Yes, yes, and we think your argument is incorrect, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
However, as I originally pointed out, I don't believe it's Apple's intention to apply the 30/70 revenue split in this instance. I think they almost certainly have established, or will establish, some other revenue split for periodical publishers and that they intend to also establish a separate revenue split for eBook distributors. But, since Amazon and others are behaving parasitically and are essentially operating under the rationale you express, Apple doesn't have any choice but to play hardball with them to get them to the negotiating table. This is exactly what they did with periodical publishers, and it looks like they've come up with a system that actually works for everyone. I don't see why you think that won't be the case in this instance. (Yeah, I know your argument about how iBooks sucks so Apple wants to steal revenue from the others, but I don't think much of that argument.)
There's no restraint of trade or any other illegal practice involved in requiring App Store app publishers to offer in-app purchasing for content they are selling elsewhere. It's part of the developer agreement and it's less "restraining" than many of Amazon's practices, and they will all end up benefiting, while certain parasitic companies will no longer be able to shift the burden of App Store operating costs onto other developers.
I feel like we're talking in circles at this point. There is certainly a difference between physical and digital "products", especially when those digital products are DRM'd and only useable within a specific app. There is certainly a very real difference between an eBook and a physical book, in how you can use it, what you can do with it, and so on. But, I've already provided a rather concise definition between app content and physical goods: the former enhances the functionality of the app, the latter does not.
It has nothing to do with whether Apple's servers are being used to deliver the content. It has everything to do with the fact that Apple's resources are being used to deliver the app that is generating revenue for the app publisher that they are not sharing per their contractual agreements. And, as you no doubt are aware, almost all contracts contain a clause, something to the effect that failure to enforce specific terms of the contract shall not be construed to be a waiver of those terms, and it would surprise me very much to find that the iOS developer agreement does not. So, just because some have gotten away with violating their contract for some time is no reason they should be allowed to continue to.
I see no point in continuing this discussion as our viewpoints on this are totally opposed, and we're not getting any closer.
29% of ebook sales on the dominant reader isn't great but isn't bad considering a year ago Amazon had the unassailable dominant position and was about to drop the hammer on publishers.
It's still dismal. It's Apple's platform, and they have all the advantages, except for the inability of dealing with publishers.
Quote:
If the in app price is higher than the web site price...well then folks will use the web site, wont they?
Then the entire thing was a waste of time on Apple's part.
Your problem here is you incorrectly insist that they are somehow "cheating" the app store. If that were the case, Apple would have either not allowed the apps in the first place, or removed them a long time ago. No, this is something new. Even though they are saying that nothing has changed in the rules, they are balding lying about that. They have nothing in the rules that says that it can't be done the way it's been done for so long now. They are now adding a new rule, even though they are saying that they are not. They're licking their chops at all the books that are being sold, and have decided to get some of that action.
The problem is that it's their own fault. I tried to buy many more books through the iBookstore, but they don't have most of the books. Who's fault is that? It's theirs. Perhaps if we could buy as many books through Apple as we can through the others, this wouldn't have become much of an issue.
I look at the issue as sort of a reverse loss leader for the vendors - Apple allowed them to establish themselves on the iOS platform at no cost. Apple has now decided that it's time to get a (likely) small piece of the action.
You make what you say is a major point, then deny that it's major after all. That's one reason I'm dropping out of this.
Well, drop out for whatever reason, but I clearly, from the beginning, distinguished between revenue generating apps and non-revenue generating apps, and we were clearly discussing reader apps in the context of revenue generating apps at the time I wrote the sentence you quoted. That a reader can also be a non-revenue generating app is true, but not really to the point of the discussion.
Apple will be more than removing all the money these companies get from the publishers. This will actually make the book they buy more expensive than what they can sell it for. They would incur a loss on every sale. Not a good way to do business. Meanwhile, Apple would incur no such problem selling their own. This could be restraint of trade, of Apple taking advantage of their position of owning the pipes, or at least some of them, as they would be charging unnecessarily.
You are making a ridiculously bold assumption here that suggests you think Apple will be receiving a 30% cut. You quoted Gruber in an earlier post where he suggests that Apple will most likely be collecting around 5% for in-app purchases. When you subtract out the 2% that the retailer no longer pays for payment processing, you have an added cost of about 3%. This is the most likely scenario.
By definition, a loophole is a way to exploit something through a condition that wasn't taken into account. So, the argument that, if it were a loophole, they wouldn't have allowed it, doesn't really make sense.
