This seems a bit unfair. A lot of people buy an iPhone because of the apps. If Apple wants to take 30% from publishers shouldn't they also give 30% of the iPhone price to the people that made the apps which attracted the customer to buy the phone?
I still don't see how Apple is acting in any other way then a payment gateway in which case 5% would be more reasonable, not a publishers entire profit margin. I think we'll see people make the loss in the hope to make the money on other devices in the future or just have the button in a non obvious place.
A lot of employees directly generate revenue for their companies. So shouldn't the companies, in addition to paying wages, also distribute these employees all a share of profits?
Well some companies do (for their better negotiated employees, at least) but that's not how it works most of the time.
I like how the crowds are weeping for studios/music labels/publishers over Apple promoting them and giving them new business while their own efforts fall apart, and charging them a fee for doing this, while at the same time applauding Google for glutting the web with ads, taking all the ad revenue, and then leaving publishers slashed and burned in its wake.
What percent of publishers' profits is Google taking, for essentially nothing more than life support that doesn't benefit them in the long term and which they can't turned down either, lest they virtually disappear from the web.
Up is down! Black is white! Google does no evil, but Apple is pure eeeevil!
It means you'll have to type in www.amazon.com yourself to buy books from the Kindle Store. Oh, and the Kindle app will finally allow purchasing books. Other than that, nothing.
If I were Amazon I would make IAP painfully tedious so that people would find it less tedious to do it on the website
It means you'll have to type in www.amazon.com yourself to buy books from the Kindle Store. Oh, and the Kindle app will finally allow purchasing books. Other than that, nothing.
And higher prices both in the app and online (and at competing eBook stores too, thanks to the agreements in place) unless you think Amazon is going to eat the 30% commission without passing it on.
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.
There aren't any issues regarding anti-trust or anti-cometitive laws here... Apple clearly defines what is and isn't allowed when a developer agrees to the terms in the developer's license. Apple never portrayed iOS as an open platform for anyone to do anything they wanted. Apple has always held the right to reject an app for any reason.
The only chance you have at ever winning such a case would be to prove that Apple willfully and purposely hurt another company due to its actions or somehow prevented consumers from making a choice and forced them to purchase Apple's products.
Quote:
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. ... Nobody wants to be on a platform with no content.
Well this was the exact reason Apple created the iTunes Music Store in the first place. There wasn't any content for the Mac. Everything was Windows only back then. The store took off, not through any anti-competitive actions by Apple, but because Apple designed and created a product (iPod) that most people wanted. And people bought the iPod not because it had the largest music store, but because people wanted an iPod. While you're right that people want content, there are other factors as the iPod originally proved. The iTunes Music Store started with 200,000 songs. As people bought iPod's the store grew.
Today Apple has the largest digital media store on the internet, because they sold so many iPods. And as back then, it is still made available to users of its platforms only. Nothing has changed other than people's attitude towards it.
Quote:
Remember that? The human factor... it's why the Macintosh went from 80% market share to 1.2% in less then a decade.
The Mac never had an 80% market share, at most, in its history, it hit 10% back in the late 80's, early 90's. And it had nothing to do with "human factor" it had a lot to do with the "IT factor". A time when most computers were bought by corporations, not consumers. Most corporations went with whatever was "IBM compatible". This included DOS based systems that could run Windows 3.x.
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.
(snip)
This is a made up issue over pricing that doesn't really exist on a business level.
This applies equally to novels as well as magazines. Ad revenue doesn't support them, nor does it support services like Netflix.
30% isn't normal. If you read my posts, I've said that Apple probably does deserve some compensation for hosting the app. They just shouldn't be forcing this 30% subscription model on content providers wishing to have an iOS app. If you disagree, wait a couple months for the fallout.
PS: This applies to any purchase initiated through an app. For example a Kindle book. If Amazon stays on iOS (which is far from a given), they will probably want to raise prices to cover this 30% cut Apple's taking and they will convince the publishers to do so. Because Apple requires the iOS price to be the same or lower as anywhere else, the prices on Kindle.com will go up as well. Now Amazon requires that their prices be the lowest as well, so the publishers will increase the prices at Apple's iBook Store too (as well as B&N and others). No matter where you shop for eBooks, it's quite likely that prices your prices will go up. The loser here is the consumer, and the only winner is Apple. When companies throw their weight around like that, they do get noticed by certain authorities.
