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.
If there is no money in it then why do it? People are stupid... why don't you go into a store and say 'I am not gonna buy a TV from you but could you give me a free ride to the store down the street and I will buy it from them!' Apple are doing all the work by providing the app store and the eco-system its a service/commission... blah!
It doesn't matter. It's the extra exposure that you get.
Let me ask you, do you really think that the new News Corp publication would get the same number of buyers if they offered it on their own, as a PDF?
If so, then why not do so?
Or, maybe they figured that 70% of a much larger pie was better than 100% of a smaller one.
Let me ask you, Amazon, Hulu or Netflix have more consumers because of the App Store, Apple has sold more iPhones/iPads because there are those applications or both of them?
No, they are FORCED to "accesss to content" through a billing system
No force ....The content providers have to allow a choice ..... the same price, or less, "in app" as they allow "out of app". .... Isn't that what everyone screams what is wrong with Apple .... they don't offer choice..
This applies equally to novels as well as magazines. Ad revenue doesn't support them, nor does it support services like Netflix.
Well, this announcement relates to subs, and we've moved widely from that point, but as for the actual topic, what I said is correct.
Books are different, I agree. But as I keep saying, none of the big booksellers in the App store have commented as yet, so we don't know what they're thinking. Maybe they're talking to Apple about this. Who knows? I'd like to wait and see what happens.
No force ....The content providers have to allow a choice ..... the same price, or less, "in app" as they allow "out of app". .... Isn't that what everyone screams what is wrong with Apple .... they don't offer choice..
Make up your freakin' mind .....choice or not!
Give developers with existing online storefronts the choice to implement in app purchases or not (aka their previous system) and I have no concerns with their subscription system. What you are advocating for isn't choice, but the illusion of choice.
Let me ask you, Amazon, Hulu or Netflix have more consumers because of the App Store, Apple has sold more iPhones/iPads because there are those applications or both of them?
I wouldn't care if Amazon, Hulu or Netflix weren't on the iPad.
I have Netflix but don't use it on the iPad. Netflix's own number show that more people access their service through the Apple TV, than through the iPad.
So, maybe a few people wouldn't have purchased the iPad because the above weren't available, but there is far more to the iPad than the above.
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?
They're using resources in that they have to be checked to be approved, have to be hosted, have to be hosted to be updated, etc. Apple doesn't get a cut on sales.
I don't know about Best Buy, as I have no interest in an app for them, but I've had the eBay app since it first came out on the iPhone, and use it all the time. I'm an active ebayer.
So you have no Apple products, yet feel qualifier to criticize them. You really should know how they work, and why they're so popular, and then you may get a feel why some of us don't agree with some of the opinion here. Apple make so much of this so easy, that we feel they deserve their cut if it's required, which it's not all the ti
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.
There you said it, they already have existing web stores and subscription models in place, which means they do not need an iOS app in order to exist and run their business. There are only two reasons for creating an iOS app...
1. Added value to existing customers - allow current customers to access their content on the iOS devices. Even with IAP in the app, these customers are aware of other methods to purchase content and if it's not a huge inconvenience to do so, would probably still continue to.
2. Get new customers - Take advantage of the platform's size to market your warez to new customers. These customers only discover your business because you made it available on Apple's platform. And while they may make a purchase through IAP, that may not always be the case. There's nothing that says they can't discover an alternative payment system, it's just that I can't link directly to one from within the app. I could still provide a link to product information or support that could eventually lead to my online store.
They're using resources in that they have to be checked to be approved, have to be hosted, have to be hosted to be updated, etc. Apple doesn't get a cut on sales.
Nooooooo, my God, i don't know if you can't unddesrstand my poor English but no, we were not talking about Kindle or eBay App, but the transactions done with them, they're NOT using Apple resources when you buy an eBay item or a Kindle book, so they're not using the App Store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
So you have no Apple products, yet feel qualifier to criticize them..
Do you want I show the list of iTunes App Store receipts I have?
Don't be shy ..... name one..... any one .... go ahead...
Fine.
