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.
Look at it this way, you make a free App, publish it on iTunes App store and no one makes any money, yet Apple have to provide the bandwidth, hosting and transaction tracking etc for it. So you make nothing, Apple makes nothing and it actually costs Apple more that the developers $99 per annum to distribute the App.
So, subscriptions and in app purchases. Again, your App is 'free' but offers a way to buy additional content or a subscription. If you buy this through the app then Apple, again, foots the bill for the hosting payment transaction yada yada yada, and what? you expect them to do this for nothing whilst the developers coin it in?
I don't see any issue with this whatsoever, with millions of devices and essentially customers out there for these publishers to sell to surely its worth paying that 30% considering that the publishers are now in a dying business and would have been unlikely to have picked up a large proportion of these users otherwise. I expect google to follow suit with subscriptions on their store too as they too don't let you run a store within their store etc.
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.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... where has this post been all day! The end... apple is doing what others have done for years except not exploiting its customers personal info....
Apple provides the platform and the experience for the publishers to promote their subscription. In some ways we can equate this to the paper the magazine is printed on. Magazine publishers have to pay the paper suppliers. The price may be higher on the iOS but it is a similar analogy in my mind.
Nope, a far better analogy is that of a car.
Say you bought your car from Toyota. You paid Toyota and now you own the car. Aside from servicing this is the last you'll ever see of Toyota. When you go to fill your car with fuel, you pay the fuel company, not Toyota. This is exactly as it should be, as Toyota had nothing to do with making the fuel or supplying it.
When you buy a Kindle book Amazon pays for EVERYTHING. They handle the credit card transaction, the download, the book rights, the DRM stuff.... Apple plays no part in it at all.
Now Apple say they want 30% of the price of every Kindle book, the trouble with that is that it will leave Amazon with 0% profit, and so they will have no choice but to pull the Kindle app from iOS. When that happens, iOS will be massively wounded and I suspect will only recover when Apple, tail between it's legs, admits it was very, very wrong.
Excessive greed never ends well. Unless of course, you're an investment banker, but that's another story.
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.
Yes. We have been over the the basic issue already and like most intelligent points in the midst of recalcitrant trolls, it has been ignored totally: post 258, this thread. You add some more nice depth to the topic too.
The argument only rages on because the trolls don't want to acknowledge basic retail business models because that would be counterproductive to their bashing. It's a sorted dead issue that will go on for several more pages for no reasonable reason whatsoever.
You're absolutely right, Amazon does not let any other book store on its Kindle device!
Talk about anti-competitive.
Perhaps we can just drop the whole anti-competitive issue, if Apple were to flat out reject the Kindle app and any other store that competes with Apple's content stores?
What??? If you are using the App store... Apple is facilitating the transaction. In fact they have done all the work for you and you didn't have to DO ANYTHING!
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.
Considering that the overwhelming majority of i device purchasers could care less and impulse buy from the store because, 'hey, its only 99 cents' or 'hey, its free' companies who don't provide their app on the itunes store will be at a major disadvantage.
It would be like pulling your products from walmart and best buy and selling out of an obscure specialist retail store that few people frequent.
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?
Been there done that, been totally ignored. They don't want to know reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
Not so much. Let's try again.
No, lightknight pulled the logical equivalent of saying 1 == 2 via indirection. In reality C+P+A != O.
C+P+A+AdditionalSales == O. Apple is charging (A) 30% for processing and increased impulse buy opportunities.
How much do you think US, People and the Enquirer pay grocery stores to be placed right at the checkout line??? Same principle, drive tons of impulse buys for content that would far sell less otherwise. Premium shelf space (sometimes just regular shelf space) -- wait for it -- COSTS the manufacturer! Standard everyday retail operating procedure. And no, it wasn't the grocery store that chose what goes there to increase grocery store sales, it was the manufacturers that bought those positions because it maximized their sell through, with the grocer effectively making money twice on every transaction.
I am amazed by how shallow and ignorant of business many of the posters are. Not that I would expect a bunch of MBA's to debate things. But to equivocally state things as above and miss such basic business retail principles is laughably sad.
Corollary -- if you don't have knowledge, training or education and therefore don't "know", and then have limited ability to analyze a situation, don't make absolute pronouncements.