It means, as I've already said several times, that they could have fixed it quickly, or it might not have been a loophole. You guys seem to want to think the worst of these companies, and the best of Apple here. Well, go right ahead.
I look at the issue as sort of a reverse loss leader for the vendors - Apple allowed them to establish themselves on the iOS platform at no cost. Apple has now decided that it's time to get a (likely) small piece of the action.
You're not supposed to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Well, drop out for whatever reason, but I clearly, from the beginning, distinguished between revenue generating apps and non-revenue generating apps, and we were clearly discussing reader apps in the context of revenue generating apps at the time I wrote the sentence you quoted. That a reader can also be a non-revenue generating app is true, but not really to the point of the discussion.
That's only part of the question. And you're making a distinction doesn't mean it's the core of the matter, only that you think it is.
You're not supposed to change the rules in the middle of the game.
You know, this whole discussion has arisen based on the rejection of Sony's e-reader app. Have we actually heard anything from Amazon or B&N regarding their position relative to this matter?
You are making a ridiculously bold assumption here that suggests you think Apple will be receiving a 30% cut. You quoted Gruber in an earlier post where he suggests that Apple will most likely be collecting around 5% for in-app purchases. When you subtract out the 2% that the retailer no longer pays for payment processing, you have an added cost of about 3%. This is the most likely scenario.
It's not My assumption. It's what's being said. Gruber didn't suggest that Apple would be getting 5%. He suggested that Apple should get no more than 5%.
Go to Gruber's site, daring fireball, and scroll down. He's got several bits on this. 30% would be what Apple charges. A number of others are saying this, even Gruber believes it.
You're using the same incorrect argument that anonymouse is using. Apple has not only allowed, but encouraged these apps to work the way they have. Their Ads for the iPhone even showed the Kindle app. That proved they knew exactly what it was doing, and approved of it. That Apple is now selling books isn't a good excuse to change the rules for everyone else.
Well you've made it clear that because Apple has allowed something to happen, then it was a written policy to do so, even though no where was it written as such. You fail to understand that sometimes companies let things slide until there's no longer a reason to do so. This happens all the time. It is OBVIOUS with the release of "The Daily" and the subscription model, there is now a reason to change attitude - NOT policy. That policy says, all in app purchases must be done through Apple's store.
A loophole is a method or means of getting around a rule or regulation. Sometimes, just having that rule in place is enough for the company to be satisfied. Case in point, FairPlay music is meant to prevent music from being played on a system not "owned" by the purchasing account. So when I bought music from iTunes, the record companies are assured by Apple (via FairPlay) that I could only play that music on devices I "owned."
There is a widely known loophole in that system. I can burn the FairPlay track to CD, and re-rip it giving me an unrestricted copy of that music to play on any device and make copies of that music to give away. Just because there is a loophole, does not automatically mean that it is legal to copy that music. And if Apple comes with a way to stop that from happening, it does not mean they are changing their policy, they are simply closing that loophole.
This is the exact same thing. Just because Apple has not been enforcing its rules and let the loophole slide, it does not mean they have to change policy to close the loophole. All they do is change their attitude towards tolerating it.
Also, Apple did not encourage any app to work this way. What it showed was that users had access to their Kindle content, not someone purchasing a book from the Kindle store. The Kindle could very well be a reader only app - that's all the commercial demonstrated. Anything else the Kindle app does is beside the point, as I mentioned above.
Quote:
What both you and he forget, or don't understand here, is that Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Sony are retailers of books. Apple is a retailer of books. I've tried really hard here to show why what Apple is trying to do won't work, and isn't fair.
Umm, I did not forget and do understand that they are all retailers of books, that's EXACTLY why I used it as an example in the first place; as an example of competition taking advantage of a platform.
Answer this then... is it fair for all of those companies to offer their own e-reader device that DOES NOT allow competition AT ALL? Can you buy an e-book from the Nook Store on the Kindle?
Quote:
I know you guys want Apple to be able to make as money as possible, but this isn't how they should be doing it.
Did you really read what I said about this? Or did you just skim?
I said I DISAGREE with it. Apple makes enough money.
You obviously feel strongly about all of this, I really couldn't care less, but I do understand both positions. You just seem to be irrationally blind towards it, taking an absolute stance against Apple leveraging its own platform for monetary gains and anything they do to enforce their policies.
You know, this whole discussion has arisen based on the rejection of Sony's e-reader app. Have we actually heard anything from Amazon or B&N regarding their position relative to this matter?
Not that I know of. After all, it was Sony's app that was rejected. Maybe Apple hasn't contacted them about this, at least, not yet.