Ok, let's talk about that 30%. Apple does what every business would love to do. That is, make money on every product and service. That's the way it's supposed to be. Publishers wish they could do that. But it's not in their business model. It never was once magazines came out. And even further back, even books carried many Ads in the back pages, because the book price couldn't keep the company afloat.
But what is Apple actually getting here? 30%? Well, sort of. They've had 10 billion downloads since the App Store first opened. But while two thirds of the apps are paid apps, only 20 tp 25% are bought, rather than downloaded for free. So Apple gets 30% of 20 to 25% of the downloads, or about 6 to 7.5% on average. That's not much! If we look t all the free updates and upgrades they have to host, the percentage drops to under a percent per download.
So while 30% sounds high, it really isn't when everything is considered. And magazine stores get more than 30%.
Out of that Apple insists on running the store at a small profit. If what some here want, they might run it at a loss. I don't see why they should have to do that.
Well, but they are more about print subscriptions, not about Pandora, Netflix, Hulu subscriptions or one time purchases like books, music or video
We'll have to see about how this works out. Apple isn't stopping outside subs at all. They said that. You're free to continue doing that. The only real difference for subscribers is that if they choose to auto up their sub through iTunes, Apple will take their cut. You're free to do it the way you have from the site of the company, just not through a link in the app.
Annoying, yes? But a major problem, not really.
I still say we have to await responses from Amazon and B&N to know how they are affected, and what they plan to do. Until then, it's just guessing.
But Amazon/B&N/Netflix/etc doesn't have any store on the App Store
Not true! I have two Amazon shopping apps. One is directly to the store, with some conveniences. The other is a new shopping app, which is hard to describe. Assuming you actually have an Apple product, go to the app store, and type in Amazon, and they will come up.
In general, magazines surrender 30%+ of the list price of a magazine in a store. So a $6.00 magazine in the rack surrenders $2.00 to the store and oh by the way eats the cost of unsold magazines. Is the Apple Store more like a Grocery Store sales rack.
However, magazines to promote sales and to gather personal information are willing to steeply discount a magazine sale for a subscription, 1/3 to 1/2 off retail pricing is not a surprise. This is really not a big deal, since if they sold the same magazine in store that is all they would get.
If their main goal is advertising volume, then neither model has income from magazine being an issue. If you look at distribution costs for a magazine, e.g., shipping [and returning unsold magazines] as well as mail shipping and handling to homes, it is hard to see that not being a big cost to the magazines.
So Apple offers no shipping costs, no return unsold magazines, a huge market place, etc., and if a customer elects to subscribe to the magazine [or newspaper], then they pay 30% of the cost to Apple. By the way no financial transaction costs, pure 70% cash in a very timely manner. HHmm sounds like a great deal, EXCEPT
Here is where I think the magazines are going nuts - it is NOT the cost or 30%, this is either a wash or might be a savings, its not getting all that personal information that they can sell to advertisers, not to mention loose and drive consumers nuts with identity theft.
So Apple is saying you business model is not messed up on subscriptions costs, advertizing, etc. in fact, the potential audience is huge and this is super convenient to buy, but rather your model of getting and using personal subscriber information will be diminished. Perhaps bad to magazines, but in my mind really good for subscribers.
Not true! I have two Amazon shopping apps. One is directly to the store, with some conveniences. The other is a new shopping app, which is hard to describe. Assuming you actually have an Apple product, go to the app store, and type in Amazon, and they will come up.
And this apps are using Apple resources? They don't use Apple servers to host the content, they don't use Apple servers for transaction processing.
Is Best Buy or eBay apps stores on Apple App Store?
Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc would be fine without the App Store. Apple shouldn't stomp on the toes connected to the hands that feed them. The iPhone needs high profile apps, if they leave, many customers will follow them.
That's fine .... that's "democracy at work". But let's not "complain" because Apple wants to operate in a democratic fashion.
btw .... I'd love it if you would post a pic of that customer with "his toes connected to his hands" ....
Apple needs to not be in the habit of one changing the rules for developers of apps for it's iOS devices. Instability is bad for business. Also, this move is ridiculous why should I be paying apple for something they didn't earn. Amazon stores all my files and works out deals with publishers etc... I paid Apple for my Ipad already. Having an Amazon app in the App Store is the cost of doing business in the case of publishers.