Look at it this way, you make a free App, publish it on iTunes App store and no one makes any money, yet Apple have to provide the bandwidth, hosting and transaction tracking etc for it. So you make nothing, Apple makes nothing and it actually costs Apple more that the developers $99 per annum to distribute the App.
So, subscriptions and in app purchases. Again, your App is 'free' but offers a way to buy additional content or a subscription. If you buy this through the app then Apple, again, foots the bill for the hosting payment transaction yada yada yada, and what? you expect them to do this for nothing whilst the developers coin it in?
I don't see any issue with this whatsoever, with millions of devices and essentially customers out there for these publishers to sell to surely its worth paying that 30% considering that the publishers are now in a dying business and would have been unlikely to have picked up a large proportion of these users otherwise. I expect google to follow suit with subscriptions on their store too as they too don't let you run a store within their store etc.
There's no problem with Apple charging for that service. The problem exists with forcing app developers to use that service even though they already have existing web stores and subscription models in place.
What??? If you are using the App store... Apple is facilitating the transaction. In fact they have done all the work for you and you didn't have to DO ANYTHING!
My God, Apple is FORCING to use the App Store for in app purchases. Amazon, Nertflix, Spotify weren't using Apple resources to sell they subscriptions or goods.
Considering that the overwhelming majority of i device purchasers could care less and impulse buy from the store because, 'hey, its only 99 cents' or 'hey, its free' companies who don't provide their app on the itunes store will be at a major disadvantage.
It would be like pulling your products from walmart and best buy and selling out of an obscure specialist retail store that few people frequent.
NO, just the opposite. It would be like putting your stuff in the checkout aisle where the retail stores make an absolute killing on impulse buys. Why does Fry's, Borders and Best Buy (among others) make you walk through a very long maze past the candy and magazines to get to the checkouts? Because customers buy a crapload of stuff they wouldn't otherwise.
And, because it offers so many benefits to our customers, we are fully committed to supporting the Mac App Store by completely moving Pixelmator sales and distribution to the Mac App Store in the upcoming months.
I regularly buy stuff from the Mac App store and the App Store - stuff that I wouldn't have purchased otherwise.
Considering that the overwhelming majority of i device purchasers could care less and impulse buy from the store because, 'hey, its only 99 cents' or 'hey, its free' companies who don't provide their app on the itunes store will be at a major disadvantage.
It would be like pulling your products from walmart and best buy and selling out of an obscure specialist retail store that few people frequent.
Netflix, Amazon (Kindle), and Hulu represent impulse buys? Really? I wasn't talking about small developers and $0.99 apps, I was talking about established services (like the ones I listed in the post you quoted...) pulling out of the App store. Obviously they wouldn't want to, but if these moves force them out, Apple will suffer as well. It's a stupid, greedy, and shortsighted move.
Look at it this way, you make a free App, publish it on iTunes App store and no one makes any money, yet Apple have to provide the bandwidth, hosting and transaction tracking etc for it. So you make nothing, Apple makes nothing and it actually costs Apple more that the developers $99 per annum to distribute the App.
So, subscriptions and in app purchases. Again, your App is 'free' but offers a way to buy additional content or a subscription. If you buy this through the app then Apple, again, foots the bill for the hosting payment transaction yada yada yada, and what? you expect them to do this for nothing whilst the developers coin it in?
I don't see any issue with this whatsoever, with millions of devices and essentially customers out there for these publishers to sell to surely its worth paying that 30% considering that the publishers are now in a dying business and would have been unlikely to have picked up a large proportion of these users otherwise. I expect google to follow suit with subscriptions on their store too as they too don't let you run a store within their store etc.
The problem in the case of Amazon or Sony is people are there for Amazon or Sony not necessarily for Apple.
Comments
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.
But Apple is not referring or sending any buyer.
Look at it this way, you make a free App, publish it on iTunes App store and no one makes any money, yet Apple have to provide the bandwidth, hosting and transaction tracking etc for it. So you make nothing, Apple makes nothing and it actually costs Apple more that the developers $99 per annum to distribute the App.
So, subscriptions and in app purchases. Again, your App is 'free' but offers a way to buy additional content or a subscription. If you buy this through the app then Apple, again, foots the bill for the hosting payment transaction yada yada yada, and what? you expect them to do this for nothing whilst the developers coin it in?
