Originally Posted by cmf2
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.