What you are ignoring is that Apple is not doing any of this for Amazon, or Sony. The 30% is for a forced credit card transaction. These companies do all of the maintenance, website updates, bandwidth, backup, redundancy, banking services, IT staff supporting the enterprise, and all that is before you get to the physical hosting and storage [sic] themselves. Thats what Kindle does when you re-direct.
His thought is not completely mistaken. His point is that there is a good deal of infrastructure required before you even open your site which is why he said " and all that is before you get to the physical hosting and storage". On the other hand, that infrastructure and payroll costs are largely paid for by customers for whom Apple provides the e-delivery service.
Apple needs to find a middle-ground position for those instances where it provides only merchandising (making something available on their platform) and payment processing. Perhaps Apple won't make much on such deals but if it is affordable enough, some app developers might decide to use it as the only option to provide a better customer experience.
What you are ignoring is that Apple is not doing any of this for Amazon, or Sony. The 30% is for a forced credit card transaction. These companies do all of the maintenance, website updates, bandwidth, backup, redundancy, banking services, IT staff supporting the enterprise, and all that is before you get to the physical hosting and storage [sic] themselves. Thats what Kindle does when you re-direct.
Or do you think that Sony or Amazon were storing the e-books on Apple's servers. If you do, then let me put is as simply as fucking possible. They aren't.
That to me is a big issue. Apple wants a cut of the profits for doing none of the work. If Apple wants to require in-app purchases, that is fine. But unless Apple is managing the whole transaction (which includes hosting the files), they don't deserve 30%. It should be some sort of sliding scale, from 30% if Apple handles the entire transaction, to maybe 10% if all Apple is doing is billing, to nothing if the app maker handles the entire transaction themselves.
I'm pretty sure Sony and Amazon can build their own in-app purchasing system that has no need to link to Apple.
I guess maybe Apple is worried about companies offering apps for free and then linking users to their own websites to actually unlock the program's functionality. In that case Apple handles all of the web hosting but gets no compensation for it. But even in that situation, Apple still benefits from having the program in the App Store to begin with.
For example, Angry Birds is one of those big App Store success stories. I'm sure the developer is hard at work on Angry Birds 2. It would be a negative thing if they decided to only bring the sequel to Android users (or in a more likely scenario, Microsoft pays them to bring it exclusively to Xbox and Microsoft Phone).
What you are ignoring is that Apple is not doing any of this for Amazon, or Sony. The 30% is for a forced credit card transaction. These companies do all of the maintenance, website updates, bandwidth, backup, redundancy, banking services, IT staff supporting the enterprise, and all that is before you get to the physical hosting and storage [sic] themselves. Thats what Kindle does when you re-direct.
Or do you think that Sony or Amazon were storing the e-books on Apple's servers. If you do, then let me put is as simply as fucking possible. They aren't.
The cult continues to defend Dear Leader without any factual evidence.
Let me put this, in terms you seem to understand, as fooking simple as possible for you: Amazon and Sony can still sell content external to the App store. There is no requirement to only sell content via in-app purchase. Got that hardcase? Your premise is incorrect. Your vile bile is pure internal creation. Boo-hoo for you. Given that, for all content served externally you are correct, Apple doesn't pay to host it and they shouldn't receive anything for it. For all future content served via the App Store you would be incorrect and that means Apple will need to host the content, therefore Apple will bear those support costs I mentioned.
Maybe if you took the time to actually read what is going on and hold off on weak and broken North Korean references you might find out you could actually make some real money via the App Store. Sitting on the sidelines and bitching about bogus problems just makes sure you keep sucking the hind-tit. It's sad, but self inflicted...
The thought of Apple buying Sony makes my stomach turn. I love my PS3 and I have this nightmare fantasy of the newly acquired Apple-Sony division delivering a firmware update that makes the PS3 just as "full-featured" as the AppleTV:
Why would anyone want parts of Sony? Sony Entertainment has some good stuff going.
Sony's real problem is they bought too much "other stuff" trying to paper over their management weaknesses in the post-Walkman-fall hardware division. They are a very likely candidate for the parts are worth more than the sum of the whole.
anyone would want Sony for their media content, as an example.
Sony owns Sony Pictures Entertainment (formally the Columbia Pictures and TriStar Pictures) as well as Sony Music Entertainment (which includes Columbia/Epic Label Group, RCA/Jive Label Group, Arista Records, Columbia Records UK and Bertelsmann Music Group).
Why would anyone want parts of Sony? Sony Entertainment has some good stuff going.
