I showed you were wrong about Fictionwise and the Kindle, now it's up to you to show some actual information instead of just making statements, which, so far, have been wrong.
So, go to those sites, and post quotes showing what can be read where. Believe me, if you can show that, I will agree with you.
The Sony reader has a bit of a different business model.
Sony launched it as a reader only. No content store. And no way of buying content on the device.
Consequently, it has always been able to load books from multiple vendors, because initially, Sony had no intention of selling content.
Now, Sony do have a bookstore. But amazingly, still no store on the device!
So if you do any subscriptions out side the app. Like hulu, mog, people, netflix etc...
you will ALSO have to offer the same subscription at the Same or better price as an in app purchase. which apple will take 30% of
This is INSANE!
Why is it insane? Most publishers make money from advertising, not subscription fees. It seems that a lot of people think that the only money publishers stand to make a profit from is subscription fees, which is absolutely not true. This is why it costs so much to buy a single copy of a publication versus subscribing to it. And this is also why the longer the plan, the cheaper the price. Subscription plans allow the publishers to charge more for ad space, because they can guarantee/project distribution numbers (eyeballs). Publishers would much rather have people sign up for subscriptions than buy the magazine from a retailer or news stand.
So Apple takes 30% of a $40 yearly subscription plan to the Daily. They make $12. The Daily rakes in advertising dollars for that sale for the next year. The bigger the audience (iOS users) the more potential to make more on advertising. Plus they get valuable user data, if the user agrees to share it.
that would likely run afoul of the 'same or better' rules.
In the end Apple could have simply banned all outside purchases and even yanked all apps that aren't in compliance right away. And been 100% within their legal rights. After all, when you sign up to develop apps you agree to give Apple 30% of all sales, so by that agreement, outside sales are not in compliance.
Subscriptions are recurring until you cancel them. While I have other options, is Apple really entitled to 30% of my subscription fee forever because I used the iPhone app to sign up for the service? The recurring subscription could still be going through iTunes even if I switched to an Android phone at some point, or used the service on my computer most of the time.
Of course they should get 30% of each recurring payment, it's called a commission. The initial sale was made through Apple's sales channel. It doesn't matter that you move to another platform to view the content. Apple's not being unfair in this, they said if the subscription was made outside of Apple's platform, then publishers could offer access for free. Apple isn't forcing them to move the recurring payments to Apple's purchasing system. It is just saying when the initial subscription was made from Apple's devices. If a customer is truly concerned, they could cancel the Apple recurring subscription, and start it up again using some other payment method. Chances are, customers aren't going to care.
Quote:
That was the point I was trying to make. I understand them charging that kind of money for iOS only subscriptions as that's the going rate for anything iOS, but they seem to be extending the policy to cross platform subscriptions and putting rules in place that make it extremely likely that customers will go through the App Store to activate those subscriptions. I have a major issue with that.
How is that? I subscribed to Netflix through their website, and I use my iPad to access and watch Netflix content. Apple will NEVER see any of that money. I don't understand how this forces me to subscribe through Apple at any point in the future?
I could understand the complete meltdown people are having if Apple said, "The only way iOS users will EVER view your content, is if they cancel current subscriptions and resubscribe through AIP." But they aren't saying, and they're not requiring anything that isn't done elsewhere. Anytime a subscription is made through an agent of publisher, the agent gets a commission for as long as that subscription is active. For each recurring payment the agent will get a percentage. This is normal. It doesn't matter if the user switches from print to digital, from Android to iOS. That initial subscription only exists because of the agent.
I showed you were wrong about Fictionwise and the Kindle, now it's up to you to show some actual information instead of just making statements, which, so far, have been wrong.
So, go to those sites, and post quotes showing what can be read where. Believe me, if you can show that, I will agree with you.
Quote:
Fictionwise now supports the Adobe ePUB format!
Tens of thousands of titles are available, with more added each week. Both PDF and ePUB formats work with Adobe Digital Editions.
True, but the problem is they have to also offer the subscription @ the same price in the app so apple gets it cut. and you cant link to the out of app store inside of the app.
So 1) there is no instinctive for the user to purchase outside of the app. 2)Who knows if they will even know the can buy a subscription out side of the app.
Im all for apple getting something but 30% of subscriptions is ridiculous. maybe they should have required apps that have subscriptions have to be a paid apps.
On the other hand, if that's the way they've been subscribing for a while, they may just keep subscribing that way.
