Apple's move is not adding VALUE to the content, just cost.
Very true. And as I stated, that cost might even extend to other customers through contamination, via the equal prices on webstore and in-app store possibility.
Except these business models are presently incompatible.
Incompatible in what way? Apple is simply insisting that customers using its merchandising platform (the Kindle app in the App Store) be offered a choice for making payment either the existing way or in-app.
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?
1) Apple is providing payment processing at a 30% rate.
2) Out-of-app purchases directly through Amazon at a 3% rate.
If you were selling a product, and you had the choice of someone either charging you 3% of your total revenue or 30% of your total revenue, why the heck would you even give the 30% guy another look? Well, you would only do it if you had no choice, and that's what Apple is enforcing.
By the way, we're *not* guessing how Apple handles in-app purchases. Its in the developer agreement - developers are responsible for delivering any and all in-app purchase content to iOS devices. If you buy a song inside the Tap Tap Revenge applications, your song is being downloaded from Tapulous, not Apple. Apple only handles the payment process, which again, is 30%, 10 times more expensive than any traditional Point of Sale system currently used.
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.
While you're at wal mart you should get a Sony playstation or an xbox and see how
"open" their platforms are. In fact Sony just had the courts confiscate George Hotz's (geohot) computer and an injunction to keep him off the web for showing people how to jailbreak their ps3.
Apple has stated that they want apps to offer both options. The rest of what you are saying is purely speculation with no evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo
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.
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.
Yes, that's my point Tenobell. I _already_ pay. So I DO NOT want another option, that will increase what I pay... They're not offering a service, they're forcing it on content providers, and in the end, I'll pay for it. I'll be forced to pay for it, even though, you said so, I already pay for the SAME service...
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.
If you purchase through the App Store, why would Amazon need to charge you for credit card transaction and bandwidth when they themselves are not paying for those costs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
Yes, that's my point Tenobell. I _already_ pay. So I DO NOT want another option, that will increase what I pay... They're not offering a service, they're forcing it on content providers, and in the end, I'll pay for it. I'll be forced to pay for it, even though, you said so, I already pay for the SAME service...
While you're at wal mart you should get a Sony playstation or an xbox and see how
"open" their platforms are. In fact Sony just had the courts confiscate George Hotz's (geohot) computer and an injunction to keep him off the web for showing people how to jailbreak their ps3.
Yes, you are right. It doesn't make that injuction valid, and actually there are huge chances that Geohot might win. It's called scare tactics, and Microsoft among others use it. How does it make it legal?
Wait for the court decision before you use a legal example. All we know right know is Sony asserted that it has legal rights. Geohot asserts the contrary. If he loses, you are right. If he wins, you are wrong. Let's talk about it again, in a few months...
Apple has stated that they want apps to offer both options. The rest of what you are saying is purely speculation with no evidence.
No, what Apple is saying is they don't want people using their platform to skirt around the 30% cut they otherwise would get, so now they're going to force the issue onto developers and publishers.
Apple isn't all magic and unicorns you know - they're a corporation. Their sole purpose in existence is to be as greedy and profitable as they can to their shareholders. They're not out to save the world.
Yes, that's my point Tenobell. I _already_ pay. So I DO NOT want another option, that will increase what I pay... They're not offering a service, they're forcing it on content providers, and in the end, I'll pay for it. I'll be forced to pay for it, even though, you said so, I already pay for the SAME service...
You might not want this option but I am sure many would love to use their iTunes credit to buy ebooks from Amazon and others.
If you purchase through the App Store, why would Amazon need to charge you for credit card transaction and bandwidth when they themselves are not paying for those costs?
But they *ARE* paying those costs... they pay for the bandwidth to serve the books to you. Pay attention already, sheesh. Its embarrassing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
You might not want this option but I am sure many would love to use their iTunes credit to buy ebooks from Amazon and others.
Look, if Apple offered a fair alternative or rate for processing transactions, this wouldn't be that big of an issue. Apple should take no more than the cost of doing the transaction, which I would guess would be no more than 5%. Certainly not 30%.
I know its convenient for you, and that's one of the points that Apple will use to strongarm content creators into doing, but this is bad for developers (once again) and content creators. Many use Amazon or someone else to sell their products because, frankly, they can't afford the 30% markup that Apple enforces.