Quote:
Fact: If a customer would rather buy through Apple than a publisher's website ... it's likely because they find it easier, more trusting or a whole bunch of other reasons I don't even know about ..... but to be sure, no matter what the reason ... it's all part of the Apple ecosystem that they have been building for years and years..... and belonging to that ecosystem has a price .... for everyone. Like me, the publishers have the right to belong ... or not .... their choice.
Here you ignored the fact that Apple has removed the option for a developer to send the customer to their online store from within the app. In giving the customer the "choice" of using in app purchases, they removed the choice of clicking a link in the app to go to the website.
Quote:
All Apple is saying is ... if you're using our ecosystem to gain customers (mostly with a free app that Apple makes nothing on) then you have to give those same customers the opportunity to buy through the same store that you found them in .... at the same price as on your website. Totally fair, imo.
Here you ignored the fact that a companies current prices are based on their current costs. Requiring these companies to utilize Apples services which may cost more than their existing system impacts their bottom line, but Apple has given them no flexibility to change their prices based on delivery costs. So they ultimately just have to raise all their prices.
Quote:
Fact: When buying anything, (content or subscriptions) through iTunes ... there is a "billing cost" to Apple. If one uses a credit card, other than iTunes gift cards, a fee is charged to apple, as the retailer.
Fact: There was no billing cost incurred by Apple until Apple said you have to use our services if you wish to remain in the app store because they weren't using Apple's services.
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.
Yes, if that publication came from the App Store. A store is a store.
Publishers pay subscription firms to get and maintain their sub base. They have companies package and ship those subs. Do you think they pay them? Of course they do. Apple will host any app that's downloaded from their store. They bill for the publisher, and now they've agreed to collect and give the publisher, should the subscriber agree, information they've been demanding. I see no problem with any of this.
And, yes, it does matter that Apple only get paid from a small percentage of developers, those with free apps. Why, because it's a benefit to us, their customers. And that's the most important reason.
There you said it, they already have existing web stores and subscription models in place, which means they do not need an iOS app in order to exist and run their business. There are only two reasons for creating an iOS app...
1. Added value to existing customers - allow current customers to access their content on the iOS devices. Even with IAP in the app, these customers are aware of other methods to purchase content and if it's not a huge inconvenience to do so, would probably still continue to.
2. Get new customers - Take advantage of the platform's size to market your warez to new customers. These customers only discover your business because you made it available on Apple's platform. And while they may make a purchase through IAP, that may not always be the case. There's nothing that says they can't discover an alternative payment system, it's just that I can't link directly to one from within the app. I could still provide a link to product information or support that could eventually lead to my online store.
They wouldn't get to that point because Apple requires the in app purchase feature to be implemented.
What you are advocating for isn't choice, but the illusion of choice.
So, allowing a customer to purchase "in app" or "out of app" is only .... the illusion of choice ?.... are you sure you're not a politician .... or a contortionist ? You seem to be "talking out of both sides of your mouth" at the same time.
What ever you're smoking, I'd wish you would share.
Yes, if that publication came from the App Store. A store is a store.
Publishers pay subscription firms to get and maintain their sub base. They have companies package and ship those subs. Do you think they pay them? Of course they do. Apple will host any app that's downloaded from their store. They bill for the publisher, and now they've agreed to collect and give the publisher, should the subscriber agree, information they've been demanding. I see no problem with any of this.
And, yes, it does matter that Apple only get paid from a small percentage of developers, those with free apps. Why, because it's a benefit to us, their customers. And that's the most important reason.
My point was does Apple being generous (no charge for hosting free apps) in one area justify something that almost amounts to extortion in another (taking a 30% cut of subscription revenues just to facilitate a transaction)?
Apple should implement in-app subscriptions, but they shouldn't make them or in-app purchases a requirement for cross platform services.
You know, I really have to tell you something here. You don't seem to be understanding anything we're saying. You keep repeating the same untruths over and again.
Apple is SENDING customers to every company when a customer buys something in the App Store. Why is this such a hard concept for you? It's really very simple. Publisher puts sub in the app store. Customer subscribes. They now have customer they didn't have. That's Apple sending a customer to the publisher.
Otherwise, the publisher has to hire a subcontractor to do this for them. If you've ever received a subscription offer in the mail, that offer wasn't sent by the publisher, though it looks as though it's been. That's a company that specializes in this, doing that mailing for them.
