The more draconian the rules, the more iOS devices they seem to sell.
Less than the more open alternative. Which, up to now, I didn't like.
With these rules, the end game is in sight. Apple will be niche once again, its over-loyal fan base defending it to the death with warped logic they wouldnt apply anywhere else as it slides into irrelevance.
That said AI is the only place where anybody is defending this.
On TUAW's comments, for instance, the mood is hostile and ugly to Apple and they are all Apple fans.
A different breed of fans here though. Hint: you can love the technology, the industrial design, the software design and falir but you dont have to agree with everything your favourite company does. It makes the claims that Apple fans are a religion seem quite accurate.
While I don't care about the Sony Reader, and only somewhat care about the Kindle app, there are apps which I will not do without on a mobile platform which seem to vulnerable to this policy change. Those apps cannot be done in a web page. And since I have at least 4 figures tied up in content for those apps, I can guarantee that such a change would drive me and my family away from iOS for the foreseeable future. (I'm reluctant to state what they are because I don't want to make them a target.)
As it is, I've already decided not to order the 2 iPhone 4's on Verizon this Thursday as originally planned.
If you use one of the many phones that wasn't created by Apple, then you are correct they have no right to dictate what you do with it.
Why should they have the right to do that at all? If I buy a Samsung laptop from Wal*Mart, neither company gets to tell me how to use it. If I buy an LG DVD player from Best Buy, neither company gets to tell me what sort of content I can watch on it (e.g. nothing too political, no porn).
Why should Apple be entitled to special treatment?
Their draconian policies are exactly why I stopped using an iPhone months ago. I love my Android phone, and have no plans to buy another Apple product for the forseeable future.
This isn't direct revenue for Apple. That 30% pays for the App Store itself.
It is like mole whacking.
No matter how many people post that the App Store has nothing to do with Kindle's digital purchases, which it is capable of handling on its own, ( and does) it just doesn't sink in.
Come on now, how do you think prices are established?
You do realize that everything you buy has to be marked up to cover the costs of the billing transaction, storage, and its delivery to you. This is true for everything you purchase.
Either way the software developers have to pay for credit card transaction, security, licensing, and bandwidth. The 30% is to cover all of those costs. Apple offers all of this without the developer having to be bothered with it at a price cheaper than they could do it themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
Oh, I THINK I just read "if you want to use an iPhone without being forced by Apple to pay 30% more on the content streamed, just don't use an iPhone". Hey, guess what. I love my iPhone. I don't see why I should pay 30% more for the content without any added value.
So, no, thanks. I don't want any other phone. But I can give you my bank number if you feel like giving me the price difference on the things I buy.
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.
Yes, Amazon has lower margins than most of its competitors. But please let's not compare operating margins against gross margins.
And this is exactly why Apple will not face any anti-trust issues. They are not the dominate e-book seller and they are only insisting that a purchasing option be included.
The whole problem is here.
Apple makes it not optional to provide that option.
This has two consequences.
First, it creates a cost (minimal, htough) for the companies who need to have that feature added. You WILL pay for that overhead, you know? So, that option, which you'll pay, you should wish to decline.... but it's your money.
Second, it will also make prices on content itself higher if prices are not different on the web store and on the apple store (where, due to the cut, it SHOULD be higher).
Suppose prices are so. Then as a consumer, you'll end up spending more money if you buy on the Apple Store (in-app). If you're ready to pay a bit more to NOT leave your app, fine, that's your money, once again. The service sold is "not leaving your app". I'm okay with that...
Suppose prices are not so (eg, Apple requires prices to be the same on both stores). Then, as a client of the webstore, you get swindled, as you will pay for part of the sales made on the appstore.
Less than the more open alternative. Which, up to now, I didn't like.
With these rules, the end game is in sight. Apple will be niche once again, its over-loyal fan base defending it to the death with warped logic they wouldnt apply anywhere else as it slides into irrelevance.
Are you declaring Apple doomed?
Quote:
On TUAW's comments, for instance, the mood is hostile and ugly to Apple and they are all Apple fans.
The title of that story is:
"Apple's message to eBook vendors and users isn't yet clear, but points toward only in-app purchases"
Come on now, how do you think prices are established?
You do realize that everything you buy has to be marked up to cover the costs of the billing transaction, storage, and its delivery to you. This is true for everything you purchase.
