They wouldn't get to that point because Apple requires the in app purchase feature to be implemented.
So, you are worried about iOS customers who have downloaded an Amazon iApp of their own free will, because they enjoy dedicated Apps and have certain expectations of them (which does not include loads of junk Ads and links inside)? You are worried that said customer won't "get to that point", and find out about this oh-so-wonderful option of dealing with Amazon direct -- the very thing thye chose to avoid by downloading the App in the first place! The very thing they rejected by not buying a Kindle eReader in the first place! Oh, they want to do something with their device besides reading books purchased solely from Amazon, how novel? But, surely, these iOS Device users... they don't want to be productive, do they -- don't they know that media tablets are for consumption, and don't they know that Amazon is the king of distribution? How dare they collude with the bad Apple to leave Amazon out in the cold. Amazon deserves free reign wherever we may focus our eyeballs, just like Google does, too. I mean, I paid for that device, dang it, so I can be harangued by Amazon whenever I want. Heck, all the free Apps should be forced to carry Amazon ads, too. Heck, Apple should pay Amazon to sell its wares all over the iTunes Store, because that's what's selling iPads for Pete's sake!
Poor Amazon! Assuming iOS users will never browse their website any more (a big assumption), what are we saying? Amazon has no recourse to shove their direct sales down my throat! Why, they can just send me a bunch of email spam because I once purchased something on their site... oh, wait, they already do! Oh me oh my, it is so difficult for me to read the email blast from Amazon, click on the Amazon link, and buy something on their site! Man, I might get lost on the way; and poor Amazon would lose a sale.
I know, I should feel really bad about this awful situation that Amazon is forced into. I should boycott the in-App purchase and buy directly on the Amazon site (which, don't worry, I am familiar with, because after all, that's only how I have been buying stuff for like 10 years. But you know, I really appreciate the effort that Apple has put into their platform and UX, so I just might go with the in-App purchase, what can I say. What a dilemma, huh? Oh, wait, Amazon do make money every time I buy something with their iApp, just not as much.
Somehow, Amazon managed to get their products in front of me -- because I opted for their iApp, and I don't like their direct mail emails or going to their site, especially; I don't want Amazon to send me suggestions of what they think I might like, and I unsubscribe or ignore their emails whenever possible. But hey, Amazon made a sale off me anyway, what do you know?
Well, I did say that some people would be affected by that. Just not very many. After all people are buying this in record numbers, and a number of these things weren't available earlier on when sales were ramping up rapidly.
There are too many other things in the store, and in iTunes for most people to care about a few.
Apple didn't have competition then. It does now. What do you think will happen if services like Netflix, Kindle, Hulu Plus decide to stick it to iOS and move to Android? What about new services starting out, that decide the Apple subscription tax is too much? It's Apple's customers that will lose out.
It's their right to charge as they wish. Doesn't mean it'll benefit for their customers. And if such moves don't benefit customers, I can't see why most would stick around when there are (increasingly viable) alternatives.
If these companies just remove their app, then they will for sure make $0 from purchases from the iphone/ipad. I guess the choice is $0 and the lost of millions of users or some money but losing some control and information.
I would think that the 30% is not only the cost of the transaction, but also for bringing new customers. Everyone gets paid a cut for bringing new customers.
I don't see how this is different from the developers being charged 30% cut for each app purchased.
It's not evil. But it does border on monopolistic. Apple is fully within their rights to do so. But basically slapping a 30% tax on every media distribution app (what most subscriptions services are) that competes with iTunes brings up some rather interesting anti-trust issues.
How so?
Name one competing music or movie store on iOS?
There isn't one. Why? Because Apple said from the very beginning they weren't going to allow it. In spite of all the original restrictions, developers still flocked to the platform. There is not an anti-trust issue here. They've been clear from the beginning.
Even when IAP was first introduced almost two years ago, they made it clear that all content used within the app must be purchased through Apple's IAP system.
These issues are now coming to light and being enforced, because Apple has implemented a subscription model in order to make money from publishers who charge a minuscule amount for subscriptions, but rake in a ton of money from advertising, specifically magazines.
