If the person purchased within the app, the iTunes UI/browser wasn't used. Apple didn't perform any marketing to get the attention of the subscriber since they purchased it in, not via the iTunes UI.
:
Regarding in-app purchase, keep in mind a publisher could always make an HTML5 website and don’t use the app store at all, but they want to use the app store because of the huge visibility it gives them.
The simple fact of being in the App stores is promoting the app to millions of users who would otherwise never find it directly on the internet. This is where the policy is fair, if the publisher can get new clients by itself, then it doesn’t have to pay the 30% cut.
This all started when Apple rejected Sony's e-reader app for iOS, saying that they were going to enforce the in-app purchase requirement. So let's assume this will apply to Amazon, too. Amazon already has a 70/30 split with the publishers. If Apple is taking the other 30%, Amazon gets zero. This effectively kills the Kindle app (and others).
And what about Skype? This sounds like since you can buy Skype credits outside the store, they must offer them inside the store at the same price so Apple can get 30%.
And what about Skype? This sounds like since you can buy Skype credits outside the store, they must offer them inside the store at the same price so Apple can get 30%.
hmm it's that me or nobody taking care of that sentence :
Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said. "All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app.
Regarding in-app purchase, keep in mind a publisher could always make an HTML5 website and don?t use the app store at all, but they want to use the app store because of the huge visibility it gives them.
The simple fact of being in the App stores is promoting the app to millions of users who would otherwise never find it directly on the internet. This is where the policy is fair, if the publisher can get new clients by itself, then it doesn?t have to pay the 30% cut.
Can you explain me how can I read a Kindle book while conmuting and there is no connection? Perhaps one of the reasons of an app is offline content.
So, the price has to be the same or lower through the App Store.
Yes, very fair, a 30% cut for prividing only the payment method.
Ups, I forgot this:
You can't click on Kindle app to go to Amazon and purchase the book, the only way is through in app.
But is this not exactly what Amazon does? I dare say they are not creating content and then selling it. The are buying it at wholesale prices, marking it up and selling it to make a buck. Why shouldn't Apple be able to do the same thing? Why is it evil for Apple to do this but OK for Amazon? Amazon is bummed because a site that they paid nothing to sell before now says "hey if you are going to use us to facilitate the sale we want our share". Maybe you feel that is not fair but artists/writers/musicians have said the same thing about getting their product sold for a long time. You can either use the service or not. It is left as a choice - but don't give away an app as a vehicle to generate sales for yourself and expect someone else to tote the line for you.
This is great, if the publisher can sell a subscription directly on is site he doesn?t have to pay Apple the 30%, but if a customer finds it on Apple App store, Apple gets his 30%.
I like the fact the customer is giving a choice to share is info with the subscriber.
Regarding Kindle, imo users will have to buy books on the Amazon website to avoid paying 30% to Apple, but the Kindle app will have to provide a way to buy books "in-app" too at the same price and then a 30% cut will go to Apple.
For the original discovery and purchase, sure. But in-app we are usually talking about renewals. What does Apple do to earn 30% of a renewing customer's subscription? Almost nothing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatunike
Of course this is entirely fair and reasonable and could have some downsides for consumers. It does have upsides though. 1) More apps will use in-app purchasing. (easier) 2) Can now use itunes account for all purchases through Apps. 3) Standards, control, and rules for personal security and personal information. It looks like user experience will go up, and possibly price. But that's always been Apple's business right? High user experience at a premium. I'm fine with this.
It might be easier, but they are being forced to use it and your subscription costs, whether you get it in app or or the publisher's web site, just increased by 30% because of Apple.
Do you really believe Apple is doing this for user experience reasons? No, it's a purely out of greed. If the it was truly about a better experience worth the 30% premium, let the customer decide. And let the publisher set their own prices on their own web site.
Imagine if Best Buy told Apple they couldn't sell computers from the Apple Store for less than Best Buy sells them after they've applied whatever profit margin Best Buy wanted. Obviously they can't because they don't have the leverage. But Apple does have the leverage and they are using that leverage to dictate to someone what price they can sell their own product for outside of Apple's sales channel.