This move is bad and Apple will reverse it's position but will it be too late. They haven't even justified why they made this move.
You make it sound like it's stupid, but just think. Whatever the cost to produce the thing, factor in a profit, that's C+P. Add Apple's cut, that's C+P+A, with A= 30% of C+P.
Still following?
Price can't be higher on the app store per the Apple rule aforementionned, which means i
By pure mathematics, O is now higher than it was earlier.napp = C+P+A < O, with O the outside price.
And since the reseller is NOT going to sell at a loss, and it's highly doubtful P<A with A, remember, equal to 30% of the whole price, you get (C+P+A+O)/2 > original price.
Prices, hence are higher on the iPad because Apple "won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site", Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Example: C=20 P=10 O=30 30% of O = 9 = A
C+P+A<O or 20+10+9=39 Your formula is severely flawed.
Should be C+P-A=O-A or 20+10-9=30-9
Your analysis is too simplistic to be useful. How much would publisher save on existing marketing, administrative fees and existing commissions using appstore? How many new subscriptions would be gained be exposure in appstore?
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).
Nobody wants to be on a platform with no content.
This is bollox from word one. Not a single thing in there is true. Not even the 80% to 1.2% It's all just plain made up around the merest kernel of almost historical truth.
Wow, they have to be happy for being allowed to be on App Store.
A concept that you are not aware of, I guess .... kinda like a manufacturer who just got an order that allows his product to be sold through a major retail chain .... see how that works?
Ok, let's talk about that 30%. Apple does what every business would love to do. That is, make money on every product and service. That's the way it's supposed to be. Publishers wish they could do that. But it's not in their business model. It never was once magazines came out. And even further back, even books carried many Ads in the back pages, because the book price couldn't keep the company afloat.
But what is Apple actually getting here? 30%? Well, sort of. They've had 10 billion downloads since the App Store first opened. But while two thirds of the apps are paid apps, only 20 tp 25% are bought, rather than downloaded for free. So Apple gets 30% of 20 to 25% of the downloads, or about 6 to 7.5% on average. That's not much! If we look t all the free updates and upgrades they have to host, the percentage drops to under a percent per download.
So while 30% sounds high, it really isn't when everything is considered. And magazine stores get more than 30%.
Out of that Apple insists on running the store at a small profit. If what some here want, they might run it at a loss. I don't see why they should have to do that.
Once again, we come back to the problem that Apple doesn't get money for free apps. I mentioned this many many posts ago. Should Apple really be getting 30% of subscription revenue for content they don't provide to help make up for the billions of free app downloads when they are merely processing the transaction for the subscription?
Look at it another way:
In iBooks, I believe Apple takes 30% of the total sale and 70% goes to the developer.
If Amazon had a similar deal, they'd get nothing on a sale through the app store, as 70% would go to the publisher and 30% would go to Apple.
On the other hand, if the publisher took a portion of Amazons revenue instead of the total sale, Amazon would get 21% of the total sale, 49% of the total sale would go to the publisher, and 30% would go to Apple. While Amazons hit may be acceptable in this scenario, I don't think the publisher would like this.
Either Amazon makes no money on an iOS sale, yet they must still supply the content, or the publisher makes a lot less from an Amazon iOS sale. Both scenarios make Kindle App uncompetitive on a iOS device. What incentive is there for them to stay on iOS? And what are the consequences of not being on iOS? Amazon is put between a rock and a hard place because of Apple flexing its muscle. Amazon is forced to find strike a better deal with publishers than Apple has, just to compete. If Apple didn't stand to gain from this with iBooks, I'd be a lot less worried about it, but as it stands this is anti-competitiveness at its finest.
Nor do any of our affiliates. We still pay them 50% commission for any sales they refer AND we pay them 50% commission for new products that their leads may buy. We do the mailing the affiliate gets the $.
All the affiliate does is send us people who may buy our product.
When we get our iPad add done, we'll gladly give Apple 30% as they'll be sending us customer that we would never get on our own.
Put simply, we'd rather take 70% of a much larger pie, than 100% of a much smaller pie.
The cut we pay to affiliates and will pay to Apple is due to their lead generation efforts.