Sony's real problem is they bought too much "other stuff" trying to paper over their management weaknesses in the post-Walkman-fall hardware division. They are a very likely candidate for the parts are worth more than the sum of the whole.
Exactly the case.
Apple might well be interested in Sony Entertainment but I doubt they would have any interest in entering the digital camera space (either consumer or pro) and have no interest in their computer business, blue-ray business or countless other product lines.
The most likely deal for Sony is some takeover specialist like KKR buying it up with various divisions being pre-sold to others. Sony Entertainment would be the division which has the most interest.
anyone would want Sony for their media content, as an example.
Sony owns Sony Pictures Entertainment (formally the Columbia Pictures and TriStar Pictures) as well as Sony Music Entertainment (which includes Columbia/Epic Label Group, RCA/Jive Label Group, Arista Records, Columbia Records UK and Bertelsmann Music Group).
But it was Sony's media ownership that lost them dominance in the portable audio space.
They were so obsessed with piracy of its content that they refused to create MP3 players.
And yet Sony's media ownership contributes very little to its profits. It's been a ball and chain for Sony.
But it was Sony's media ownership that lost them dominance in the portable audio space.
They were so obsessed with piracy of its content that they refused to create MP3 players.
And yet Sony's media ownership contributes very little to its profits. It's been a ball and chain for Sony.
Sony was really the first company to figure out that there was an opportunity to marry great HW and SW in the entertainment space. Unfortunately, there was so much infighting between the various groups at Sony and all their hair-brained proprietary formats that they squandered what could have been a good opportunity. Stringer was brought in with the hopes that he could finally deliver some synergies between the various parties - he has not had much success either.
However, Sony Entertainment could be valuable to others who might create these synergies - especially someone like Apple who already has a solid distribution platform. But Apple would need to weigh that against the possibility that they would disenfranchise competing studios and record labels. I don't really think there is much chance that Apple would end up owning Sony Entertainment but it is an interesting mental exercise to consider how Apple might make things work.
But it was Sony's media ownership that lost them dominance in the portable audio space.
you asked the question why anyone would purchase Sony and i responded with examples of media content that Sony has publishing rights. there's great value in what they possess. there are other products, services and content that Sony has of value; i can provide further examples if you like.
I have loathed Sony--and not supported them in any fashion--ever since their little rootkit/copy protection scheme back in 2005. Remember that little debacle? Scroom. Let the entire company go the way of the Walkman. They deserve it!
Sony Walkman was actually outselling iPods in Japan last year, and I'd expect they did sell a few more players around the world on top of that.
For an non-Apple MP3 player, Sony Walkman is doing OK.
Or are you referring to old cassette tape players?
That's just it, SONY would NEVER talk to SJ. SONY hates that Apple's replaced them as the most recognized brand of electronics maker.
I would disagree with that.
While Apple comes to mind first when MP3 players or even (arguably) smart phones are being mentioned, Sony is still force to reckon when someone mentions TVs, top-shelve audio equipment, digital cameras and camcorders, game consoles, DVD recorders, BR players... it is not that Sony beats Apple in those markets, but Apple basically does not even exist there - at present.
My "crappy" MP3 player has an FM radio built in, and cost less than half the price of an iPod.
And because it doesn't support Apple's proprietary DRM, I buy my music through the Ubuntu Store or Amazon, where I get DRM-free MP3s that I can use with any player, often for a little less than the iTunes store price.
I like my MP3 player, and feel it offers a good value.
Use what you enjoy. But don't fall into the trap of believing that anything that doesn't sport an Apple logo is necessarily crap. If you've bought as many Macs as I have you'd know that Apple doesn't make perfect products any more than anyone else in this imperfect world.
Good post.
It seems (for some people) that Apple elitism is actually an excuse for being clueless and ill-informed.
While Apple comes to mind first when MP3 players or even (arguably) smart phones are being mentioned, Sony is still force to reckon when someone mentions TVs, top-shelve audio equipment, digital cameras and camcorders, game consoles, DVD recorders, BR players... it is not that Sony beats Apple in those markets, but Apple basically does not even exist there - at present.
Apple doesn't want to play in most of those markets - especially anything that uses a spinning plastic disc. I am not even sure that Apple would be interested in Sony's digital imaging assets.
you asked the question why anyone would purchase Sony and i responded with examples of media content that Sony has publishing rights. there's great value in what they possess. there are other products, services and content that Sony has of value; i can provide further examples if you like.
But my point is that it has not really been of value. It has cost Sony dearly.