Apple is looking more and more like MS, as far as business practices go. Their products are better then MS, but their business practices are getting just as bad. In all sincerity, this is the most disturbing, greedy, anti-consumer action I have ever seen Apple take.
People should remember that publishers are not making money off of selling magazines. They make money off of the advertising in the magazine. An obvious point that seems to escape some of the comments here. Giving apple 30% of the sale of a $10-15 subscription pales in comparison to the money to be made by greatly increasing their circulation, thus their advertising rates. How many people own ipads and how many will buy in the future? There alone is a hugh base of people in which the publishers are getting to access. The publishers might spend at least 30% or more advertising their product elsewhere. If you look at the big picture the price might actually decrease due to an increase in sales, especially considering there is no printing costs which would be greater than the transaction costs. And lastly, giving a company a percentage of a sale is hardly news, just an idea usually is not talking about in the general media.
No, the difference is that Amazon/Sony/Apple (with iBooks) is hosting the content, in the in app case, Apple only precesses the payment, the hosting is still done by the provider.
Your logic is crazy. You say prices will be higher on the iPad because Apple "won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site". That's your argument?
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 inapp = C+P+A < O, with O the outside price.
By pure mathematics, O is now higher than it was earlier.
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.
Can you explain me how can I read a Kindle book while conmuting and there is no connection? Perhaps one of the reasons of an app is offline content.
And I am pretty sure a ?save book? option could be made since the app offlinepages can do it with a webpage. but regarding books you could always buy a book on the website and avoid the 30% cut.
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 inapp = C+P+A < O, with O the outside price.
By pure mathematics, O is now higher than it was earlier.
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.
Regarding in-app purchase, keep in mind a publisher could always make an HTML5 website and don’t use the app store at all, but they want to use the app store because of the huge visibility it gives them.
The simple fact of being in the App stores is promoting the app to millions of users who would otherwise never find it directly on the internet. This is where the policy is fair, if the publisher can get new clients by itself, then it doesn’t have to pay the 30% cut.
I don't think any here is saying Apple shouldn't be compensated. But some of us are saying 30% is too high a cut for Apple. Dictating the price the publisher charges on their own web site, and preventing the publisher from marketing their own web site in their own application, is, I believe, an abuse of Apple's position. It's bad for the customer because your prices will go up and there will be less content available due to Apple's greedy policy. If in-app purchase is that much better, the customer will be willing to pay a higher price to get it in App. Apple has taken away the choice.
Previous controversial policies Apple had were at least someone based in a technical or performance factor (ie, restricting Flash). This is purely about greed. Not saying Apple is doing anything illegal. But I do think it's bad for the customer and the platform in general.
Your logic is crazy. You say prices will be higher on the iPad because Apple "won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site". That's your argument?
As for the 30% commission, how is it fair for Apple to charge 30% to the developers of Angry Birds, but not publishers. I'm a former newspaper and magazine publisher, and even I don't see the logic of expecting Apple to go commission-free for us publishers. We publishers get charged for distribution by newsstand distributors, we pay the USPS, we pay our printers, we pay our subscription telemarketing firms, hell, we pay everybody! . . . 30% is a bargain compared to all the other charges we face.
Magazine and newspaper publishers are lucky, damn lucky to make a 10 to 20 percent return on our products -- most don't. The 30% charge, on a price we set, seems reasonable to me. It's better than what Amazon is offering me: they will give me 30%, but they get to set the price.
Once in a while AI gets a comment from someone who actually has real knowledge of the topic at hand. A know-it-well rather than a know-it-all like the rest of us.
My take is this whole brouhaha over the 30% is just a dance that Apple and the publishers have to go through as part of the negotiation process. Neither party really knows how much room the other has for price flexibility because it's a new way of doing business. In the end if 30% is really too high that the subscribers will walk away then Apple will offer secret discounts on a case-to-case basis. But we will never know how much a publisher is really paying Apple.
Once in a while AI gets a comment from someone who actually has real knowledge of the topic at hand. A know-it-well rather than a know-it-all like the rest of us..
He knows a lot of publishing but he doesn't know that Apple doesn't distribute content from other publishers like Amazon, Sony, Kobo, Audible, etc. They all distribute the content
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.