Comments
This seems a bit unfair. A lot of people buy an iPhone because of the apps. If Apple wants to take 30% from publishers shouldn't they also give 30% of the iPhone price to the people that made the apps which attracted the customer to buy the phone?
I still don't see how Apple is acting in any other way then a payment gateway in which case 5% would be more reasonable, not a publishers entire profit margin. I think we'll see people make the loss in the hope to make the money on other devices in the future or just have the button in a non obvious place.
A lot of employees directly generate revenue for their companies. So shouldn't the companies, in addition to paying wages, also distribute these employees all a share of profits?
Well some companies do (for their better negotiated employees, at least) but that's not how it works most of the time.
I like how the crowds are weeping for studios/music labels/publishers over Apple promoting them and giving them new business while their own efforts fall apart, and charging them a fee for doing this, while at the same time applauding Google for glutting the web with ads, taking all the ad revenue, and then leaving publishers slashed and burned in its wake.
What percent of publishers' profits is Google taking, for essentially nothing more than life support that doesn't benefit them in the long term and which they can't turned down either, lest they virtually disappear from the web.
Up is down! Black is white! Google does no evil, but Apple is pure eeeevil!
Fact: You're guilty of common sense and basic logic! And I hate you for that!
He's actually guilty of ignoring certain realities and simplifying others, but whatever.
It means you'll have to type in www.amazon.com yourself to buy books from the Kindle Store. Oh, and the Kindle app will finally allow purchasing books. Other than that, nothing.
If I were Amazon I would make IAP painfully tedious so that people would find it less tedious to do it on the website
It means you'll have to type in www.amazon.com yourself to buy books from the Kindle Store. Oh, and the Kindle app will finally allow purchasing books. Other than that, nothing.
And higher prices both in the app and online (and at competing eBook stores too, thanks to the agreements in place) unless you think Amazon is going to eat the 30% commission without passing it on.
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.
There aren't any issues regarding anti-trust or anti-cometitive laws here... Apple clearly defines what is and isn't allowed when a developer agrees to the terms in the developer's license. Apple never portrayed iOS as an open platform for anyone to do anything they wanted. Apple has always held the right to reject an app for any reason.
The only chance you have at ever winning such a case would be to prove that Apple willfully and purposely hurt another company due to its actions or somehow prevented consumers from making a choice and forced them to purchase Apple's products.
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. ... Nobody wants to be on a platform with no content.
Well this was the exact reason Apple created the iTunes Music Store in the first place. There wasn't any content for the Mac. Everything was Windows only back then. The store took off, not through any anti-competitive actions by Apple, but because Apple designed and created a product (iPod) that most people wanted. And people bought the iPod not because it had the largest music store, but because people wanted an iPod. While you're right that people want content, there are other factors as the iPod originally proved. The iTunes Music Store started with 200,000 songs. As people bought iPod's the store grew.
Today Apple has the largest digital media store on the internet, because they sold so many iPods. And as back then, it is still made available to users of its platforms only. Nothing has changed other than people's attitude towards it.
Remember that? The human factor... it's why the Macintosh went from 80% market share to 1.2% in less then a decade.
The Mac never had an 80% market share, at most, in its history, it hit 10% back in the late 80's, early 90's. And it had nothing to do with "human factor" it had a lot to do with the "IT factor". A time when most computers were bought by corporations, not consumers. Most corporations went with whatever was "IBM compatible". This included DOS based systems that could run Windows 3.x.
This point
Ah, we have a Zen master in our midst!
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.
(snip)
This is a made up issue over pricing that doesn't really exist on a business level.
This applies equally to novels as well as magazines. Ad revenue doesn't support them, nor does it support services like Netflix.
30% isn't normal. If you read my posts, I've said that Apple probably does deserve some compensation for hosting the app. They just shouldn't be forcing this 30% subscription model on content providers wishing to have an iOS app. If you disagree, wait a couple months for the fallout.
PS: This applies to any purchase initiated through an app. For example a Kindle book. If Amazon stays on iOS (which is far from a given), they will probably want to raise prices to cover this 30% cut Apple's taking and they will convince the publishers to do so. Because Apple requires the iOS price to be the same or lower as anywhere else, the prices on Kindle.com will go up as well. Now Amazon requires that their prices be the lowest as well, so the publishers will increase the prices at Apple's iBook Store too (as well as B&N and others). No matter where you shop for eBooks, it's quite likely that prices your prices will go up. The loser here is the consumer, and the only winner is Apple. When companies throw their weight around like that, they do get noticed by certain authorities.