When you get a letter telling you that your sub is about to expire, who does that? The publisher? No, it's the speciality company again. When you send your check in, or your credit card, who does that go to? Well, I hope that by now you know.
Apple is doing the same thing here, except they charge less.
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.
Folks keeps saying this except that if Apple plays no part in it then how did the content get on the device that Apple developed, manufactured, marketed, sold and delivered?
Apple sure as hell played a part in this chain of events. Amazon has the Kindle ecosystem and when the purchase occurs on that which they paid for then Apple gets no cut. The massive growth in Kindle sales was fueled in part by the success of the iPad. Great for Amazon while it lasted and because it was a benefit to Apple as well they let it ride. Apple appears to no longer believe turning a blind eye is mutually beneficial.
Quote:
Now Apple say they want 30% of the price of every Kindle book,
Not every kindle book...just those sold on the device they developed.
Quote:
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.
Not likely even if it turns out to be a mistake. Apple has a recourse: dropping their 30% down to a percentage that all publishers end up on iBooks. That isn't an outcome that Amazon or B&N wants as it is downward pressure on the highest percentage they can charge.
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.
That's not entirely correct. If you want to use a car analogy, then Apple would own the roads you drove to get to the dealer to buy the car. This would be the platform on which your product can function. And by the way, every purchase made regarding automobiles; gas, tires, cars, etc., usually have a built-in tax that goes towards making sure the roads can be maintained and the environment clean.
Furthermore, Apple would not be massively wounded by the removal of one function that may affect a small portion of their user base. If Amazon were to remove the Kindle app, the user could simply buy a Kindle or start buying books from another book store. No one is mortally wounded here, just inconvenienced. Amazon would just continue as they always have.
On top of that, you don't know the terms of Amazon's reseller license.
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.
Well then, with all that available to them, they don't have to be in the App Store, and so what is this entire debate all about?
Comments
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.
If there is no money in it then why do it? People are stupid... why don't you go into a store and say 'I am not gonna buy a TV from you but could you give me a free ride to the store down the street and I will buy it from them!' Apple are doing all the work by providing the app store and the eco-system its a service/commission... blah!
This is an actual app, no the content we are talking about.
It doesn't matter. It's the extra exposure that you get.
Let me ask you, do you really think that the new News Corp publication would get the same number of buyers if they offered it on their own, as a PDF?
If so, then why not do so?
Or, maybe they figured that 70% of a much larger pie was better than 100% of a smaller one.
It doesn't matter. It's the extra exposure that you get.
Let me ask you, do you really think that the new News Corp publication would get the same number of buyers if they offered it on their own, as a PDF?
If so, then why not do so?
Or, maybe they figured that 70% of a much larger pie was better than 100% of a smaller one.
Let me ask you, Amazon, Hulu or Netflix have more consumers because of the App Store, Apple has sold more iPhones/iPads because there are those applications or both of them?
No, they are FORCED to "accesss to content" through a billing system
No force ....The content providers have to allow a choice ..... the same price, or less, "in app" as they allow "out of app". .... Isn't that what everyone screams what is wrong with Apple .... they don't offer choice..
Make up your freakin' mind .....choice or not!
He's actually guilty of ignoring certain realities and simplifying others, but whatever.
Don't be shy ..... name one..... any one .... go ahead...
This applies equally to novels as well as magazines. Ad revenue doesn't support them, nor does it support services like Netflix.
Well, this announcement relates to subs, and we've moved widely from that point, but as for the actual topic, what I said is correct.
Books are different, I agree. But as I keep saying, none of the big booksellers in the App store have commented as yet, so we don't know what they're thinking. Maybe they're talking to Apple about this. Who knows? I'd like to wait and see what happens.
No force ....The content providers have to allow a choice ..... the same price, or less, "in app" as they allow "out of app". .... Isn't that what everyone screams what is wrong with Apple .... they don't offer choice..
Make up your freakin' mind .....choice or not!
Give developers with existing online storefronts the choice to implement in app purchases or not (aka their previous system) and I have no concerns with their subscription system. What you are advocating for isn't choice, but the illusion of choice.
Let me ask you, Amazon, Hulu or Netflix have more consumers because of the App Store, Apple has sold more iPhones/iPads because there are those applications or both of them?