Apple has overlooked apps like Kindle, because there wasn't a need to enforce the rule, now they don't have a choice. You can't force some content distributors to pay and not others.
It's not evil. But it does border on monopolistic. Apple is fully within their rights to do so. But basically slapping a 30% tax on every media distribution app (what most subscriptions services are) that competes with iTunes brings up some rather interesting anti-trust issues.
I'm not sure people fully grasp what a monopoly is or anti-trust.
$99 a year plus 30% of your sales and any in app purchases you choose to enable.
Suggesting that Apple should get a 30% cut of forced subscription revenue in addition to that is just as reasonable as suggesting Apple should get a 30% cut of AdMob revenue.
If you want to use real world analogies, the app store is more like at shopping mall than a store.
That's interesting. In a certain sense, I agree with that.
But store owners pay rent. Should Apple charge a good amount for these now free apps? How should they decide, by the amount of sales going through the apps? There isn't any way to look at space the way rent is decided.
Apple didn't have competition then. It does now. What do you think will happen if services like Netflix, Kindle, Hulu Plus decide to stick it to iOS and move to Android? What about new services starting out, that decide the Apple subscription tax is too much? It's Apple's customers that will lose out.
It's their right to charge as they wish. Doesn't mean it'll benefit for their customers. And if such moves don't benefit customers, I can't see why most would stick around when there are (increasingly viable) alternatives.
But let's see how all this shakes out.
It doesn't have competition yet. If the Pricing we're seeing from the majors holds true, they won't sell many.
But, assuming they do, there's little evidence that Android owners are willing to pay for anything. So how will it work over there? Free app, free books and magazines? What's happening here may be a paradise compared to what may happen there.
Your reply makes no sense. Throughout the history of commerce, there have always been middlemen. Apple is no different. They provide the opportunity for you to buy, they get a cut. You don't want to use them, then to go the website. It's as simple as that.
I guess I'm a bit tainted as a shareholder. Anytime I see Apple doing well to make a profit, I'm good, and if they have the market power to outgun Amazon, Sony or whoever, well, then more power to them. They've earned it.
You're wrong if you believe that Apple should be adhering to some sort of social propriety of yours. What? They should make business easy for Amazon or Sony? Because why? No shrewd business would ever do that. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand business.
They're in this business to make money. Get over it.
However, middleman is usually adding his part of pie on top of supplier's price; he is not taking his cut out of supplier's price.
From that point of view, purchases from within the app should be more expensive, for exact amount of middleman's income. It should boil down to:
You can purchase from web site which is a bit more complicated/time consuming, but cheaper
or
You can purchase from the app which is uber-cool and simple and fast, but will cost you more.
As it is, for the same price majority of users will be purchasing through app, especially that there is no link to the web site from within the app. That puts Sony, Amazon... in a bit of paradox situation, as they are expected to invest money in creating application (which is usually free to download from App Store) only to see their income being reduced because people are using that app.
Someone mentioned Sony, Amazon... will be making money even if Apple rips off 30%. Well that might be true, but they will be making much less. Is it going to be enough for them to pay their staff, premises, whatever expenses they have? In that case, why would Apple not sell their products with, say, 5% margin instead of margin they have now - they would still be making profit, right?
I don't know... maybe because I am only iPhone user and don't see SJ as anything else than just another CEO (albeit deadly capable one), but this looks really nasty to me; Apple is exercising their muscles (and showing greed) just a bit too much for my taste.
This will kill Kindle, Skype, Audible, a bunch of other premium services that we bought our iPads and iPhones for.
Any online service that sells services outside the AppStore must now allow iOS users to buy those services inside the app and thus be subject to a 30% fee. If this is enforced as stated in the article, it could have huge consequences for the content available on the iTunes store.
I would say it is not impossible that Apple actually wants that - force them out and move users to iBooks. I think that would be very much in line with other moves Apple did in the past (like preventing Apple devices to work with anything else but iTunes).
Why don't you tell us then? Explain how Apple is a monopoly, if that's what you're trying to do. I'd be very interested in what you say.
A monopoly is when there is a single entity that has a majority share of a market to the degree that its actions can influence how that market behaves.