Ok, let's talk about that 30%. Apple does what every business would love to do. That is, make money on every product and service. That's the way it's supposed to be. Publishers wish they could do that. But it's not in their business model. It never was once magazines came out. And even further back, even books carried many Ads in the back pages, because the book price couldn't keep the company afloat.
But what is Apple actually getting here? 30%? Well, sort of. They've had 10 billion downloads since the App Store first opened. But while two thirds of the apps are paid apps, only 20 tp 25% are bought, rather than downloaded for free. So Apple gets 30% of 20 to 25% of the downloads, or about 6 to 7.5% on average. That's not much! If we look t all the free updates and upgrades they have to host, the percentage drops to under a percent per download.
So while 30% sounds high, it really isn't when everything is considered. And magazine stores get more than 30%.
Out of that Apple insists on running the store at a small profit. If what some here want, they might run it at a loss. I don't see why they should have to do that.
Well, but they are more about print subscriptions, not about Pandora, Netflix, Hulu subscriptions or one time purchases like books, music or video
We'll have to see about how this works out. Apple isn't stopping outside subs at all. They said that. You're free to continue doing that. The only real difference for subscribers is that if they choose to auto up their sub through iTunes, Apple will take their cut. You're free to do it the way you have from the site of the company, just not through a link in the app.
Annoying, yes? But a major problem, not really.
I still say we have to await responses from Amazon and B&N to know how they are affected, and what they plan to do. Until then, it's just guessing.
But Amazon/B&N/Netflix/etc doesn't have any store on the App Store
Not true! I have two Amazon shopping apps. One is directly to the store, with some conveniences. The other is a new shopping app, which is hard to describe. Assuming you actually have an Apple product, go to the app store, and type in Amazon, and they will come up.
I do. In any case argue the facts. Thats a generalised ad hominem.
He asked a question ...
QUESTION TO THE PEOPLE SAYING IT'S "UNFAIR":
Many many of you work in, own or have ever owned, a business?
He didn't say "you are an idiot" or anything like that .... I think you're just being picky.
In general, magazines surrender 30%+ of the list price of a magazine in a store. So a $6.00 magazine in the rack surrenders $2.00 to the store and oh by the way eats the cost of unsold magazines. Is the Apple Store more like a Grocery Store sales rack.
However, magazines to promote sales and to gather personal information are willing to steeply discount a magazine sale for a subscription, 1/3 to 1/2 off retail pricing is not a surprise. This is really not a big deal, since if they sold the same magazine in store that is all they would get.
If their main goal is advertising volume, then neither model has income from magazine being an issue. If you look at distribution costs for a magazine, e.g., shipping [and returning unsold magazines] as well as mail shipping and handling to homes, it is hard to see that not being a big cost to the magazines.
So Apple offers no shipping costs, no return unsold magazines, a huge market place, etc., and if a customer elects to subscribe to the magazine [or newspaper], then they pay 30% of the cost to Apple. By the way no financial transaction costs, pure 70% cash in a very timely manner. HHmm sounds like a great deal, EXCEPT
Here is where I think the magazines are going nuts - it is NOT the cost or 30%, this is either a wash or might be a savings, its not getting all that personal information that they can sell to advertisers, not to mention loose and drive consumers nuts with identity theft.
So Apple is saying you business model is not messed up on subscriptions costs, advertizing, etc. in fact, the potential audience is huge and this is super convenient to buy, but rather your model of getting and using personal subscriber information will be diminished. Perhaps bad to magazines, but in my mind really good for subscribers.
Not true! I have two Amazon shopping apps. One is directly to the store, with some conveniences. The other is a new shopping app, which is hard to describe. Assuming you actually have an Apple product, go to the app store, and type in Amazon, and they will come up.
And this apps are using Apple resources? They don't use Apple servers to host the content, they don't use Apple servers for transaction processing.
Is Best Buy or eBay apps stores on Apple App Store?
Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc would be fine without the App Store. Apple shouldn't stomp on the toes connected to the hands that feed them. The iPhone needs high profile apps, if they leave, many customers will follow them.
That's fine .... that's "democracy at work". But let's not "complain" because Apple wants to operate in a democratic fashion.
btw .... I'd love it if you would post a pic of that customer with "his toes connected to his hands" ....
