Yu still have that option. It shouldn't be to hard to ignore the in-app option. I get tons of junk mail and I easily ignore it. Since this will be a standard feature, it's not even as difficult as sorting through junk mail.
Forcing the user to choose between two distinct payment 'workflows' violates all principles of the avoiding user confusion mumbo jumbo mantra which is often spouted.
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 completely misstating this. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.
Yes, any app that offers out-of-app purchases will now need to add an in-app option. However, the customer can still chose to use the out-of-app option and Apple will get zip, zero, nada.
These details don't just magically take care of themselves.
These are the details that the 30% is paying for.
No, they aren't. Those details are paid for by the 30% cut Apple takes on the price of apps. If your app is free, then it's paid for by your ADC (cheap) rent.
Let me put it another way. 400 000 apps mean 10 billion app downloads. It means an ecosystem, it means more iPhone sales. Those pay for these costs.
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.
You are correct. I chose Apple products instead. You can chose other products if you don't like Apple's alternatives.
You are completely misstating this. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.
Yes, any app that offers out-of-app purchases will now need to add an in-app option. However, the customer can still chose to use the out-of-app option and Apple will get zip, zero, nada.
Provided the out-of-app option price point doesn't go up due to the in-app "option", then, you are right.
However, this needs some clarifying by Apple, which should happen soon.
You are correct. I chose Apple products instead. You can chose other products if you don't like Apple's alternatives.
You are right. I chose Apple products too. Please choose other alternatives, if you're making my Apple products more expensive due to strange buying habits, like being willing to pay for services unneeded.
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!!
I would not be the least bit surprised at The Daily launch that Apple announces new lower costs for subscription and in-app purchases.
I would not be the least bit surprised at The Daily launch that Apple announces new lower costs for subscription and in-app purchases.
I would expect Apple to announce NO cost for in-app purchases on content providing, since it's a special case they have certainly seen coming for a long time. It's Apple, not Microsoft...
Those weren't answers you just repeated what I said.
How do you figure that $99 would cover all of Apple's costs. I seriously doubt a free app that is downloaded hundreds of thousands of times is covered by $99.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
Interestingly enough, I did have answers to your questions. I suggest you read them, unless you're just trolling, in which case please go on.
You are making a totally unfounded assumption that the price will go up.
I am not. This was part of a logical reasoning with two opposite trails. You selected one of them and blame me for your not taking the other in account., though I did. How is that not a troll?
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.
As I've said a few times, I suspect we will see lower rates for some of the in-app content purchases.
And you do have an option: if you do not like the rate that Apple charges, then you forego the App Store.
Who pays for the bandwidth of streaming over 1 billion apps?
Do you not understand the difference between application purchases and in-app purchases?
Quote:
Exactly what proof do you have that this will be some huge problem fro Amazon?
Okay... I'm going to go real slow here, so even you can follow along. I'm going to use a little math here...
Amazon puts a server on the internet. They fill that server with digital books. Now, after all the negotiations with the content providers, and all the costs of paying for the servers, Amazon has two ways to process credit cards. They can pay a standard, industry rate of under 3% to process that transaction through their own system, *or*, they can pay Apple to do the transaction and pay 30%. Either way, Amazon has to keep track of that purchase, and has to pay for the server and the bandwidth to deliver that purchase to you, so the ONLY difference between the two payment methods is how much they have to pay to process a single transaction.
You following? Amazon has the content, pays for the server, pays for the bandwidth, pays for the internal infrastructure to support their own book service, and has to deal with all the publisher fees and contracts.... and now they're being told they have to spend potentially up to 30% more of their total revenue to accomplish the same goal that they were doing when they only had to pay 3%....
Those weren't answers you just repeated what I said.
How do you figure that $99 would cover all of Apple's costs. I seriously doubt a free app that is downloaded hundreds of thousands of times is covered by $99.
It definitely is not. However, its existence participates in making the iphone more desirable than for example Android.
Apple makes hardware,gorgeous hardware, with amazing software. But APPS sell the hardware.
Apple makes 55% of the world profits in smartphones.
THIS pays for these costs. I already said so, but since you did not understand, I'll make it clear: this answers your question.
