While I wouldn't go near any 'news' produced by Murdoch with a 10 foot pole, the price at least seems to be getting into the 'reasonable' territory... $39/year or .99/week.
Now if a real news organization would follow suit, I'll be interested.
I'm a leftist and hate Fox and the New York Post, but I don't think that Murdoch has harmed the Wall Street Journal and in fact has improved it in some ways. And the Times of London, which he also owns, also has pretty good coverage and a decent iPad app.
I'm not sure who's providing all the editorial for this new iPad news app, but I think in fairness, we should reserve judgement until we see whether it's decently presented news or slanted crap.
I have a feeling this is actually going to be pretty good and if the news is "fair", I wouldn't care if the OpEd pages were slanted left or right.
First rule (11.2), "Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected"
To me it clearly states, that if your app is using a system to purchase content, functionality or services for the app, then you must use IAP.
Although, I think people are misinterpreting "in an app" to mean in-app purchase. It actually applies to content in an app, functionality in an app, or services in an app. These are all enhancements in the app itself and any purchase that does not enhance an app, does not apply. In using the term, Apple is trying to differentiate app enhancements from everything else and allows purchases for everything else to utilize any system.
The next rule (11.3) then keeps developers from using IAP to make purchases for anything other than app enhancements, i.e. forbids the purchase of "everything else" using IAP...
"Apps using IAP to purchase physical goods or goods and services used outside of the application will be rejected"
Nothing in that first rule says anything about in-app purchases only. It applies to ANY system that is not IAP. This would also include any out-off-app systems the app is utilizing. So, in fact, it is not a loophole, it is simply a rule Apple has been willing to overlook until recently. Probably because they were waiting to get an in-app subscription model finalized or they simply didn't have a "sell-through" system in place to satisfy the needs of these other content stores. And rather than shut them down, they've been overlooking it.
Apple is now saying, "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase"
So Apple is going to continue to let developers use out-of-app systems in their apps, but now they're going to start requiring they also support in-app purchasing through IAP.
There is absolutely no way in h*ll I would ever expect Amazon to give Apple a 30% cut of every book sold through the Kindle app. I'm willing to bet Apple feels the same way and I'm sure they've worked out whatever needs to be worked out to let these content shops stay open and make everyone happy.
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.
Well, some of us conservatives love Apple products and loathe Dell, too.
Posting this article is like dropping some chum into a tank of liberal sharks. Just listen to yourselves splash.
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%.
Sorry, I thought you said that Gruber thought it would be 5%. I agree that a number in that ballpark makes more sense. I still have yet to see the 30% figure corroborated anyplace for in-app purchases. I'll hunt around some more.
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.
I fully agree that Apple should not be getting 30% from other retailers - the margins are just not there.
On the other hand, I have no problem with Apple providing in-app purchasing which basically substitutes iTunes payment for the merchant's payment processing. Give Apple another percent or two and they should be happy and the merchant should also be able to absorb a small hit. I don't think we really agree on that last point but I think Apple, by virtue of there iOS platform and App Store, provide an important (and pay worthy) distribution channel.
What does this have to do with Apple developing their platform? Apple did that in order to sell hardware. They're selling tens of billions of dollars in hardware. The costs of this are very small in comparison. It also helps to sell Apple hardware. Otherwise Amazon might be selling a lot more Kindles, and Apple, less iPads. What is more important, small amounts of money from book sales from Amazon, or the money from iPad and iPhone/Touch sales? I think the latter.
The incremental cost is small but that doesn't matter. This is like saying "hey, nice car you have...can you give me a ride every day? The gas isn't that much more". Amazon and B&N have their own cars. Let them use that or pay Apple for the gas.
Amazon is unlikely to be selling more kindles than they are without the ability to read books on the iPad and the iPad would have all the other ebook readers not locked into a store (Stanza, Bookshelf, etc) including its own.
The kindle app on the ipad is not a huge determinant in how many ipads sell. Most folks locked into the kindle ecosystem likely own a kindle in the first place. It's a nice to have for them but not a requirement. For strick ebook reading e-ink is still lilkely better for most folks than a good IPS screen.
Quote:
What will happen is that more Kindles will be sold, and Nooks.
But less books. That's not a win for B&N. Probably not a win for Amazon. Certainly the iPad has been a huge downward pressure on ebook pricing. B&N can't be making much money if any on the Nook Color and the kindle isn't selling for a premium anymore.