I don't think any here is saying Apple shouldn't be compensated. But some of us are saying 30% is too high a cut for Apple.
Yes I agree with you on that one, for in app purchase, 30% is to much indeed. For selling a new app 30% is fair , but once you in-app, there is no more "Apple visiblity" factor to justify such a large cut.
For the original discovery and purchase, sure. But in-app we are usually talking about renewals. What does Apple do to earn 30% of a renewing customer's subscription?...
It might be easier, but they are being forced to use it and your subscription costs, whether you get it in app or or the publisher's web site, just increased by 30% because of Apple....
...Imagine if Best Buy told Apple they couldn't sell computers from the Apple Store for less than Best Buy sells them after they've applied whatever profit margin Best Buy wanted. Obviously they can't because they don't have the leverage. But Apple does have the leverage and they are using that leverage to dictate to someone what price they can sell their own product for outside of Apple's sales channel.
Apple is looking more and more like MS, as far as business practices go. Their products are better then MS, but their business practices are getting just as bad. In all sincerity, this is the most disturbing, greedy, anti-consumer action I have ever seen Apple take.
So if I go to the theatre its OK for them to sell me a ticket and make a nice profit. But now that I want to buy concessions, use vending machines, etc. they shouldn't be able to make any profit on that? (BTW: I am NOT defending theatre prices which are way out of line IMHO!)
Your example about Best Buy is ridiculous. Why would a retail establishment ever be able to control the price the manufacturer/supplier sells at. Apple does in fact turn it 'round the other way though and require retailers to sell at the same price (with a very slight margin as an inducement).
I think some of this has to do with US Fed Regs about selling the exact same product at two different prices (e.g. the Performa line vrs Macintoshes was Apple Computer's solution to this problem back in the day). Don't remember all the details but - I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong; everyone here is always so king about that.
Fair a 30% cut only for processing payment? Fair making it almost the only way of purchasing on an iPhone or iPad? Really?
I disagree with apple's move there. I think it's bad for the consumer. a 30% cut for a credit card payment. I know they have to maintain their app store but the app store already gets a 30% cut. Why should it get a 30% cut for running a payment through too? I wonder how amazon feels about this. Maybe they can shed some light.
So if I go to the theatre its OK for them to sell me a ticket and make a nice profit. But now that I want to buy concessions, use vending machines, etc. they shouldn't be able to make any profit on that? (BTW: I am NOT defending theatre prices which are way out of line IMHO!)
Incorrect analogy, Apple is not distributing anything.
Comments
If the person purchased within the app, the iTunes UI/browser wasn't used. Apple didn't perform any marketing to get the attention of the subscriber since they purchased it in, not via the iTunes UI.
:
Regarding in-app purchase, keep in mind a publisher could always make an HTML5 website and don’t use the app store at all, but they want to use the app store because of the huge visibility it gives them.
The simple fact of being in the App stores is promoting the app to millions of users who would otherwise never find it directly on the internet. This is where the policy is fair, if the publisher can get new clients by itself, then it doesn’t have to pay the 30% cut.
And what about Skype? This sounds like since you can buy Skype credits outside the store, they must offer them inside the store at the same price so Apple can get 30%.
This doesn't look good at all.
And what about Skype? This sounds like since you can buy Skype credits outside the store, they must offer them inside the store at the same price so Apple can get 30%.
This doesn't look good at all.
And Audible content.
Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said. "All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app.
Steve Jobs is back??
Regarding in-app purchase, keep in mind a publisher could always make an HTML5 website and don?t use the app store at all, but they want to use the app store because of the huge visibility it gives them.
The simple fact of being in the App stores is promoting the app to millions of users who would otherwise never find it directly on the internet. This is where the policy is fair, if the publisher can get new clients by itself, then it doesn?t have to pay the 30% cut.
Can you explain me how can I read a Kindle book while conmuting and there is no connection? Perhaps one of the reasons of an app is offline content.
So, the price has to be the same or lower through the App Store.
Yes, very fair, a 30% cut for prividing only the payment method.