Either way the software developers have to pay for credit card transaction, security, licensing, and bandwidth. The 30% is to cover all of those costs. Apple offers all of this without the developer having to be bothered with it at a price cheaper than they could do it themselves.
I'm not stupid... I know that. However, what I'm pointing out to you, since you seem to have not noticed (or are ignoring it because it doesn't suit you, as you seem intelligent...) is that I, as a customer, do not want to pay for that service you just described. i'm not interested. I just want the option of a webstore and NO in-app store. And those
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
credit card transaction, security, licensing, and bandwidth
I already pay for, through the webstore. It's ALREADY paid for. Any other cost is lost $$$ for me, and for the developer. Your argument doesn't hold.
I don't think Apple does get special treatment. Apple has to compete in the open market with everyone else. If people do not like Apple's business practices, they don't have to use Apple's products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr
Why should Apple be entitled to special treatment?
"Apple's message to eBook vendors and users isn't yet clear, but points toward only in-app purchases"
Which is completely wrong.
What's wrong about it? Signs are all pointing to where only applications that support in-app purchases will be allowed, and other applications and services that have gone on for almost 2 years on their own will be locked out unless they make the option to give Apple 30% of their revenue, affecting their business model and bottom line.
I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.
Correct. But now you must make that same book directly available in the app store (probably for the same price, since the language is vague), in which case Apple does get 30%. They don't manage the transactions, they don't serve up the content, yet they're going to charge 10x what a typical POS system does for the exact same content.
There will be two options:
1) In-app purchase where, at a minimum, Apple is providing the payment processing
2) Out-of-app purchase where Apple does not collect any payment
We are also guessing what services Apple will provide for in-app purchases? What if they will mirror Amazon content and provide all hosting and bandwidth?
I don't think Apple does get special treatment. Apple has to compete in the open market with everyone else. If people do not like Apple's business practices, they don't have to use Apple's products.
I don't think Microsoft does get special treatment. Microsoft has to compete in the open market with everyone else. If people do not like Microsoft's business practices, they don't have to use Microsoft's products.
Exactly. In this brave new world, if you own a platform, you can monetize it how you see fit.
So you have no problem with the OS maker for your computer adding 30% to the cost of everything you use that computer to buy? How about the phone company adding 30% to the purchase price of everything you order over the phone? How about a 30% surcharge on your cell phone bill for everything you buy that way? They're all platforms.
Quote:
But I don't entirely buy the idea that it's okay to monetize a single-purpose device, but not a multi-function device?
What I'm buying from Amazon is the CONTENT. I bought the device as a way to use that content. I bought the Kindle because I wanted to use the Kindle's capabilities. I didn't need to have a Kindle to have access to the content. I could have simply used the content on my computer. Or bought it on paper.
The CONTENT is what the money goes for. The Kindle provides its own value that I am free to pay for, or not.
Apple's move is not adding VALUE to the content, just cost.
Quote:
We have no idea how large or small the payment is.
Yes we do. It's 30%. That's documented. Compared to roughly 3% max for every other payment processing system out there (which is all these In App Purchases are), that is HUGE!!
You are already paying for that service, its built into the price.
Amazon builds these same charges into the cost of the book if you buy it from them. They just don't tell you that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
I'm not stupid... I know that. However, what I'm pointing out to you, since you seem to have not noticed (or are ignoring it because it doesn't suit you, as you seem intelligent...) is that I, as a customer, do not want to pay for that service you just described. i'm not interested. I just want the option of a webstore and NO in-app store. And those I already pay for, through the webstore. It's ALREADY paid for. Any other cost is lost $$$ for me, and for the developer. Your argument doesn't hold.
Comments
Then how is that "not true"... the ONLY way to have the same service is to go through Apple, you just agreed to that...
The more draconian the rules, the more iOS devices they seem to sell.
Less than the more open alternative. Which, up to now, I didn't like.
With these rules, the end game is in sight. Apple will be niche once again, its over-loyal fan base defending it to the death with warped logic they wouldnt apply anywhere else as it slides into irrelevance.
That said AI is the only place where anybody is defending this.
On TUAW's comments, for instance, the mood is hostile and ugly to Apple and they are all Apple fans.
