The Times isn't perfect either, but it's much more neutral in it's reporting.
Great, since you subscribe and are familiar with the Times, then statistically, you can tell me how many positive vs negative "Objective" stories the Times wrote for McCain and how many positive vs negative "Objective" stories were written on Obama during the run-up to the presidential elections in 2008.
BASED ON THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND STUDY IN DECEMBER
The following is a list of instances in which Fox News viewers were more likely to be misinformed on a given issue:
most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
the economy is getting worse (26 points)
most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
Even more revealing, people who watched Fox News multiple times a day or everyday were found to be more misinformed than those who just watched Fox News occasionally. Among those who watched Fox News almost every day:
- 72% believe the economy is getting worse.
- 49% believe their taxes have gone up under President Obama.
- 63% believe the stimulus did not create any tax cuts.
- 47% believe that TARP was passed into law and signed by President Obama.
Some critics of the study might argue that the researchers were bias in determining what responses were "true" or "false." In their defense, the researchers stated they used objective sources, such as The Wall Street Journal survey of economists, in order to determine the veracity of various claims. The Wall Street Journal is actually considered a more conservative newspaper
But, clearly, Apple doesn't consider eBooks tangible goods, nor should they, in my opinion.
I read that too. The problem as I see it is that the Apple controlled App Store was designed for consumer protection against harmful apps. Apple hosted the service and provided the CC processing. All of that makes sense. But if you already have a trusted relationship with Amazon or your grocery store for tangible merchandise, you should be able to use the iDevice for convenient shopping and delivery through an app.
Sure you can just go to their website to shop but why prohibit that type of consumer convenience when it has absolutely nothing to do with Apple. Maybe make it so you can't use a credit card due to security policies, but at least allow shopping. I already have one-click at Amazon where they automatically bill my account.
John Gruber today suggested a credit card processing fee of about 5%. that sounds good to me. The point was made that in app purchasing costs Apple much less than does app purchasing itself. I can't say if that's correct. But if it is, then Apple should accommodate it. ...
In-app purchasing may seem to cost Apple less, but, if they don't rigorously enforce policies, then, developers will start finding ways around them. The free or low cost app that sells functionality through in-app purchases has become fairly common. If Apple allows developers to bypass in-app purchasing, more and more developers will simply "burden" Apple with "free" apps and sell the actual functionality and app content on the side. That ends up costing Apple quite a bit to run the App Store.
So, were exactly do they draw the line? An eBook is essentially content for the reader app (especially since they all have their own DRM, so it's not like it's generic content that you can view in any app) , just as additional levels are in a game. Without the content, the eBook reader doesn't do much, and the only reason it's distributed is for reading the content. One can certainly argue that such content should have a lower "processing fee" but a) that's an easy line to blur, and b) eBook distributors have no incentive to agree to any split at all if they are allowed to distribute content exclusively outside the in-app purchasing system.
Am I the only one excited about this? Specialized, modern, multimedia content is THE reason I'm excited about the ipad (along with Internet browsing and FaceTime). There's a lot of bitter, negative nanceys out thus morning. The Daily looks cool, and a terrific price with daily customized content year round for 40$. I can't wait to see other periodicals follow suit.
As for all of you extremely predictable, knee jerk nutjobs chiming in about evil old Rupert Murdoch, with your juvenile, close minded, hyperbolic statements about how you're not 'touching this' for the sake of your cultish leftist groupthink, please STFU.
edit: and FYI, everytime they poll the media about political leanings 90% vote democrat! so why do you think (the sometimes obnoxious) fox news is so popular? because they're the only ones saying something different from all the others! but I've never known a left leaning person to respond to logic so I'll stop here, it's alway emotion-based, backed up by rationalization, intellectualization, and NO INSIGHT!
"alway emotion-based, backed up by rationalization, intellectualization, and NO INSIGHT!"
I'm just stoked that Apple has worked out a deal for in-app subscriptions that, apparently, charges a fair rate. News Corp handles the servers, the bandwidth, and the content, and Apple becomes a *fair* POS that charges a minimal percentage to handle the subscription costs.