Comments
What you are ignoring is that Apple is not doing any of this for Amazon, or Sony. The 30% is for a forced credit card transaction. These companies do all of the maintenance, website updates, bandwidth, backup, redundancy, banking services, IT staff supporting the enterprise, and all that is before you get to the physical hosting and storage [sic] themselves. Thats what Kindle does when you re-direct.
His thought is not completely mistaken. His point is that there is a good deal of infrastructure required before you even open your site which is why he said " and all that is before you get to the physical hosting and storage". On the other hand, that infrastructure and payroll costs are largely paid for by customers for whom Apple provides the e-delivery service.
Apple needs to find a middle-ground position for those instances where it provides only merchandising (making something available on their platform) and payment processing. Perhaps Apple won't make much on such deals but if it is affordable enough, some app developers might decide to use it as the only option to provide a better customer experience.
What you are ignoring is that Apple is not doing any of this for Amazon, or Sony. The 30% is for a forced credit card transaction. These companies do all of the maintenance, website updates, bandwidth, backup, redundancy, banking services, IT staff supporting the enterprise, and all that is before you get to the physical hosting and storage [sic] themselves. Thats what Kindle does when you re-direct.
Or do you think that Sony or Amazon were storing the e-books on Apple's servers. If you do, then let me put is as simply as fucking possible. They aren't.
That to me is a big issue. Apple wants a cut of the profits for doing none of the work. If Apple wants to require in-app purchases, that is fine. But unless Apple is managing the whole transaction (which includes hosting the files), they don't deserve 30%. It should be some sort of sliding scale, from 30% if Apple handles the entire transaction, to maybe 10% if all Apple is doing is billing, to nothing if the app maker handles the entire transaction themselves.
I'm pretty sure Sony and Amazon can build their own in-app purchasing system that has no need to link to Apple.
I guess maybe Apple is worried about companies offering apps for free and then linking users to their own websites to actually unlock the program's functionality. In that case Apple handles all of the web hosting but gets no compensation for it. But even in that situation, Apple still benefits from having the program in the App Store to begin with.
For example, Angry Birds is one of those big App Store success stories. I'm sure the developer is hard at work on Angry Birds 2. It would be a negative thing if they decided to only bring the sequel to Android users (or in a more likely scenario, Microsoft pays them to bring it exclusively to Xbox and Microsoft Phone).
What you are ignoring is that Apple is not doing any of this for Amazon, or Sony. The 30% is for a forced credit card transaction. These companies do all of the maintenance, website updates, bandwidth, backup, redundancy, banking services, IT staff supporting the enterprise, and all that is before you get to the physical hosting and storage [sic] themselves. Thats what Kindle does when you re-direct.
Or do you think that Sony or Amazon were storing the e-books on Apple's servers. If you do, then let me put is as simply as fucking possible. They aren't.
The cult continues to defend Dear Leader without any factual evidence.
Let me put this, in terms you seem to understand, as fooking simple as possible for you: Amazon and Sony can still sell content external to the App store. There is no requirement to only sell content via in-app purchase. Got that hardcase? Your premise is incorrect. Your vile bile is pure internal creation. Boo-hoo for you. Given that, for all content served externally you are correct, Apple doesn't pay to host it and they shouldn't receive anything for it. For all future content served via the App Store you would be incorrect and that means Apple will need to host the content, therefore Apple will bear those support costs I mentioned.
Maybe if you took the time to actually read what is going on and hold off on weak and broken North Korean references you might find out you could actually make some real money via the App Store. Sitting on the sidelines and bitching about bogus problems just makes sure you keep sucking the hind-tit. It's sad, but self inflicted...
The thought of Apple buying Sony makes my stomach turn. I love my PS3 and I have this nightmare fantasy of the newly acquired Apple-Sony division delivering a firmware update that makes the PS3 just as "full-featured" as the AppleTV:
Why would anyone want Sony?
C.
Why would anyone want Sony?
C.
Why would anyone want parts of Sony? Sony Entertainment has some good stuff going.
Sony's real problem is they bought too much "other stuff" trying to paper over their management weaknesses in the post-Walkman-fall hardware division. They are a very likely candidate for the parts are worth more than the sum of the whole.
Why would anyone want Sony?
anyone would want Sony for their media content, as an example.
Sony owns Sony Pictures Entertainment (formally the Columbia Pictures and TriStar Pictures) as well as Sony Music Entertainment (which includes Columbia/Epic Label Group, RCA/Jive Label Group, Arista Records, Columbia Records UK and Bertelsmann Music Group).
Why would anyone want parts of Sony? Sony Entertainment has some good stuff going.