"Apple today announced a new subscription service available to all publishers of content-based apps on the App Store, including magazines, newspapers, video, music, etc."
I only see SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE, nothing in the press release said anything about a la carte (one-off) purchases. It only makes reference to subscriptions throughout the entire press release.
So, I'm kinda bewildered as to why people are having issues regarding the Kindle app and buying books from Amazon?
"All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app."
No one is arguing that. It's the other point that's in contention here.
"Apple today announced a new subscription service available to all publishers of content-based apps on the App Store, including magazines, newspapers, video, music, etc."
I only see SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE, nothing in the press release said anything about a la carte (one-off) purchases. It only makes reference to subscriptions throughout the entire press release.
So, I'm kinda bewildered as to why people are having issues regarding the Kindle app and buying books from Amazon?
New app store review guidelines:
Quote:
11.13 - Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions.
11.14 - Apps that link to external mechanisms for purchasing content to be used in the app, such as a ?buy" button that goes to a web site to purchase a digital book, will be rejected
Apple CAN and SHOULD be flexing their marketing muscle here, milking every dollar they can from their customers. Anything less is just stupid and irresponsible to their shareholders. They can get away with it because the Apple brand allows them to get away with it. If there was a way for Apple to make you buy electricity from them to charge your product, they would and should be doing that, if you'll put up with it.
That said, this can't be good for consumers. Less choice and fewer options are never better for consumers.
Hmmm.... I have been thinking. This is bad for people like AMAZON. Now Amazon is either going to charge 30% more for books which is unacceptable or just stop supporting its Kindle app. I don't like Apple's attempt to grift.
11.13 - Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions.
11.14 - Apps that link to external mechanisms for purchasing content to be used in the app, such as a “buy" button that goes to a web site to purchase a digital book, will be rejected
Hmmm... sucks for Amazon, unless of course the customer is anti-Apple and pro-Amazon. Any customer who wants to make sure Amazon gets the money will go buy it from the website then. Anyone who doesn't really care, will probably just choose IAP.
However, I'm still a little confused why people are up in arms about all of this? If I (or anyone else) were truly worried about Amazon, I can still buy it from Amazon's site, or my Kindle. Save a link in Mobile Safari, go to the website and purchase content there. Go back to the app and sync my account. Yes, it is not convenient as IAP, but still not exactly complicated either.
Subscriptions are recurring until you cancel them. While I have other options, is Apple really entitled to 30% of my subscription fee forever because I used the iPhone app to sign up for the service? The recurring subscription could still be going through iTunes even if I switched to an Android phone at some point, or used the service on my computer most of the time.
That was the point I was trying to make. I understand them charging that kind of money for iOS only subscriptions as that's the going rate for anything iOS, but they seem to be extending the policy to cross platform subscriptions and putting rules in place that make it extremely likely that customers will go through the App Store to activate those subscriptions. I have a major issue with that.
I won't argue that some people will just click in the App Store. Of course that will happen. But it doesn't have to, and that's an important point.
But then, there are other considerations as well. I was involved heavily in publishing through my company, as we did a lot of work for some of them, as well as from my advertising background.
This whole 30% thing is really annoying from the publishers side. If you're paying $5 at the magazine store for a copy, and you buy all of your issues there as many people actually do, you're paying $60 a year for your "subscription". If you actually get a sub, you may be paying $20 instead. Now what does that mean to the publisher? It means that they make more from the magazine store then from your sub. But it also means that you will be forced into getting a copy every month from the sub. No such guarantees from the mag store.
So, what about their costs? Well, it will cost a certain amount to mail those issues to you. Anywhere from $5 a year to almost $20 a year. It also costs to print them. In actuality, many publishers make nothing from their subs directly, or even lose money. Of course, there are other expenses from mag stores as well, such as truck delivery, returns, etc.
But it's the Ad dollars that keeps most magazines afloat, not sub pricing. So really, what they pay a company to handle their subs, as most do (very few do it themselves) also comes out of that sub price. The only advantage they get out of subs is a number they can give for guaranteed circulation, and that determines Ad pricing.
Therefor, this whole argument about Apple's 30% isn't as big a deal as some here think it is. If, and it's a big if, these publishers were successful at selling magazine subs directly electronically, something almost none do as yet, then they MIGHT have something to scream about when it comes to this. But almost none do, and fewer do so successfully. So there's really no way to compare what will happen here vs what's already happening, because nothing is happening now.