If true, and I seriously doubt Murdock would agree to a 30% cut so it must be, Apple is reshaping their purchases structure and is going to enable any publisher the ability to use Apple and iOS as their own POS system and not get screwed by their absorptive rates.
It's hard to debate Fox viewers as being MORE informed, since they really have no clue.
I consider myself non-partisan but choose the left more and more as the lesser of two evils. Most government seems owned by big money, but at least Dems have a slight interest in actually helping people instead of killing them. (i.e. Healthcare versus Wars)
You may not like Obama, but there are undebatable facts that the majority of FOX news viewers consistently get wrong. The viewers have been polled and people that watch FOX are consistently flat out wrong.
Sorta like global Warming. Every scientist in the planet says it's happening, whether humans have contributed or not, yet all the mindless right wing drones reply, "Scientists are idiots..."
It's so easy for them to disregard anything factual as wrong, especially since most of them believe in made up God with a Heaven and Hell.
Whatever your beliefs, I'm actually just surprised there would be any GOP supporters even on here since I just figured they were all using $200 Dells... that seems much more their speed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by benny-boy
It's "deluded." You must watch fox news:
BASED ON THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND STUDY IN DECEMBER
The following is a list of instances in which Fox News viewers were more likely to be misinformed on a given issue:
most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
the economy is getting worse (26 points)
most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
Even more revealing, people who watched Fox News multiple times a day or everyday were found to be more misinformed than those who just watched Fox News occasionally. Among those who watched Fox News almost every day:
- 72% believe the economy is getting worse.
- 49% believe their taxes have gone up under President Obama.
- 63% believe the stimulus did not create any tax cuts.
- 47% believe that TARP was passed into law and signed by President Obama.
Some critics of the study might argue that the researchers were bias in determining what responses were "true" or "false." In their defense, the researchers stated they used objective sources, such as The Wall Street Journal survey of economists, in order to determine the veracity of various claims. The Wall Street Journal is actually considered a more conservative newspaper
Great, since you subscribe and are familiar with the Times, then statistically, you can tell me how many positive vs negative "Objective" stories the Times wrote for McCain and how many positive vs negative "Objective" stories were written on Obama during the run-up to the presidential elections in 2008.
Assuming, of course that their own reporting on that was unbiased and accurate, which is something we don't know, there is a good reason why Obama came out neutral in reporting, and as they said there, near the end of the campaign McCain came out more negative. The reason is that as more negative things kept coming out of the campaign, it was reported on more. You have apparently forgotten that as the campaign wound down, the McCain side began a ferocious negative advertising campaign. In addition, Palin made some very poor remarks throughout the campaign. Remarks that should never have been made. In addition, they were many reports coming out of the McCain campaign itself that were negative towards Palin. Should all of that have been kept quiet? I'm sure that if that kind of information was about the Democrats, you would have been happy to have known it.
It's so easy for them to disregard anything factual as wrong, especially since most of them believe in made up God with a Heaven and Hell.
The real GOD would be laughing its ass off except it doesn't give damn how creation actually turns out because it is all designed to run on autopilot. Meteors crash into planets. Whatever... It's all good.
Sounds like they are being very smart about this, but then no one ever accused Murdoch of being dumb, just evil.
I still think a buck a week is too much for content that is essentially free elsewhere in slightly different formats. Also, it will probably have advertisements so you'd have to be pretty much a dumbass to buy into this thing.
The good news for Murdoch is that roughly 70% of the public falls into the "dumbass" category.
First of all, the app and the first two weeks are free (thanks to Verizon). So no one has to buy into anything just yet. I'll reserve judgement until after I've given it a go.
Also, I hate to tell you this, but just about ALL news organizations are owned by media companies. They ALL have an agenda. Anyone who is smart enough, knows not to take a single source as being completely accurate.
Yes, you can read articles for free elsewhere on the web and you still should. This allows you to gain information from more than one perspective. However, those "elsewhere" places will also have advertisements all over them, so not sure why you're complaining about that?