As I said, if Apple just wants to collect a processing charge, it will likely be accepted. This whole thing is very strange. Apple's been getting very good publicity over having all these stores. They can't make enough from this to make it worthwhile. All the stores have to do is to raise their prices and blame Apple. Apple's been getting enough bad press over their unpredictable app store rules as it is. This won't help. And how much can they make from it? Very little. If prices are higher, some will buy from Apple instead, but they simply don't have a big enough selection of books. I can't see Amazon keeping prices the same with in app purchases as they will lose money on each sale if Apple does insist on 30%. So with higher prices, after consumers get ticked off at the whole thing, they will just keep buying from the store instead, as they do now. That is, after they figure out that they can still do that.
So what will have changed in reality? Very little, except that people will have another reason to accuse Apple of dictating to its closed system. Dumb.
It's not My assumption. It's what's being said. Gruber didn't suggest that Apple would be getting 5%. He suggested that Apple should get no more than 5%.
Go to Gruber's site, daring fireball, and scroll down. He's got several bits on this. 30% would be what Apple charges. A number of others are saying this, even Gruber believes it.
Who cares what people are saying? Apple hasn't said anything. Therefor, it an assumption, whether it's yours or not. As I mentioned in another post, they could institute a "handler's" percentage, they could very well take a 0% cut for all we know. The bottom line here is that they want the transaction to go through Apple's store. Why everyone feels Apple has to charge 30% or anything at all is ridiculous and unfounded, until Apple says something.
So if Apple charges nothing, then what do they have to gain? Well they gain the ability of tracking their platform's purchasing power. Which is a very important metric to know.
Well you've made it clear that because Apple has allowed something to happen, then it was a written policy to do so, even though no where was it written as such. You fail to understand that sometimes companies let things slide until there's no longer a reason to do so. This happens all the time. It is OBVIOUS with the release of "The Daily" and the subscription model, there is now a reason to change attitude - NOT policy. That policy says, all in app purchases must be done through Apple's store.
A loophole is a method or means of getting around a rule or regulation. Sometimes, just having that rule in place is enough for the company to be satisfied. Case in point, FairPlay music is meant to prevent music from being played on a system not "owned" by the purchasing account. So when I bought music from iTunes, the record companies are assured by Apple (via FairPlay) that I could only play that music on devices I "owned."
There is a widely known loophole in that system. I can burn the FairPlay track to CD, and re-rip it giving me an unrestricted copy of that music to play on any device and make copies of that music to give away. Just because there is a loophole, does not automatically mean that it is legal to copy that music. And if Apple comes with a way to stop that from happening, it does not mean they are changing their policy, they are simply closing that loophole.
This is the exact same thing. Just because Apple has not been enforcing its rules and let the loophole slide, it does not mean they have to change policy to close the loophole. All they do is change their attitude towards tolerating it.
Also, Apple did not encourage any app to work this way. What it showed was that users had access to their Kindle content, not someone purchasing a book from the Kindle store. The Kindle could very well be a reader only app - that's all the commercial demonstrated. Anything else the Kindle app does is beside the point, as I mentioned above.
Umm, I did not forget and do understand that they are all retailers of books, that's EXACTLY why I used it as an example in the first place; as an example of competition taking advantage of a platform.
Answer this then... is it fair for all of those companies to offer their own e-reader device that DOES NOT allow competition AT ALL? Can you buy an e-book from the Nook Store on the Kindle?
Did you really read what I said about this? Or did you just skim?
I said I DISAGREE with it. Apple makes enough money.
You obviously feel strongly about all of this, I really couldn't care less, but I do understand both positions. You just seem to be irrationally blind towards it, taking an absolute stance against Apple leveraging its own platform for monetary gains and anything they do to enforce their policies.
A lot of what you're calling loopholes are not loopholes. One example if the burning of songs to a disk. Apple originally said that you could do that. The media companies didn't object.
Also what you're saying is obvious isn't obvious, because it isn't true.
You also misunderstand what is being said about in store purchases. What Amazon is doing isn't in store purchases, so it isn't subject to those rules. When Apple advertises an app, and features it in their app store, they obviously know what it does. It also means that they approve of what it does. And, they are acknowledging that it's benefitting them.
All thats happening now is that Apple is attempting to ADD something. They're not even trying to stop out of app purchases. This is why the arguments you guys have aren't working. They've never had the requirement that out of app purchases must be duplicated with in app purchases. That's new. Even Gruber has given it th , "are they kidding" look. There's no way Apple can force anyone to buy from within the app as opposed to what they're doing now. This is why it's silly, and it isn't going to accomplish anything, unless apple abandons the 30% model for this and just charges a nominal fee. And I'm not objecting to that as long as it isn't enough to disrupt sales.