Quote:
If Apple was going to go 80/20 then they wouldn't need to squeeze Amazon, B&N and Sony. They'd be losing much more money that way.
Why? As you say the incremental costs isn't much more and Apple doesn't REALLY need to make a lot of money selling ebooks via iBooks. They sell hardware. If they had Random House by going 80/20 vs 70/30 their book selection would be on par with Amazon and B&N for the major best sellers and they really wouldn't need the Kindle or Nook apps on the iPad to provide iPad owners the ability to buy them.
Given ebooks is it's own segment that doesn't imply they'd have to drop from 30% for app sales.
It's still dismal. It's Apple's platform, and they have all the advantages, except for the inability of dealing with publishers.
What inability? They have all but one major and the other 5 getfully jumped aboard iBooks to avoid getting hammered by Amazon. Your statements have zero basis in reality.
Amazon had a huge advantage as the incumbent and prior to iBooks had enormous market power and still do. eBooks isn't that big a market still and yet Apple has taken a third away on the largest device with minimal effort on their part completely changing the landscape in less than a year. Going going from 0% to 29% is fantastic given the installed Kindle base and the lack of Random House. Remember that the Kindle app was on the iPhone long before iBooks launched. The kindle app was probably the dominant ebook reader (over Stanza) on the iOS platform prior to iBooks.
Quote:
Then the entire thing was a waste of time on Apple's part.
Hardly. This is forcing competitors to change behavior based on Apple's timetables and strategic position. If it can do so then it further erodes Amazon's market power which is important given their entry into music and video and their direct competition with iTunes.
That's never a waste of time. It forces bezos into being less aggressive because a real war between Apple and Amazon isn't going to just be fought on Apple's turf (video and music) but Amazon's as well (books). This is the same strategy Apple is employing against Google with iAds and their ad terms.
A tightening of the rules to say "this is how it could be if we wanted to be hardasses like you guys are on YOUR platforms" then stepping back to more reasonable terms everyone can live with.
The Daily is a lousy excuse for a newspaper. USA Today is better...and it's pretty awful too. Want a news? Google news is free and a lot better. For a real newspaper, New York Times is best so far. Don't waste your money on th Daily.
Comments
While I wouldn't go near any 'news' produced by Murdoch with a 10 foot pole, the price at least seems to be getting into the 'reasonable' territory... $39/year or .99/week.
Now if a real news organization would follow suit, I'll be interested.
I'm a leftist and hate Fox and the New York Post, but I don't think that Murdoch has harmed the Wall Street Journal and in fact has improved it in some ways. And the Times of London, which he also owns, also has pretty good coverage and a decent iPad app.
I'm not sure who's providing all the editorial for this new iPad news app, but I think in fairness, we should reserve judgement until we see whether it's decently presented news or slanted crap.
I have a feeling this is actually going to be pretty good and if the news is "fair", I wouldn't care if the OpEd pages were slanted left or right.
To me it clearly states, that if your app is using a system to purchase content, functionality or services for the app, then you must use IAP.
Although, I think people are misinterpreting "in an app" to mean in-app purchase. It actually applies to content in an app, functionality in an app, or services in an app. These are all enhancements in the app itself and any purchase that does not enhance an app, does not apply. In using the term, Apple is trying to differentiate app enhancements from everything else and allows purchases for everything else to utilize any system.
The next rule (11.3) then keeps developers from using IAP to make purchases for anything other than app enhancements, i.e. forbids the purchase of "everything else" using IAP...
"Apps using IAP to purchase physical goods or goods and services used outside of the application will be rejected"
Nothing in that first rule says anything about in-app purchases only. It applies to ANY system that is not IAP. This would also include any out-off-app systems the app is utilizing. So, in fact, it is not a loophole, it is simply a rule Apple has been willing to overlook until recently. Probably because they were waiting to get an in-app subscription model finalized or they simply didn't have a "sell-through" system in place to satisfy the needs of these other content stores. And rather than shut them down, they've been overlooking it.
Apple is now saying, "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase"
So Apple is going to continue to let developers use out-of-app systems in their apps, but now they're going to start requiring they also support in-app purchasing through IAP.
There is absolutely no way in h*ll I would ever expect Amazon to give Apple a 30% cut of every book sold through the Kindle app. I'm willing to bet Apple feels the same way and I'm sure they've worked out whatever needs to be worked out to let these content shops stay open and make everyone happy.
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.
