Originally Posted by mjtomlin
No. I'm not getting it wrong.
They are not making or creator or publishing or producing, they are reselling someone else's content.
That much is correct. Amazon and each publisher negotiated a contract. Amazon provides certain services to the publisher such as an ebook format with certain features, marketing, hosting for the content, tech support to end users, payment processing and so forth. In return, the publisher agrees to provide Amazon with the content in return for a certain amount of money per sale. If either side doesn't like the terms of the contract, then it doesn't get signed. But the contract is between Amazon and the publisher, not between Apple and publisher. They have no legal right (or moral) right to interpose themselves into that contract.
Unless the publisher agreed to an exclusivity clause, they are free to negotiate a separate contract with Apple to provide the same content via Apple's services. Why can't Apple just do that instead of inserting themselves into the existing reseller/customer relationship?
Not only that, they have their own platform for doing this and are trying to hawk their goods on someone else's platform.
Apple markets the iDevices as open platforms running third party applications, including specific mention of Kindle. This makes the iOS platform a general purpose platform, like a Mac or Windows (or Linux) computer. Just because Apple claims
the right to control what applications can be run on iOS devices does that mean they legitimately have an actual
right to do so? I don't think so.
Also, Apple made an explicit decision to promote the availability of content based apps such as Kindle as a selling point because it helped them sell more devices. To then turn around and claim that platform sales driven by content available for that platform causes people to want that content is inconsistent. It's pretty much claiming that "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine."
Apple doesn't give a crap about resellers who get between creators and consumers.
That's apparently true. They do seem to care about pushing themselves into the position of being the reseller.
Again with 30%... Amazon gets up to 70% for distributing digital copies, plus they charge download fees.
So what?!? As I pointed out earlier, this is the deal they negotiated with the publisher. (Though I doubt that Amazon actually gets 70% very often. Remember, there are a certain class of books which Amazon agrees to take only 30% without having to be negotiated down.) If the publisher thought the deal was unreasonable, they wouldn't have signed the contract.
30% is not obscene. In fact, Amazon charged everyone 70% before Apple introduced iBooks with its flat 30% fee.
Unless they're under some existing contractual obligation, publishers are just as free to sign a contract with Apple as they are with Amazon. That such contracts aren't being signed very often suggests that it's something other than the percentage which is causing publishers to balk.
It seems to me that everyone thinks it is fair for Apple to take a different cut of the same content just because someone might not make a profit due to their business model.
Remember, the reseller still has the costs of hosting, marketing, app development, etc. to cover out of their own profits in this scenario. The only value Apple is "adding" is handling credit card processing, something these companies are already doing themselves. Why does Apple deserve
to be in the middle of that transaction taking 30% when the resellers pay less than 3% for the same service now? Especially since in some cases, 30% is the ENTIRE
profit the reseller would receive (which means they would be losing
money on every transaction)?
So Apple needs to start accounting for every different business model and pricing structure?
That's what Apple is doing when they attempt to dictate what price the reseller can charge.