Consider it the cost of doing business, which in turn ensures the product will be seen and made available for the largest possible swath of customers. THAT is worth 30%.
No its not. Publishers can no more afford 30% of their margins to publish their content ( which in most cases they have to pay for) than Apple could afford to be on Windows if the iTunes transaction had to pay Microsoft 30%.
This becomes loss making very quickly. At the moment, no publisher will be on the app store if these rules apply at the 30%. Sony was banned for not using iTunes in-app purchasing, it refused to comply with the new rules because of the draconian cost. It wasnt banned outright ( as far as we know).
Amazon will pull in June, or March when the rule is enforced for everybody.
Of course I bet the 30% will drop and the people who argued that it was a good thing will forget they argued it was a good thing, just as they forget they argued that Apple wouldnt be doing what Sony said they were doing all of two days ago.
But if the 30% is not removed, or reduced to a tiny figure, not one thing - except the Daily and iBooks - will be published on the iPad.
It's going through Apple's App Store, which is worth the additional cut. No different than a fee for placement in a major retail store. You are aware this happens, right?
What is going through Apple's store when you buy something from Kindle. Full technical details.
No its not. Publishers can no more afford 30% of their margins to publish their content ( which in most cases they have to pay for) than Apple could afford to be on Windows if the iTunes transaction had to pay Microsoft 30%.
This becomes loss making very quickly. At the moment, no publisher will be on the app store if these rules apply at the 30%. Sony was banned for not using iTunes in-app purchasing, it refused to comply with the new rules because of the draconian cost.
Amazon will pull in June, or March when the rule is enforced for everybody.
If they couldn't afford the 30% mark-up, they'd avoid the iPad. Fact is, these guys are falling all over each other to gain this new form of revenue stream. They are deader than Thanksgiving turkeys without a major transformation otherwise.
Apple has no overheads. I say that as someone who technically knows what is going on.
Define overheads because I don't think your idea of an overhead is the same as the dictionary's which defines an overhead as:
Quote:
(of a cost or expense) incurred in the general upkeep or running of a plant, premises, or business, and not attributable to specific products or items.
That pretty much states that Apple DOES have overheads and that you don't know what you're talking about.
The Kindle App kicks you back to a web page for purchases, but I'll bet Apple makes darn sure that changes with an option to buy in-app right quick.
right. And given that the Kindle app, and the Sony app can go outside the App Store, the argument that these apps need the app store to "host" something is clearly mystical. Is it not.
Obviously with the new rules they will have to go through the app store, but not because Apple stores any content but because they are forced to.
Alright. AI is crazy. I am out of these threads. If Apple pursues these policies it dies a deserved death. I hope not, because I like the hardware and the OS.
You're preaching to the converted man. It's the other guy saying they don't.
Yeah. iTunes is their own music and apps and e-books.
Try and work out how much it costs them to host the e-books in the Amazon repository, or how much bandwidth they expend when the Kindle app starts to download a book from Amazon.
Apple has nothing to do with Sony's content delivery . They banned the app for going outside the app for content pruchase and delivery via Sony's own servers, which is what the Kindle also does.
What a crowd of fanatics this place is. Apple does something which may well kill content on your device and you cheer like lemmings.
You're not well-informed on this. Go back and look at what actually transpired instead of mouthing off.
Not to confuse you with facts, or anything, but Apple IS hosting the magazine Apps (which are usually free) and then serves the individual editions. Apple is NOT asking for a cut of purchases made outside of iTunes, merely that if such purchases are offered, a publisher has to provide an option to the user of buying the book (or paper) thru iTunes in-app purchase. Sounds reasonable to be.
BTW, how is this different from the current magazine (or book app) purchases? Every time I download a new edition of Wired or Project magazines, Apple gets it's 30% cut. Why should they not get their cut just because it's a subscription?
