When I sell products through Amazon or eBay, they definitely take their cut. This is no different.
You sell products through Amazon, or eBay and they take their cut because they are providing a service, which involves cataloging and distribution, credit card fees etc.
Amazon can do all that. They dont need Apple. They dont need the App Store.
How do we know this.
we know this, because on Kindle.app ( on all devices) they handle your credit card, the digital storage, the distribution, the download costs and everything else when you are redirected to their website.
How will this change with in-app purchasing?
It wont.
There will be an extra step. Kindle will be forced to use Apple's in-app purchasing. All that means is that the app presents a dialog ( using a framework called storekit) and takes the users details. StoreKit then tells the kindle app whether the transaction failed, succeeded, or was canceled.
It helps with no UI.
Then the Kindle app has to call their webservice to talk to the server which handles the thedigital storage, the distribution, the download costs and everything else. It downloads from Amazon's server.
The 30% is for the credit card transaction. The app store stores no content. It doesnt own this content to sell. It downloads no content. That happens from Amazon's servers. It does some credit card transactions which Amazon are pretty good at. ( And if Apple want to make it seamless for Kindle and everybody else so we have one password for everything they can port KeyChain to iOS).
This is theft. Pure and simple.
The cost, if passed onto the iPad user ( and Amazon might as well) will be 43% extra.
Apple wants to provide the best experience for customers.
Being redirected to a web page to finish your purchase is not a great experience.
Kindle could easily embed their store in the app, or (less easily) re-do the store UI in-app as native code and handle their own credit card transactions. That is banned under App Store rules.
Apple makes money by selling the devices. It is Apple's job to make the value proposition as appealing as possible in order to be able sell as many of those devices (at a profit) as possible.
Simple put:
High value/Low price = High sales
Low value/High price = Low sales
Apple is selling a computing device. The more things it can do, the higher its value is to the buyer of that device. More apps = Higher value.
The more Apple chases away or raises the costs of using an app, the lower the value of the device becomes, and the more it will hurt sales.
What you fail to understand is, Apple will do what APPLE think is the best value proposition for all parties involved, not you the consumer, not Amazon/Sony the providers, but APPLE. You may find it strange, or believe it's unsustainable in the long term, but that doesn't mean Apple is wrong. You don't know how Amazon and Sony and etc. operate, and what their profit margins are, and also what incentives they might come up to minimize impact of this change, so you have no idea what they will do in the future.
The app store on the iPad is creating tens of millions of Kindle sales.... I'd argue that Apple is certainly entitled to something. And of course, having control of the platform means that Apple is entitled to demand it.
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.
What you fail to understand is, Apple will do what APPLE think is the best value proposition for all parties involved, not you the consumer, not Amazon/Sony the providers, but APPLE.
If Apple changes the value proposition of their product to the point where customers don't think it's worth spending $XXX on, then they won't buy it. That hurts Apple too. That's how the free market works.
Bad Apple rears it's very ugly head again. So if I understand this correctly, the Kindle app will be required to give the user two options - buy from the Amazon web page at Amazon prices, or buy from an in-app store with 30% higher prices just so Apple can steal some money from something which doesn't concern them in the slightest.
It's nauseating stuff and I really hope some sort of regulatory body steps in and gives Apple a thoroughly good slapping for it. Microsoft wouldn't be able to behave like this anymore so Apple shouldn't be allowed to either. Play fair Apple, once an iPad is sold it belongs to the user, not to you. So keep your filthy hands off it.
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.
But you aren't going to be affected, unless Amazon choose to withdraw it.
Apple isn't going to get anything, if Amazon can find incentive for customers to continue use their own web store front.
If people choose to use in-app payment system for some reason, it's still the choice of consumer. Which is actually the great thing, is it not?
But they very much like the additional sales they are getting from Apple devices.
So, how much is that worth to Amazon?
C.
That's not the point being made. Kindle already have a successful Kindle App. All the purchasing is done externally from the App. Why does Apple now need to be involved in this process? Perhaps more importantly, why are the now suddenly construing the full ambit of the clause in question?
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?
If Apple changes the value proposition of their product to the point where customers don't think it's worth spending $XXX on, then they won't buy it. That hurts Apple too. That's how the free market works.
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.
As for now, if sony/Amazon wants to be on a popular platform, they have to pay. That's how free market works too.
