on June 30th. It's unlikely, but that's what I'd like to see at this point (not that I want to see them go, I just want to to see Apple pressured into revising their terms into something more fair).

Well, that's just silly! You don't like what Apple is doing, so you hope that everyone else agrees with you as well. Fine. But what if Amazon and B&N have it worked out to their satisfaction? You want them to leave anyway just so you can be proved right? That's a numbskull idea!
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