None of you have even the slightest clue. Apple is not about allow an app to become a successful revenue stream unto itself, without getting their due cut.
Anyone who wants to profit from Apples success, should pay the 30% cut, and be happy for the opportunity. Sony was hoping to sneak the app in for free, and get 100% of the profits from Apple customers. Makes no difference what App you're using, you're on APPLE's platform. Want access to a few hundred million customers with zero effort? Pay the damn 30% and stfu.
Otherwise, you can go somewhere else. iOS isn't starving for content in any way. To profit on this platform is a privilege, and Apple doesn't ask for ANYTHING that any reasonable retailer wouldn't also. That's what kills me about businesses and developers screaming bitching trying to avoid Apples cut. They're a business for crying out loud. The App Store is a retail outlet!!! Grow TFU!
+100 - I was about to hit the ceiling here... thinking that there was not even one voice of common sense and reason among the posters here!
Props go out to the Prof. as well. Geez! Who let the grade-schoolers lose here today?!
+100 - I was about to hit the ceiling here... thinking that there was not even one voice of common sense and reason among the posters here!
Props go out to the Prof. as well. Geez! Who let the grade-schoolers lose here today?!
What should iTunes pay to Windows? 30%?
The only grade schoolers here are the Apple Fanatics. That poster is happy to have less content on his owned device because Apple "doesnt ask for anything that any retailer would do" even though in these cases it is not a retailer.
Blind stupidity. Give me less content Apple. I love you!
Are you serious? My God, I can't understand so much blindless and fanaticism.
Ain't you guys the one who love "option" so much? Now Apple require one and you're pissed. Pathetic!
Get real! If the price is the same people would buy in-app and poor Amazon will lose 30%. Too bad, eh? If in-app is more expensive, people would take extra step, like they already did, to go through Safari.
And you're still clutching at straws. Life is great, isn't it?
Quite simply, Apple has a conflict of interest here. They say they want to provide a platform, and yet they also want to sell you the content on that platform. They provide a phone saying it is yours, but won't allow you to do anything with it unless you pay them.
This will, sadly, spur on the jailbreaking crowd, and push people to Android. iPhone leaves you a prisoner to Apple. It's a very nice device, but you're still held at ransom to Apple.
People here are asking why Apple should be forced to put this on their platform? Because your iPhone is owned by you. You have the right to choose the software you put on it.
I, as a developer, no longer buy the bull that is spouted as "protecting customers from viruses" - if that was the case then Apple would simply vet applications, sign those that don't break the rules, offer the option of their store or otherwise, and with Apple's signing allow distribution however the developer wants.
But let's stop deceiving ourselves: This really isnt a platform. It's Apple's way of controlling every part of this device, even when they don't own it. You do.
And before you claim otherwise, I am generally an Apple fanboy and an iPhone Developer who has, until now, always supported Apple.
I really enjoy seeing devs contribute here, which apps do you have in the App Store - I would like to see what your handiwork looks like!
As to your comment, there is nothing preventing me from downloading an eBook from ANY source and loading it into iTunes to put into iBooks. So the content limit argument is a bit overwrought. So perhaps a different example would be in order. My own past dev work required me to comply with whatever terms our agreement contained, and I did so or did not dev for the platform. These are simple issues to resolve, without resorted to hyperbole or predicting a bleak and unrewarding future.
I look forward to seeing what you have worked on out in the App Store!
Ain't you guys the one who love "option" so much? Now Apple require one and you're pissed. Pathetic!
Get real! If the price is the same people would buy in-app and poor Amazon will lose 30%. Too bad, eh? If in-app is more expensive, people would take extra step, like they already did, to go through Safari.
And you're still clutching at straws. Life is great, isn't it?
At 30% Amazon will leave. All that Apple are doing for that extortionate theft is a credit card transation. Which I think Amazon can do itself.
So they are not quite banned, but will leave if most people hit the Buy In App option. Which they will do, as it makes no sense to leave an app to buy, if you can buy within. Of course there could be a price differential in the buttons. Chances of APple allowing that = 0.
