Originally Posted by Mr. H
Apples and oranges. Amazon aren't trying to get a tablet platform off the ground.
Tablet platform is off the ground. In a decisive way.
If anything the Kindle ecosystem is less off the ground and needs iOS far more than iOS needs Kindle.
That amounts to a 30% payment processing fee. Why should Apple expect to share 30% of content provider's revenue, when the only thing Apple is doing is processing payments? Just because it's fairer than other distribution methods (this is debatable), doesn't mean it's fair.
Again, that 30% of revenue sharing is for the strategic advantage of access to 160M+ iOS users.
This is exactly
what you pay middlemen for. A high concentration of potential customers. Otherwise everyone would be selling direct and not taking 70% of the revenue stream but 100% of the revenue stream.
Apple make their money selling the hardware and should look to make a small profit on iTunes/appstore.
And that is all they are doing according to the conference call. The 30% revenue sharing should have very limited impact to the bottom line. It DOES, however, make sure that those folks with competing hardware ecosystems (Kindle, Nook, etc) pays a fair market price for access to the iOS market.
I'm going to have to assume that you will agree that a 10% fee would be more attractive to content providers than a 30% fee and would almost certainly be over breakeven for Apple.
These aren't content producers but content resellers. And no, it wouldn't be "over breakeven" for Apple from a strategic point of view.
Apple does not want to be a commodity hardware provider that hosts other ecosystems. They want to insure that the NATIVE ecosystem remain the competitive advantage that they have labored long and hard to develop.
Folks that want a commodity hardware/software platform should look to Android. You get what you pay for.
No it doesn't. The proposed 10% subscription fee would cover the initial app distribution fee, or as I said earlier Apple could require a $.99 initial app price. No subsidising here.
Tremendous subsidizing here. This is like Amtrak saying "Hey, Southwest, carry these passengers for me and I'll pay the gas, that's like no subsidies, mkay?" It completely ignores the cost of developing and running a successful airline. Carry those passengers on your own trains buddy.
So you are anti the iBooks as well?
DRM has to be proprietary in order to function. Presumably you mean DRM being proprietary to a major content provider is a bad thing?
No, DRM does not have to be proprietary to function. There are (mostly unused) open source DRM solution. And no, DRM algorithms do not have be hidden to work. They need to be secure from tampering and the keys also need to be secure. Typically this requires a trusted platform (cell phone, etc) that restrict access to the keys except from signed and approved apps.
The actual algorithms can be well known. For example the OMA DRM is a public spec and has an open source implementation. http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/
AND, there are also other industry standard DRM solutions that allow for interoperability. For ebooks the I would have gone ePub with Adobe DRM as a potential defacto standard...it's missing Kindle and iBooks so it's really nascent but interoperability between the latest Nooks and Sony ebook readers is nice (the older Sonys don't do epub/adobe).
And yes, iBooks isn't compliant since they use ePub w/Fairplay. I probably wouldn't buy from the iBookStore except for non-DRM titles. This is one area where Apple might decide to switch from Airplay for strategic reasons. By adopting the Adobe DRM spec then iBooks can sideload from other 3rd party book stores...then all books are iBooks...