For all the complaining, please remember that the 30% cut is what allows Apple to host all those other free apps, including the free book readers, the free magazine apps, the free newspaper apps, the free TV/cable news apps, etc, etc.
Thanks for shedding some sensible, much-needed light. There are a bunch of people like asdasd caterwauling based on complete disinformation....
Someone needs to take Apple to task about this, as it's simply theft and a blatant abuse of a near monopoly. Why the heck should apple get 30% from someone else's content? When you go and fill up your car with fuel the service station doesn't have to pay Toyota a penny.
Frankly it's absurd and Apple have stepped way, way over the line here. This is the type of behaviour which can turn consumers very quickly indeed, and from looking at the reports and videos of Honeycomb, that Xoom tablet is looking very nice indeed.
So Apple should distribute the content for free? Let's examine that shockingly ignorant statement for a moment: newspaper and magazine vendors get a cut of the cover price for stocking the item and selling it through their store. Apple get similar - where's the difference?
Frankly, the inability of people to apply a little critical thinking is depressing. I am also amazed when someone pontificates about what presently amounts to vapourware (Honeycomb/Xoom) and then claims that a paper specification is somehow an indication of a better product. Let's wait until we can put the iPad and Xoom side by side and we'll soon see which is the better product.
Comments
Consider it the cost of doing business, which in turn ensures the product will be seen and made available for the largest possible swath of customers. THAT is worth 30%.
No its not. Publishers can no more afford 30% of their margins to publish their content ( which in most cases they have to pay for) than Apple could afford to be on Windows if the iTunes transaction had to pay Microsoft 30%.
This becomes loss making very quickly. At the moment, no publisher will be on the app store if these rules apply at the 30%. Sony was banned for not using iTunes in-app purchasing, it refused to comply with the new rules because of the draconian cost. It wasnt banned outright ( as far as we know).
Amazon will pull in June, or March when the rule is enforced for everybody.
Of course I bet the 30% will drop and the people who argued that it was a good thing will forget they argued it was a good thing, just as they forget they argued that Apple wouldnt be doing what Sony said they were doing all of two days ago.
But if the 30% is not removed, or reduced to a tiny figure, not one thing - except the Daily and iBooks - will be published on the iPad.
It's going through Apple's App Store, which is worth the additional cut. No different than a fee for placement in a major retail store. You are aware this happens, right?
What is going through Apple's store when you buy something from Kindle. Full technical details.
No its not. Publishers can no more afford 30% of their margins to publish their content ( which in most cases they have to pay for) than Apple could afford to be on Windows if the iTunes transaction had to pay Microsoft 30%.
This becomes loss making very quickly. At the moment, no publisher will be on the app store if these rules apply at the 30%. Sony was banned for not using iTunes in-app purchasing, it refused to comply with the new rules because of the draconian cost.
Amazon will pull in June, or March when the rule is enforced for everybody.
If they couldn't afford the 30% mark-up, they'd avoid the iPad. Fact is, these guys are falling all over each other to gain this new form of revenue stream. They are deader than Thanksgiving turkeys without a major transformation otherwise.
Apple has no overheads. I say that as someone who technically knows what is going on.
Define overheads because I don't think your idea of an overhead is the same as the dictionary's which defines an overhead as:
(of a cost or expense) incurred in the general upkeep or running of a plant, premises, or business, and not attributable to specific products or items.
That pretty much states that Apple DOES have overheads and that you don't know what you're talking about.
Countdown to snide comments from ardent Apple fans about "old Europe" dissing an entire continent in three...two...one...
News Corp is also a European publisher, I wonder if they have been invited?
What is going through Apple's store when you buy something from Kindle. Full technical details.
The Kindle App kicks you back to a web page for purchases, but I'll bet Apple makes darn sure that changes with an option to buy in-app right quick.
Poor AssDad,
So many collapsed posts, yet no replies.
He must be on everyone's ignore list.
Half the posts are replies to me. Also if this forum were moderated properly you would be out on your ass. Try argue the ball, not the man.
