Users want magazines on ipad, magazine publishers want it, apple wants it. So what is the big problem with this? And why does the rate have to be fixed at 30% for such services? Apple's going to get HUGE re-occuring income from app subscriptions, why can't they relax their rates so they don't scare off the content providers? Seems really short sighted to me.
There is the issue. We have a bunch of people mouthing off because they presume the rate for content will be 30%. Eddy Cue pretty much gave it away when he said they would be providing more information on subscription services soon; one of the issues addressed will be the fee for delivering in-app content. I expect it to be 5% or less.
Isn't a lot of this about the security of the platform, though? I mean, isn't iOS a new jewel in the crown formerly occupied solely by the Mac OS? Casting a wider net, isn't a lof Apple's approach ultimately geared on the user experience?
In other words, one can grow to "trust" the iOS platform as a secure, stable environment for creating and selling apps and other content, without worrying that there's all sorts of backdoor shenanigans going on. This would suggest a broader plan, if you will, for what iOS should become, but it appears most folks have an idée fixe that this all about Apple's horrible intentions, closed this and that, etc.
Apple is a boutique experience, and that's not an insult. Its business plan is focused around creating an experience for its customers, and this very different from what Google does with Android, for example. I'm not suggesting one is better than the other, but I often think there's a "can't tell the forest from the trees" mentality at play.
I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.
Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.
The publisher of your printed content are free to provide you access to their digital content without using Apple's infrastructure.
As far as the 30% goes, I suspect Apple will only be collecting the payment processing fee plus a few percent for subscription content - in other words, likely less than 5% and don't forget that the publisher no longer has to pay for payment processing. I bet it amounts to the publisher paying about 3% more than they currently do.
Apple needs to remember that success can be very short lived. Although I am an avid Apple fan and have ben for 25 years I think that a class action suit against Apple sometimes redirects it in the correct direction. Anybody listening?
Sue based on what? That you don't like they terms?
Apple isn't even the biggest e-book vendor on the iPad let alone the broader e-book market.
No one is forcing anything on anyone. They can walk. They can pull their apps. They can go to Android.
The whining and moaning over this hyped-up Sony story is simply uninformed nonsense. Apple is asking no more of these folks than every developer with an app on the App Store with a paid app is subject to, and every piece of music, movie and TV show sold through iTunes is subject to. For publishers to be treated differently would invite a lot of potential problems for Apple. If Apple was being consistent and treated everyone the same way as these publishers are demandingApple would have to forego its 30% for everything. That is simply silly.
I disagree with your premise that Apple will charge 30% for everything in the App Store. My guess is that subscription content, at least, will carry a much smaller cut.
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.
Frankly, you're absurd, and need to learn that you own your iPhone and Apple owns the App Store.
Apple needs to stop pissing people off and be consistent with their rules and not just change it or enforce, reinforce things whenever they feel like it or whenever they get around it.
Android is taking off because Apple allowed it to (not intentionally) by being inconsistent with rules, pissing people off with our way or the highway attitude.
Let's face it iOS devices are popular because of contents. If content providers start getting turned off by Apple's attitude and stop supporting iOS, then...
Apple need content providers as much as content providers need Apple. The difference that could trouble Apple is that they're not only game in town. Say all you want about Android but fact is it's all over. No I don't own an Android device but I would hate it if I have to own one because it'll be the only choice.
The bolded bit above explains why it is unlikely that Apple will be charging anywhere near what uninformed people are whining about. I believe that Apple will be quite content to collect the payment processing fee plus a few percent for in-ap purchases of subscription material.
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.
How do you come up with Apple having a near monopoly when they are not even the number one e-book dealer on the iPad?
That is what we, as yet, dont know. Nobody working in the industry knows. Can we have two buy buttons with two different prices ( itself a UI monstrosity). I would say no because that would be pointless to Apple, as nobody would pay for the premium.
However, Apple has not clarified.
What we also don't know is if there will be a different revenue share for different types of products.
Apple has no overheads. I say that as someone who technically knows what is going on.
Please provide your credentials because I am not believing the above statement.
First, at a minimum, they have the cost of hosting the app. Secondly, if someone opts for in-app purchase (perhaps so they don't need to share their credit card information with another party), Apple pays for the payment processing. That is NOT "no overheads".
I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.
Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.
Apple needs to tread on this carefully as they could boycot the iPad and have a pretty nasty ad campaign against Apple for their restrictive app policy. In general, I agree with their app policy, but this is one case where I think they have gone too far and are on the verge of making the publishing world very angry with them.