I do have Zinio, and I do subscribe to a couple of mags there. But it's not much to write about. It's ok, but not much more than the electronic galleys sent to the printer. Prices are sometimes VERY cheap. Much cheaper than a regular sub for paper. Two examples. One is Harpers Bazaar for $10 a year. Stereophile for $7.50 or so. These are well under the normal paper prices. So what is the argument with Apple then? If they charge the same as the paper sub, or even a couple of bucks less, including Apple's 30% cut, they would be still getting more than they get from Zinio.
This is a made up issue over pricing that doesn't really exist on a business level.
Not. It would be fair if the cost to producer was the same (eg, prices 30% higher for in-app purchases).
Right now, a customer renewing his bill must go on the site or use Apple's system, in which case the producer loses 30%. Since this essentially means the producer is either selling at a loss on the in app sales OR increasing his overall prices, what do you think happens? Yes, right: price increase for the consumer.
Unfair.
Very, very doubtful. This might mean less profit per sale, but the end is that far more customers end up purchasing than would anyway. The same principle is at work on the Mac store; lots of developers are finding that, if they lower the individual price to the right place, their sales increase enormously, and thus, they make more money and more profit. Remember, their unit cost = 0. It's a digital copy. They have to split up what they make with the publisher, but they don't actually have to print, say, 10,000 copies, which can go unsold. They give Apple one copy, and the same split is on sale #1 and sale #1 million.
I've still got to bet that Apple's costs are just covered with their 30%. As the apps get more and more popular, their costs go up. How long until they have to expand their server farms? Profits for Apple are on hardware. They want the software to be as cheap as possible, while delivering large numbers of sales to the developers and publishers. Sells more iPods, iPhones and iPads. That's where the profit is.
The Sony reader has a bit of a different business model.
Sony launched it as a reader only. No content store. And no way of buying content on the device.
Consequently, it has always been able to load books from multiple vendors, because initially, Sony had no intention of selling content.
Now, Sony do have a bookstore. But amazingly, still no store on the device!
C.
Yes, that's true. Amazon deserves credit with coming up with that idea, at least for the first
popular book reader, though I THINK Franklin sold books directly for their readers ages ago, but I could be mistaken on that.
Sony's devices, though they've been out a long time, have never been popular, when it comes to lesser products or services, they usually try something that the "better" ones don't have to do. We can see that with Sprint and T-Mobile with their pricing and plans. We can see it with AT&T with their fear of losing too many iPhone customers.
What I'm hearing here is that investors are very worried, as they should be.
There is no way this model is going to survive anti-trust laws.
Apple is starting with 30% knowing full well it's just a number to begin negotiations with.
The anti-competitive policies of not allowing people to have a link to their website etc... are also just there as bargaining chips for the inevitable class action law suit.
The real question is - how desirable is an iDevice that has no content? Because as smart as some people here think they are with all their 'business smarts and clairvoyance'... they always leave out the human factor.
Remember that? The human factor... it's why the Macintosh went from 80% market share to 1.2% in less then a decade.
Make no mistake, Apple is repeating history. iPad will be less then 5% market share in 3 years. I guarantee it (if they stay on this course).
Apple CAN and SHOULD be flexing their marketing muscle here, milking every dollar they can from their customers. Anything less is just stupid and irresponsible to their shareholders. They can get away with it because the Apple brand allows them to get away with it. If there was a way for Apple to make you buy electricity from them to charge your product, they would and should be doing that, if you'll put up with it.
That said, this can't be good for consumers. Less choice and fewer options are never better for consumers.
I don't quite understand this logic. Apple is not out to screw over their customers in what they're doing. They are in fact, trying to get a cut of what others are making from Apple's platform and customers. Apple supplies a market/platform to resellers and publishers, why shouldn't they get something from that? Especially if those others are taking advantage of the platforms size?
And sorry if you can't seem to understand that this is how it works everywhere already...
You don't think Amazon gets a cut of every Macintosh computer sold through Amazon's website?
You don't think Amazon gets a cut of every subscription to a newspaper sold through the Kindle?
Amazon allows "partner" stores on its website, you don't think they get cut of sales through that storefront? Of course they do. Amazon provides the platform for these sales to take place.
Just as Apple supplies the platform (iOS) for companies like Amazon to have a store front (app). Apple could go one step further and require all sales go through AIP, not just content. But they are only interest in content that will be accessed and "used" on iOS devices.