I wouldn't care if Amazon, Hulu or Netflix weren't on the iPad.
I have Netflix but don't use it on the iPad. Netflix's own number show that more people access their service through the Apple TV, than through the iPad.
So, maybe a few people wouldn't have purchased the iPad because the above weren't available, but there is far more to the iPad than the above.
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?
They're using resources in that they have to be checked to be approved, have to be hosted, have to be hosted to be updated, etc. Apple doesn't get a cut on sales.
I don't know about Best Buy, as I have no interest in an app for them, but I've had the eBay app since it first came out on the iPhone, and use it all the time. I'm an active ebayer.
So you have no Apple products, yet feel qualifier to criticize them. You really should know how they work, and why they're so popular, and then you may get a feel why some of us don't agree with some of the opinion here. Apple make so much of this so easy, that we feel they deserve their cut if it's required, which it's not all the ti
Me.
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.
There you said it, they already have existing web stores and subscription models in place, which means they do not need an iOS app in order to exist and run their business. There are only two reasons for creating an iOS app...
1. Added value to existing customers - allow current customers to access their content on the iOS devices. Even with IAP in the app, these customers are aware of other methods to purchase content and if it's not a huge inconvenience to do so, would probably still continue to.
2. Get new customers - Take advantage of the platform's size to market your warez to new customers. These customers only discover your business because you made it available on Apple's platform. And while they may make a purchase through IAP, that may not always be the case. There's nothing that says they can't discover an alternative payment system, it's just that I can't link directly to one from within the app. I could still provide a link to product information or support that could eventually lead to my online store.
They're using resources in that they have to be checked to be approved, have to be hosted, have to be hosted to be updated, etc. Apple doesn't get a cut on sales.
Nooooooo, my God, i don't know if you can't unddesrstand my poor English but no, we were not talking about Kindle or eBay App, but the transactions done with them, they're NOT using Apple resources when you buy an eBay item or a Kindle book, so they're not using the App Store.
So you have no Apple products, yet feel qualifier to criticize them..
Do you want I show the list of iTunes App Store receipts I have?
Don't be shy ..... name one..... any one .... go ahead...
Fine.
Fact: If a customer would rather buy through Apple than a publisher's website ... it's likely because they find it easier, more trusting or a whole bunch of other reasons I don't even know about ..... but to be sure, no matter what the reason ... it's all part of the Apple ecosystem that they have been building for years and years..... and belonging to that ecosystem has a price .... for everyone. Like me, the publishers have the right to belong ... or not .... their choice.
Here you ignored the fact that Apple has removed the option for a developer to send the customer to their online store from within the app. In giving the customer the "choice" of using in app purchases, they removed the choice of clicking a link in the app to go to the website.
All Apple is saying is ... if you're using our ecosystem to gain customers (mostly with a free app that Apple makes nothing on) then you have to give those same customers the opportunity to buy through the same store that you found them in .... at the same price as on your website. Totally fair, imo.
Here you ignored the fact that a companies current prices are based on their current costs. Requiring these companies to utilize Apples services which may cost more than their existing system impacts their bottom line, but Apple has given them no flexibility to change their prices based on delivery costs. So they ultimately just have to raise all their prices.
Fact: When buying anything, (content or subscriptions) through iTunes ... there is a "billing cost" to Apple. If one uses a credit card, other than iTunes gift cards, a fee is charged to apple, as the retailer.
Fact: There was no billing cost incurred by Apple until Apple said you have to use our services if you wish to remain in the app store because they weren't using Apple's services.
Do I really need to go on?
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.
Yes, if that publication came from the App Store. A store is a store.
Publishers pay subscription firms to get and maintain their sub base. They have companies package and ship those subs. Do you think they pay them? Of course they do. Apple will host any app that's downloaded from their store. They bill for the publisher, and now they've agreed to collect and give the publisher, should the subscriber agree, information they've been demanding. I see no problem with any of this.
And, yes, it does matter that Apple only get paid from a small percentage of developers, those with free apps. Why, because it's a benefit to us, their customers. And that's the most important reason.
There you said it, they already have existing web stores and subscription models in place, which means they do not need an iOS app in order to exist and run their business. There are only two reasons for creating an iOS app...