Sorry, if you insist on being a pretentious jerk, but I highly doubt 70% of the general public can be called "dumbasses".
In-app purchasing may seem to cost Apple less, but, if they don't rigorously enforce policies, then, developers will start finding ways around them. The free or low cost app that sells functionality through in-app purchases has become fairly common. If Apple allows developers to bypass in-app purchasing, more and more developers will simply "burden" Apple with "free" apps and sell the actual functionality and app content on the side. That ends up costing Apple quite a bit to run the App Store.
There are many applications that already do that besides ebook readers. Pandora, LastPass, WSJ, Newegg, eBay, Amazon Window Shopper... the list goes on and on.
Quote:
So, were exactly do they draw the line? An eBook is essentially content for the reader app (especially since they all have their own DRM, so it's not like it's generic content that you can view in any app) , just as additional levels are in a game. Without the content, the eBook reader doesn't do much, and the only reason it's distributed is for reading the content. One can certainly argue that such content should have a lower "processing fee" but a) that's an easy line to blur, and b) eBook distributors have no incentive to agree to any split at all if they are allowed to distribute content exclusively outside the in-app purchasing system.
You're exactly right.... they have no incentive to agree to any split with Apple, nor should they. In-app purchases were created as a way for developers to easily accept additional payments within their application without having to worry about having a merchant account or processing credit cards themselves. Its a fine option, but it should remain as that - an option.
In-app purchasing may seem to cost Apple less, but, if they don't rigorously enforce policies, then, developers will start finding ways around them. The free or low cost app that sells functionality through in-app purchases has become fairly common. If Apple allows developers to bypass in-app purchasing, more and more developers will simply "burden" Apple with "free" apps and sell the actual functionality and app content on the side. That ends up costing Apple quite a bit to run the App Store.
Yeah, I don't understand why more people don't see that side of it?
Using Kindle as an example...
1. The Kindle app is free, so Apple pays for the costs of delivering the app to iOS users.
2. Apple also pays the cost of developing, maintaining and marketing the platform.
Essentially, Amazon has a free store front in an Apple digital mall. A mall that has a lot of consumer traffic.
According to Apple's statement, they now want to collect a tax from Amazon when a patron of Apple's mall makes a purchase from that Kindle Book Store.
I don't see the problem. This isn't a co-op. Amazon, a direct competitor with Apple, is making money hand over fist from customers using iOS devices. Why shouldn't Apple get a cut of that?
I think this is an extension of what Apple saw happening with mobile ads; Google, another direct competitor, was benefitting from Apple's platform by making a lot of money from ads being placed in iOS apps. Apple was being cut out of that revenue, So they decided to get their own ad network.
The same is happening here. I guess we'll have to wait and see what Apple announces in the future. If history serves, it'll be something that'll shut most of the whiners up and not be as bad as they would like us all to believe.
The 30% is a bit steep, Apple could however institute a much smaller "handlers" or "distribution" fee for content that can be bought elsewhere.
There are many applications that already do that besides ebook readers. Pandora, LastPass, WSJ, Newegg, eBay, Amazon Window Shopper... the list goes on and on.
You're exactly right.... they have no incentive to agree to any split with Apple, nor should they. In-app purchases were created as a way for developers to easily accept additional payments within their application without having to worry about having a merchant account or processing credit cards themselves. Its a fine option, but it should remain as that - an option.
And allowing exclusively out-of-app purchases allows others to use the App Store parasitically and leave Apple with the full burden of the cost. They shouldn't have to tolerate that, but, if allowed to, many App publishers will try to cheat the system and avoid paying their share of the costs, which is exactly what Sony and Amazon are trying to do.
In-app purchasing may seem to cost Apple less, but, if they don't rigorously enforce policies, then, developers will start finding ways around them. The free or low cost app that sells functionality through in-app purchases has become fairly common. If Apple allows developers to bypass in-app purchasing, more and more developers will simply "burden" Apple with "free" apps and sell the actual functionality and app content on the side. That ends up costing Apple quite a bit to run the App Store.