It remains to be seen whether Apple stay at 30% for In-App content where they are not hosting the conent. I suspect they wont.
Frankly the fanboys here would be happy with 30%, 40%, or 90%.
I really enjoy seeing devs contribute here, which apps do you have in the App Store - I would like to see what your handiwork looks like!
As to your comment, there is nothing preventing me from downloading an eBook from ANY source and loading it into iTunes to put into iBooks. So the content limit argument is a bit overwrought. So perhaps a different example would be in order. My own past dev work required me to comply with whatever terms our agreement contained, and I did so or did not dev for the platform. These are simple issues to resolve, without resorted to hyperbole or predicting a bleak and unrewarding future.
I look forward to seeing what you have worked on out in the App Store!
When he posts his stuff, can we have a look at what you produced today? Burgers, or French Fries?
None of you have even the slightest clue. Apple is not about allow an app to become a successful revenue stream unto itself, without getting their due cut.
Only applies where the App Store is set up to provide the item being sold, one which can be used in conjunction with an iOS device. If an app was selling groceries or shoes, Apple would have no reason to restrict in App sales.
Only applies where the App Store is set up to provide the item being sold, one which can be used in conjunction with an iOS device. If an app was selling groceries or shoes, Apple would have no reason to restrict in App sales.
At 30% Amazon will leave. All that Apple are doing for that extortionate theft is a credit card transation. Which I think Amazon can do itself.
So they are not quite banned, but will leave if most people hit the Buy In App option. Which they will do, as it makes no sense to leave an app to buy, if you can buy within. Of course there could be a price differential in the buttons. Chances of APple allowing that = 0.
It remains to be seen whether Apple stay at 30% for In-App content where they are not hosting the conent. I suspect they wont.
Frankly the fanboys here would be happy with 30%, 40%, or 90%.
I've heard rumors that Apple plans on pulling the plug on YouTube, Ebay, and of all apps, even Safari.
In fact, Steve Jobs is even planning to ban ALL apps after iPad 2... and at the same time shutting down Mac OS for good.
There will be no Lion, or MacBooks, or anything.
And you know what? I would support SJ if he did, you bunch of ungrateful F****s!!!
Step back... and imagine the tech world without his and Apple's innovations and products for a minute.
Suffice it to say, almost without a doubt: there would be no Android, no Win7, no App Stores of any kind, no Music platform that you could depend upon... NO Kindle OR Nook...nada, zilch.
I'll calm down now, since it's obvious that there are a lot of under-age children here, that can't even conceive of a world without a cell phone... let alone an iPhone, or iPad.
Beyond belief that people (children) would agree, that a multi-billion $ conglomerate like Sony should be allowed to "piggy-back" rodeo-style on Apple's devices without paying. That for the price of 2 developers sitting in a room for a month that can't even understand the simple guidelines of creating an App.
Get along now boys and girls... your Galaxy is waiting for you! Roughly 1,5 million still in stock according to other recent headlines regarding conglomerate BS!
Oh, can you buy an ebook from Fictionwise and put it on iBooks? Really?
I don't know. All of my other sources seem to work fine for my purposes. But here let's let Apple explain it in their own words in a statement to All Things Digital:
Quote:
"We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines," Miller reportedly said. "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase."
Apple made the statement after it was revealed that the company rejected an e-reader application from Sony. A report from The New York Times indicated that Apple would no longer allow developers to sell content and provide access to purchases outside the iOS App Store.
But Apple's statement on Tuesday would indicate that the company will continue to allow access to those purchases through, for example, a browser -- as long as the content is also made available for purchase within the application itself. That would require changes to some existing applications that offer purchases, such as the Amazon Kindle software.
So ruminate on this for a bit and and then let your naturally suspicious nature run amok. It seems quite clear to me. They are requiring equitability between simply supporting the supplier and supporting both the supplier and Apple upon whose platform the supplier is hosting their app.
