Why should Sony benefit from someone else's game being popular?
How about Microsoft and XBox games?
How about Amazon and it's Kindle device being closed to all, and allowing Amazon to profit from other people's successful books.
Were you asleep, or did you not notice that this is how all electronics companies make money these days?
C.
Apple is gaining by the popularity of the Kindle app. Amazon has given them an app which was developed for free, and handles downloads of the biggest library of digital e-books in the world. A position not likely to be challenged anytime soon. This has driven hardware sales.
If Amazon removes that app, the people buying tablets primarily as an e-book reader with benefits will flee the platform.
And like I said, if Apple decides it doesn't want to confuse the idiot consumer by allowing a price differential between in-app and external purchases, then ALL prices will go up. They have to, as Apple is charging 30% for what is essentially a payment service.
I'm kind of keen on that idea. Are you?
It's not just a payment service, it's easy access to a large and growing customer base. Anyway, there are plenty of methods to get your kindle books on an iPad if you want to avoid app store. If Amazon can't make that distinct to the customers, then they are too stupid to deserve that 30% anyway.
If Amazon removes that app, the people buying tablets primarily as an e-book reader with benefits will flee the platform.
Calm down!
Amazon is not going to shut down all those potential book sales. And Apple certainly does not want to irritate its user base.
This is a negotiation. And a middle ground will be found. The end consumer will not notice any difference. Apart from a slightly improved purchasing experience.
But they very much like the additional sales they are getting from Apple devices.
So, how much is that worth to Amazon?
C.
Its worth a lot more to Apple. I wouldn't have an iPad, and I wont have another one, if Kindle is on an Android tablet and not on the iPad. Thats because I own 35 books on the Kindle app. I might think about an Android phone as well ( although I rarely use the phone to read for obvious reasons).
And I have bought one non-Apple electronic product from a competitor in 15 years. And that was a cheap dell for games.
For that reason I think the 30% will not stand. Apple probably told their app testing teams to reject apps without app purchasing without telling them the new price structures. Thats for tomorrow's event.
If I am wrong, sell AAPL. Its as high as it is going to get.
When sales figure reflects that, then Apple will change course. If they can't change fast enough, they go back been the Apple of the 90's. That's how free market works.
Apple doesn't need to wait for the sales figures. All they have to do is look at the reaction here.
Quote:
As for now, if sony/Amazon wants to be on a popular platform, they have to pay. That's how free market works too.
That sounds suspiciously like "if you want to do business in our neighborhood, you'll need to pay for our protection services."
Apple deserves to be paid only for the services which they actually provide to those who choose to use those services. Amazon, Sony, and many others do not need Apple's processing services and have chosen not to make use of them.
Apple is becoming abusive with their position , just because you buy a record player from someone doesn't mean they can say you can't play any records not bought from us. It's time for the federal government to look into Apple's practice with the app store and their effort to squash any alternative stores ( Cydia).
Let's put it another way.
"Microsoft has started enforcing a rule that any program that has access to a web sale MUST sell the items through Microsoft TakeOurCut, arguing the sale is only made thanks to its Windows Operating System."
AppleBoyz "ugh, Microsoft sucks, that's a scandal".
Same situation with Apple... Apple boyz: great, wonderful, great service. LOL.
Anyway, Apple will have to desist eventually, there is no way the Feds won't get in play now...
Think about it, they're in effect requiring companies to spend money implementing a feature those companies DO NOT need (since they have web stores), in order to make more money for Apple. Any company complying with these rules should be immediately hit with a lawsuit from their own shareholders for mismanagement...
I would never have bought an Ipad (actually two) if it hadn't been for the kindle reader.
I am looking forward to ipad2, but if the kindle reader is affected by this nonsense, then I will start looking at some other brand of tablet.
Why should apple get any direct benefit from someone's app being popular? Apple gets hardware sales out of the deal. You are allowing yourself to be brainwashed into believing that Apple has some moral right to continuous revenue streams for everything.
Carnaphage is right, but you are too except for the first sentence and last paragraph. If apples policies drive customers to the competition, that's business. If masses of people switch apple will likely have to change or suffer the consequences.
Do you feel its fair for Amazon and B&N to directly profit from the App Store while contributing nothing back to the App Store?