So, were exactly do they draw the line? An eBook is essentially content for the reader app (especially since they all have their own DRM, so it's not like it's generic content that you can view in any app) , just as additional levels are in a game. Without the content, the eBook reader doesn't do much, and the only reason it's distributed is for reading the content. One can certainly argue that such content should have a lower "processing fee" but a) that's an easy line to blur, and b) eBook distributors have no incentive to agree to any split at all if they are allowed to distribute content exclusively outside the in-app purchasing system.
These are Apple's policies. That doesn't make them the Ten Commandments. Apple wrote those policies to benefit Apple. It doesn't always benefit us, their customers.
I have no problem with seeing those policies changed. Books and magazines can be defined by Apple so as to eliminate those who want to work around Apple's policies. Let's remember that Apple charges nothing for free apps. And as free app downloads constitute the majority of all app downloads, than Apple can obviously afford to allow this as well. And as I pointed out, out of app purchases, which as what we do with our Kindle and Nook apps, costs Apple NOTHING, Apple shouldn't be demanding that those companies also institute in app purchases which DO cost Apple something.
So what Apple is doing here is saying to these companies, that if they wish to continue out of app purchasing which costs Apple nothing, they must also have in app purchases which does have a cost to Apple, and then, because of that cost, apple must charge them for that service. This makes no sense at all, as Apple keeps on insisting that they sell entertainment and apps at a just above break even point so as to make their hardware more desirable, which is where they make their money.
As The Kindle and Nook apps, and presumably the new Sony app as well, drive people TO Apple's hardware, Apple benefits plenty from this present model. They would have to carefully explain why anyone other than Apple would benefit from this change, and it IS a change.
I'm just stoked that Apple has worked out a deal for in-app subscriptions that, apparently, charges a fair rate. News Corp handles the servers, the bandwidth, and the content, and Apple becomes a *fair* POS that charges a minimal percentage to handle the subscription costs.
If true, and I seriously doubt Murdock would agree to a 30% cut so it must be, Apple is reshaping their purchases structure and is going to enable any publisher the ability to use Apple and iOS as their own POS system and not get screwed by their absorptive rates.
This is the point for me also, though I don't know what you mean by "absorptive rates."
Politics aside, it could only be News Corp who has the wherewithal to pull off this experiment. If they aim at the iPad demographic (they are not fools in marketing, after all), they may succeed, which could pave the way for other news institutions like the NY Times that need saving. This is perhaps uppermost in Steve Jobs's mind.
Meanwhile, my iPad is stuck on "Installing" of The Daily app for the last half hour!
Imsuppose then, that you've never bought a single publication, because they all have advertising, and the information is available somewhere else if you want to spend the time looking for it. ...
Well, I apologise for being overly flip. Humour doesn't translate well into text and it was a lot funnier in my head than on paper. My apologies to anyone I offended.
That being said, yes, it's true I don't buy publications with advertising in them.
I haven't read or bought a paper magazine since the mid 80's, and haven't even read a paper newspaper since about 1995. I have never read newspapers on a daily basis ever, even when I still bought the occasional sunday edition. I have also never subscribed to a magazine since I was about 16 when I had three subscriptions (Psychology Today, Ms., & Playboy), for about two years each, but that was something north of 30 years ago.
In terms of digital content, if it has advertisements, it should basically be free IMO and I have a personal rule never, ever to pay for something that has advertisements in it. It's just wrong in my book and shouldn't be tolerated by any right-thinking humans.
Quote from the end of the Google Honeycomb event coverage:
"1:54 And that's about it. Honeycomb looks okay -- not amazing -- but the changes to Android market are important. Overall a good step forward for Google."
Comments
The Times isn't perfect either, but it's much more neutral in it's reporting.
Great, since you subscribe and are familiar with the Times, then statistically, you can tell me how many positive vs negative "Objective" stories the Times wrote for McCain and how many positive vs negative "Objective" stories were written on Obama during the run-up to the presidential elections in 2008.