Antitrust is when an entity has taken advantage of a situation to promote anti-competitive behavior.
Don't buy the products of greedy companies, as you seem to think.
No one can force you to buy Apple products. You have choices -- for e-Readers, there's Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Sony, etc.
I "heard rumors" that those new tablets from all other companies will offer free access to their own Apps store. After all, it won't cost Google, and those companies anything, as you say. You may order Android, Windows 7 tablets and those products touted by Samsung, HP, even Dell has several choices, and Nokia is coming out SOON with their own Windows-based mobile systems.
After all, "everyone" likes products other than Apple's, the greedy company, as you say.
And, if you do not like the choices, there is as posted here, the choice of reading all those papers online -- via their traditional websites. That's what I do, right now. Cost me nothing at all -- except all those annoying Ads, and malwares, sometimes, etc., etc.
If you still maintain that doing what Apple does is almost nothing at all, you can always band together with people like yourself and collaborate with companies that will offer this services, for almost nothing at all...
This is a free world, you can establish your own company. Offer your services, "for almost nothing at all"
And, if you make any success out of "nothing at all", share it with us, the services that your group and cohorts will offer "for almost nothing at all".
But please, DO NOT assume that what you believe in, is also what other Apple users believe in. I surely don't. I am hard up financially but I still buy Apple products, if I need them.
Apple Ecosystems
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
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!
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.
Major credit cards don't provide the visibility - which is marketing. Real big difference here. There is nothing stopping you from providing content that Kindle (or for another eReader) can read and selling it on your web site. I think Apple's bottom line is if you want to advertise it through an App (especially one that you give away for free - and generates no direct revenue for Apple) then it is fair to pay a toll. The other way you could approach this is with an iAd for advertising on the device itself or some other print or digital media outlet if you really want to avoid paying Apple all together . If you think 30% is a lot wait till you see how much it is going to cost by marketing your goods in one of these alternative ways!
What visibility Apple is providing? Are they advertising Amazon, Sony... books on iTunes? They are hardly advertising readers apps - all I have downloaded, I have read about somewhere else.
Gizmodo actually offers some pretty good coverage of this, including this bit: "Rhapsody says straight up: 'an Apple-imposed arrangement that requires us to pay 30 percent of our revenue to Apple, in addition to content fees that we pay to the music labels, publishers and artists, is economically untenable.'"
the Giz post - "Apple's New Subscription Model Is Evil" - is stupid bullshit. for good example, it also says:
"But check it. Suppose you've never used Rhapsody before (or the NYT or Rdio or whatever), and you download the app. When you open the app, you need to buy a subscription. Do you:
A) Subscribe on the device, and start getting the stuff you want immediately?
or Wait until you go home and subscribe on your computer?"
the idiot couldn't even think of C) Open Safari (or other Giz-approved browser) on the device, go to Rhapsody's webpage, and sign up there for the subscription before you download/open the app.
is that so hard to figure out? is it such a terrible inconvenience to do?
yes, Rhapsody will have to give up that 30% to those who sign up via its app first. so it should focus all its marketing on bringing potential new customers to its website, not the app. as it has for years anyway. or heck, i suppose they can sign up via the Android app.
of course, Rhapsody's real problem is that is gonna die anyway (sold cheap to ?).
Are you out of your mind. Should Microsoft charge any app 30% for making money on Windows???
Not the same thing. It would impossible to enforce such a thing. Microsoft promotes and licenses Windows as an open development platform, just as Apple does with Mac OS X. There are no restrictions only that each platform proprietor not be held liable for your application and its content.
Apple's iOS is not and has never made such promises. It has been a governed development platform with restrictions subject to Apple's approval.
As a more extreme example of a closed development platform, think of the iPod classics, where only those developers that Apple invited where allowed to create games for the platform.
And even more extreme, the original iPhone only allowed applications that Apple created, just as the iPod nano does now.
Comments
They wouldn't get to that point because Apple requires the in app purchase feature to be implemented.