A different breed of fans here though. Hint: you can love the technology, the industrial design, the software design and falir but you dont have to agree with everything your favourite company does. It makes the claims that Apple fans are a religion seem quite accurate.
That wouldn't be as elegant as a native app.
Nor as capable. Which is part of the point.
While I don't care about the Sony Reader, and only somewhat care about the Kindle app, there are apps which I will not do without on a mobile platform which seem to vulnerable to this policy change. Those apps cannot be done in a web page. And since I have at least 4 figures tied up in content for those apps, I can guarantee that such a change would drive me and my family away from iOS for the foreseeable future. (I'm reluctant to state what they are because I don't want to make them a target.)
As it is, I've already decided not to order the 2 iPhone 4's on Verizon this Thursday as originally planned.
We have no idea how large or small the payment is.
C.
the only person not sure is you. It is 30%.
Also the Sun is a medium sized star, and water is wet.
You could read your Kindle books online. It would work. Just not as well.
Until Amazon launches their new store, you can't.
www.amazon.com/kindlefortheweb
If you use one of the many phones that wasn't created by Apple, then you are correct they have no right to dictate what you do with it.
Why should they have the right to do that at all? If I buy a Samsung laptop from Wal*Mart, neither company gets to tell me how to use it. If I buy an LG DVD player from Best Buy, neither company gets to tell me what sort of content I can watch on it (e.g. nothing too political, no porn).
Why should Apple be entitled to special treatment?
Their draconian policies are exactly why I stopped using an iPhone months ago. I love my Android phone, and have no plans to buy another Apple product for the forseeable future.
This isn't direct revenue for Apple. That 30% pays for the App Store itself.
It is like mole whacking.
No matter how many people post that the App Store has nothing to do with Kindle's digital purchases, which it is capable of handling on its own, ( and does) it just doesn't sink in.
You do realize that everything you buy has to be marked up to cover the costs of the billing transaction, storage, and its delivery to you. This is true for everything you purchase.
Either way the software developers have to pay for credit card transaction, security, licensing, and bandwidth. The 30% is to cover all of those costs. Apple offers all of this without the developer having to be bothered with it at a price cheaper than they could do it themselves.
Oh, I THINK I just read "if you want to use an iPhone without being forced by Apple to pay 30% more on the content streamed, just don't use an iPhone". Hey, guess what. I love my iPhone. I don't see why I should pay 30% more for the content without any added value.
So, no, thanks. I don't want any other phone. But I can give you my bank number if you feel like giving me the price difference on the things I buy.
Just to throw this in there. Amazon's margins are very very low.
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.
Yes, Amazon has lower margins than most of its competitors. But please let's not compare operating margins against gross margins.
If Apple disapproved of the Kindle app's purchasing mechanism, then why did Apple allow the Kindle app to thrive "as is" for a year?
Why did Apple do nothing while its loyal customers invested in buying Kindle ebooks?
Why did not the closed Apple ecosystem protect Apple's customers from purchasing Kindle ebooks?
Why did the iPad advertise its Kindle compatibility?
I humbly suggest that Apple refund to its users their investment in Kindle ebooks.
Why? Are their books going to suddenly become unusable?
And this is exactly why Apple will not face any anti-trust issues. They are not the dominate e-book seller and they are only insisting that a purchasing option be included.
The whole problem is here.
Apple makes it not optional to provide that option.
This has two consequences.
First, it creates a cost (minimal, htough) for the companies who need to have that feature added. You WILL pay for that overhead, you know? So, that option, which you'll pay, you should wish to decline.... but it's your money.
Second, it will also make prices on content itself higher if prices are not different on the web store and on the apple store (where, due to the cut, it SHOULD be higher).
Suppose prices are so. Then as a consumer, you'll end up spending more money if you buy on the Apple Store (in-app). If you're ready to pay a bit more to NOT leave your app, fine, that's your money, once again. The service sold is "not leaving your app". I'm okay with that...
Suppose prices are not so (eg, Apple requires prices to be the same on both stores). Then, as a client of the webstore, you get swindled, as you will pay for part of the sales made on the appstore.
That's an issue.
Less than the more open alternative. Which, up to now, I didn't like.
With these rules, the end game is in sight. Apple will be niche once again, its over-loyal fan base defending it to the death with warped logic they wouldnt apply anywhere else as it slides into irrelevance.