By the way, I'm certainly no more "irrationally blind" about this than you are.
So what will have changed in reality? Very little, except that people will have another reason to accuse Apple of dictating to its closed system. Dumb.
That is really the heart of the matter. Apple cannot maintain complete control over the iDevices forever. New issues continue to crop up because of the severe restrictions they have applied. People like things safe and easy but Apple has really locked it down way beyond what is reasonable in my opinion.
At some point they'll have to just open it up and let people do whatever they want with it.
Who cares what people are saying? Apple hasn't said anything. Therefor, it an assumption, whether it's yours or not. As I mentioned in another post, they could institute a "handler's" percentage, they could very well take a 0% cut for all we know. The bottom line here is that they want the transaction to go through Apple's store. Why everyone feels Apple has to charge 30% or anything at all is ridiculous and unfounded, until Apple says something.
So if Apple charges nothing, then what do they have to gain? Well they gain the ability of tracking their platform's purchasing power. Which is a very important metric to know.
If Apple charges nothing, which would make a lot of people happy, then this problem with Sony would never have happened, and they would have changed their policy. Sony would have been happy, and would have announced that they would do in app purchasing. None of the problems we're seeing would be happening.
It should be pretty obvious that Apple would be charging. And as their policy is to charge 30% for in app purchases, it's a good assumption that that's what they would be doing here. Is it correct? I don't know, as I've said before. But as this is a discussion of what might be happening, we should look to reasonable possibilities, and as that amount is what Apple uses now, it must be considered. We will hopefully know more in a few days when announced its new subs policy.
A lot of what you're calling loopholes are not loopholes. One example if the burning of songs to a disk. Apple originally said that you could do that. The media companies didn't object.
Well the actual policy was burning X copies of the same playlist. Still said nothing about it being ok to then re-rip them back to your PC to get around the original DRM. That's the loophole for getting around the DRM.
Quote:
You also misunderstand what is being said about in store purchases. What Amazon is doing isn't in store purchases, so it isn't subject to those rules.
Not sure what you mean by that?
Quote:
When Apple advertises an app, and features it in their app store, they obviously know what it does. It also means that they approve of what it does. And, they are acknowledging that it's benefitting them.
Can't argue with you when you're making an assumption. Unless you can prove that someone at Apple said they actually "approved" of the behavior? Again, "looking the other way," does not mean approval, it means non-enforcement.
Like a cop who sees you speeding, but does not pull you over. He doesn't approve of you breaking the law, he's just not going to bother enforcing it, by chasing you, pulling you over, and writing you a ticket.
Quote:
All thats happening now is that Apple is attempting to ADD something.
What do you feel is being ADDED to the policy?
Quote:
They're not even trying to stop out of app purchases. This is why the arguments you guys have aren't working. They've never had the requirement that out of app purchases must be duplicated with in app purchases.
Here's the heart of the problem and misunderstanding.
Apple is saying, if you're providing an alternate purchasing method VIA* the app, then you are violating their policy and must use Apple's In App Purchase system.
(*VIA - this applies even if you are providing a link that brings up your website, which allows the user to buy content or anything else that when applied, enhances the app in some way. By having the link to your website, you are providing the user with an alternate purchasing system from the app.)
That's the starting point of the purchase, even if you're redirecting users to your website to make the purchase. You are using the iOS app to initiate the purchasing process. This is Apple's problem. They don't care that you have a website, they do care that you are using your app to direct people to that site to get around using Apple's purchasing system.
Quote:
There's no way Apple can force anyone to buy from within the app as opposed to what they're doing now. This is why it's silly,
Yes they can. If an app provides a link to another store (be it web or anything else), then Apple can reject the app. This is exactly what happened to Sony's app. If Sony had just released an app that allowed its user to sync and download content they previously purchased elsewhere, then there's nothing Apple could about that.
Quote:
and it isn't going to accomplish anything, unless apple abandons the 30% model for this and just charges a nominal fee. And I'm not objecting to that as long as it isn't enough to disrupt sales.
Of course you object to it. You've made it perfectly clear you object to any "change" to the policy. That's your whole argument. Or have you been basing that argument purely on conjecture and assumptions?