They report, They decide!
/
/
/
lol, you are so diluted. it's almost sad.
It's "deluded." You must watch fox news:
BASED ON THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND STUDY IN DECEMBER
The following is a list of instances in which Fox News viewers were more likely to be misinformed on a given issue:
most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
the economy is getting worse (26 points)
most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
Even more revealing, people who watched Fox News multiple times a day or everyday were found to be more misinformed than those who just watched Fox News occasionally. Among those who watched Fox News almost every day:
- 72% believe the economy is getting worse.
- 49% believe their taxes have gone up under President Obama.
- 63% believe the stimulus did not create any tax cuts.
- 47% believe that TARP was passed into law and signed by President Obama.
Some critics of the study might argue that the researchers were bias in determining what responses were "true" or "false." In their defense, the researchers stated they used objective sources, such as The Wall Street Journal survey of economists, in order to determine the veracity of various claims. The Wall Street Journal is actually considered a more conservative newspaper
I don't think that will change:
But, clearly, Apple doesn't consider eBooks tangible goods, nor should they, in my opinion.
I read that too. The problem as I see it is that the Apple controlled App Store was designed for consumer protection against harmful apps. Apple hosted the service and provided the CC processing. All of that makes sense. But if you already have a trusted relationship with Amazon or your grocery store for tangible merchandise, you should be able to use the iDevice for convenient shopping and delivery through an app.
Sure you can just go to their website to shop but why prohibit that type of consumer convenience when it has absolutely nothing to do with Apple. Maybe make it so you can't use a credit card due to security policies, but at least allow shopping. I already have one-click at Amazon where they automatically bill my account.
John Gruber today suggested a credit card processing fee of about 5%. that sounds good to me. The point was made that in app purchasing costs Apple much less than does app purchasing itself. I can't say if that's correct. But if it is, then Apple should accommodate it. ...
In-app purchasing may seem to cost Apple less, but, if they don't rigorously enforce policies, then, developers will start finding ways around them. The free or low cost app that sells functionality through in-app purchases has become fairly common. If Apple allows developers to bypass in-app purchasing, more and more developers will simply "burden" Apple with "free" apps and sell the actual functionality and app content on the side. That ends up costing Apple quite a bit to run the App Store.
So, were exactly do they draw the line? An eBook is essentially content for the reader app (especially since they all have their own DRM, so it's not like it's generic content that you can view in any app) , just as additional levels are in a game. Without the content, the eBook reader doesn't do much, and the only reason it's distributed is for reading the content. One can certainly argue that such content should have a lower "processing fee" but a) that's an easy line to blur, and b) eBook distributors have no incentive to agree to any split at all if they are allowed to distribute content exclusively outside the in-app purchasing system.
Am I the only one excited about this? Specialized, modern, multimedia content is THE reason I'm excited about the ipad (along with Internet browsing and FaceTime). There's a lot of bitter, negative nanceys out thus morning. The Daily looks cool, and a terrific price with daily customized content year round for 40$. I can't wait to see other periodicals follow suit.
As for all of you extremely predictable, knee jerk nutjobs chiming in about evil old Rupert Murdoch, with your juvenile, close minded, hyperbolic statements about how you're not 'touching this' for the sake of your cultish leftist groupthink, please STFU.
edit: and FYI, everytime they poll the media about political leanings 90% vote democrat! so why do you think (the sometimes obnoxious) fox news is so popular? because they're the only ones saying something different from all the others! but I've never known a left leaning person to respond to logic so I'll stop here, it's alway emotion-based, backed up by rationalization, intellectualization, and NO INSIGHT!
"alway emotion-based, backed up by rationalization, intellectualization, and NO INSIGHT!"
Hmm! Reads just like your own post. Interesting.
If true, and I seriously doubt Murdock would agree to a 30% cut so it must be, Apple is reshaping their purchases structure and is going to enable any publisher the ability to use Apple and iOS as their own POS system and not get screwed by their absorptive rates.