Ups, I forgot this:
You can't click on Kindle app to go to Amazon and purchase the book, the only way is through in app.
But is this not exactly what Amazon does? I dare say they are not creating content and then selling it. The are buying it at wholesale prices, marking it up and selling it to make a buck. Why shouldn't Apple be able to do the same thing? Why is it evil for Apple to do this but OK for Amazon? Amazon is bummed because a site that they paid nothing to sell before now says "hey if you are going to use us to facilitate the sale we want our share". Maybe you feel that is not fair but artists/writers/musicians have said the same thing about getting their product sold for a long time. You can either use the service or not. It is left as a choice - but don't give away an app as a vehicle to generate sales for yourself and expect someone else to tote the line for you.
This is great, if the publisher can sell a subscription directly on is site he doesn?t have to pay Apple the 30%, but if a customer finds it on Apple App store, Apple gets his 30%.
I like the fact the customer is giving a choice to share is info with the subscriber.
Regarding Kindle, imo users will have to buy books on the Amazon website to avoid paying 30% to Apple, but the Kindle app will have to provide a way to buy books "in-app" too at the same price and then a 30% cut will go to Apple.
For the original discovery and purchase, sure. But in-app we are usually talking about renewals. What does Apple do to earn 30% of a renewing customer's subscription? Almost nothing!
Of course this is entirely fair and reasonable and could have some downsides for consumers. It does have upsides though. 1) More apps will use in-app purchasing. (easier) 2) Can now use itunes account for all purchases through Apps. 3) Standards, control, and rules for personal security and personal information. It looks like user experience will go up, and possibly price. But that's always been Apple's business right? High user experience at a premium. I'm fine with this.
It might be easier, but they are being forced to use it and your subscription costs, whether you get it in app or or the publisher's web site, just increased by 30% because of Apple.
Do you really believe Apple is doing this for user experience reasons? No, it's a purely out of greed. If the it was truly about a better experience worth the 30% premium, let the customer decide. And let the publisher set their own prices on their own web site.
Imagine if Best Buy told Apple they couldn't sell computers from the Apple Store for less than Best Buy sells them after they've applied whatever profit margin Best Buy wanted. Obviously they can't because they don't have the leverage. But Apple does have the leverage and they are using that leverage to dictate to someone what price they can sell their own product for outside of Apple's sales channel.
Apple is looking more and more like MS, as far as business practices go. Their products are better then MS, but their business practices are getting just as bad. In all sincerity, this is the most disturbing, greedy, anti-consumer action I have ever seen Apple take.
But is this not exactly what Amazon does? .
No, the difference is that Amazon/Sony/Apple (with iBooks) is hosting the content, in the in app case, Apple only precesses the payment, the hosting is still done by the provider.
Your logic is crazy. You say prices will be higher on the iPad because Apple "won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site". That's your argument?
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 inapp = C+P+A < O, with O the outside price.
By pure mathematics, O is now higher than it was earlier.
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.
Can you explain me how can I read a Kindle book while conmuting and there is no connection? Perhaps one of the reasons of an app is offline content.
And I am pretty sure a ?save book? option could be made since the app offlinepages can do it with a webpage. but regarding books you could always buy a book on the website and avoid the 30% cut.
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 inapp = C+P+A < O, with O the outside price.
By pure mathematics, O is now higher than it was earlier.
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.
Thanks, that made it clear.
Regarding in-app purchase, keep in mind a publisher could always make an HTML5 website and don’t use the app store at all, but they want to use the app store because of the huge visibility it gives them.
The simple fact of being in the App stores is promoting the app to millions of users who would otherwise never find it directly on the internet. This is where the policy is fair, if the publisher can get new clients by itself, then it doesn’t have to pay the 30% cut.
I don't think any here is saying Apple shouldn't be compensated. But some of us are saying 30% is too high a cut for Apple. Dictating the price the publisher charges on their own web site, and preventing the publisher from marketing their own web site in their own application, is, I believe, an abuse of Apple's position. It's bad for the customer because your prices will go up and there will be less content available due to Apple's greedy policy. If in-app purchase is that much better, the customer will be willing to pay a higher price to get it in App. Apple has taken away the choice.