This is besides the point. The App Store is the only way to get an app onto apple's iOS devices. If you could buy an app from a 3rd party and put it on your iOS device then it wouldn't effect apple... they wouldn't have store it, market for it, etc. But you cannot install anything other then App Store apps on iOS. So by definition, EVERYTHING goes through apple, even if apple has nothing to do with it (eg the Sony store).
Besides, if you make your app free then why is the app profiting from the app store, other then the storage on apple's servers? Is overhead really worth 30%?
Anyway, so long as apple doesn't kill VIEWING stuff from 3rd party stores on iOS, then I don't think it matters all that much. If you have bought or you are buying stuff from amazon then likely you have a kindle already, and same goes for sony. So long as you can view your bought stuff on iOS (no matter where you bought it from) then it doesn't matter for most people.
That sounds suspiciously like "if you want to do business in our neighborhood, you'll need to pay for our protection services."
Actually, that's even worse. That's selling an inexistent service by force: locking the device up and making people pay for the right to code for it was bad, but it's at least backed up by the decisive security it enforces. so, fine. Taking a cut on any sale that goes through it starts getting overboard.
It's about the same as saying that Nikon should have a cut on any picture taken with a Nikon camera...
It's not just a payment service, it's easy access to a large and growing customer base.
They already have access to that customer base by virtue of the App itself.
Quote:
Anyway, there are plenty of methods to get your kindle books on an iPad if you want to avoid app store. If Amazon can't make that distinct to the customers, then they are too stupid to deserve that 30% anyway.
I quite like the idea of a dialog box in the Sony eReader App:
"We have to give you the option to buy this book through In App Purchasing. It will cost $15 that way. Otherwise, you can go to our website and buy it for $9
Amazon is not going to shut down all those potential book sales. And Apple certainly does not want to irritate its user base.
This is a negotiation. And a middle ground will be found. The end consumer will not notice any difference. Apart from a slightly improved purchasing experience.
C.
It might be a negotiation, but a better way to negotiate would be to mention to devs - in a press release - that this was going to happen rather than start to fail app submissions without changing the guidelines ( and later when that blows up claiming that you have changed the guidelines when nothing changed).
I mean, this is total incompetence if nothing else.
Also, cut out the calm down nonsense. I am typing in cold blood. Apple have finally pissed me off, if this 30% fee holds I leave the platform for good. I say that, calmly.
The company posted a slight dip in operating profit for the Christmas fourth quarter as revenues rose 36%, signaling the high cost of keeping competitive in the highly promotional retail environment. Fourth-quarter operating margin declined to 3.7% from 5% a year earlier.
Digital books have better margins, but they are cheap for a reason.
I don't know why everyone is upset! This is good for users. It gives choice.. isn't that what we always hear.. choice?!
As a user you have the choice to buy from the App using your iTunes account OR through the developers website (outside the apps). It is not my problem as a user who take that 30% cut. If Amazon, Sony, B&N, and other decided to charge 30% more for In-App purchase then be it. I still have the choice of buying out of the App.
I suspect for an entity like Amazon, shoving hundreds of millions of dollars of product, Apple would be happy with a much lower percentage.
This is the beginning of an entirely new chapter in print publishing. And Apple needs to get their house in order.
C.
Oh lets see. We are going on about the 30% because that is what Apple now charges. The rest is speculation.
Even if Apple change that figure tomorrow this is still an unholy cockup. Apps have been rejected all week based on these new guidelines which were never broadcast to anyone nor in fact was the wording even changed, and a major developer - Sony - has pulled it's app already.
A circus. Muppets. The best executing company in the World better get it's app store submission process under control, properly documented, transparent and fair.
"Microsoft has started enforcing a rule that any program that has access to a web sale MUST sell the items through Microsoft TakeOurCut, arguing the sale is only made thanks to its Windows Operating System."
Comments
It seems I need to repeat the question:
Is Amazon capable of distributing the same volume of that Kindle app through their own systems without involving Apple at all? Why or why not?
They are not capable of delivering content into the curated part of the iPad.
Not without Apple's consent.
Just as Apple are not capable of delivering iBooks onto the Kindle reader without Amazon's cooperation.
C.
Why should Sony benefit from someone else's game being popular?
How about Microsoft and XBox games?
How about Amazon and it's Kindle device being closed to all, and allowing Amazon to profit from other people's successful books.
Were you asleep, or did you not notice that this is how all electronics companies make money these days?
C.