Comments
I showed you were wrong about Fictionwise and the Kindle, now it's up to you to show some actual information instead of just making statements, which, so far, have been wrong.
So, go to those sites, and post quotes showing what can be read where. Believe me, if you can show that, I will agree with you.
The Sony reader has a bit of a different business model.
Sony launched it as a reader only. No content store. And no way of buying content on the device.
Consequently, it has always been able to load books from multiple vendors, because initially, Sony had no intention of selling content.
Now, Sony do have a bookstore. But amazingly, still no store on the device!
C.
So if you do any subscriptions out side the app. Like hulu, mog, people, netflix etc...
you will ALSO have to offer the same subscription at the Same or better price as an in app purchase. which apple will take 30% of
This is INSANE!
Why is it insane? Most publishers make money from advertising, not subscription fees. It seems that a lot of people think that the only money publishers stand to make a profit from is subscription fees, which is absolutely not true. This is why it costs so much to buy a single copy of a publication versus subscribing to it. And this is also why the longer the plan, the cheaper the price. Subscription plans allow the publishers to charge more for ad space, because they can guarantee/project distribution numbers (eyeballs). Publishers would much rather have people sign up for subscriptions than buy the magazine from a retailer or news stand.
So Apple takes 30% of a $40 yearly subscription plan to the Daily. They make $12. The Daily rakes in advertising dollars for that sale for the next year. The bigger the audience (iOS users) the more potential to make more on advertising. Plus they get valuable user data, if the user agrees to share it.
I don't see how any of this isn't fair?
give incentives to buying them outside the app, .
that would likely run afoul of the 'same or better' rules.
In the end Apple could have simply banned all outside purchases and even yanked all apps that aren't in compliance right away. And been 100% within their legal rights. After all, when you sign up to develop apps you agree to give Apple 30% of all sales, so by that agreement, outside sales are not in compliance.
Subscriptions are recurring until you cancel them. While I have other options, is Apple really entitled to 30% of my subscription fee forever because I used the iPhone app to sign up for the service? The recurring subscription could still be going through iTunes even if I switched to an Android phone at some point, or used the service on my computer most of the time.
Of course they should get 30% of each recurring payment, it's called a commission. The initial sale was made through Apple's sales channel. It doesn't matter that you move to another platform to view the content. Apple's not being unfair in this, they said if the subscription was made outside of Apple's platform, then publishers could offer access for free. Apple isn't forcing them to move the recurring payments to Apple's purchasing system. It is just saying when the initial subscription was made from Apple's devices. If a customer is truly concerned, they could cancel the Apple recurring subscription, and start it up again using some other payment method. Chances are, customers aren't going to care.
That was the point I was trying to make. I understand them charging that kind of money for iOS only subscriptions as that's the going rate for anything iOS, but they seem to be extending the policy to cross platform subscriptions and putting rules in place that make it extremely likely that customers will go through the App Store to activate those subscriptions. I have a major issue with that.
How is that? I subscribed to Netflix through their website, and I use my iPad to access and watch Netflix content. Apple will NEVER see any of that money. I don't understand how this forces me to subscribe through Apple at any point in the future?
I could understand the complete meltdown people are having if Apple said, "The only way iOS users will EVER view your content, is if they cancel current subscriptions and resubscribe through AIP." But they aren't saying, and they're not requiring anything that isn't done elsewhere. Anytime a subscription is made through an agent of publisher, the agent gets a commission for as long as that subscription is active. For each recurring payment the agent will get a percentage. This is normal. It doesn't matter if the user switches from print to digital, from Android to iOS. That initial subscription only exists because of the agent.
How about a 30% rebate for people who use the out-app sub?
Increase price 30%, then have a 30% cut for Apple in app and a 30% rebate out-app XD
How dumb do you think Apple is *******?
I showed you were wrong about Fictionwise and the Kindle, now it's up to you to show some actual information instead of just making statements, which, so far, have been wrong.
So, go to those sites, and post quotes showing what can be read where. Believe me, if you can show that, I will agree with you.
Fictionwise now supports the Adobe ePUB format!
Tens of thousands of titles are available, with more added each week. Both PDF and ePUB formats work with Adobe Digital Editions.
Here is a list of devices that support Adobe Digital Editions: http://www.adobe.com/products/digitaleditions/devices/
http://www.fictionwise.com/help/adob...l_editions.htm
True, but the problem is they have to also offer the subscription @ the same price in the app so apple gets it cut. and you cant link to the out of app store inside of the app.