If you purchase a book through iTunes Amazon does not directly incur those costs, Apple does.
As has been explained NUMEROUS times just in this thread alone, Amazon is still the host of the content, not Apple. They also have to use their systems to recognize the customer purchase, add it to the purchase history, pay their providers, incur the bandwidth charges to transfer the ebook to the end user and so forth.
Apple DOES NOT host the ebooks! In fact, in another thread, it was pointed out that Apple's contract explicitly states that they are NOT responsible for hosting such content.
Amazon bears the bulk of the costs in this situation, not Apple, but Apple wants the bulk of the profits.
As I've said a few times, I suspect we will see lower rates for some of the in-app content purchases.
And you do have an option: if you do not like the rate that Apple charges, then you forego the App Store.
Do business or don't do business. That's basically what you're saying. So again, if a service that was intended for iOS-only devices and was playing by the rules with Apple for years was suddenly told they'll either need to start allowing Apple to take 30% of their revenue or have their application, and their business, shut down... you would be okay with that?
Edit: I mean, I realize that is a bit of an extreme example, but that could potentially be the case for someone out there.
As has been explained NUMEROUS times just in this thread alone, Amazon is still the host of the content, not Apple. They also have to use their systems to recognize the customer purchase, add it to the purchase history, pay their providers, incur the bandwidth charges to transfer the ebook to the end user and so forth.
Apple DOES NOT host the ebooks! In fact, in another thread, it was pointed out that Apple's contract explicitly states that they are NOT responsible for hosting such content.
Amazon bears the bulk of the costs in this situation, not Apple, but Apple wants the bulk of the profits.
If Amazon agrees to that, sell Amazon stock, buy Apple stock ...
Comments
Yu still have that option. It shouldn't be to hard to ignore the in-app option. I get tons of junk mail and I easily ignore it. Since this will be a standard feature, it's not even as difficult as sorting through junk mail.
Forcing the user to choose between two distinct payment 'workflows' violates all principles of the avoiding user confusion mumbo jumbo mantra which is often spouted.
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 completely misstating this. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.
Yes, any app that offers out-of-app purchases will now need to add an in-app option. However, the customer can still chose to use the out-of-app option and Apple will get zip, zero, nada.
These details don't just magically take care of themselves.
These are the details that the 30% is paying for.
No, they aren't. Those details are paid for by the 30% cut Apple takes on the price of apps. If your app is free, then it's paid for by your ADC (cheap) rent.
Let me put it another way. 400 000 apps mean 10 billion app downloads. It means an ecosystem, it means more iPhone sales. Those pay for these costs.
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.
You are correct. I chose Apple products instead. You can chose other products if you don't like Apple's alternatives.
You are completely misstating this. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.
Yes, any app that offers out-of-app purchases will now need to add an in-app option. However, the customer can still chose to use the out-of-app option and Apple will get zip, zero, nada.
Provided the out-of-app option price point doesn't go up due to the in-app "option", then, you are right.
However, this needs some clarifying by Apple, which should happen soon.
Calling someone a troll is much easier than having facts.
TenoBell has decided to be a troll. And for a troll, any argument feeds in any debate. Is that explanation clear enough?
Just tryin' to help, mate.
You are correct. I chose Apple products instead. You can chose other products if you don't like Apple's alternatives.
You are right. I chose Apple products too. Please choose other alternatives, if you're making my Apple products more expensive due to strange buying habits, like being willing to pay for services unneeded.
Interesting enough you didn't have any answers to my questions.
Calling someone a troll is much easier than having facts.
Interestingly enough, I did have answers to your questions. I suggest you read them, unless you're just trolling, in which case please go on.
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!!
I would not be the least bit surprised at The Daily launch that Apple announces new lower costs for subscription and in-app purchases.
Provided the out-of-app option price point doesn't go up due to the in-app "option", then, you are right.
However, this needs some clarifying by Apple, which should happen soon.
I would not be the least bit surprised at The Daily launch that Apple announces new lower costs for subscription and in-app purchases.
I would expect Apple to announce NO cost for in-app purchases on content providing, since it's a special case they have certainly seen coming for a long time. It's Apple, not Microsoft...