[EDIT:] Here let me even provide you the links to AI coverage and the ATD source:
Beyond belief that people (children) would agree, that a multi-billion $ conglomerate like Sony should be allowed to "piggy-back" rodeo-style on Apple's devices without paying. That for the price of 2 developers sitting in a room for a month that can't even understand the simple guidelines of creating an App.
Lol. I love the childish posters calling people childish.
1) If a a multi-billion $ conglomerate like Sony should not be allowed to "piggy-back" rodeo-style on Apple's devices without paying why should iTunes piggy back on Windows?
2) Apple changed the guidelines. They said they didnt, but they did. Now you have to offer in-App purchasing if you also had out of app purchasing. Sony followed the rules as we all understand them. In fact people on here were stating that they must have been rejected because they did not have an external website.
Thats what they had. They also had to add an IAP button. They decided the cost was too high.
I don't know. All of my other sources seem to work fine for my purposes. But here let's let Apple explain it in their own words in a statement to All Things Digital:
So ruminate on this for a bit and and then let your naturally suspoicious nature run amok. It seems quite clear to me. They are requiring equitability between simply supporting the supplier and supporting both the supplier and Apple upon whose platform the supplier is hosting their app.
And why Apple/Sony/put the name you want can have the privilege of getting 30% from something they don't store, don't distribute and don't sell.
Comments
None of you have even the slightest clue. Apple is not about allow an app to become a successful revenue stream unto itself, without getting their due cut.
Anyone who wants to profit from Apples success, should pay the 30% cut, and be happy for the opportunity. Sony was hoping to sneak the app in for free, and get 100% of the profits from Apple customers. Makes no difference what App you're using, you're on APPLE's platform. Want access to a few hundred million customers with zero effort? Pay the damn 30% and stfu.
Otherwise, you can go somewhere else. iOS isn't starving for content in any way. To profit on this platform is a privilege, and Apple doesn't ask for ANYTHING that any reasonable retailer wouldn't also. That's what kills me about businesses and developers screaming bitching trying to avoid Apples cut. They're a business for crying out loud. The App Store is a retail outlet!!! Grow TFU!
+100 - I was about to hit the ceiling here... thinking that there was not even one voice of common sense and reason among the posters here!
Props go out to the Prof. as well. Geez! Who let the grade-schoolers lose here today?!
+100 - I was about to hit the ceiling here... thinking that there was not even one voice of common sense and reason among the posters here!
Props go out to the Prof. as well. Geez! Who let the grade-schoolers lose here today?!
What should iTunes pay to Windows? 30%?
The only grade schoolers here are the Apple Fanatics. That poster is happy to have less content on his owned device because Apple "doesnt ask for anything that any retailer would do" even though in these cases it is not a retailer.
Blind stupidity. Give me less content Apple. I love you!
Are you serious? My God, I can't understand so much blindless and fanaticism.
Ain't you guys the one who love "option" so much? Now Apple require one and you're pissed. Pathetic!
Get real! If the price is the same people would buy in-app and poor Amazon will lose 30%. Too bad, eh? If in-app is more expensive, people would take extra step, like they already did, to go through Safari.
And you're still clutching at straws. Life is great, isn't it?
Quite simply, Apple has a conflict of interest here. They say they want to provide a platform, and yet they also want to sell you the content on that platform. They provide a phone saying it is yours, but won't allow you to do anything with it unless you pay them.
This will, sadly, spur on the jailbreaking crowd, and push people to Android. iPhone leaves you a prisoner to Apple. It's a very nice device, but you're still held at ransom to Apple.
People here are asking why Apple should be forced to put this on their platform? Because your iPhone is owned by you. You have the right to choose the software you put on it.
I, as a developer, no longer buy the bull that is spouted as "protecting customers from viruses" - if that was the case then Apple would simply vet applications, sign those that don't break the rules, offer the option of their store or otherwise, and with Apple's signing allow distribution however the developer wants.