1. Added value to existing customers - allow current customers to access their content on the iOS devices. Even with IAP in the app, these customers are aware of other methods to purchase content and if it's not a huge inconvenience to do so, would probably still continue to.
2. Get new customers - Take advantage of the platform's size to market your warez to new customers. These customers only discover your business because you made it available on Apple's platform. And while they may make a purchase through IAP, that may not always be the case. There's nothing that says they can't discover an alternative payment system, it's just that I can't link directly to one from within the app. I could still provide a link to product information or support that could eventually lead to my online store.
They wouldn't get to that point because Apple requires the in app purchase feature to be implemented.
What you are advocating for isn't choice, but the illusion of choice.
So, allowing a customer to purchase "in app" or "out of app" is only .... the illusion of choice ?.... are you sure you're not a politician .... or a contortionist ? You seem to be "talking out of both sides of your mouth" at the same time.
What ever you're smoking, I'd wish you would share.
Yes, if that publication came from the App Store. A store is a store.
Publishers pay subscription firms to get and maintain their sub base. They have companies package and ship those subs. Do you think they pay them? Of course they do. Apple will host any app that's downloaded from their store. They bill for the publisher, and now they've agreed to collect and give the publisher, should the subscriber agree, information they've been demanding. I see no problem with any of this.
And, yes, it does matter that Apple only get paid from a small percentage of developers, those with free apps. Why, because it's a benefit to us, their customers. And that's the most important reason.
My point was does Apple being generous (no charge for hosting free apps) in one area justify something that almost amounts to extortion in another (taking a 30% cut of subscription revenues just to facilitate a transaction)?
Apple should implement in-app subscriptions, but they shouldn't make them or in-app purchases a requirement for cross platform services.
But Apple is not referring or sending any buyer.
You know, I really have to tell you something here. You don't seem to be understanding anything we're saying. You keep repeating the same untruths over and again.
Apple is SENDING customers to every company when a customer buys something in the App Store. Why is this such a hard concept for you? It's really very simple. Publisher puts sub in the app store. Customer subscribes. They now have customer they didn't have. That's Apple sending a customer to the publisher.
Otherwise, the publisher has to hire a subcontractor to do this for them. If you've ever received a subscription offer in the mail, that offer wasn't sent by the publisher, though it looks as though it's been. That's a company that specializes in this, doing that mailing for them.
When you get a letter telling you that your sub is about to expire, who does that? The publisher? No, it's the speciality company again. When you send your check in, or your credit card, who does that go to? Well, I hope that by now you know.
Apple is doing the same thing here, except they charge less.
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.
Folks keeps saying this except that if Apple plays no part in it then how did the content get on the device that Apple developed, manufactured, marketed, sold and delivered?
Apple sure as hell played a part in this chain of events. Amazon has the Kindle ecosystem and when the purchase occurs on that which they paid for then Apple gets no cut. The massive growth in Kindle sales was fueled in part by the success of the iPad. Great for Amazon while it lasted and because it was a benefit to Apple as well they let it ride. Apple appears to no longer believe turning a blind eye is mutually beneficial.
Now Apple say they want 30% of the price of every Kindle book,
Not every kindle book...just those sold on the device they developed.
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.
Not likely even if it turns out to be a mistake. Apple has a recourse: dropping their 30% down to a percentage that all publishers end up on iBooks. That isn't an outcome that Amazon or B&N wants as it is downward pressure on the highest percentage they can charge.
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.
That's not entirely correct. If you want to use a car analogy, then Apple would own the roads you drove to get to the dealer to buy the car. This would be the platform on which your product can function. And by the way, every purchase made regarding automobiles; gas, tires, cars, etc., usually have a built-in tax that goes towards making sure the roads can be maintained and the environment clean.
Furthermore, Apple would not be massively wounded by the removal of one function that may affect a small portion of their user base. If Amazon were to remove the Kindle app, the user could simply buy a Kindle or start buying books from another book store. No one is mortally wounded here, just inconvenienced. Amazon would just continue as they always have.
On top of that, you don't know the terms of Amazon's reseller license.
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.
Well then, with all that available to them, they don't have to be in the App Store, and so what is this entire debate all about?