If you have no argument, shut it. You come across, otherwise, as a retard.
Apple has no overheads. I say that as someone who technically knows what is going on.
Steve Ballmer, you are always pretending to know more than you do.
The Kindle App kicks you back to a web page for purchases, but I'll bet Apple makes darn sure that changes with an option to buy in-app right quick.
right. And given that the Kindle app, and the Sony app can go outside the App Store, the argument that these apps need the app store to "host" something is clearly mystical. Is it not.
Obviously with the new rules they will have to go through the app store, but not because Apple stores any content but because they are forced to.
Alright. AI is crazy. I am out of these threads. If Apple pursues these policies it dies a deserved death. I hope not, because I like the hardware and the OS.
Keep the religion going.
Define overheads because I don't think your idea of an overhead is the same as the dictionary's which defines an overhead as:
That pretty much states that Apple DOES have overheads and that you don't know what you're talking about.
Apple has publicly stated that they have overheads from iTunes...related article:
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2010/...-its-big-.html
Apple has publicly stated that they have overheads from iTunes...related article:
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2010/...-its-big-.html
You're preaching to the converted man. It's the other guy saying they don't.
You're preaching to the converted man. It's the other guy saying they don't.
Yeah. iTunes is their own music and apps and e-books.
Try and work out how much it costs them to host the e-books in the Amazon repository, or how much bandwidth they expend when the Kindle app starts to download a book from Amazon.
Hint 1:
None.
Jesus wept.
For damned sure not over Apple's business model.
Apple has nothing to do with Sony's content delivery . They banned the app for going outside the app for content pruchase and delivery via Sony's own servers, which is what the Kindle also does.
What a crowd of fanatics this place is. Apple does something which may well kill content on your device and you cheer like lemmings.
You're not well-informed on this. Go back and look at what actually transpired instead of mouthing off.
Once the app is downloaded it need have nothing to do with the app store ever again. Apps can do their own distribution. Apple wants a cut.
Yeah, Apple wants a cut. Did you miss the memo?
And, stop calling names. Makes you look even more uninformed.
Not to confuse you with facts, or anything, but Apple IS hosting the magazine Apps (which are usually free) and then serves the individual editions. Apple is NOT asking for a cut of purchases made outside of iTunes, merely that if such purchases are offered, a publisher has to provide an option to the user of buying the book (or paper) thru iTunes in-app purchase. Sounds reasonable to be.
BTW, how is this different from the current magazine (or book app) purchases? Every time I download a new edition of Wired or Project magazines, Apple gets it's 30% cut. Why should they not get their cut just because it's a subscription?
For all the complaining, please remember that the 30% cut is what allows Apple to host all those other free apps, including the free book readers, the free magazine apps, the free newspaper apps, the free TV/cable news apps, etc, etc.
Thanks for shedding some sensible, much-needed light. There are a bunch of people like asdasd caterwauling based on complete disinformation....
Someone needs to take Apple to task about this, as it's simply theft and a blatant abuse of a near monopoly. Why the heck should apple get 30% from someone else's content? When you go and fill up your car with fuel the service station doesn't have to pay Toyota a penny.
Frankly it's absurd and Apple have stepped way, way over the line here. This is the type of behaviour which can turn consumers very quickly indeed, and from looking at the reports and videos of Honeycomb, that Xoom tablet is looking very nice indeed.
So Apple should distribute the content for free? Let's examine that shockingly ignorant statement for a moment: newspaper and magazine vendors get a cut of the cover price for stocking the item and selling it through their store. Apple get similar - where's the difference?
Frankly, the inability of people to apply a little critical thinking is depressing. I am also amazed when someone pontificates about what presently amounts to vapourware (Honeycomb/Xoom) and then claims that a paper specification is somehow an indication of a better product. Let's wait until we can put the iPad and Xoom side by side and we'll soon see which is the better product.