I consider myself non-partisan but choose the left more and more as the lesser of two evils. Most government seems owned by big money, but at least Dems have a slight interest in actually helping people instead of killing them. (i.e. Healthcare versus Wars)
You may not like Obama, but there are undebatable facts that the majority of FOX news viewers consistently get wrong. The viewers have been polled and people that watch FOX are consistently flat out wrong.
Sorta like global Warming. Every scientist in the planet says it's happening, whether humans have contributed or not, yet all the mindless right wing drones reply, "Scientists are idiots..."
It's so easy for them to disregard anything factual as wrong, especially since most of them believe in made up God with a Heaven and Hell.
Whatever your beliefs, I'm actually just surprised there would be any GOP supporters even on here since I just figured they were all using $200 Dells... that seems much more their speed.
It's "deluded." You must watch fox news:
BASED ON THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND STUDY IN DECEMBER
The following is a list of instances in which Fox News viewers were more likely to be misinformed on a given issue:
most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
the economy is getting worse (26 points)
most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
Even more revealing, people who watched Fox News multiple times a day or everyday were found to be more misinformed than those who just watched Fox News occasionally. Among those who watched Fox News almost every day:
- 72% believe the economy is getting worse.
- 49% believe their taxes have gone up under President Obama.
- 63% believe the stimulus did not create any tax cuts.
- 47% believe that TARP was passed into law and signed by President Obama.
Some critics of the study might argue that the researchers were bias in determining what responses were "true" or "false." In their defense, the researchers stated they used objective sources, such as The Wall Street Journal survey of economists, in order to determine the veracity of various claims. The Wall Street Journal is actually considered a more conservative newspaper
Great, since you subscribe and are familiar with the Times, then statistically, you can tell me how many positive vs negative "Objective" stories the Times wrote for McCain and how many positive vs negative "Objective" stories were written on Obama during the run-up to the presidential elections in 2008.
They report, They decide!
/
/
/
Assuming, of course that their own reporting on that was unbiased and accurate, which is something we don't know, there is a good reason why Obama came out neutral in reporting, and as they said there, near the end of the campaign McCain came out more negative. The reason is that as more negative things kept coming out of the campaign, it was reported on more. You have apparently forgotten that as the campaign wound down, the McCain side began a ferocious negative advertising campaign. In addition, Palin made some very poor remarks throughout the campaign. Remarks that should never have been made. In addition, they were many reports coming out of the McCain campaign itself that were negative towards Palin. Should all of that have been kept quiet? I'm sure that if that kind of information was about the Democrats, you would have been happy to have known it.
A bit of hypocrisy here perhaps?
It's so easy for them to disregard anything factual as wrong, especially since most of them believe in made up God with a Heaven and Hell.
The real GOD would be laughing its ass off except it doesn't give damn how creation actually turns out because it is all designed to run on autopilot. Meteors crash into planets. Whatever... It's all good.
Sounds like they are being very smart about this, but then no one ever accused Murdoch of being dumb, just evil.
I still think a buck a week is too much for content that is essentially free elsewhere in slightly different formats. Also, it will probably have advertisements so you'd have to be pretty much a dumbass to buy into this thing.
The good news for Murdoch is that roughly 70% of the public falls into the "dumbass" category.
First of all, the app and the first two weeks are free (thanks to Verizon). So no one has to buy into anything just yet. I'll reserve judgement until after I've given it a go.
Also, I hate to tell you this, but just about ALL news organizations are owned by media companies. They ALL have an agenda. Anyone who is smart enough, knows not to take a single source as being completely accurate.
Yes, you can read articles for free elsewhere on the web and you still should. This allows you to gain information from more than one perspective. However, those "elsewhere" places will also have advertisements all over them, so not sure why you're complaining about that?
Sorry, if you insist on being a pretentious jerk, but I highly doubt 70% of the general public can be called "dumbasses".
In-app purchasing may seem to cost Apple less, but, if they don't rigorously enforce policies, then, developers will start finding ways around them. The free or low cost app that sells functionality through in-app purchases has become fairly common. If Apple allows developers to bypass in-app purchasing, more and more developers will simply "burden" Apple with "free" apps and sell the actual functionality and app content on the side. That ends up costing Apple quite a bit to run the App Store.