So, you are worried about iOS customers who have downloaded an Amazon iApp of their own free will, because they enjoy dedicated Apps and have certain expectations of them (which does not include loads of junk Ads and links inside)? You are worried that said customer won't "get to that point", and find out about this oh-so-wonderful option of dealing with Amazon direct -- the very thing thye chose to avoid by downloading the App in the first place! The very thing they rejected by not buying a Kindle eReader in the first place! Oh, they want to do something with their device besides reading books purchased solely from Amazon, how novel? But, surely, these iOS Device users... they don't want to be productive, do they -- don't they know that media tablets are for consumption, and don't they know that Amazon is the king of distribution? How dare they collude with the bad Apple to leave Amazon out in the cold. Amazon deserves free reign wherever we may focus our eyeballs, just like Google does, too. I mean, I paid for that device, dang it, so I can be harangued by Amazon whenever I want. Heck, all the free Apps should be forced to carry Amazon ads, too. Heck, Apple should pay Amazon to sell its wares all over the iTunes Store, because that's what's selling iPads for Pete's sake!
Poor Amazon! Assuming iOS users will never browse their website any more (a big assumption), what are we saying? Amazon has no recourse to shove their direct sales down my throat! Why, they can just send me a bunch of email spam because I once purchased something on their site... oh, wait, they already do! Oh me oh my, it is so difficult for me to read the email blast from Amazon, click on the Amazon link, and buy something on their site! Man, I might get lost on the way; and poor Amazon would lose a sale.
I know, I should feel really bad about this awful situation that Amazon is forced into. I should boycott the in-App purchase and buy directly on the Amazon site (which, don't worry, I am familiar with, because after all, that's only how I have been buying stuff for like 10 years. But you know, I really appreciate the effort that Apple has put into their platform and UX, so I just might go with the in-App purchase, what can I say. What a dilemma, huh? Oh, wait, Amazon do make money every time I buy something with their iApp, just not as much.
Somehow, Amazon managed to get their products in front of me -- because I opted for their iApp, and I don't like their direct mail emails or going to their site, especially; I don't want Amazon to send me suggestions of what they think I might like, and I unsubscribe or ignore their emails whenever possible. But hey, Amazon made a sale off me anyway, what do you know?
Well, I did say that some people would be affected by that. Just not very many. After all people are buying this in record numbers, and a number of these things weren't available earlier on when sales were ramping up rapidly.
There are too many other things in the store, and in iTunes for most people to care about a few.
Apple didn't have competition then. It does now. What do you think will happen if services like Netflix, Kindle, Hulu Plus decide to stick it to iOS and move to Android? What about new services starting out, that decide the Apple subscription tax is too much? It's Apple's customers that will lose out.
It's their right to charge as they wish. Doesn't mean it'll benefit for their customers. And if such moves don't benefit customers, I can't see why most would stick around when there are (increasingly viable) alternatives.
But let's see how all this shakes out.
I would think that the 30% is not only the cost of the transaction, but also for bringing new customers. Everyone gets paid a cut for bringing new customers.
I don't see how this is different from the developers being charged 30% cut for each app purchased.
It's not evil. But it does border on monopolistic. Apple is fully within their rights to do so. But basically slapping a 30% tax on every media distribution app (what most subscriptions services are) that competes with iTunes brings up some rather interesting anti-trust issues.
How so?
Name one competing music or movie store on iOS?
There isn't one. Why? Because Apple said from the very beginning they weren't going to allow it. In spite of all the original restrictions, developers still flocked to the platform. There is not an anti-trust issue here. They've been clear from the beginning.
Even when IAP was first introduced almost two years ago, they made it clear that all content used within the app must be purchased through Apple's IAP system.
These issues are now coming to light and being enforced, because Apple has implemented a subscription model in order to make money from publishers who charge a minuscule amount for subscriptions, but rake in a ton of money from advertising, specifically magazines.
Apple has overlooked apps like Kindle, because there wasn't a need to enforce the rule, now they don't have a choice. You can't force some content distributors to pay and not others.
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post
It's not evil. But it does border on monopolistic. Apple is fully within their rights to do so. But basically slapping a 30% tax on every media distribution app (what most subscriptions services are) that competes with iTunes brings up some rather interesting anti-trust issues.
I'm not sure people fully grasp what a monopoly is or anti-trust.