Well, the European Union lawyers as well as the Feds did not, it seems. And they're probably better suited to that kind of assesments as both of us, even if we put our brains together
Did the Times writers bother to check with Apple before publishing this story? If not, it is a serious breach of journalistic standards at best, and anti-Apple propaganda at worst.
When you buy a computer you are paying a small percentage for its manufacture, you are paying for licensing fees, you are paying for shipment and transportation, you are paying for storage. The manufacturer and wholesaler pass these costs on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman
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.
You might not want this option but I am sure many would love to use their iTunes credit to buy ebooks from Amazon and others.
Maybe, but please explain why I should pay more so that those pesky other users may use their iTunes card credit... Damn, I wanna be the only person in the world with an iPhone.
Genie, please erase other users from the planet, please. That will be my third wish!
MS wasn't punished for being a monopoly. They were punished for abusing their position and stifling competition in the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
Well, the European Union lawyers as well as the Feds did not, it seems. And they're probably better suited to that kind of assesments as both of us, even if we put our brains together
When you buy a computer you are paying a small percentage for its manufacture, you are paying for licensing fees, you are paying for shipment and transportation, you are paying for storage. The manufacturer and wholesaler pass these costs on.
Yes, but as per my Nikon example, and my Windows example, the "platform" argument doesn't hold.
I don't pay a small (or 30%-small, indeed) tax on everything I create with my Nikon, nor with my Windows.
Of course, I don't create anything with a Windows, I play games with it. But it's not my point.
Maybe, but please explain why I should pay more so that those pesky other users may use their iTunes card credit... Damn, I wanna be the only person in the world with an iPhone.
Genie, please erase other users from the planet, please. That will be my third wish!
You are just speculating. You don't know if you will pay more for purchases through Amazon.com and there is no reason for you to pay more if you buy your ebooks using Amazon.com. If you don't want to go through the in app purchase process then you can fire up your Safari browser from iOS and buy the book through Amazon website. When you open the kindle app you will see you new purchase.
The fact they haven't exercised their rights under the agreement is interesting, if the right was there all along (Apple are assuming it must have been because they haven't changed the agreement, but have stated they are enforcing it). At what point can a person who has entered a contract with Apple say: you have never relied on this clause before, and you haven't for some time. Why are you now enforcing the contract after letting innumerate apps on the apps store which are no longer (and arguably, never) were compliant with the developer agreement? At what stage can a developer claim an estoppel on Apple?
They can't. The clause was agreed to so it is enforceable.
Comments
Apple's move is not adding VALUE to the content, just cost.
Very true. And as I stated, that cost might even extend to other customers through contamination, via the equal prices on webstore and in-app store possibility.
Except these business models are presently incompatible.
Incompatible in what way? Apple is simply insisting that customers using its merchandising platform (the Kindle app in the App Store) be offered a choice for making payment either the existing way or in-app.
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?
1) Apple is providing payment processing at a 30% rate.
2) Out-of-app purchases directly through Amazon at a 3% rate.
If you were selling a product, and you had the choice of someone either charging you 3% of your total revenue or 30% of your total revenue, why the heck would you even give the 30% guy another look? Well, you would only do it if you had no choice, and that's what Apple is enforcing.
By the way, we're *not* guessing how Apple handles in-app purchases. Its in the developer agreement - developers are responsible for delivering any and all in-app purchase content to iOS devices. If you buy a song inside the Tap Tap Revenge applications, your song is being downloaded from Tapulous, not Apple. Apple only handles the payment process, which again, is 30%, 10 times more expensive than any traditional Point of Sale system currently used.
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.
While you're at wal mart you should get a Sony playstation or an xbox and see how
"open" their platforms are. In fact Sony just had the courts confiscate George Hotz's (geohot) computer and an injunction to keep him off the web for showing people how to jailbreak their ps3.
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.
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.
Yes, that's my point Tenobell. I _already_ pay. So I DO NOT want another option, that will increase what I pay... They're not offering a service, they're forcing it on content providers, and in the end, I'll pay for it. I'll be forced to pay for it, even though, you said so, I already pay for the SAME service...
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.
Yes, that's my point Tenobell. I _already_ pay. So I DO NOT want another option, that will increase what I pay... They're not offering a service, they're forcing it on content providers, and in the end, I'll pay for it. I'll be forced to pay for it, even though, you said so, I already pay for the SAME service...
While you're at wal mart you should get a Sony playstation or an xbox and see how
"open" their platforms are. In fact Sony just had the courts confiscate George Hotz's (geohot) computer and an injunction to keep him off the web for showing people how to jailbreak their ps3.