Comments
Yes, yes, and we think your argument is incorrect, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
However, as I originally pointed out, I don't believe it's Apple's intention to apply the 30/70 revenue split in this instance. I think they almost certainly have established, or will establish, some other revenue split for periodical publishers and that they intend to also establish a separate revenue split for eBook distributors. But, since Amazon and others are behaving parasitically and are essentially operating under the rationale you express, Apple doesn't have any choice but to play hardball with them to get them to the negotiating table. This is exactly what they did with periodical publishers, and it looks like they've come up with a system that actually works for everyone. I don't see why you think that won't be the case in this instance. (Yeah, I know your argument about how iBooks sucks so Apple wants to steal revenue from the others, but I don't think much of that argument.)
There's no restraint of trade or any other illegal practice involved in requiring App Store app publishers to offer in-app purchasing for content they are selling elsewhere. It's part of the developer agreement and it's less "restraining" than many of Amazon's practices, and they will all end up benefiting, while certain parasitic companies will no longer be able to shift the burden of App Store operating costs onto other developers.
I feel like we're talking in circles at this point. There is certainly a difference between physical and digital "products", especially when those digital products are DRM'd and only useable within a specific app. There is certainly a very real difference between an eBook and a physical book, in how you can use it, what you can do with it, and so on. But, I've already provided a rather concise definition between app content and physical goods: the former enhances the functionality of the app, the latter does not.
It has nothing to do with whether Apple's servers are being used to deliver the content. It has everything to do with the fact that Apple's resources are being used to deliver the app that is generating revenue for the app publisher that they are not sharing per their contractual agreements. And, as you no doubt are aware, almost all contracts contain a clause, something to the effect that failure to enforce specific terms of the contract shall not be construed to be a waiver of those terms, and it would surprise me very much to find that the iOS developer agreement does not. So, just because some have gotten away with violating their contract for some time is no reason they should be allowed to continue to.
I see no point in continuing this discussion as our viewpoints on this are totally opposed, and we're not getting any closer.
Dismal is a 60:1 ratio.
29% of ebook sales on the dominant reader isn't great but isn't bad considering a year ago Amazon had the unassailable dominant position and was about to drop the hammer on publishers.
It's still dismal. It's Apple's platform, and they have all the advantages, except for the inability of dealing with publishers.
If the in app price is higher than the web site price...well then folks will use the web site, wont they?
Then the entire thing was a waste of time on Apple's part.
Oh, please, if your argument is going to hinge on taking a sentence out of all context, you might as well give it up right now.
You make what you say is a major point, then deny that it's major after all. That's one reason I'm dropping out of this.
Your problem here is you incorrectly insist that they are somehow "cheating" the app store. If that were the case, Apple would have either not allowed the apps in the first place, or removed them a long time ago. No, this is something new. Even though they are saying that nothing has changed in the rules, they are balding lying about that. They have nothing in the rules that says that it can't be done the way it's been done for so long now. They are now adding a new rule, even though they are saying that they are not. They're licking their chops at all the books that are being sold, and have decided to get some of that action.
The problem is that it's their own fault. I tried to buy many more books through the iBookstore, but they don't have most of the books. Who's fault is that? It's theirs. Perhaps if we could buy as many books through Apple as we can through the others, this wouldn't have become much of an issue.
I look at the issue as sort of a reverse loss leader for the vendors - Apple allowed them to establish themselves on the iOS platform at no cost. Apple has now decided that it's time to get a (likely) small piece of the action.
I would NOT compare John Stewart to the like of Rush and Beck... totally different animals.
True, lets scratch Stewart and add Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz
You make what you say is a major point, then deny that it's major after all. That's one reason I'm dropping out of this.
Well, drop out for whatever reason, but I clearly, from the beginning, distinguished between revenue generating apps and non-revenue generating apps, and we were clearly discussing reader apps in the context of revenue generating apps at the time I wrote the sentence you quoted. That a reader can also be a non-revenue generating app is true, but not really to the point of the discussion.
Apple will be more than removing all the money these companies get from the publishers. This will actually make the book they buy more expensive than what they can sell it for. They would incur a loss on every sale. Not a good way to do business. Meanwhile, Apple would incur no such problem selling their own. This could be restraint of trade, of Apple taking advantage of their position of owning the pipes, or at least some of them, as they would be charging unnecessarily.
You are making a ridiculously bold assumption here that suggests you think Apple will be receiving a 30% cut. You quoted Gruber in an earlier post where he suggests that Apple will most likely be collecting around 5% for in-app purchases. When you subtract out the 2% that the retailer no longer pays for payment processing, you have an added cost of about 3%. This is the most likely scenario.
