As for the PS3 and Xbox. I don't think they are taking a 30% cut of Netflix subscriptions in an effort to raise prices so that their video services are favored. My opinion isn't based on the fact that the company in question is Apple. It's based on their position in the market and what they are attempting to do with that market position.
MS and Sony take roughly 70% of revenues for publishers making games for their online game stores.
Nor would they allow someone to open a rival game store on these platforms.
Reality is Kindle doesn't have apps and you can't buy iBooks outside iTunes. Ah, and you CAN buy B&N books from Kindle
Actually, there some apps, and they've got an SDK to create more. Obviously, Amazon will be moving upscale with later readers that will be more like tablets.
No. One thing has nothing to do with the other. They are separate. If you had to pay once before, you will now. If you had to pay more than once before, you will now as well.
Why should Apple get 30% of all my recurring subscription fees for Netflix simply because I signed up for the service on my iPhone?
They are using their market position to take a cut of a pie that from my perspective isn't theirs. iOS only subscriptions, I understand. Cross platform? Not a chance. They deserve to be paid by anyone wishing to use their subscription services, but it shouldn't be a mandatory requirement for apps to be on the app store.
The root of the problem seems to be their free apps have no hosting charge policy, but that's also one of the greatest benefits of the App Store. Apple is probably justified in wishing for some compensation for allowing these apps on iOS and on the App Store, but I don't think they are justified in asking for 30% of all subscription fees initiated from those apps.
As far as I know, Amazon makes their profit on volume, not margin. However, my main line of argument wasn't that their margins were incredibly low. All I was saying is that one can't assume they are the same as a retail stores. The comment stemmed from someone justifying the 30% cut based on the retail store experience.
You can't make profits on volume without having good margins. With Amazon, you really have to look at the cash flow. Well, you have to do that with every company. Profits mean very little. Amazon pours most of its profits back into the company, so looking at that number tells you little.
Yeah.. you can buy them but you can't read them on the Kindle. The same way you can buy them using your iPad/iPhone browser without paying Apple 30% and you can read them. What's your point?!
B&N is being a little weird about DRM on FictionWise. Not actually sure they are compatible with the Nook DRM which is bizzaro since B&N owns fictionwise.
And why can't be Apple sued for anti competitive practices?
Anybody can be sued by anybody. Suing someone proves nothing. Winning the suit may prove something, but not always, at least, not until all appeals have been finished.
Asking a negative, as you've done here isn't the proper way to state it. The proper way is; why should Apple be sued for anti-competitive practices. That's very different. You have to come up with a real reason that would hold up in court. Simply saying that you feel it shouldn't be right isn't good enough.
B&N is being a little weird about DRM on FictionWise. Not actually sure they are compatible with the Nook DRM which is bizzaro since B&N owns fictionwise.
Ups, I was sure about Nook books because I have bought them on fictionwise.
As voluntarily as Netscape offered a version of their browser for Windows at a time when worldwide 98% of all computers used Windows, they certainly had a choice.
That makes no sense. There's no comparison here. 98% of the people using computers don't use Apple products. Not even close. The only reason why Apple has had the tablet market to itself was because they surprised everyone with the low pricing and usefulness of the product and ecosystem. This year, if other companies come out with comparable products at comparable prices, that situation may change. It's far more fluid than with PC's and Windows. It's way too early to know how this will pan out, so making that comparison now isn't useful.
Anybody can be sued by anybody. Suing someone proves nothing. Winning the suit may prove something, but not always, at least, not until all appeals have been finished.
Asking a negative, as you've done here isn't the proper way to state it. The proper way is; why should Apple be sued for anti-competitive practices. That's very different. You have to come up with a real reason that would hold up in court. Simply saying that you feel it shouldn't be right isn't good enough.
Well, here in Europe they can be sued for forcing to use the in app system and not allowing differente prices
Comments
As for the PS3 and Xbox. I don't think they are taking a 30% cut of Netflix subscriptions in an effort to raise prices so that their video services are favored. My opinion isn't based on the fact that the company in question is Apple. It's based on their position in the market and what they are attempting to do with that market position.
MS and Sony take roughly 70% of revenues for publishers making games for their online game stores.
Nor would they allow someone to open a rival game store on these platforms.
C.
As far as I know, you can't, because each bookstore is using its own DRM.
You're wrong, you can buy DRM kindle or nook books at fictionwise.
Reality is Kindle doesn't have apps and you can't buy iBooks outside iTunes. Ah, and you CAN buy B&N books from Kindle
Actually, there some apps, and they've got an SDK to create more. Obviously, Amazon will be moving upscale with later readers that will be more like tablets.
And how can you buy B&N books on the Kindle?
No. One thing has nothing to do with the other. They are separate. If you had to pay once before, you will now. If you had to pay more than once before, you will now as well.