Apple is gaining by the popularity of the Kindle app. Amazon has given them an app which was developed for free, and handles downloads of the biggest library of digital e-books in the world. A position not likely to be challenged anytime soon. This has driven hardware sales.
If Amazon removes that app, the people buying tablets primarily as an e-book reader with benefits will flee the platform.
And like I said, if Apple decides it doesn't want to confuse the idiot consumer by allowing a price differential between in-app and external purchases, then ALL prices will go up. They have to, as Apple is charging 30% for what is essentially a payment service.
I'm kind of keen on that idea. Are you?
It's not just a payment service, it's easy access to a large and growing customer base. Anyway, there are plenty of methods to get your kindle books on an iPad if you want to avoid app store. If Amazon can't make that distinct to the customers, then they are too stupid to deserve that 30% anyway.
If Amazon removes that app, the people buying tablets primarily as an e-book reader with benefits will flee the platform.
Calm down!
Amazon is not going to shut down all those potential book sales. And Apple certainly does not want to irritate its user base.
This is a negotiation. And a middle ground will be found. The end consumer will not notice any difference. Apart from a slightly improved purchasing experience.
C.
Calm down dear.
Of course they don't need any sales at all.
But they very much like the additional sales they are getting from Apple devices.
So, how much is that worth to Amazon?
C.
Its worth a lot more to Apple. I wouldn't have an iPad, and I wont have another one, if Kindle is on an Android tablet and not on the iPad. Thats because I own 35 books on the Kindle app. I might think about an Android phone as well ( although I rarely use the phone to read for obvious reasons).
And I have bought one non-Apple electronic product from a competitor in 15 years. And that was a cheap dell for games.
For that reason I think the 30% will not stand. Apple probably told their app testing teams to reject apps without app purchasing without telling them the new price structures. Thats for tomorrow's event.
If I am wrong, sell AAPL. Its as high as it is going to get.
When sales figure reflects that, then Apple will change course. If they can't change fast enough, they go back been the Apple of the 90's. That's how free market works.
Apple doesn't need to wait for the sales figures. All they have to do is look at the reaction here.
As for now, if sony/Amazon wants to be on a popular platform, they have to pay. That's how free market works too.
That sounds suspiciously like "if you want to do business in our neighborhood, you'll need to pay for our protection services."
Apple deserves to be paid only for the services which they actually provide to those who choose to use those services. Amazon, Sony, and many others do not need Apple's processing services and have chosen not to make use of them.
Apple is becoming abusive with their position , just because you buy a record player from someone doesn't mean they can say you can't play any records not bought from us. It's time for the federal government to look into Apple's practice with the app store and their effort to squash any alternative stores ( Cydia).
Let's put it another way.
"Microsoft has started enforcing a rule that any program that has access to a web sale MUST sell the items through Microsoft TakeOurCut, arguing the sale is only made thanks to its Windows Operating System."
AppleBoyz "ugh, Microsoft sucks, that's a scandal".
Same situation with Apple... Apple boyz: great, wonderful, great service. LOL.
Anyway, Apple will have to desist eventually, there is no way the Feds won't get in play now...
Think about it, they're in effect requiring companies to spend money implementing a feature those companies DO NOT need (since they have web stores), in order to make more money for Apple. Any company complying with these rules should be immediately hit with a lawsuit from their own shareholders for mismanagement...
You are looking at it from the wrong perspective.
I would never have bought an Ipad (actually two) if it hadn't been for the kindle reader.
I am looking forward to ipad2, but if the kindle reader is affected by this nonsense, then I will start looking at some other brand of tablet.
Why should apple get any direct benefit from someone's app being popular? Apple gets hardware sales out of the deal. You are allowing yourself to be brainwashed into believing that Apple has some moral right to continuous revenue streams for everything.
Carnaphage is right, but you are too except for the first sentence and last paragraph. If apples policies drive customers to the competition, that's business. If masses of people switch apple will likely have to change or suffer the consequences.
Do you feel its fair for Amazon and B&N to directly profit from the App Store while contributing nothing back to the App Store?
This is besides the point. The App Store is the only way to get an app onto apple's iOS devices. If you could buy an app from a 3rd party and put it on your iOS device then it wouldn't effect apple... they wouldn't have store it, market for it, etc. But you cannot install anything other then App Store apps on iOS. So by definition, EVERYTHING goes through apple, even if apple has nothing to do with it (eg the Sony store).