Previous controversial policies Apple had were at least someone based in a technical or performance factor (ie, restricting Flash). This is purely about greed. Not saying Apple is doing anything illegal. But I do think it's bad for the customer and the platform in general.
Your logic is crazy. You say prices will be higher on the iPad because Apple "won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site". That's your argument?
As for the 30% commission, how is it fair for Apple to charge 30% to the developers of Angry Birds, but not publishers. I'm a former newspaper and magazine publisher, and even I don't see the logic of expecting Apple to go commission-free for us publishers. We publishers get charged for distribution by newsstand distributors, we pay the USPS, we pay our printers, we pay our subscription telemarketing firms, hell, we pay everybody! . . . 30% is a bargain compared to all the other charges we face.
Magazine and newspaper publishers are lucky, damn lucky to make a 10 to 20 percent return on our products -- most don't. The 30% charge, on a price we set, seems reasonable to me. It's better than what Amazon is offering me: they will give me 30%, but they get to set the price.
Once in a while AI gets a comment from someone who actually has real knowledge of the topic at hand. A know-it-well rather than a know-it-all like the rest of us.
My take is this whole brouhaha over the 30% is just a dance that Apple and the publishers have to go through as part of the negotiation process. Neither party really knows how much room the other has for price flexibility because it's a new way of doing business. In the end if 30% is really too high that the subscribers will walk away then Apple will offer secret discounts on a case-to-case basis. But we will never know how much a publisher is really paying Apple.
Once in a while AI gets a comment from someone who actually has real knowledge of the topic at hand. A know-it-well rather than a know-it-all like the rest of us..
He knows a lot of publishing but he doesn't know that Apple doesn't distribute content from other publishers like Amazon, Sony, Kobo, Audible, etc. They all distribute the content
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.
I don't think any here is saying Apple shouldn't be compensated. But some of us are saying 30% is too high a cut for Apple.
Yes I agree with you on that one, for in app purchase, 30% is to much indeed. For selling a new app 30% is fair , but once you in-app, there is no more "Apple visiblity" factor to justify such a large cut.
For the original discovery and purchase, sure. But in-app we are usually talking about renewals. What does Apple do to earn 30% of a renewing customer's subscription?...
It might be easier, but they are being forced to use it and your subscription costs, whether you get it in app or or the publisher's web site, just increased by 30% because of Apple....
...Imagine if Best Buy told Apple they couldn't sell computers from the Apple Store for less than Best Buy sells them after they've applied whatever profit margin Best Buy wanted. Obviously they can't because they don't have the leverage. But Apple does have the leverage and they are using that leverage to dictate to someone what price they can sell their own product for outside of Apple's sales channel.
Apple is looking more and more like MS, as far as business practices go. Their products are better then MS, but their business practices are getting just as bad. In all sincerity, this is the most disturbing, greedy, anti-consumer action I have ever seen Apple take.
So if I go to the theatre its OK for them to sell me a ticket and make a nice profit. But now that I want to buy concessions, use vending machines, etc. they shouldn't be able to make any profit on that?
Your example about Best Buy is ridiculous. Why would a retail establishment ever be able to control the price the manufacturer/supplier sells at. Apple does in fact turn it 'round the other way though and require retailers to sell at the same price (with a very slight margin as an inducement).
I think some of this has to do with US Fed Regs about selling the exact same product at two different prices (e.g. the Performa line vrs Macintoshes was Apple Computer's solution to this problem back in the day). Don't remember all the details but - I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong; everyone here is always so king about that.
Fair a 30% cut only for processing payment? Fair making it almost the only way of purchasing on an iPhone or iPad? Really?
I disagree with apple's move there. I think it's bad for the consumer. a 30% cut for a credit card payment. I know they have to maintain their app store but the app store already gets a 30% cut. Why should it get a 30% cut for running a payment through too? I wonder how amazon feels about this. Maybe they can shed some light.
So if I go to the theatre its OK for them to sell me a ticket and make a nice profit. But now that I want to buy concessions, use vending machines, etc. they shouldn't be able to make any profit on that?
Incorrect analogy, Apple is not distributing anything.