I agree. But I also agree that it would be unfair for a publisher to "sell" a free app in the iStore which can't be used unless you subscribe to content which the publishers sell outside of the store and keep all the revenue.
But if a publisher feels they can market and sell content outside of the store for less than the 30% that Apple takes, I feel they should be allowed to do that.
So maybe rather than forcing the publishers to also sell the subscription in the store, maybe there has to be a minimum price for such apps in the store. Apple would make less, but I think the enforcement of the current rule is unfair at least insofar as a publisher is concerned. I have no problem with Apple enforcing this rule for other platform providers, such as Sony, the Nook and the Kindle. Why should they get a free ride?
I'm actually surprised by the negative reaction of publishers of having to pay Apple 30% because they pay traditional print distributors somewhat more and they pay software distributors (such as Ingram Micro-D in the U.S.) far more. But I did some consulting early on for a large publisher who was producing content for the iPad and they were absolutely enraged at having to pay Apple 30%. I was kind of shocked because if you consider that Apple absorbs the credit card clearance fees, it's always seemed to me like it was a pretty good deal. (Although, to look at it another way, in the opening week of a movie, theatres get to keep only 5-10% of the ticket price, although theaters in NY and L.A. get their "nut" covered.)
I think Apple can get away with this only until the deluge of other "pads" hit the market. They might be inferior to Apple's offerings and their stores might not be as good, but there's going to be a lot of them and publishers will do deals with them if they can keep a bigger cut.
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.
Publishers do, in fact, afford more than 30% when they sell through B&M locations and they can probably afford 30% in digital distribution. The issue here is not the publisher but other retailers selling in the App Store - they cannot afford to hand their full cut to Apple.
You seem to have a hazy crystal ball. First, you say Amazon will pull out and then you go on to state the more likely option: Apple charges a reduced cut for certain types of products. But you knew that and just chose to sensationalize the issue instead.
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.
The "new rules" only insist on an in-app option if your app already has an out-of-app option. You make it sound like the latter option is removed.
maybe I am not reading this right - or someone already pointed this out - or the article is not entirely accurate in its wording - but it sounded to me that Apple's requirement is NOT that user MUST pay for content via in App purchase - but that if user's can get paid content outside of the App that works with the App then the same content must also be offered as an in App purchase.
Which to me sounds like it may actually increase the overall revenue to the publisher.
In other words - even if the App is free - and my subscription directly with the publisher gets me content for use with the App - that is still okay - and I can still renew my subscription directly with the publisher - but that App now must also offer an in App option - which, while splitting revenue with Apple - might open up a paid revenue stream from customers who might otherwise never have a traditional subscription. For example - maybe I want to get a subscription to the London Times - I am not even sure that would be an option with traditional subscription services - and how long would it take to get mailed to me? But if I were so inclined to read the London Times - then downloading a free App and using in App purchase to choose my subscription - or even issue by issue - might be something to consider.
Or better yet - offer a steeply discounted subscription option so that folks in America can get access to information not typically available from our multitude of media outlets. There are folks who think the average American is uneducated about the rest of the world - but I say that is largely due to the fact that what little info is readily available to us is drowned out by the tsunami of media that is offered (and as with a real tsunami the content is largely the same and the aftermath is typically a pile of garbage).
Isn't a lot of this about the security of the platform, though? I mean, isn't iOS a new jewel in the crown formerly occupied solely by the Mac OS? Casting a wider net, isn't a lof Apple's approach ultimately geared on the user experience?
In other words, one can grow to "trust" the iOS platform as a secure, stable environment for creating and selling apps and other content, without worrying that there's all sorts of backdoor shenanigans going on. This would suggest a broader plan, if you will, for what iOS should become, but it appears most folks have an idée fixe that this all about Apple's horrible intentions, closed this and that, etc.
This sums up why, for many, people would rather pay through iTunes rather than than handing their credit card information to each individual publisher. That Apple gets a small fee over the payment processing fees makes perfect sense - they are providing a trusted commerce zone.
The bolded bit above explains why it is unlikely that Apple will be charging anywhere near what uninformed people are whining about. I believe that Apple will be quite content to collect the payment processing fee plus a few percent for in-ap purchases of subscription material.
At the launch of The Daily today Murdoch said that the cost was 30% to Apple for the subscription model and he expected that to last for this year. So it will for everybody.
Comments
I really don't get it. The App Store is freaking store. Why doesn't it it's cut? Because it's owned by Apple?