Sony's real problem is they bought too much "other stuff" trying to paper over their management weaknesses in the post-Walkman-fall hardware division. They are a very likely candidate for the parts are worth more than the sum of the whole.
Exactly the case.
Apple might well be interested in Sony Entertainment but I doubt they would have any interest in entering the digital camera space (either consumer or pro) and have no interest in their computer business, blue-ray business or countless other product lines.
The most likely deal for Sony is some takeover specialist like KKR buying it up with various divisions being pre-sold to others. Sony Entertainment would be the division which has the most interest.
anyone would want Sony for their media content, as an example.
Sony owns Sony Pictures Entertainment (formally the Columbia Pictures and TriStar Pictures) as well as Sony Music Entertainment (which includes Columbia/Epic Label Group, RCA/Jive Label Group, Arista Records, Columbia Records UK and Bertelsmann Music Group).
But it was Sony's media ownership that lost them dominance in the portable audio space.
They were so obsessed with piracy of its content that they refused to create MP3 players.
And yet Sony's media ownership contributes very little to its profits. It's been a ball and chain for Sony.
C.
But it was Sony's media ownership that lost them dominance in the portable audio space.
They were so obsessed with piracy of its content that they refused to create MP3 players.
And yet Sony's media ownership contributes very little to its profits. It's been a ball and chain for Sony.
Sony was really the first company to figure out that there was an opportunity to marry great HW and SW in the entertainment space. Unfortunately, there was so much infighting between the various groups at Sony and all their hair-brained proprietary formats that they squandered what could have been a good opportunity. Stringer was brought in with the hopes that he could finally deliver some synergies between the various parties - he has not had much success either.
However, Sony Entertainment could be valuable to others who might create these synergies - especially someone like Apple who already has a solid distribution platform. But Apple would need to weigh that against the possibility that they would disenfranchise competing studios and record labels. I don't really think there is much chance that Apple would end up owning Sony Entertainment but it is an interesting mental exercise to consider how Apple might make things work.
But it was Sony's media ownership that lost them dominance in the portable audio space.
you asked the question why anyone would purchase Sony and i responded with examples of media content that Sony has publishing rights. there's great value in what they possess. there are other products, services and content that Sony has of value; i can provide further examples if you like.
I have loathed Sony--and not supported them in any fashion--ever since their little rootkit/copy protection scheme back in 2005. Remember that little debacle? Scroom. Let the entire company go the way of the Walkman. They deserve it!
Sony Walkman was actually outselling iPods in Japan last year, and I'd expect they did sell a few more players around the world on top of that.
For an non-Apple MP3 player, Sony Walkman is doing OK.
Or are you referring to old cassette tape players?
That's just it, SONY would NEVER talk to SJ. SONY hates that Apple's replaced them as the most recognized brand of electronics maker.
I would disagree with that.
While Apple comes to mind first when MP3 players or even (arguably) smart phones are being mentioned, Sony is still force to reckon when someone mentions TVs, top-shelve audio equipment, digital cameras and camcorders, game consoles, DVD recorders, BR players... it is not that Sony beats Apple in those markets, but Apple basically does not even exist there - at present.
My "crappy" MP3 player has an FM radio built in, and cost less than half the price of an iPod.
And because it doesn't support Apple's proprietary DRM, I buy my music through the Ubuntu Store or Amazon, where I get DRM-free MP3s that I can use with any player, often for a little less than the iTunes store price.
I like my MP3 player, and feel it offers a good value.
Use what you enjoy. But don't fall into the trap of believing that anything that doesn't sport an Apple logo is necessarily crap. If you've bought as many Macs as I have you'd know that Apple doesn't make perfect products any more than anyone else in this imperfect world.
Good post.
It seems (for some people) that Apple elitism is actually an excuse for being clueless and ill-informed.
It is actually sad.
While Apple comes to mind first when MP3 players or even (arguably) smart phones are being mentioned, Sony is still force to reckon when someone mentions TVs, top-shelve audio equipment, digital cameras and camcorders, game consoles, DVD recorders, BR players... it is not that Sony beats Apple in those markets, but Apple basically does not even exist there - at present.
Apple doesn't want to play in most of those markets - especially anything that uses a spinning plastic disc. I am not even sure that Apple would be interested in Sony's digital imaging assets.
you asked the question why anyone would purchase Sony and i responded with examples of media content that Sony has publishing rights. there's great value in what they possess. there are other products, services and content that Sony has of value; i can provide further examples if you like.
But my point is that it has not really been of value. It has cost Sony dearly.
C.