But let's stop deceiving ourselves: This really isnt a platform. It's Apple's way of controlling every part of this device, even when they don't own it. You do.
And before you claim otherwise, I am generally an Apple fanboy and an iPhone Developer who has, until now, always supported Apple.
I really enjoy seeing devs contribute here, which apps do you have in the App Store - I would like to see what your handiwork looks like!
As to your comment, there is nothing preventing me from downloading an eBook from ANY source and loading it into iTunes to put into iBooks. So the content limit argument is a bit overwrought. So perhaps a different example would be in order. My own past dev work required me to comply with whatever terms our agreement contained, and I did so or did not dev for the platform. These are simple issues to resolve, without resorted to hyperbole or predicting a bleak and unrewarding future.
I look forward to seeing what you have worked on out in the App Store!
Ain't you guys the one who love "option" so much? Now Apple require one and you're pissed. Pathetic!
Ain't you guys the one who love "option" so much? Now Apple require one and you're pissed. Pathetic!
Get real! If the price is the same people would buy in-app and poor Amazon will lose 30%. Too bad, eh? If in-app is more expensive, people would take extra step, like they already did, to go through Safari.
And you're still clutching at straws. Life is great, isn't it?
At 30% Amazon will leave. All that Apple are doing for that extortionate theft is a credit card transation. Which I think Amazon can do itself.
So they are not quite banned, but will leave if most people hit the Buy In App option. Which they will do, as it makes no sense to leave an app to buy, if you can buy within. Of course there could be a price differential in the buttons. Chances of APple allowing that = 0.
It remains to be seen whether Apple stay at 30% for In-App content where they are not hosting the conent. I suspect they wont.
Frankly the fanboys here would be happy with 30%, 40%, or 90%.
I can see them dropping. Or Amazon will leave.
30% removes their margins.
As to your comment, there is nothing preventing me from downloading an eBook from ANY source and loading it into iTunes to put into iBooks.
Oh, can you buy an ebook from Fictionwise and put it on iBooks? Really?
I really enjoy seeing devs contribute here, which apps do you have in the App Store - I would like to see what your handiwork looks like!
As to your comment, there is nothing preventing me from downloading an eBook from ANY source and loading it into iTunes to put into iBooks. So the content limit argument is a bit overwrought. So perhaps a different example would be in order. My own past dev work required me to comply with whatever terms our agreement contained, and I did so or did not dev for the platform. These are simple issues to resolve, without resorted to hyperbole or predicting a bleak and unrewarding future.
I look forward to seeing what you have worked on out in the App Store!
When he posts his stuff, can we have a look at what you produced today? Burgers, or French Fries?
None of you have even the slightest clue. Apple is not about allow an app to become a successful revenue stream unto itself, without getting their due cut.
Only applies where the App Store is set up to provide the item being sold, one which can be used in conjunction with an iOS device. If an app was selling groceries or shoes, Apple would have no reason to restrict in App sales.
Only applies where the App Store is set up to provide the item being sold, one which can be used in conjunction with an iOS device. If an app was selling groceries or shoes, Apple would have no reason to restrict in App sales.
It does restrict non-digital products.
At 30% Amazon will leave. All that Apple are doing for that extortionate theft is a credit card transation. Which I think Amazon can do itself.
So they are not quite banned, but will leave if most people hit the Buy In App option. Which they will do, as it makes no sense to leave an app to buy, if you can buy within. Of course there could be a price differential in the buttons. Chances of APple allowing that = 0.
It remains to be seen whether Apple stay at 30% for In-App content where they are not hosting the conent. I suspect they wont.
Frankly the fanboys here would be happy with 30%, 40%, or 90%.
I can see them dropping. Or Amazon will leave.
30% removes their margins.
How old are you?
How old are you?
Lol. Really, that is the response to me suggesting that a 30% tax on Amazon will see them leave the app store?
I am 192.
In fact, Steve Jobs is even planning to ban ALL apps after iPad 2... and at the same time shutting down Mac OS for good.