F - that.
Seriously, any developer developing for iOS publishing, hoping to use their own mechanism has now stopped and will turn to Android.
And rightly and understandably so.
Your stupidity is only eclipsed by your ignorance.
Seriously, any developer developing for iOS publishing, hoping to use their own mechanism has now stopped and will turn to Android.
And rightly and understandably so.
Considering that Android fangirls expecting everything is free, they will think again 1000x to turn to Android, above fragmentation hell.
Can't we all just get along?
Users want magazines on ipad, magazine publishers want it, apple wants it. So what is the big problem with this? And why does the rate have to be fixed at 30% for such services? Apple's going to get HUGE re-occuring income from app subscriptions, why can't they relax their rates so they don't scare off the content providers? Seems really short sighted to me.
There is the issue. We have a bunch of people mouthing off because they presume the rate for content will be 30%. Eddy Cue pretty much gave it away when he said they would be providing more information on subscription services soon; one of the issues addressed will be the fee for delivering in-app content. I expect it to be 5% or less.
In other words, one can grow to "trust" the iOS platform as a secure, stable environment for creating and selling apps and other content, without worrying that there's all sorts of backdoor shenanigans going on. This would suggest a broader plan, if you will, for what iOS should become, but it appears most folks have an idée fixe that this all about Apple's horrible intentions, closed this and that, etc.
Apple is a boutique experience, and that's not an insult. Its business plan is focused around creating an experience for its customers, and this very different from what Google does with Android, for example. I'm not suggesting one is better than the other, but I often think there's a "can't tell the forest from the trees" mentality at play.
I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.
Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.
The publisher of your printed content are free to provide you access to their digital content without using Apple's infrastructure.
As far as the 30% goes, I suspect Apple will only be collecting the payment processing fee plus a few percent for subscription content - in other words, likely less than 5% and don't forget that the publisher no longer has to pay for payment processing. I bet it amounts to the publisher paying about 3% more than they currently do.
Apple needs to remember that success can be very short lived. Although I am an avid Apple fan and have ben for 25 years I think that a class action suit against Apple sometimes redirects it in the correct direction. Anybody listening?
Sue based on what? That you don't like they terms?
Apple isn't even the biggest e-book vendor on the iPad let alone the broader e-book market.
No one is forcing anything on anyone. They can walk. They can pull their apps. They can go to Android.
The whining and moaning over this hyped-up Sony story is simply uninformed nonsense. Apple is asking no more of these folks than every developer with an app on the App Store with a paid app is subject to, and every piece of music, movie and TV show sold through iTunes is subject to. For publishers to be treated differently would invite a lot of potential problems for Apple. If Apple was being consistent and treated everyone the same way as these publishers are demandingApple would have to forego its 30% for everything. That is simply silly.
I disagree with your premise that Apple will charge 30% for everything in the App Store. My guess is that subscription content, at least, will carry a much smaller cut.
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.
Frankly, you're absurd, and need to learn that you own your iPhone and Apple owns the App Store.
I'm sure they'll all run off to embrace Android..
Apple needs to stop pissing people off and be consistent with their rules and not just change it or enforce, reinforce things whenever they feel like it or whenever they get around it.
Android is taking off because Apple allowed it to (not intentionally) by being inconsistent with rules, pissing people off with our way or the highway attitude.
Let's face it iOS devices are popular because of contents. If content providers start getting turned off by Apple's attitude and stop supporting iOS, then...
Apple need content providers as much as content providers need Apple. The difference that could trouble Apple is that they're not only game in town. Say all you want about Android but fact is it's all over. No I don't own an Android device but I would hate it if I have to own one because it'll be the only choice.
The bolded bit above explains why it is unlikely that Apple will be charging anywhere near what uninformed people are whining about. I believe that Apple will be quite content to collect the payment processing fee plus a few percent for in-ap purchases of subscription material.
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.
How do you come up with Apple having a near monopoly when they are not even the number one e-book dealer on the iPad?
That is what we, as yet, dont know. Nobody working in the industry knows. Can we have two buy buttons with two different prices ( itself a UI monstrosity). I would say no because that would be pointless to Apple, as nobody would pay for the premium.
However, Apple has not clarified.
What we also don't know is if there will be a different revenue share for different types of products.
Apple has no overheads. I say that as someone who technically knows what is going on.
Please provide your credentials because I am not believing the above statement.