So 1) there is no instinctive for the user to purchase outside of the app. 2)Who knows if they will even know the can buy a subscription out side of the app.
Im all for apple getting something but 30% of subscriptions is ridiculous. maybe they should have required apps that have subscriptions have to be a paid apps.
On the other hand, if that's the way they've been subscribing for a while, they may just keep subscribing that way.
I only see SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE, nothing in the press release said anything about a la carte (one-off) purchases. It only makes reference to subscriptions throughout the entire press release.
So, I'm kinda bewildered as to why people are having issues regarding the Kindle app and buying books from Amazon?
wheres yours?
"All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app."
No one is arguing that. It's the other point that's in contention here.
"Apple today announced a new subscription service available to all publishers of content-based apps on the App Store, including magazines, newspapers, video, music, etc."
I only see SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE, nothing in the press release said anything about a la carte (one-off) purchases. It only makes reference to subscriptions throughout the entire press release.
So, I'm kinda bewildered as to why people are having issues regarding the Kindle app and buying books from Amazon?
New app store review guidelines:
11.13 - Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions.
11.14 - Apps that link to external mechanisms for purchasing content to be used in the app, such as a ?buy" button that goes to a web site to purchase a digital book, will be rejected
That said, this can't be good for consumers. Less choice and fewer options are never better for consumers.
New app store review guidelines]
11.13 - Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions.
11.14 - Apps that link to external mechanisms for purchasing content to be used in the app, such as a “buy" button that goes to a web site to purchase a digital book, will be rejected
Hmmm... sucks for Amazon, unless of course the customer is anti-Apple and pro-Amazon. Any customer who wants to make sure Amazon gets the money will go buy it from the website then. Anyone who doesn't really care, will probably just choose IAP.
However, I'm still a little confused why people are up in arms about all of this? If I (or anyone else) were truly worried about Amazon, I can still buy it from Amazon's site, or my Kindle. Save a link in Mobile Safari, go to the website and purchase content there. Go back to the app and sync my account. Yes, it is not convenient as IAP, but still not exactly complicated either.
Subscriptions are recurring until you cancel them. While I have other options, is Apple really entitled to 30% of my subscription fee forever because I used the iPhone app to sign up for the service? The recurring subscription could still be going through iTunes even if I switched to an Android phone at some point, or used the service on my computer most of the time.
That was the point I was trying to make. I understand them charging that kind of money for iOS only subscriptions as that's the going rate for anything iOS, but they seem to be extending the policy to cross platform subscriptions and putting rules in place that make it extremely likely that customers will go through the App Store to activate those subscriptions. I have a major issue with that.
I won't argue that some people will just click in the App Store. Of course that will happen. But it doesn't have to, and that's an important point.
But then, there are other considerations as well. I was involved heavily in publishing through my company, as we did a lot of work for some of them, as well as from my advertising background.
This whole 30% thing is really annoying from the publishers side. If you're paying $5 at the magazine store for a copy, and you buy all of your issues there as many people actually do, you're paying $60 a year for your "subscription". If you actually get a sub, you may be paying $20 instead. Now what does that mean to the publisher? It means that they make more from the magazine store then from your sub. But it also means that you will be forced into getting a copy every month from the sub. No such guarantees from the mag store.
So, what about their costs? Well, it will cost a certain amount to mail those issues to you. Anywhere from $5 a year to almost $20 a year. It also costs to print them. In actuality, many publishers make nothing from their subs directly, or even lose money. Of course, there are other expenses from mag stores as well, such as truck delivery, returns, etc.
But it's the Ad dollars that keeps most magazines afloat, not sub pricing. So really, what they pay a company to handle their subs, as most do (very few do it themselves) also comes out of that sub price. The only advantage they get out of subs is a number they can give for guaranteed circulation, and that determines Ad pricing.
Therefor, this whole argument about Apple's 30% isn't as big a deal as some here think it is. If, and it's a big if, these publishers were successful at selling magazine subs directly electronically, something almost none do as yet, then they MIGHT have something to scream about when it comes to this. But almost none do, and fewer do so successfully. So there's really no way to compare what will happen here vs what's already happening, because nothing is happening now.