I don't see any issue with this whatsoever, with millions of devices and essentially customers out there for these publishers to sell to surely its worth paying that 30% considering that the publishers are now in a dying business and would have been unlikely to have picked up a large proportion of these users otherwise. I expect google to follow suit with subscriptions on their store too as they too don't let you run a store within their store etc.
Is Best Buy or eBay apps stores on Apple App Store?
Best Buy is, I use it regularly.
eBay has an app, but I don't have it installed.
http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-tr...4257521-1.html
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.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... where has this post been all day! The end... apple is doing what others have done for years except not exploiting its customers personal info....
Apple provides the platform and the experience for the publishers to promote their subscription. In some ways we can equate this to the paper the magazine is printed on. Magazine publishers have to pay the paper suppliers. The price may be higher on the iOS but it is a similar analogy in my mind.
Nope, a far better analogy is that of a car.
Say you bought your car from Toyota. You paid Toyota and now you own the car. Aside from servicing this is the last you'll ever see of Toyota. When you go to fill your car with fuel, you pay the fuel company, not Toyota. This is exactly as it should be, as Toyota had nothing to do with making the fuel or supplying it.
When you buy a Kindle book Amazon pays for EVERYTHING. They handle the credit card transaction, the download, the book rights, the DRM stuff.... Apple plays no part in it at all.
Now Apple say they want 30% of the price of every Kindle book, the trouble with that is that it will leave Amazon with 0% profit, and so they will have no choice but to pull the Kindle app from iOS. When that happens, iOS will be massively wounded and I suspect will only recover when Apple, tail between it's legs, admits it was very, very wrong.
Excessive greed never ends well. Unless of course, you're an investment banker, but that's another story.
[/B]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" ....
They are connected, just not directly (but I never said they were).
PS: Democracy is a political system, not an economic one.
http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-tr...4257521-1.html
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.
Yes. We have been over the the basic issue already and like most intelligent points in the midst of recalcitrant trolls, it has been ignored totally: post 258, this thread. You add some more nice depth to the topic too.
The argument only rages on because the trolls don't want to acknowledge basic retail business models because that would be counterproductive to their bashing. It's a sorted dead issue that will go on for several more pages for no reasonable reason whatsoever.
I expect google to follow suit with subscriptions on their store too as they too don't let you run a store within their store etc.
They allow in app purchases not going through them, Kindle app has in app purchasing
this is anti-competitiveness at its finest.
You're absolutely right, Amazon does not let any other book store on its Kindle device!
Talk about anti-competitive.
Perhaps we can just drop the whole anti-competitive issue, if Apple were to flat out reject the Kindle app and any other store that competes with Apple's content stores?
But Apple is not referring or sending any buyer.
What??? If you are using the App store... Apple is facilitating the transaction. In fact they have done all the work for you and you didn't have to DO ANYTHING!
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.
Considering that the overwhelming majority of i device purchasers could care less and impulse buy from the store because, 'hey, its only 99 cents' or 'hey, its free' companies who don't provide their app on the itunes store will be at a major disadvantage.
It would be like pulling your products from walmart and best buy and selling out of an obscure specialist retail store that few people frequent.
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?
Been there done that, been totally ignored. They don't want to know reality.
Not so much. Let's try again.
No, lightknight pulled the logical equivalent of saying 1 == 2 via indirection. In reality C+P+A != O.
C+P+A+AdditionalSales == O. Apple is charging (A) 30% for processing and increased impulse buy opportunities.
How much do you think US, People and the Enquirer pay grocery stores to be placed right at the checkout line??? Same principle, drive tons of impulse buys for content that would far sell less otherwise. Premium shelf space (sometimes just regular shelf space) -- wait for it -- COSTS the manufacturer! Standard everyday retail operating procedure. And no, it wasn't the grocery store that chose what goes there to increase grocery store sales, it was the manufacturers that bought those positions because it maximized their sell through, with the grocer effectively making money twice on every transaction.
I am amazed by how shallow and ignorant of business many of the posters are. Not that I would expect a bunch of MBA's to debate things. But to equivocally state things as above and miss such basic business retail principles is laughably sad.