First, at a minimum, they have the cost of hosting the app. Secondly, if someone opts for in-app purchase (perhaps so they don't need to share their credit card information with another party), Apple pays for the payment processing. That is NOT "no overheads".
I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.
Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.
Apple needs to tread on this carefully as they could boycot the iPad and have a pretty nasty ad campaign against Apple for their restrictive app policy. In general, I agree with their app policy, but this is one case where I think they have gone too far and are on the verge of making the publishing world very angry with them.
I agree. But I also agree that it would be unfair for a publisher to "sell" a free app in the iStore which can't be used unless you subscribe to content which the publishers sell outside of the store and keep all the revenue.
But if a publisher feels they can market and sell content outside of the store for less than the 30% that Apple takes, I feel they should be allowed to do that.
So maybe rather than forcing the publishers to also sell the subscription in the store, maybe there has to be a minimum price for such apps in the store. Apple would make less, but I think the enforcement of the current rule is unfair at least insofar as a publisher is concerned. I have no problem with Apple enforcing this rule for other platform providers, such as Sony, the Nook and the Kindle. Why should they get a free ride?
I'm actually surprised by the negative reaction of publishers of having to pay Apple 30% because they pay traditional print distributors somewhat more and they pay software distributors (such as Ingram Micro-D in the U.S.) far more. But I did some consulting early on for a large publisher who was producing content for the iPad and they were absolutely enraged at having to pay Apple 30%. I was kind of shocked because if you consider that Apple absorbs the credit card clearance fees, it's always seemed to me like it was a pretty good deal. (Although, to look at it another way, in the opening week of a movie, theatres get to keep only 5-10% of the ticket price, although theaters in NY and L.A. get their "nut" covered.)
I think Apple can get away with this only until the deluge of other "pads" hit the market. They might be inferior to Apple's offerings and their stores might not be as good, but there's going to be a lot of them and publishers will do deals with them if they can keep a bigger cut.
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.
Publishers do, in fact, afford more than 30% when they sell through B&M locations and they can probably afford 30% in digital distribution. The issue here is not the publisher but other retailers selling in the App Store - they cannot afford to hand their full cut to Apple.
You seem to have a hazy crystal ball. First, you say Amazon will pull out and then you go on to state the more likely option: Apple charges a reduced cut for certain types of products. But you knew that and just chose to sensationalize the issue instead.
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.
The "new rules" only insist on an in-app option if your app already has an out-of-app option. You make it sound like the latter option is removed.
Which to me sounds like it may actually increase the overall revenue to the publisher.
In other words - even if the App is free - and my subscription directly with the publisher gets me content for use with the App - that is still okay - and I can still renew my subscription directly with the publisher - but that App now must also offer an in App option - which, while splitting revenue with Apple - might open up a paid revenue stream from customers who might otherwise never have a traditional subscription. For example - maybe I want to get a subscription to the London Times - I am not even sure that would be an option with traditional subscription services - and how long would it take to get mailed to me? But if I were so inclined to read the London Times - then downloading a free App and using in App purchase to choose my subscription - or even issue by issue - might be something to consider.
Or better yet - offer a steeply discounted subscription option so that folks in America can get access to information not typically available from our multitude of media outlets. There are folks who think the average American is uneducated about the rest of the world - but I say that is largely due to the fact that what little info is readily available to us is drowned out by the tsunami of media that is offered (and as with a real tsunami the content is largely the same and the aftermath is typically a pile of garbage).
Isn't a lot of this about the security of the platform, though? I mean, isn't iOS a new jewel in the crown formerly occupied solely by the Mac OS? Casting a wider net, isn't a lof Apple's approach ultimately geared on the user experience?
In other words, one can grow to "trust" the iOS platform as a secure, stable environment for creating and selling apps and other content, without worrying that there's all sorts of backdoor shenanigans going on. This would suggest a broader plan, if you will, for what iOS should become, but it appears most folks have an idée fixe that this all about Apple's horrible intentions, closed this and that, etc.
This sums up why, for many, people would rather pay through iTunes rather than than handing their credit card information to each individual publisher. That Apple gets a small fee over the payment processing fees makes perfect sense - they are providing a trusted commerce zone.
The bolded bit above explains why it is unlikely that Apple will be charging anywhere near what uninformed people are whining about. I believe that Apple will be quite content to collect the payment processing fee plus a few percent for in-ap purchases of subscription material.
At the launch of The Daily today Murdoch said that the cost was 30% to Apple for the subscription model and he expected that to last for this year. So it will for everybody.