Apple backs down on in-app purchasing rules, allows lower prices for out-of-app purchases - Page 4

It was in response to a question on whether convenience was worth an extra 30%. My original post was that if Apple took a reasonable cut while still allowing non itune in-app purchases everyone would be better off.

Personally I find it amusing how many arrogant and ignorant people post here Does the shoe fit?

Paying a higher price for something you need is not necessarily a bad thing.

Let's suppose that I need Publication A for my work. Unfortunately Publication A went out of business because they did not make enough profits.

In this case, the lower price has hurt me. I now no longer have it as a resource and need to spend some time ($) to find a replacement.

For the majority of people, the lower price may have been good for them, while the publication was still around.

Lol! Too funny! I personally prefer books on iBooks. I wish iBooks was compatible with kindle but I can see why they have their own format...the whole relying on 3rd parties for crucial software...

Sorry, but you apparently had your usual trouble with reading comprehension since none of my posts say anything even remotely close to what you claimed they did. Or, maybe you're just being your usual dishonest self and misrepresenting things.

I think you two should get a room.

It's kinda funny to see people whose arguments about revenue sharing having been quashed by Apple still continue their insanity.

If Apple is running a revenue sharing model it has just allowed people to "cheat" by buying content outside the app. There is no need for a link. Just give an app price on a button and mention the website price.
Nobody will buy in app.


Apparently Apple don't feel they are running a revenue sharing model on the iPad. Time to stop a defence they don't even make.

What about all the people defending Apple's position, slamming those who disagree, but now they have egg on their faces?

This is just a dumb comment. Just because Apple seems to have carved out a few loopholes for specific content types, doesn't mean that the App Store no longer runs on a revenue sharing model. The whole thing is and always has been based on revenue sharing, and it still will be entirely for most apps.

For some reason, this topic seems to generate the most irrational comments from people who are apparently able to remain utterly blind to those most obvious things.

You should get a room with yourself.

wow. you're good.

My qualifier was "quantifiable". The part of the transaction that can be assigned real dollars in either costs or savings.

Yes, Apple does bring some additional value but it's hard to attach a number to that value. The developers also bring value as Apple's ecosystem would not be worth nearly as much and probably wouldn't have 200 million customers without them.

So who's value is greater? Apple has paid out something like $3 billion to developers over a couple of years. On the other hand, the availability of all those apps has contributed some amount (and I think a very large amount) of sales to Apple. On which Apple has made $25 billion per quarter in revenue. It looks to me like Apple owes the developers more than the developers owe Apple.

There are many ways of looking at the relative values which is why we can all disagree so violently about them.

Like you? Still waiting any actual proof of revenue sharing model. It's a pity that even Apple doesn't back your opinions

You've got to be a troll because this simply cannot be a serious question. Or do you just not count the 70/30 revenue split as revenue sharing?

Developing the iOS, App Store, and iDevices has cost real money. It is quantifiable. The value attached to that would be the cost to any developer of going out and building their own hardware devices and marketing them to the general consumer. The cost of that is the value that Apple brings.


I'm not looking at this in an either or way. Of course the apps are contributing to the value of the iOS ecosystem. I'm not pitting the value of Apple against the developers. Apple had to build the iOS platform before the developers were able to take advantage of it. Your statements give the majority of the credit to developers for successfully using a system that Apple created. That doesn't make much sense to me.


What do you feel was violent in my statements?

Its not all that complicated. Apple floated a policy idea (that never went into effect) to see how people would respond to it. Once they received feedback they changed it to something that most everyone could agree was reasonable.

The truth is that nothing was really ever changed. The final policy will be far milder than most feared it would be.

This forum isnt going to survive if people who disagree with Annonymouse - whose ideas are held by tiny minority even within the Apple community - are labelled trolls.


The iPad store has a form of revenue sharing for paid apps. That is: Apple hosts your content and when sold you get 70%. If you choose to use their iAd advertising framework there is also revenue sharing. If you use in-app purchasing, the same. Since Apple allow you not to use IAP and developers are free to use adMob or make their own advertising models, your point lies in tatters, and I am only on my second paragraph.

When a free app is downloaded and no subsequent costs pertain to Apple, there is no more revenue sharing unless an app uses the IAP or iAds. Apple try and force the use of IAP by banning external links - their last uncompetitive act, which probably wont last either - but the fact is that a Kindle customer can buy externally, and the purchased item show in the app. Externally can be on safari on the iPad, externally anywhere else: web, android app, and so on.

On the subject of quantifiable costs the "its a revenue sharing" argument has moved onto the original naive claim when this first came out that Apple should get paid as they are hosting the content to the argument thatApple should get paid as they are hosting the free app to begin with.

Nonsense. If Apple want that model they can charge per download - thats the cost, since storing a digital copy of a popular app is the same as storing the digital copy of an unpopular one. If they charge per download, a not uncommon industry standard in fact, then the free app market disappears.

After an app is installed the costs to Apple are zero. If Kindle want to link to an external website to buy something, then download it within the app, the costs to Apple are none.

The final spurious argument is that Apple is bringing customers to Kindle, but as been pointed out exhaustively that would appply to the Windows version of iTunes. The counter argument to that made by anonymouse and others is tautological - they argue that an installed app on the iPad is different to one on Windows because the iPad has a revenue sharing model in order to prove their point that the iPad has a revenue sharing model.

But that is where we disagree and what has to be proven.

You can look at Apple's public financial records. None of its software services are cash cows at all. That is the reason why they are selling Lion for $29.

They make the far majority of their money from hardware.

I don't know how to read those statements, but gross profit didn't look like it was broken down by product line as the net sales was.

Their revenue from app store and iTunes was about the same as their Mac line, not insignificant. But there's nothing as best I can tell about net contribution to the bottom line for any part of apples product line.

Basically, I'm trying to say is that you can draw very little about product line profitability from the financial statements.