Besides, if you make your app free then why is the app profiting from the app store, other then the storage on apple's servers? Is overhead really worth 30%?
Anyway, so long as apple doesn't kill VIEWING stuff from 3rd party stores on iOS, then I don't think it matters all that much. If you have bought or you are buying stuff from amazon then likely you have a kindle already, and same goes for sony. So long as you can view your bought stuff on iOS (no matter where you bought it from) then it doesn't matter for most people.
That sounds suspiciously like "if you want to do business in our neighborhood, you'll need to pay for our protection services."
Actually, that's even worse. That's selling an inexistent service by force: locking the device up and making people pay for the right to code for it was bad, but it's at least backed up by the decisive security it enforces. so, fine. Taking a cut on any sale that goes through it starts getting overboard.
It's about the same as saying that Nikon should have a cut on any picture taken with a Nikon camera...
It's not just a payment service, it's easy access to a large and growing customer base.
They already have access to that customer base by virtue of the App itself.
Anyway, there are plenty of methods to get your kindle books on an iPad if you want to avoid app store. If Amazon can't make that distinct to the customers, then they are too stupid to deserve that 30% anyway.
I quite like the idea of a dialog box in the Sony eReader App:
"We have to give you the option to buy this book through In App Purchasing. It will cost $15 that way. Otherwise, you can go to our website and buy it for $9
[In-App Purchase] [Sony.com website]"
I think that would make it distinct enough.
When I sell products through Amazon or eBay, they definitely take their cut. This is no different.
This is way different. It's like if Firefox took a cut on products you sell through Amazon.
Calm down!
Amazon is not going to shut down all those potential book sales. And Apple certainly does not want to irritate its user base.
This is a negotiation. And a middle ground will be found. The end consumer will not notice any difference. Apart from a slightly improved purchasing experience.
C.
It might be a negotiation, but a better way to negotiate would be to mention to devs - in a press release - that this was going to happen rather than start to fail app submissions without changing the guidelines ( and later when that blows up claiming that you have changed the guidelines when nothing changed).
I mean, this is total incompetence if nothing else.
Also, cut out the calm down nonsense. I am typing in cold blood. Apple have finally pissed me off, if this 30% fee holds I leave the platform for good. I say that, calmly.
For that reason I think the 30% will not stand.
Why does everyone keep going on about 30%?
I suspect for an entity like Amazon, shoving hundreds of millions of dollars of product, Apple would be happy with a much lower percentage.
This is the beginning of an entirely new chapter in print publishing. And Apple needs to get their house in order.
C.
I mean, this is total incompetence if nothing else.
It's just a negotiation.
Business is war.
C.
from RTE.
The company posted a slight dip in operating profit for the Christmas fourth quarter as revenues rose 36%, signaling the high cost of keeping competitive in the highly promotional retail environment. Fourth-quarter operating margin declined to 3.7% from 5% a year earlier.
Digital books have better margins, but they are cheap for a reason.
Clearly Amazon cant afford this.
As a user you have the choice to buy from the App using your iTunes account OR through the developers website (outside the apps). It is not my problem as a user who take that 30% cut. If Amazon, Sony, B&N, and other decided to charge 30% more for In-App purchase then be it. I still have the choice of buying out of the App.
Is anyone forcing you to use App store? For god sake, jailbreak if you have to.
Illegal? Anyway, clearly breaks your warranty, so your solution is not one.
Why does everyone keep going on about 30%?
I suspect for an entity like Amazon, shoving hundreds of millions of dollars of product, Apple would be happy with a much lower percentage.
This is the beginning of an entirely new chapter in print publishing. And Apple needs to get their house in order.
C.
Oh lets see. We are going on about the 30% because that is what Apple now charges. The rest is speculation.
Even if Apple change that figure tomorrow this is still an unholy cockup. Apps have been rejected all week based on these new guidelines which were never broadcast to anyone nor in fact was the wording even changed, and a major developer - Sony - has pulled it's app already.
A circus. Muppets. The best executing company in the World better get it's app store submission process under control, properly documented, transparent and fair.
Let's put it another way.
"Microsoft has started enforcing a rule that any program that has access to a web sale MUST sell the items through Microsoft TakeOurCut, arguing the sale is only made thanks to its Windows Operating System."
You are aware of XBLA?
1) MS takes a 70% slice of the revenue.
2) It does not allow any "stores within a store"
3) It's not illegal.
C.