Originally Posted by nikon133
In that case Apple should charge for every copy of application downloaded. If publisher wants to keep it free for end users (as they are planning to make money of it), Apple should charge publisher directly.
In that case Apple gets money for application it is hosting, advertising and quality-testing, while publisher gets money for content that is not hosted or in any way controlled by Apple.
From many of your postings, in numerous threads, I take it, you have never experienced creating an ecosystem, promoting it not only to attract the suppliers but also the consumers?
Can you create something that is worth selling through the various choices available:
- Sell it door to door yourself
- Persuade the management, to be included in the merchandise of the pertinent brick and mortar stores
- Use the internet by creating a website
- Use the Apple Apps store
- Use the Amazon everything worth selling internet market
- Use the Google (coming soon)
- Wait and use the upcoming stores from Microsoft-Nokia, RIM, HP, Sony, etc.
What you may discover is that "armchair publishing, selling and administration of any business are not always as easy as they seem. Creating an ecosystem, just like what Apple has achieved, where many companies failed before is even more difficult.
Companies and organizations, including non-profit organization make decent profit simply selling their information database their consumers or membership (mind you without your consent or right to opt in or opt out). In fact, many do not even inform you doing that. They did nothing but collect those information.
What Apple built with their ecosystem took years, the sheer number of users (in hundreds of millions) and the willingness of these customers to purchase Apps make the Apple "walled garden" comparable to a diamond mine.
Publishers know that (because they tried other options), Apps developer know that. Their instincts tell them that they are likely to make it, even in the "walled garden" of Apple, simply because of the sheer size of the customer base.
Then, there is the case of voting with your feet, words, or success/failure. If you really feel that Apple is unfair and the alternatives are more fair, shouldn't you follow what you believe is right and fair?
Anything else would be sheer grandstanding or worse, the delusion that our perspective is the only one that is right or true. Anything that does not conform to our views must be untrue, wrong and unfair.
Originally Posted by doh123
I'd agree if Apple actually was distributing anything. They are taking money for doing NOTHING. They do not host or distribute the content at all, in any way... the content publisher/developer still has to host the content the App can get to and download and pay for all that, plus pay Apple an extra 30% of it simply because its in an iOS App, even though they get NOTHING at all from Apple for this 30%.
The response to Nikon applies.
If your argument is correct: that Apple's "walled garden" does not add value to publishers' goal to sell their product to the public, why all the desire to get into an overpriced and useless Apple ecosystem?
Why don't publishers just do it on their own, since each publisher is doing EVERYTHING (and Apple is doing NOTHING as you claim)? If as you claim Apple does NOTHING or does not add value to the process of selling, what do you think would be a fair fee that Apple should charge publishers.
Simple logic would dictate that if you think a fee, other than "zero fee" for NOTHING, would be acceptance that Apple's ecosystem does SOMETHING, not NOTHING or at least contribute value. The actual number is sheer negotiation.
Among the choices, I outlined above (in response to nikon), which would you consider to be fair value in terms of percent cut? Google (soon to be created), Amazon's, Sony's, RIM's Microsoft-Nokia's, HP's
Please choose one. Anything else would be a copt out on your part.
And, if you believe that the other ecosystems are more fair and potentially as successful as, if not more so that that of "Apple's walled garden", as many tech bloggers, mass media pundits claim, then to repeat the question raised:
Why do publishers waste their time condemning and trying to get into the Apple ecosystem, which as you claim does NOTHING (nor add value)?
Some things are utterly not logical in the reasoning and the actions, both of publishers and many who believe that Apple does NOTHING (nor contribute anything of value).
Finally, do you think every publisher, simply because they can publish has innate entitlement to be part of the Apple's ecosystems?