I do have Zinio, and I do subscribe to a couple of mags there. But it's not much to write about. It's ok, but not much more than the electronic galleys sent to the printer. Prices are sometimes VERY cheap. Much cheaper than a regular sub for paper. Two examples. One is Harpers Bazaar for $10 a year. Stereophile for $7.50 or so. These are well under the normal paper prices. So what is the argument with Apple then? If they charge the same as the paper sub, or even a couple of bucks less, including Apple's 30% cut, they would be still getting more than they get from Zinio.
This is a made up issue over pricing that doesn't really exist on a business level.
Not. It would be fair if the cost to producer was the same (eg, prices 30% higher for in-app purchases).
Right now, a customer renewing his bill must go on the site or use Apple's system, in which case the producer loses 30%. Since this essentially means the producer is either selling at a loss on the in app sales OR increasing his overall prices, what do you think happens? Yes, right: price increase for the consumer.
Unfair.
Very, very doubtful. This might mean less profit per sale, but the end is that far more customers end up purchasing than would anyway. The same principle is at work on the Mac store; lots of developers are finding that, if they lower the individual price to the right place, their sales increase enormously, and thus, they make more money and more profit. Remember, their unit cost = 0. It's a digital copy. They have to split up what they make with the publisher, but they don't actually have to print, say, 10,000 copies, which can go unsold. They give Apple one copy, and the same split is on sale #1 and sale #1 million.
I've still got to bet that Apple's costs are just covered with their 30%. As the apps get more and more popular, their costs go up. How long until they have to expand their server farms? Profits for Apple are on hardware. They want the software to be as cheap as possible, while delivering large numbers of sales to the developers and publishers. Sells more iPods, iPhones and iPads. That's where the profit is.
The Sony reader has a bit of a different business model.
Sony launched it as a reader only. No content store. And no way of buying content on the device.
Consequently, it has always been able to load books from multiple vendors, because initially, Sony had no intention of selling content.
Now, Sony do have a bookstore. But amazingly, still no store on the device!
C.
Yes, that's true. Amazon deserves credit with coming up with that idea, at least for the first
popular book reader, though I THINK Franklin sold books directly for their readers ages ago, but I could be mistaken on that.
Sony's devices, though they've been out a long time, have never been popular, when it comes to lesser products or services, they usually try something that the "better" ones don't have to do. We can see that with Sprint and T-Mobile with their pricing and plans. We can see it with AT&T with their fear of losing too many iPhone customers.
There is no way this model is going to survive anti-trust laws.
Apple is starting with 30% knowing full well it's just a number to begin negotiations with.
The anti-competitive policies of not allowing people to have a link to their website etc... are also just there as bargaining chips for the inevitable class action law suit.
The real question is - how desirable is an iDevice that has no content? Because as smart as some people here think they are with all their 'business smarts and clairvoyance'... they always leave out the human factor.
Remember that? The human factor... it's why the Macintosh went from 80% market share to 1.2% in less then a decade.
Make no mistake, Apple is repeating history. iPad will be less then 5% market share in 3 years. I guarantee it (if they stay on this course).
Nobody wants to be on a platform with no content.
New app store review guidelines:
Yes. But what that doesn't say, is that you can get that sub directly, and then, Apple gets nothing.
Apple CAN and SHOULD be flexing their marketing muscle here, milking every dollar they can from their customers. Anything less is just stupid and irresponsible to their shareholders. They can get away with it because the Apple brand allows them to get away with it. If there was a way for Apple to make you buy electricity from them to charge your product, they would and should be doing that, if you'll put up with it.
That said, this can't be good for consumers. Less choice and fewer options are never better for consumers.
I don't quite understand this logic. Apple is not out to screw over their customers in what they're doing. They are in fact, trying to get a cut of what others are making from Apple's platform and customers. Apple supplies a market/platform to resellers and publishers, why shouldn't they get something from that? Especially if those others are taking advantage of the platforms size?
And sorry if you can't seem to understand that this is how it works everywhere already...
You don't think Amazon gets a cut of every Macintosh computer sold through Amazon's website?
You don't think Amazon gets a cut of every subscription to a newspaper sold through the Kindle?
Amazon allows "partner" stores on its website, you don't think they get cut of sales through that storefront? Of course they do. Amazon provides the platform for these sales to take place.
Just as Apple supplies the platform (iOS) for companies like Amazon to have a store front (app). Apple could go one step further and require all sales go through AIP, not just content. But they are only interest in content that will be accessed and "used" on iOS devices.