Are you declaring Apple doomed?
On TUAW's comments, for instance, the mood is hostile and ugly to Apple and they are all Apple fans.
The title of that story is:
"Apple's message to eBook vendors and users isn't yet clear, but points toward only in-app purchases"
Which is completely wrong.
Come on now, how do you think prices are established?
You do realize that everything you buy has to be marked up to cover the costs of the billing transaction, storage, and its delivery to you. This is true for everything you purchase.
Either way the software developers have to pay for credit card transaction, security, licensing, and bandwidth. The 30% is to cover all of those costs. Apple offers all of this without the developer having to be bothered with it at a price cheaper than they could do it themselves.
I'm not stupid... I know that. However, what I'm pointing out to you, since you seem to have not noticed (or are ignoring it because it doesn't suit you, as you seem intelligent...) is that I, as a customer, do not want to pay for that service you just described. i'm not interested. I just want the option of a webstore and NO in-app store. And those
credit card transaction, security, licensing, and bandwidth
I already pay for, through the webstore. It's ALREADY paid for. Any other cost is lost $$$ for me, and for the developer. Your argument doesn't hold.
Why should Apple be entitled to special treatment?
The title of that story is:
"Apple's message to eBook vendors and users isn't yet clear, but points toward only in-app purchases"
Which is completely wrong.
What's wrong about it? Signs are all pointing to where only applications that support in-app purchases will be allowed, and other applications and services that have gone on for almost 2 years on their own will be locked out unless they make the option to give Apple 30% of their revenue, affecting their business model and bottom line.
I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.
Correct. But now you must make that same book directly available in the app store (probably for the same price, since the language is vague), in which case Apple does get 30%. They don't manage the transactions, they don't serve up the content, yet they're going to charge 10x what a typical POS system does for the exact same content.
There will be two options:
1) In-app purchase where, at a minimum, Apple is providing the payment processing
2) Out-of-app purchase where Apple does not collect any payment
We are also guessing what services Apple will provide for in-app purchases? What if they will mirror Amazon content and provide all hosting and bandwidth?
I don't think Apple does get special treatment. Apple has to compete in the open market with everyone else. If people do not like Apple's business practices, they don't have to use Apple's products.
I don't think Microsoft does get special treatment. Microsoft has to compete in the open market with everyone else. If people do not like Microsoft's business practices, they don't have to use Microsoft's products.
The U.S. Department of Justice is watching for any ANTITRUST violations from Apple.
Freedom of choice is important to create competition between sellers and lower prices for consumers.
It's great to know that the U.S. Department of Justice is watching so that we can get better prices when we buy from Apple.
There is no anti-trust issue here since Apple is not the dominant player in e-books not has it shut out any existing alternatives.
Exactly. In this brave new world, if you own a platform, you can monetize it how you see fit.
So you have no problem with the OS maker for your computer adding 30% to the cost of everything you use that computer to buy? How about the phone company adding 30% to the purchase price of everything you order over the phone? How about a 30% surcharge on your cell phone bill for everything you buy that way? They're all platforms.
But I don't entirely buy the idea that it's okay to monetize a single-purpose device, but not a multi-function device?
What I'm buying from Amazon is the CONTENT. I bought the device as a way to use that content. I bought the Kindle because I wanted to use the Kindle's capabilities. I didn't need to have a Kindle to have access to the content. I could have simply used the content on my computer. Or bought it on paper.
The CONTENT is what the money goes for. The Kindle provides its own value that I am free to pay for, or not.
Apple's move is not adding VALUE to the content, just cost.
We have no idea how large or small the payment is.
Yes we do. It's 30%. That's documented. Compared to roughly 3% max for every other payment processing system out there (which is all these In App Purchases are), that is HUGE!!
Amazon builds these same charges into the cost of the book if you buy it from them. They just don't tell you that.
I'm not stupid... I know that. However, what I'm pointing out to you, since you seem to have not noticed (or are ignoring it because it doesn't suit you, as you seem intelligent...) is that I, as a customer, do not want to pay for that service you just described. i'm not interested. I just want the option of a webstore and NO in-app store. And those I already pay for, through the webstore. It's ALREADY paid for. Any other cost is lost $$$ for me, and for the developer. Your argument doesn't hold.