Yes, you are right. It doesn't make that injuction valid, and actually there are huge chances that Geohot might win. It's called scare tactics, and Microsoft among others use it. How does it make it legal?
Wait for the court decision before you use a legal example. All we know right know is Sony asserted that it has legal rights. Geohot asserts the contrary. If he loses, you are right. If he wins, you are wrong. Let's talk about it again, in a few months...
Apple has stated that they want apps to offer both options. The rest of what you are saying is purely speculation with no evidence.
No, what Apple is saying is they don't want people using their platform to skirt around the 30% cut they otherwise would get, so now they're going to force the issue onto developers and publishers.
Apple isn't all magic and unicorns you know - they're a corporation. Their sole purpose in existence is to be as greedy and profitable as they can to their shareholders. They're not out to save the world.
Yes, that's my point Tenobell. I _already_ pay. So I DO NOT want another option, that will increase what I pay... They're not offering a service, they're forcing it on content providers, and in the end, I'll pay for it. I'll be forced to pay for it, even though, you said so, I already pay for the SAME service...
You might not want this option but I am sure many would love to use their iTunes credit to buy ebooks from Amazon and others.
If you purchase through the App Store, why would Amazon need to charge you for credit card transaction and bandwidth when they themselves are not paying for those costs?
But they *ARE* paying those costs... they pay for the bandwidth to serve the books to you. Pay attention already, sheesh. Its embarrassing.
You might not want this option but I am sure many would love to use their iTunes credit to buy ebooks from Amazon and others.
Look, if Apple offered a fair alternative or rate for processing transactions, this wouldn't be that big of an issue. Apple should take no more than the cost of doing the transaction, which I would guess would be no more than 5%. Certainly not 30%.
I know its convenient for you, and that's one of the points that Apple will use to strongarm content creators into doing, but this is bad for developers (once again) and content creators. Many use Amazon or someone else to sell their products because, frankly, they can't afford the 30% markup that Apple enforces.
Yes I totally agree.
Well, the European Union lawyers as well as the Feds did not, it seems. And they're probably better suited to that kind of assesments as both of us, even if we put our brains together
When you buy a computer you are paying a small percentage for its manufacture, you are paying for licensing fees, you are paying for shipment and transportation, you are paying for storage. The manufacturer and wholesaler pass these costs on.
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.
You might not want this option but I am sure many would love to use their iTunes credit to buy ebooks from Amazon and others.
Maybe, but please explain why I should pay more so that those pesky other users may use their iTunes card credit... Damn, I wanna be the only person in the world with an iPhone.
Genie, please erase other users from the planet, please. That will be my third wish!
MS wasn't punished for being a monopoly. They were punished for abusing their position and stifling competition in the market.
Well, the European Union lawyers as well as the Feds did not, it seems. And they're probably better suited to that kind of assesments as both of us, even if we put our brains together
They do add these charges.
When you buy a computer you are paying a small percentage for its manufacture, you are paying for licensing fees, you are paying for shipment and transportation, you are paying for storage. The manufacturer and wholesaler pass these costs on.
Yes, but as per my Nikon example, and my Windows example, the "platform" argument doesn't hold.
I don't pay a small (or 30%-small, indeed) tax on everything I create with my Nikon, nor with my Windows.
Of course, I don't create anything with a Windows, I play games with it. But it's not my point.
Maybe, but please explain why I should pay more so that those pesky other users may use their iTunes card credit... Damn, I wanna be the only person in the world with an iPhone.
Genie, please erase other users from the planet, please. That will be my third wish!
You are just speculating. You don't know if you will pay more for purchases through Amazon.com and there is no reason for you to pay more if you buy your ebooks using Amazon.com. If you don't want to go through the in app purchase process then you can fire up your Safari browser from iOS and buy the book through Amazon website. When you open the kindle app you will see you new purchase.
The fact they haven't exercised their rights under the agreement is interesting, if the right was there all along (Apple are assuming it must have been because they haven't changed the agreement, but have stated they are enforcing it). At what point can a person who has entered a contract with Apple say: you have never relied on this clause before, and you haven't for some time. Why are you now enforcing the contract after letting innumerate apps on the apps store which are no longer (and arguably, never) were compliant with the developer agreement? At what stage can a developer claim an estoppel on Apple?
They can't. The clause was agreed to so it is enforceable.