There are many applications that already do that besides ebook readers. Pandora, LastPass, WSJ, Newegg, eBay, Amazon Window Shopper... the list goes on and on.
So, were exactly do they draw the line? An eBook is essentially content for the reader app (especially since they all have their own DRM, so it's not like it's generic content that you can view in any app) , just as additional levels are in a game. Without the content, the eBook reader doesn't do much, and the only reason it's distributed is for reading the content. One can certainly argue that such content should have a lower "processing fee" but a) that's an easy line to blur, and b) eBook distributors have no incentive to agree to any split at all if they are allowed to distribute content exclusively outside the in-app purchasing system.
You're exactly right.... they have no incentive to agree to any split with Apple, nor should they. In-app purchases were created as a way for developers to easily accept additional payments within their application without having to worry about having a merchant account or processing credit cards themselves. Its a fine option, but it should remain as that - an option.
lol, you are so diluted. it's almost sad.
I reckon anonymouse is being too harsh on you. Dyslexia. Tiluded, here, corrected.
In-app purchasing may seem to cost Apple less, but, if they don't rigorously enforce policies, then, developers will start finding ways around them. The free or low cost app that sells functionality through in-app purchases has become fairly common. If Apple allows developers to bypass in-app purchasing, more and more developers will simply "burden" Apple with "free" apps and sell the actual functionality and app content on the side. That ends up costing Apple quite a bit to run the App Store.
Yeah, I don't understand why more people don't see that side of it?
Using Kindle as an example...
1. The Kindle app is free, so Apple pays for the costs of delivering the app to iOS users.
2. Apple also pays the cost of developing, maintaining and marketing the platform.
Essentially, Amazon has a free store front in an Apple digital mall. A mall that has a lot of consumer traffic.
According to Apple's statement, they now want to collect a tax from Amazon when a patron of Apple's mall makes a purchase from that Kindle Book Store.
I don't see the problem. This isn't a co-op. Amazon, a direct competitor with Apple, is making money hand over fist from customers using iOS devices. Why shouldn't Apple get a cut of that?
I think this is an extension of what Apple saw happening with mobile ads; Google, another direct competitor, was benefitting from Apple's platform by making a lot of money from ads being placed in iOS apps. Apple was being cut out of that revenue, So they decided to get their own ad network.
The same is happening here. I guess we'll have to wait and see what Apple announces in the future. If history serves, it'll be something that'll shut most of the whiners up and not be as bad as they would like us all to believe.
The 30% is a bit steep, Apple could however institute a much smaller "handlers" or "distribution" fee for content that can be bought elsewhere.
There are many applications that already do that besides ebook readers. Pandora, LastPass, WSJ, Newegg, eBay, Amazon Window Shopper... the list goes on and on.
You're exactly right.... they have no incentive to agree to any split with Apple, nor should they. In-app purchases were created as a way for developers to easily accept additional payments within their application without having to worry about having a merchant account or processing credit cards themselves. Its a fine option, but it should remain as that - an option.
And allowing exclusively out-of-app purchases allows others to use the App Store parasitically and leave Apple with the full burden of the cost. They shouldn't have to tolerate that, but, if allowed to, many App publishers will try to cheat the system and avoid paying their share of the costs, which is exactly what Sony and Amazon are trying to do.
In-app purchasing may seem to cost Apple less, but, if they don't rigorously enforce policies, then, developers will start finding ways around them. The free or low cost app that sells functionality through in-app purchases has become fairly common. If Apple allows developers to bypass in-app purchasing, more and more developers will simply "burden" Apple with "free" apps and sell the actual functionality and app content on the side. That ends up costing Apple quite a bit to run the App Store.