By definition, a loophole is a way to exploit something through a condition that wasn't taken into account. So, the argument that, if it were a loophole, they wouldn't have allowed it, doesn't really make sense.
It means, as I've already said several times, that they could have fixed it quickly, or it might not have been a loophole. You guys seem to want to think the worst of these companies, and the best of Apple here. Well, go right ahead.
I look at the issue as sort of a reverse loss leader for the vendors - Apple allowed them to establish themselves on the iOS platform at no cost. Apple has now decided that it's time to get a (likely) small piece of the action.
You're not supposed to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Well, drop out for whatever reason, but I clearly, from the beginning, distinguished between revenue generating apps and non-revenue generating apps, and we were clearly discussing reader apps in the context of revenue generating apps at the time I wrote the sentence you quoted. That a reader can also be a non-revenue generating app is true, but not really to the point of the discussion.
That's only part of the question. And you're making a distinction doesn't mean it's the core of the matter, only that you think it is.
You're not supposed to change the rules in the middle of the game.
You know, this whole discussion has arisen based on the rejection of Sony's e-reader app. Have we actually heard anything from Amazon or B&N regarding their position relative to this matter?
You are making a ridiculously bold assumption here that suggests you think Apple will be receiving a 30% cut. You quoted Gruber in an earlier post where he suggests that Apple will most likely be collecting around 5% for in-app purchases. When you subtract out the 2% that the retailer no longer pays for payment processing, you have an added cost of about 3%. This is the most likely scenario.
It's not My assumption. It's what's being said. Gruber didn't suggest that Apple would be getting 5%. He suggested that Apple should get no more than 5%.
Go to Gruber's site, daring fireball, and scroll down. He's got several bits on this. 30% would be what Apple charges. A number of others are saying this, even Gruber believes it.
You're using the same incorrect argument that anonymouse is using. Apple has not only allowed, but encouraged these apps to work the way they have. Their Ads for the iPhone even showed the Kindle app. That proved they knew exactly what it was doing, and approved of it. That Apple is now selling books isn't a good excuse to change the rules for everyone else.
Well you've made it clear that because Apple has allowed something to happen, then it was a written policy to do so, even though no where was it written as such. You fail to understand that sometimes companies let things slide until there's no longer a reason to do so. This happens all the time. It is OBVIOUS with the release of "The Daily" and the subscription model, there is now a reason to change attitude - NOT policy. That policy says, all in app purchases must be done through Apple's store.
A loophole is a method or means of getting around a rule or regulation. Sometimes, just having that rule in place is enough for the company to be satisfied. Case in point, FairPlay music is meant to prevent music from being played on a system not "owned" by the purchasing account. So when I bought music from iTunes, the record companies are assured by Apple (via FairPlay) that I could only play that music on devices I "owned."
There is a widely known loophole in that system. I can burn the FairPlay track to CD, and re-rip it giving me an unrestricted copy of that music to play on any device and make copies of that music to give away. Just because there is a loophole, does not automatically mean that it is legal to copy that music. And if Apple comes with a way to stop that from happening, it does not mean they are changing their policy, they are simply closing that loophole.
This is the exact same thing. Just because Apple has not been enforcing its rules and let the loophole slide, it does not mean they have to change policy to close the loophole. All they do is change their attitude towards tolerating it.
Also, Apple did not encourage any app to work this way. What it showed was that users had access to their Kindle content, not someone purchasing a book from the Kindle store. The Kindle could very well be a reader only app - that's all the commercial demonstrated. Anything else the Kindle app does is beside the point, as I mentioned above.
What both you and he forget, or don't understand here, is that Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Sony are retailers of books. Apple is a retailer of books. I've tried really hard here to show why what Apple is trying to do won't work, and isn't fair.
Umm, I did not forget and do understand that they are all retailers of books, that's EXACTLY why I used it as an example in the first place; as an example of competition taking advantage of a platform.
Answer this then... is it fair for all of those companies to offer their own e-reader device that DOES NOT allow competition AT ALL? Can you buy an e-book from the Nook Store on the Kindle?
I know you guys want Apple to be able to make as money as possible, but this isn't how they should be doing it.
Did you really read what I said about this? Or did you just skim?
I said I DISAGREE with it. Apple makes enough money.
You obviously feel strongly about all of this, I really couldn't care less, but I do understand both positions. You just seem to be irrationally blind towards it, taking an absolute stance against Apple leveraging its own platform for monetary gains and anything they do to enforce their policies.
You know, this whole discussion has arisen based on the rejection of Sony's e-reader app. Have we actually heard anything from Amazon or B&N regarding their position relative to this matter?