How do you figure that $99 would cover all of Apple's costs. I seriously doubt a free app that is downloaded hundreds of thousands of times is covered by $99.
Interestingly enough, I did have answers to your questions. I suggest you read them, unless you're just trolling, in which case please go on.
You are making a totally unfounded assumption that the price will go up.
I am not. This was part of a logical reasoning with two opposite trails. You selected one of them and blame me for your not taking the other in account., though I did. How is that not a troll?
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.
As I've said a few times, I suspect we will see lower rates for some of the in-app content purchases.
And you do have an option: if you do not like the rate that Apple charges, then you forego the App Store.
If that's all Apple does.
Then who built and maintains the App Store.
Who reviews and approves 400,000 apps?
Where are all of these 400,000 apps stored?
Who pays for the bandwidth of streaming over 1 billion apps?
Do you not understand the difference between application purchases and in-app purchases?
Exactly what proof do you have that this will be some huge problem fro Amazon?
Okay... I'm going to go real slow here, so even you can follow along. I'm going to use a little math here...
Amazon puts a server on the internet. They fill that server with digital books. Now, after all the negotiations with the content providers, and all the costs of paying for the servers, Amazon has two ways to process credit cards. They can pay a standard, industry rate of under 3% to process that transaction through their own system, *or*, they can pay Apple to do the transaction and pay 30%. Either way, Amazon has to keep track of that purchase, and has to pay for the server and the bandwidth to deliver that purchase to you, so the ONLY difference between the two payment methods is how much they have to pay to process a single transaction.
You following? Amazon has the content, pays for the server, pays for the bandwidth, pays for the internal infrastructure to support their own book service, and has to deal with all the publisher fees and contracts.... and now they're being told they have to spend potentially up to 30% more of their total revenue to accomplish the same goal that they were doing when they only had to pay 3%....
Do you get me now?
Those weren't answers you just repeated what I said.
How do you figure that $99 would cover all of Apple's costs. I seriously doubt a free app that is downloaded hundreds of thousands of times is covered by $99.
It definitely is not. However, its existence participates in making the iphone more desirable than for example Android.
Apple makes hardware,gorgeous hardware, with amazing software. But APPS sell the hardware.
Apple makes 55% of the world profits in smartphones.
THIS pays for these costs. I already said so, but since you did not understand, I'll make it clear: this answers your question.
If you purchase a book through iTunes Amazon does not directly incur those costs, Apple does.
As has been explained NUMEROUS times just in this thread alone, Amazon is still the host of the content, not Apple. They also have to use their systems to recognize the customer purchase, add it to the purchase history, pay their providers, incur the bandwidth charges to transfer the ebook to the end user and so forth.
Apple DOES NOT host the ebooks! In fact, in another thread, it was pointed out that Apple's contract explicitly states that they are NOT responsible for hosting such content.
Amazon bears the bulk of the costs in this situation, not Apple, but Apple wants the bulk of the profits.
As I've said a few times, I suspect we will see lower rates for some of the in-app content purchases.
And you do have an option: if you do not like the rate that Apple charges, then you forego the App Store.
If the AppStore is more expensive, which it should be.
As I've said a few times, I suspect we will see lower rates for some of the in-app content purchases.
And you do have an option: if you do not like the rate that Apple charges, then you forego the App Store.
Do business or don't do business. That's basically what you're saying. So again, if a service that was intended for iOS-only devices and was playing by the rules with Apple for years was suddenly told they'll either need to start allowing Apple to take 30% of their revenue or have their application, and their business, shut down... you would be okay with that?
Edit: I mean, I realize that is a bit of an extreme example, but that could potentially be the case for someone out there.
As has been explained NUMEROUS times just in this thread alone, Amazon is still the host of the content, not Apple. They also have to use their systems to recognize the customer purchase, add it to the purchase history, pay their providers, incur the bandwidth charges to transfer the ebook to the end user and so forth.
Apple DOES NOT host the ebooks! In fact, in another thread, it was pointed out that Apple's contract explicitly states that they are NOT responsible for hosting such content.
Amazon bears the bulk of the costs in this situation, not Apple, but Apple wants the bulk of the profits.
If Amazon agrees to that, sell Amazon stock, buy Apple stock ...
Anyway, just do it...