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.
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?
You're missing the point. When you buy a kindle book, you're not Apple's customer, you're Amazon's. Imagine buying an iPad, knowing how wonderful it is that you can buy your books through Amazon's vast library and enjoy reading them on your device, and suddenly that application changes dramatically so that only select books that have been authorized to use Apple's in-app purchase can be allowed, you might find you are now unable to read most of your library. Or worse, what if Apple demanded all or nothing, and suddenly the Kindle application disappeared. You would be upset, no?
That's the type of situation we could find ourselves in if we take this statement from Apple at face value.
Oh Amazon will certainly withdraw Kindle if the 30% level is maintained. They can sell on many devices, rather than one with no margins for them unless they increase costs by 43%.
It's nauseating stuff and I really hope some sort of regulatory body steps in and gives Apple a thoroughly good slapping for it. Microsoft wouldn't be able to behave like this anymore so Apple shouldn't be allowed to either. Play fair Apple, once an iPad is sold it belongs to the user, not to you. So keep your filthy hands off it.
Is anyone forcing you to use App store? For god sake, jailbreak if you have to.
... So if I understand this correctly, the Kindle app will be required to give the user two options - buy from the Amazon web page at Amazon prices, or buy from an in-app store with 30% higher prices ...
You don't understand this correctly. As usual, you have it wrong. (It happens so often with you, one might almost think it was intentional.) No one is dictating to Amazon or Sony or Barnes & Noble that they must charge more for books bought through in-app purchasing.
But you aren't going to be affected, unless Amazon choose to withdraw it.
Apple isn't going to get anything, if Amazon can find incentive for customers to continue use their own web store front.
If people choose to use in-app payment system for some reason, it's still the choice of consumer. Which is actually the great thing, is it not?
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.
Comments
When I sell products through Amazon or eBay, they definitely take their cut. This is no different.
Amazon is not selling books through Apple Store
Something did happen - Amazon last quarter started selling more Kindle books than paperback for the first time ever.
The question is, what proportion of those sales came from the iPad?
C.
When I sell products through Amazon or eBay, they definitely take their cut. This is no different.
You sell products through Amazon, or eBay and they take their cut because they are providing a service, which involves cataloging and distribution, credit card fees etc.
Amazon can do all that. They dont need Apple. They dont need the App Store.
How do we know this.
we know this, because on Kindle.app ( on all devices) they handle your credit card, the digital storage, the distribution, the download costs and everything else when you are redirected to their website.
How will this change with in-app purchasing?
It wont.
There will be an extra step. Kindle will be forced to use Apple's in-app purchasing. All that means is that the app presents a dialog ( using a framework called storekit) and takes the users details. StoreKit then tells the kindle app whether the transaction failed, succeeded, or was canceled.
It helps with no UI.
Then the Kindle app has to call their webservice to talk to the server which handles the thedigital storage, the distribution, the download costs and everything else. It downloads from Amazon's server.
The 30% is for the credit card transaction. The app store stores no content. It doesnt own this content to sell. It downloads no content. That happens from Amazon's servers. It does some credit card transactions which Amazon are pretty good at. ( And if Apple want to make it seamless for Kindle and everybody else so we have one password for everything they can port KeyChain to iOS).
This is theft. Pure and simple.
The cost, if passed onto the iPad user ( and Amazon might as well) will be 43% extra.
Good luck with that one.
Apple wants to provide the best experience for customers.
Being redirected to a web page to finish your purchase is not a great experience.
Kindle could easily embed their store in the app, or (less easily) re-do the store UI in-app as native code and handle their own credit card transactions. That is banned under App Store rules.
Amazon can do all that. They dont need Apple. They dont need the App Store.
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.
The app store on the iPad is creating tens of millions of Kindle sales for Amazon.
How much is that worth to Amazon?
a) Zero?
b) Nothing.
c) Not a penny
d) A tidy sum
I'd argue that Apple is certainly entitled to something. And of course, having control of the platform means that Apple is entitled to demand it.
Is Apple entitled to 30% of the retail value?
Nope. No way. That would be unsustainable. It would leave Apple making more money from a sale than Amazon.
But who said anything about 30%?
This, ladies and gentlemen, is called a negotiating position.
It's not about yay, or nay. It's about how much.
C.
This post deserves repeating.
I'm going with "d" as my answer.