Corollary -- if you don't have knowledge, training or education and therefore don't "know", and then have limited ability to analyze a situation, don't make absolute pronouncements.
Meh, its all a storm in a tea cup.
Look at it this way, you make a free App, publish it on iTunes App store and no one makes any money, yet Apple have to provide the bandwidth, hosting and transaction tracking etc for it. So you make nothing, Apple makes nothing and it actually costs Apple more that the developers $99 per annum to distribute the App.
So, subscriptions and in app purchases. Again, your App is 'free' but offers a way to buy additional content or a subscription. If you buy this through the app then Apple, again, foots the bill for the hosting payment transaction yada yada yada, and what? you expect them to do this for nothing whilst the developers coin it in?
I don't see any issue with this whatsoever, with millions of devices and essentially customers out there for these publishers to sell to surely its worth paying that 30% considering that the publishers are now in a dying business and would have been unlikely to have picked up a large proportion of these users otherwise. I expect google to follow suit with subscriptions on their store too as they too don't let you run a store within their store etc.
There's no problem with Apple charging for that service. The problem exists with forcing app developers to use that service even though they already have existing web stores and subscription models in place.
What??? If you are using the App store... Apple is facilitating the transaction. In fact they have done all the work for you and you didn't have to DO ANYTHING!
My God, Apple is FORCING to use the App Store for in app purchases. Amazon, Nertflix, Spotify weren't using Apple resources to sell they subscriptions or goods.
Considering that the overwhelming majority of i device purchasers could care less and impulse buy from the store because, 'hey, its only 99 cents' or 'hey, its free' companies who don't provide their app on the itunes store will be at a major disadvantage.
It would be like pulling your products from walmart and best buy and selling out of an obscure specialist retail store that few people frequent.
NO, just the opposite. It would be like putting your stuff in the checkout aisle where the retail stores make an absolute killing on impulse buys. Why does Fry's, Borders and Best Buy (among others) make you walk through a very long maze past the candy and magazines to get to the checkouts? Because customers buy a crapload of stuff they wouldn't otherwise.
But Apple is not referring or sending any buyer.
You don't think so?
From http://www.pixelmator.com/weblog/
Pixelmator Grosses $1 Million on the Mac App Store
In case it's not clear enough:
http://www.pixelmator.com/transition/
And, because it offers so many benefits to our customers, we are fully committed to supporting the Mac App Store by completely moving Pixelmator sales and distribution to the Mac App Store in the upcoming months.
I regularly buy stuff from the Mac App store and the App Store - stuff that I wouldn't have purchased otherwise.
Considering that the overwhelming majority of i device purchasers could care less and impulse buy from the store because, 'hey, its only 99 cents' or 'hey, its free' companies who don't provide their app on the itunes store will be at a major disadvantage.
It would be like pulling your products from walmart and best buy and selling out of an obscure specialist retail store that few people frequent.
Netflix, Amazon (Kindle), and Hulu represent impulse buys? Really? I wasn't talking about small developers and $0.99 apps, I was talking about established services (like the ones I listed in the post you quoted...) pulling out of the App store. Obviously they wouldn't want to, but if these moves force them out, Apple will suffer as well. It's a stupid, greedy, and shortsighted move.
Meh, its all a storm in a tea cup.
Look at it this way, you make a free App, publish it on iTunes App store and no one makes any money, yet Apple have to provide the bandwidth, hosting and transaction tracking etc for it. So you make nothing, Apple makes nothing and it actually costs Apple more that the developers $99 per annum to distribute the App.
So, subscriptions and in app purchases. Again, your App is 'free' but offers a way to buy additional content or a subscription. If you buy this through the app then Apple, again, foots the bill for the hosting payment transaction yada yada yada, and what? you expect them to do this for nothing whilst the developers coin it in?
I don't see any issue with this whatsoever, with millions of devices and essentially customers out there for these publishers to sell to surely its worth paying that 30% considering that the publishers are now in a dying business and would have been unlikely to have picked up a large proportion of these users otherwise. I expect google to follow suit with subscriptions on their store too as they too don't let you run a store within their store etc.
The problem in the case of Amazon or Sony is people are there for Amazon or Sony not necessarily for Apple.
You don't think so?.
This is an actual app, no the content we are talking about.