There will be no Lion, or MacBooks, or anything.
And you know what? I would support SJ if he did, you bunch of ungrateful F****s!!!
Step back... and imagine the tech world without his and Apple's innovations and products for a minute.
Suffice it to say, almost without a doubt: there would be no Android, no Win7, no App Stores of any kind, no Music platform that you could depend upon... NO Kindle OR Nook...nada, zilch.
I'll calm down now, since it's obvious that there are a lot of under-age children here, that can't even conceive of a world without a cell phone... let alone an iPhone, or iPad.
Beyond belief that people (children) would agree, that a multi-billion $ conglomerate like Sony should be allowed to "piggy-back" rodeo-style on Apple's devices without paying. That for the price of 2 developers sitting in a room for a month that can't even understand the simple guidelines of creating an App.
Get along now boys and girls... your Galaxy is waiting for you! Roughly 1,5 million still in stock according to other recent headlines regarding conglomerate BS!
Oh, can you buy an ebook from Fictionwise and put it on iBooks? Really?
I don't know. All of my other sources seem to work fine for my purposes. But here let's let Apple explain it in their own words in a statement to All Things Digital:
"We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines," Miller reportedly said. "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase."
Apple made the statement after it was revealed that the company rejected an e-reader application from Sony. A report from The New York Times indicated that Apple would no longer allow developers to sell content and provide access to purchases outside the iOS App Store.
But Apple's statement on Tuesday would indicate that the company will continue to allow access to those purchases through, for example, a browser -- as long as the content is also made available for purchase within the application itself. That would require changes to some existing applications that offer purchases, such as the Amazon Kindle software.
So ruminate on this for a bit and and then let your naturally suspicious nature run amok. It seems quite clear to me. They are requiring equitability between simply supporting the supplier and supporting both the supplier and Apple upon whose platform the supplier is hosting their app.
[EDIT:] Here let me even provide you the links to AI coverage and the ATD source:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...cing_them.html
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...ur-guidelines/
Beyond belief that people (children) would agree, that a multi-billion $ conglomerate like Sony should be allowed to "piggy-back" rodeo-style on Apple's devices without paying. That for the price of 2 developers sitting in a room for a month that can't even understand the simple guidelines of creating an App.
Lol. I love the childish posters calling people childish.
1) If a a multi-billion $ conglomerate like Sony should not be allowed to "piggy-back" rodeo-style on Apple's devices without paying why should iTunes piggy back on Windows?
2) Apple changed the guidelines. They said they didnt, but they did. Now you have to offer in-App purchasing if you also had out of app purchasing. Sony followed the rules as we all understand them. In fact people on here were stating that they must have been rejected because they did not have an external website.
Thats what they had. They also had to add an IAP button. They decided the cost was too high.
Lol. Really, that is the response to me suggesting that a 30% tax on Amazon will see them leave the app store?
I am 192.
What response? I didn't know we have a fight here. It's just a frank question. You seem to have a very simplistic view on business.
What response? I didn't know we have a fight here. It's just a frank question. You seem to have a very simplistic view on business.
Do I?
Why is saying that a 30% margin will see all these vendors flee "simplistic".
maybe I know business, and am working in a company which cant afford that tax. Maybe you know nothing.
Lol. Really, that is the response to me suggesting that a 30% tax on Amazon will see them leave the app store?
I am 12.
Fixed it for ya!
I don't know. All of my other sources seem to work fine for my purposes. But here let's let Apple explain it in their own words in a statement to All Things Digital:
So ruminate on this for a bit and and then let your naturally suspoicious nature run amok. It seems quite clear to me. They are requiring equitability between simply supporting the supplier and supporting both the supplier and Apple upon whose platform the supplier is hosting their app.
And why Apple/Sony/put the name you want can have the privilege of getting 30% from something they don't store, don't distribute and don't sell.
It does restrict non-digital products.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fresh...346631494?mt=8