Well, some of us conservatives love Apple products and loathe Dell, too.
Posting this article is like dropping some chum into a tank of liberal sharks. Just listen to yourselves splash.
First 2 weeks are free courtesy of Verizon ( I believe)
Its worth checking out.
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%.
Sorry, I thought you said that Gruber thought it would be 5%. I agree that a number in that ballpark makes more sense. I still have yet to see the 30% figure corroborated anyplace for in-app purchases. I'll hunt around some more.
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.
I fully agree that Apple should not be getting 30% from other retailers - the margins are just not there.
On the other hand, I have no problem with Apple providing in-app purchasing which basically substitutes iTunes payment for the merchant's payment processing. Give Apple another percent or two and they should be happy and the merchant should also be able to absorb a small hit. I don't think we really agree on that last point but I think Apple, by virtue of there iOS platform and App Store, provide an important (and pay worthy) distribution channel.
What does this have to do with Apple developing their platform? Apple did that in order to sell hardware. They're selling tens of billions of dollars in hardware. The costs of this are very small in comparison. It also helps to sell Apple hardware. Otherwise Amazon might be selling a lot more Kindles, and Apple, less iPads. What is more important, small amounts of money from book sales from Amazon, or the money from iPad and iPhone/Touch sales? I think the latter.
The incremental cost is small but that doesn't matter. This is like saying "hey, nice car you have...can you give me a ride every day? The gas isn't that much more". Amazon and B&N have their own cars. Let them use that or pay Apple for the gas.
Amazon is unlikely to be selling more kindles than they are without the ability to read books on the iPad and the iPad would have all the other ebook readers not locked into a store (Stanza, Bookshelf, etc) including its own.
The kindle app on the ipad is not a huge determinant in how many ipads sell. Most folks locked into the kindle ecosystem likely own a kindle in the first place. It's a nice to have for them but not a requirement. For strick ebook reading e-ink is still lilkely better for most folks than a good IPS screen.
What will happen is that more Kindles will be sold, and Nooks.
But less books. That's not a win for B&N. Probably not a win for Amazon. Certainly the iPad has been a huge downward pressure on ebook pricing. B&N can't be making much money if any on the Nook Color and the kindle isn't selling for a premium anymore.
If Apple was going to go 80/20 then they wouldn't need to squeeze Amazon, B&N and Sony. They'd be losing much more money that way.
Why? As you say the incremental costs isn't much more and Apple doesn't REALLY need to make a lot of money selling ebooks via iBooks. They sell hardware. If they had Random House by going 80/20 vs 70/30 their book selection would be on par with Amazon and B&N for the major best sellers and they really wouldn't need the Kindle or Nook apps on the iPad to provide iPad owners the ability to buy them.
Given ebooks is it's own segment that doesn't imply they'd have to drop from 30% for app sales.
It's still dismal. It's Apple's platform, and they have all the advantages, except for the inability of dealing with publishers.
What inability? They have all but one major and the other 5 getfully jumped aboard iBooks to avoid getting hammered by Amazon. Your statements have zero basis in reality.
Amazon had a huge advantage as the incumbent and prior to iBooks had enormous market power and still do. eBooks isn't that big a market still and yet Apple has taken a third away on the largest device with minimal effort on their part completely changing the landscape in less than a year. Going going from 0% to 29% is fantastic given the installed Kindle base and the lack of Random House. Remember that the Kindle app was on the iPhone long before iBooks launched. The kindle app was probably the dominant ebook reader (over Stanza) on the iOS platform prior to iBooks.
Then the entire thing was a waste of time on Apple's part.
Hardly. This is forcing competitors to change behavior based on Apple's timetables and strategic position. If it can do so then it further erodes Amazon's market power which is important given their entry into music and video and their direct competition with iTunes.
That's never a waste of time. It forces bezos into being less aggressive because a real war between Apple and Amazon isn't going to just be fought on Apple's turf (video and music) but Amazon's as well (books). This is the same strategy Apple is employing against Google with iAds and their ad terms.
A tightening of the rules to say "this is how it could be if we wanted to be hardasses like you guys are on YOUR platforms" then stepping back to more reasonable terms everyone can live with.
For a real newspaper, New York Times is best so far. Don't waste your money on th Daily.
Why are you so concerned with what other people read?
Personally, I wouldn't touch the New York Slimes if somebody paid me to do so, and I'm a New Yorker. That rag is way too liberal.