Why should Apple get 30% of all my recurring subscription fees for Netflix simply because I signed up for the service on my iPhone?
They are using their market position to take a cut of a pie that from my perspective isn't theirs. iOS only subscriptions, I understand. Cross platform? Not a chance. They deserve to be paid by anyone wishing to use their subscription services, but it shouldn't be a mandatory requirement for apps to be on the app store.
The root of the problem seems to be their free apps have no hosting charge policy, but that's also one of the greatest benefits of the App Store. Apple is probably justified in wishing for some compensation for allowing these apps on iOS and on the App Store, but I don't think they are justified in asking for 30% of all subscription fees initiated from those apps.
And how can you buy B&N books on the Kindle?
It has a browser
As far as I know, Amazon makes their profit on volume, not margin. However, my main line of argument wasn't that their margins were incredibly low. All I was saying is that one can't assume they are the same as a retail stores. The comment stemmed from someone justifying the 30% cut based on the retail store experience.
You can't make profits on volume without having good margins. With Amazon, you really have to look at the cash flow. Well, you have to do that with every company. Profits mean very little. Amazon pours most of its profits back into the company, so looking at that number tells you little.
MS and Sony take roughly 70% of revenues for publishers making games for their online game stores.
Nor would they allow someone to open a rival game store on these platforms.
C.
Nor will Apple allow a rival App store, but I'm not disputing that. You haven't followed me, and I'm tired of explaining it, so I'll let it rest.
It has a browser
Yeah.. you can buy them but you can't read them on the Kindle. The same way you can buy them using your iPad/iPhone browser without paying Apple 30% and you can read them. What's your point?!
Nor will Apple allow a rival App store, but I'm not disputing that. You haven't followed me, and I'm tired of explaining it, so I'll let it rest.
Sorry, don't get what you are trying to say.
Apple *are* allowing people to set up content shops inside the App store. That's what this discussion is about.
Apple's model is more open and less controlled, and takes similar or smaller revenue share than Amazon's or Microsoft and Sony.
C.
You're wrong, you can buy DRM kindle or nook books at fictionwise.
False.
"Kindle (the Kindle will only read unencrypted MultiFormat eBooks from Fictionwise. Use the .mobi format.)"
http://www.fictionwise.com/help/help.htm
B&N is being a little weird about DRM on FictionWise. Not actually sure they are compatible with the Nook DRM which is bizzaro since B&N owns fictionwise.
It has a browser
Too bad you won't be able to read Nook books on a Kindle...
And why can't be Apple sued for anti competitive practices?
Anybody can be sued by anybody. Suing someone proves nothing. Winning the suit may prove something, but not always, at least, not until all appeals have been finished.
Asking a negative, as you've done here isn't the proper way to state it. The proper way is; why should Apple be sued for anti-competitive practices. That's very different. You have to come up with a real reason that would hold up in court. Simply saying that you feel it shouldn't be right isn't good enough.
Wow, they have to be happy for being allowed to be on App Store.
The fact that they are there shows that, yes, they are happy to be there.
False.
"Kindle (the Kindle will only read unencrypted MultiFormat eBooks from Fictionwise. Use the .mobi format.)"
http://www.fictionwise.com/help/help.htm
B&N is being a little weird about DRM on FictionWise. Not actually sure they are compatible with the Nook DRM which is bizzaro since B&N owns fictionwise.
Ups, I was sure about Nook books because I have bought them on fictionwise.
I still get my content the old fashioned way, torrents and mediafire.
Then I paypal the creator direct if I like the stuff.
Sure you do.
The fact that they are there shows that, yes, they are happy to be there.
A popular British expression is "crying all the way to the bank".
C.
I still get my content the old fashioned way, torrents and mediafire.
Then I paypal the creator direct if I like the stuff.
Do you get paid only if your employer like your work?!
As voluntarily as Netscape offered a version of their browser for Windows at a time when worldwide 98% of all computers used Windows, they certainly had a choice.
That makes no sense. There's no comparison here. 98% of the people using computers don't use Apple products. Not even close. The only reason why Apple has had the tablet market to itself was because they surprised everyone with the low pricing and usefulness of the product and ecosystem. This year, if other companies come out with comparable products at comparable prices, that situation may change. It's far more fluid than with PC's and Windows. It's way too early to know how this will pan out, so making that comparison now isn't useful.
What?
It was a pretty simple question. It shouldn't have confused you.
Anybody can be sued by anybody. Suing someone proves nothing. Winning the suit may prove something, but not always, at least, not until all appeals have been finished.
Asking a negative, as you've done here isn't the proper way to state it. The proper way is; why should Apple be sued for anti-competitive practices. That's very different. You have to come up with a real reason that would hold up in court. Simply saying that you feel it shouldn't be right isn't good enough.
Well, here in Europe they can be sued for forcing to use the in app system and not allowing differente prices