Apple makes money by selling the devices. It is Apple's job to make the value proposition as appealing as possible in order to be able sell as many of those devices (at a profit) as possible.
Simple put:
High value/Low price = High sales
Low value/High price = Low sales
Apple is selling a computing device. The more things it can do, the higher its value is to the buyer of that device. More apps = Higher value.
The more Apple chases away or raises the costs of using an app, the lower the value of the device becomes, and the more it will hurt sales.
What you fail to understand is, Apple will do what APPLE think is the best value proposition for all parties involved, not you the consumer, not Amazon/Sony the providers, but APPLE. You may find it strange, or believe it's unsustainable in the long term, but that doesn't mean Apple is wrong. You don't know how Amazon and Sony and etc. operate, and what their profit margins are, and also what incentives they might come up to minimize impact of this change, so you have no idea what they will do in the future.
The app store on the iPad is creating tens of millions of Kindle sales.... I'd argue that Apple is certainly entitled to something. And of course, having control of the platform means that Apple is entitled to demand it.
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.
What you fail to understand is, Apple will do what APPLE think is the best value proposition for all parties involved, not you the consumer, not Amazon/Sony the providers, but APPLE.
If Apple changes the value proposition of their product to the point where customers don't think it's worth spending $XXX on, then they won't buy it. That hurts Apple too. That's how the free market works.
It's nauseating stuff and I really hope some sort of regulatory body steps in and gives Apple a thoroughly good slapping for it. Microsoft wouldn't be able to behave like this anymore so Apple shouldn't be allowed to either. Play fair Apple, once an iPad is sold it belongs to the user, not to you. So keep your filthy hands off it.
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?
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?
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.
But you aren't going to be affected, unless Amazon choose to withdraw it.
Apple isn't going to get anything, if Amazon can find incentive for customers to continue use their own web store front.
If people choose to use in-app payment system for some reason, it's still the choice of consumer. Which is actually the great thing, is it not?
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.
That's not the point being made. Kindle already have a successful Kindle App. All the purchasing is done externally from the App. Why does Apple now need to be involved in this process? Perhaps more importantly, why are the now suddenly construing the full ambit of the clause in question?
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?
If Apple changes the value proposition of their product to the point where customers don't think it's worth spending $XXX on, then they won't buy it. That hurts Apple too. That's how the free market works.
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.
As for now, if sony/Amazon wants to be on a popular platform, they have to pay. That's how free market works too.
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.
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.
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?
Yes, Amazon can distribute ALL the content on iTunes (apps, music, video) withouth any problem
You're missing the point. When you buy a kindle book, you're not Apple's customer, you're Amazon's. Imagine buying an iPad, knowing how wonderful it is that you can buy your books through Amazon's vast library and enjoy reading them on your device, and suddenly that application changes dramatically so that only select books that have been authorized to use Apple's in-app purchase can be allowed, you might find you are now unable to read most of your library. Or worse, what if Apple demanded all or nothing, and suddenly the Kindle application disappeared. You would be upset, no?
That's the type of situation we could find ourselves in if we take this statement from Apple at face value.
Oh Amazon will certainly withdraw Kindle if the 30% level is maintained. They can sell on many devices, rather than one with no margins for them unless they increase costs by 43%.
(we may get new pricing models tomorrow).
It's nauseating stuff and I really hope some sort of regulatory body steps in and gives Apple a thoroughly good slapping for it. Microsoft wouldn't be able to behave like this anymore so Apple shouldn't be allowed to either. Play fair Apple, once an iPad is sold it belongs to the user, not to you. So keep your filthy hands off it.
Is anyone forcing you to use App store? For god sake, jailbreak if you have to.
... So if I understand this correctly, the Kindle app will be required to give the user two options - buy from the Amazon web page at Amazon prices, or buy from an in-app store with 30% higher prices ...
You don't understand this correctly. As usual, you have it wrong. (It happens so often with you, one might almost think it was intentional.) No one is dictating to Amazon or Sony or Barnes & Noble that they must charge more for books bought through in-app purchasing.
But you aren't going to be affected, unless Amazon choose to withdraw it.
Apple isn't going to get anything, if Amazon can find incentive for customers to continue use their own web store front.
If people choose to use in-app payment system for some reason, it's still the choice of consumer. Which is actually the great thing, is it not?
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?