So, were exactly do they draw the line? An eBook is essentially content for the reader app (especially since they all have their own DRM, so it's not like it's generic content that you can view in any app) , just as additional levels are in a game. Without the content, the eBook reader doesn't do much, and the only reason it's distributed is for reading the content. One can certainly argue that such content should have a lower "processing fee" but a) that's an easy line to blur, and b) eBook distributors have no incentive to agree to any split at all if they are allowed to distribute content exclusively outside the in-app purchasing system.
These are Apple's policies. That doesn't make them the Ten Commandments. Apple wrote those policies to benefit Apple. It doesn't always benefit us, their customers.
I have no problem with seeing those policies changed. Books and magazines can be defined by Apple so as to eliminate those who want to work around Apple's policies. Let's remember that Apple charges nothing for free apps. And as free app downloads constitute the majority of all app downloads, than Apple can obviously afford to allow this as well. And as I pointed out, out of app purchases, which as what we do with our Kindle and Nook apps, costs Apple NOTHING, Apple shouldn't be demanding that those companies also institute in app purchases which DO cost Apple something.
So what Apple is doing here is saying to these companies, that if they wish to continue out of app purchasing which costs Apple nothing, they must also have in app purchases which does have a cost to Apple, and then, because of that cost, apple must charge them for that service. This makes no sense at all, as Apple keeps on insisting that they sell entertainment and apps at a just above break even point so as to make their hardware more desirable, which is where they make their money.
As The Kindle and Nook apps, and presumably the new Sony app as well, drive people TO Apple's hardware, Apple benefits plenty from this present model. They would have to carefully explain why anyone other than Apple would benefit from this change, and it IS a change.
I'm just stoked that Apple has worked out a deal for in-app subscriptions that, apparently, charges a fair rate. News Corp handles the servers, the bandwidth, and the content, and Apple becomes a *fair* POS that charges a minimal percentage to handle the subscription costs.
If true, and I seriously doubt Murdock would agree to a 30% cut so it must be, Apple is reshaping their purchases structure and is going to enable any publisher the ability to use Apple and iOS as their own POS system and not get screwed by their absorptive rates.
This is the point for me also, though I don't know what you mean by "absorptive rates."
Politics aside, it could only be News Corp who has the wherewithal to pull off this experiment. If they aim at the iPad demographic (they are not fools in marketing, after all), they may succeed, which could pave the way for other news institutions like the NY Times that need saving. This is perhaps uppermost in Steve Jobs's mind.
Meanwhile, my iPad is stuck on "Installing" of The Daily app for the last half hour!
Imsuppose then, that you've never bought a single publication, because they all have advertising, and the information is available somewhere else if you want to spend the time looking for it. ...
Well, I apologise for being overly flip. Humour doesn't translate well into text and it was a lot funnier in my head than on paper. My apologies to anyone I offended.
That being said, yes, it's true I don't buy publications with advertising in them.
I haven't read or bought a paper magazine since the mid 80's, and haven't even read a paper newspaper since about 1995. I have never read newspapers on a daily basis ever, even when I still bought the occasional sunday edition. I have also never subscribed to a magazine since I was about 16 when I had three subscriptions (Psychology Today, Ms., & Playboy), for about two years each, but that was something north of 30 years ago.
In terms of digital content, if it has advertisements, it should basically be free IMO and I have a personal rule never, ever to pay for something that has advertisements in it. It's just wrong in my book and shouldn't be tolerated by any right-thinking humans.
Err...
Isn't this site and article supposed to be about Apple and technology.
Just because I admire Apple and Steve Jobs does not mean I agree with everything they do.
I can agree or disagree with Jobs/Murdoch (Beck/Oberman) on some issues and not others...
I love my puppy... Except when he poops in the parlor!
Quote from the end of the Google Honeycomb event coverage:
"1:54 And that's about it. Honeycomb looks okay -- not amazing -- but the changes to Android market are important. Overall a good step forward for Google."
http://www.businessinsider.com/googl...b-event-2011-2
Essentially, Amazon has a free store front in an Apple digital mall. A mall that has a lot of consumer traffic.
I would be willing to bet Amazon would prefer to install their app directly on the users' iPad and not have to deal with Apple at all.