Not that I know of. After all, it was Sony's app that was rejected. Maybe Apple hasn't contacted them about this, at least, not yet.
As I said, if Apple just wants to collect a processing charge, it will likely be accepted. This whole thing is very strange. Apple's been getting very good publicity over having all these stores. They can't make enough from this to make it worthwhile. All the stores have to do is to raise their prices and blame Apple. Apple's been getting enough bad press over their unpredictable app store rules as it is. This won't help. And how much can they make from it? Very little. If prices are higher, some will buy from Apple instead, but they simply don't have a big enough selection of books. I can't see Amazon keeping prices the same with in app purchases as they will lose money on each sale if Apple does insist on 30%. So with higher prices, after consumers get ticked off at the whole thing, they will just keep buying from the store instead, as they do now. That is, after they figure out that they can still do that.
So what will have changed in reality? Very little, except that people will have another reason to accuse Apple of dictating to its closed system. Dumb.
It's not My assumption. It's what's being said. Gruber didn't suggest that Apple would be getting 5%. He suggested that Apple should get no more than 5%.
Go to Gruber's site, daring fireball, and scroll down. He's got several bits on this. 30% would be what Apple charges. A number of others are saying this, even Gruber believes it.
Who cares what people are saying? Apple hasn't said anything. Therefor, it an assumption, whether it's yours or not. As I mentioned in another post, they could institute a "handler's" percentage, they could very well take a 0% cut for all we know. The bottom line here is that they want the transaction to go through Apple's store. Why everyone feels Apple has to charge 30% or anything at all is ridiculous and unfounded, until Apple says something.
So if Apple charges nothing, then what do they have to gain? Well they gain the ability of tracking their platform's purchasing power. Which is a very important metric to know.
Well you've made it clear that because Apple has allowed something to happen, then it was a written policy to do so, even though no where was it written as such. You fail to understand that sometimes companies let things slide until there's no longer a reason to do so. This happens all the time. It is OBVIOUS with the release of "The Daily" and the subscription model, there is now a reason to change attitude - NOT policy. That policy says, all in app purchases must be done through Apple's store.
A loophole is a method or means of getting around a rule or regulation. Sometimes, just having that rule in place is enough for the company to be satisfied. Case in point, FairPlay music is meant to prevent music from being played on a system not "owned" by the purchasing account. So when I bought music from iTunes, the record companies are assured by Apple (via FairPlay) that I could only play that music on devices I "owned."
There is a widely known loophole in that system. I can burn the FairPlay track to CD, and re-rip it giving me an unrestricted copy of that music to play on any device and make copies of that music to give away. Just because there is a loophole, does not automatically mean that it is legal to copy that music. And if Apple comes with a way to stop that from happening, it does not mean they are changing their policy, they are simply closing that loophole.
This is the exact same thing. Just because Apple has not been enforcing its rules and let the loophole slide, it does not mean they have to change policy to close the loophole. All they do is change their attitude towards tolerating it.
Also, Apple did not encourage any app to work this way. What it showed was that users had access to their Kindle content, not someone purchasing a book from the Kindle store. The Kindle could very well be a reader only app - that's all the commercial demonstrated. Anything else the Kindle app does is beside the point, as I mentioned above.
Umm, I did not forget and do understand that they are all retailers of books, that's EXACTLY why I used it as an example in the first place; as an example of competition taking advantage of a platform.
Answer this then... is it fair for all of those companies to offer their own e-reader device that DOES NOT allow competition AT ALL? Can you buy an e-book from the Nook Store on the Kindle?
Did you really read what I said about this? Or did you just skim?
I said I DISAGREE with it. Apple makes enough money.
You obviously feel strongly about all of this, I really couldn't care less, but I do understand both positions. You just seem to be irrationally blind towards it, taking an absolute stance against Apple leveraging its own platform for monetary gains and anything they do to enforce their policies.
A lot of what you're calling loopholes are not loopholes. One example if the burning of songs to a disk. Apple originally said that you could do that. The media companies didn't object.
Also what you're saying is obvious isn't obvious, because it isn't true.
You also misunderstand what is being said about in store purchases. What Amazon is doing isn't in store purchases, so it isn't subject to those rules. When Apple advertises an app, and features it in their app store, they obviously know what it does. It also means that they approve of what it does. And, they are acknowledging that it's benefitting them.