This move is bad and Apple will reverse it's position but will it be too late. They haven't even justified why they made this move.
He's damn right.
You make it sound like it's stupid, but just think. Whatever the cost to produce the thing, factor in a profit, that's C+P. Add Apple's cut, that's C+P+A, with A= 30% of C+P.
Still following?
Price can't be higher on the app store per the Apple rule aforementionned, which means i
By pure mathematics, O is now higher than it was earlier.napp = C+P+A < O, with O the outside price.
And since the reseller is NOT going to sell at a loss, and it's highly doubtful P<A with A, remember, equal to 30% of the whole price, you get (C+P+A+O)/2 > original price.
Prices, hence are higher on the iPad because Apple "won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site", Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Example: C=20 P=10 O=30 30% of O = 9 = A
C+P+A<O or 20+10+9=39 Your formula is severely flawed.
Should be C+P-A=O-A or 20+10-9=30-9
Your analysis is too simplistic to be useful. How much would publisher save on existing marketing, administrative fees and existing commissions using appstore? How many new subscriptions would be gained be exposure in appstore?
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).
Nobody wants to be on a platform with no content.
This is bollox from word one. Not a single thing in there is true. Not even the 80% to 1.2% It's all just plain made up around the merest kernel of almost historical truth.
Wow, they have to be happy for being allowed to be on App Store.
A concept that you are not aware of, I guess .... kinda like a manufacturer who just got an order that allows his product to be sold through a major retail chain .... see how that works?
Ok, let's talk about that 30%. Apple does what every business would love to do. That is, make money on every product and service. That's the way it's supposed to be. Publishers wish they could do that. But it's not in their business model. It never was once magazines came out. And even further back, even books carried many Ads in the back pages, because the book price couldn't keep the company afloat.
But what is Apple actually getting here? 30%? Well, sort of. They've had 10 billion downloads since the App Store first opened. But while two thirds of the apps are paid apps, only 20 tp 25% are bought, rather than downloaded for free. So Apple gets 30% of 20 to 25% of the downloads, or about 6 to 7.5% on average. That's not much! If we look t all the free updates and upgrades they have to host, the percentage drops to under a percent per download.
So while 30% sounds high, it really isn't when everything is considered. And magazine stores get more than 30%.
Out of that Apple insists on running the store at a small profit. If what some here want, they might run it at a loss. I don't see why they should have to do that.
Once again, we come back to the problem that Apple doesn't get money for free apps. I mentioned this many many posts ago. Should Apple really be getting 30% of subscription revenue for content they don't provide to help make up for the billions of free app downloads when they are merely processing the transaction for the subscription?
Look at it another way:
In iBooks, I believe Apple takes 30% of the total sale and 70% goes to the developer.
If Amazon had a similar deal, they'd get nothing on a sale through the app store, as 70% would go to the publisher and 30% would go to Apple.
On the other hand, if the publisher took a portion of Amazons revenue instead of the total sale, Amazon would get 21% of the total sale, 49% of the total sale would go to the publisher, and 30% would go to Apple. While Amazons hit may be acceptable in this scenario, I don't think the publisher would like this.
Either Amazon makes no money on an iOS sale, yet they must still supply the content, or the publisher makes a lot less from an Amazon iOS sale. Both scenarios make Kindle App uncompetitive on a iOS device. What incentive is there for them to stay on iOS? And what are the consequences of not being on iOS? Amazon is put between a rock and a hard place because of Apple flexing its muscle. Amazon is forced to find strike a better deal with publishers than Apple has, just to compete. If Apple didn't stand to gain from this with iBooks, I'd be a lot less worried about it, but as it stands this is anti-competitiveness at its finest.
They dont host any content.
( is it worth replying to every moron, I wonder?)
Nor do any of our affiliates. We still pay them 50% commission for any sales they refer AND we pay them 50% commission for new products that their leads may buy. We do the mailing the affiliate gets the $.
All the affiliate does is send us people who may buy our product.
When we get our iPad add done, we'll gladly give Apple 30% as they'll be sending us customer that we would never get on our own.
Put simply, we'd rather take 70% of a much larger pie, than 100% of a much smaller pie.
The cut we pay to affiliates and will pay to Apple is due to their lead generation efforts.