All thats happening now is that Apple is attempting to ADD something. They're not even trying to stop out of app purchases. This is why the arguments you guys have aren't working. They've never had the requirement that out of app purchases must be duplicated with in app purchases. That's new. Even Gruber has given it th , "are they kidding" look. There's no way Apple can force anyone to buy from within the app as opposed to what they're doing now. This is why it's silly, and it isn't going to accomplish anything, unless apple abandons the 30% model for this and just charges a nominal fee. And I'm not objecting to that as long as it isn't enough to disrupt sales.
By the way, I'm certainly no more "irrationally blind" about this than you are.
So what will have changed in reality? Very little, except that people will have another reason to accuse Apple of dictating to its closed system. Dumb.
That is really the heart of the matter. Apple cannot maintain complete control over the iDevices forever. New issues continue to crop up because of the severe restrictions they have applied. People like things safe and easy but Apple has really locked it down way beyond what is reasonable in my opinion.
At some point they'll have to just open it up and let people do whatever they want with it.
Hope this doesn't count as him touching Apple.
Who cares what people are saying? Apple hasn't said anything. Therefor, it an assumption, whether it's yours or not. As I mentioned in another post, they could institute a "handler's" percentage, they could very well take a 0% cut for all we know. The bottom line here is that they want the transaction to go through Apple's store. Why everyone feels Apple has to charge 30% or anything at all is ridiculous and unfounded, until Apple says something.
So if Apple charges nothing, then what do they have to gain? Well they gain the ability of tracking their platform's purchasing power. Which is a very important metric to know.
If Apple charges nothing, which would make a lot of people happy, then this problem with Sony would never have happened, and they would have changed their policy. Sony would have been happy, and would have announced that they would do in app purchasing. None of the problems we're seeing would be happening.
It should be pretty obvious that Apple would be charging. And as their policy is to charge 30% for in app purchases, it's a good assumption that that's what they would be doing here. Is it correct? I don't know, as I've said before. But as this is a discussion of what might be happening, we should look to reasonable possibilities, and as that amount is what Apple uses now, it must be considered. We will hopefully know more in a few days when announced its new subs policy.
A lot of what you're calling loopholes are not loopholes. One example if the burning of songs to a disk. Apple originally said that you could do that. The media companies didn't object.
Well the actual policy was burning X copies of the same playlist. Still said nothing about it being ok to then re-rip them back to your PC to get around the original DRM. That's the loophole for getting around the DRM.
You also misunderstand what is being said about in store purchases. What Amazon is doing isn't in store purchases, so it isn't subject to those rules.
Not sure what you mean by that?
When Apple advertises an app, and features it in their app store, they obviously know what it does. It also means that they approve of what it does. And, they are acknowledging that it's benefitting them.
Can't argue with you when you're making an assumption. Unless you can prove that someone at Apple said they actually "approved" of the behavior? Again, "looking the other way," does not mean approval, it means non-enforcement.
Like a cop who sees you speeding, but does not pull you over. He doesn't approve of you breaking the law, he's just not going to bother enforcing it, by chasing you, pulling you over, and writing you a ticket.
All thats happening now is that Apple is attempting to ADD something.
What do you feel is being ADDED to the policy?
They're not even trying to stop out of app purchases. This is why the arguments you guys have aren't working. They've never had the requirement that out of app purchases must be duplicated with in app purchases.
Here's the heart of the problem and misunderstanding.
Apple is saying, if you're providing an alternate purchasing method VIA* the app, then you are violating their policy and must use Apple's In App Purchase system.
(*VIA - this applies even if you are providing a link that brings up your website, which allows the user to buy content or anything else that when applied, enhances the app in some way. By having the link to your website, you are providing the user with an alternate purchasing system from the app.)
That's the starting point of the purchase, even if you're redirecting users to your website to make the purchase. You are using the iOS app to initiate the purchasing process. This is Apple's problem. They don't care that you have a website, they do care that you are using your app to direct people to that site to get around using Apple's purchasing system.
There's no way Apple can force anyone to buy from within the app as opposed to what they're doing now. This is why it's silly,
Yes they can. If an app provides a link to another store (be it web or anything else), then Apple can reject the app. This is exactly what happened to Sony's app. If Sony had just released an app that allowed its user to sync and download content they previously purchased elsewhere, then there's nothing Apple could about that.
and it isn't going to accomplish anything, unless apple abandons the 30% model for this and just charges a nominal fee. And I'm not objecting to that as long as it isn't enough to disrupt sales.
Of course you object to it. You've made it perfectly clear you object to any "change" to the policy. That's your whole argument. Or have you been basing that argument purely on conjecture and assumptions?