But in "meatspace" when I see an ad in a magazine and respond, the corner store where I bought said magazine does not get a cut of the transaction.
.
But the magazine where you saw the ad may get a cut.
Search for "per-inquiry advertising." Applies to radio, tv, magazines and print publications.
If you want to use real world analogies, the app store is more like at shopping mall than a store.
Like paying rent to be in the mall.
Like paying rent to be in the mall.
$99 a year plus 30% of your sales and any in app purchases you choose to enable.
Suggesting that Apple should get a 30% cut of forced subscription revenue in addition to that is just as reasonable as suggesting Apple should get a 30% cut of AdMob revenue.
If you want to use real world analogies, the app store is more like at shopping mall than a store.
That's interesting. In a certain sense, I agree with that.
But store owners pay rent. Should Apple charge a good amount for these now free apps? How should they decide, by the amount of sales going through the apps? There isn't any way to look at space the way rent is decided.
Apple didn't have competition then. It does now. What do you think will happen if services like Netflix, Kindle, Hulu Plus decide to stick it to iOS and move to Android? What about new services starting out, that decide the Apple subscription tax is too much? It's Apple's customers that will lose out.
It's their right to charge as they wish. Doesn't mean it'll benefit for their customers. And if such moves don't benefit customers, I can't see why most would stick around when there are (increasingly viable) alternatives.
But let's see how all this shakes out.
It doesn't have competition yet. If the Pricing we're seeing from the majors holds true, they won't sell many.
But, assuming they do, there's little evidence that Android owners are willing to pay for anything. So how will it work over there? Free app, free books and magazines? What's happening here may be a paradise compared to what may happen there.
I'm not sure people fully grasp what a monopoly is or anti-trust.
Why don't you tell us then? Explain how Apple is a monopoly, if that's what you're trying to do. I'd be very interested in what you say.
Your reply makes no sense. Throughout the history of commerce, there have always been middlemen. Apple is no different. They provide the opportunity for you to buy, they get a cut. You don't want to use them, then to go the website. It's as simple as that.
I guess I'm a bit tainted as a shareholder. Anytime I see Apple doing well to make a profit, I'm good, and if they have the market power to outgun Amazon, Sony or whoever, well, then more power to them. They've earned it.
You're wrong if you believe that Apple should be adhering to some sort of social propriety of yours. What? They should make business easy for Amazon or Sony? Because why? No shrewd business would ever do that. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand business.
They're in this business to make money. Get over it.
However, middleman is usually adding his part of pie on top of supplier's price; he is not taking his cut out of supplier's price.
From that point of view, purchases from within the app should be more expensive, for exact amount of middleman's income. It should boil down to:
You can purchase from web site which is a bit more complicated/time consuming, but cheaper
or
You can purchase from the app which is uber-cool and simple and fast, but will cost you more.
As it is, for the same price majority of users will be purchasing through app, especially that there is no link to the web site from within the app. That puts Sony, Amazon... in a bit of paradox situation, as they are expected to invest money in creating application (which is usually free to download from App Store) only to see their income being reduced because people are using that app.
Someone mentioned Sony, Amazon... will be making money even if Apple rips off 30%. Well that might be true, but they will be making much less. Is it going to be enough for them to pay their staff, premises, whatever expenses they have? In that case, why would Apple not sell their products with, say, 5% margin instead of margin they have now - they would still be making profit, right?
I don't know... maybe because I am only iPhone user and don't see SJ as anything else than just another CEO (albeit deadly capable one), but this looks really nasty to me; Apple is exercising their muscles (and showing greed) just a bit too much for my taste.
Are you out of your mind. Should Microsoft charge any app 30% for making money on Windows???
I like your point. MS should charge 30% of any online payment made from Windows, or at least Internet Explorer.
Lets all look at it this way:
This will kill Kindle, Skype, Audible, a bunch of other premium services that we bought our iPads and iPhones for.
Any online service that sells services outside the AppStore must now allow iOS users to buy those services inside the app and thus be subject to a 30% fee. If this is enforced as stated in the article, it could have huge consequences for the content available on the iTunes store.
I would say it is not impossible that Apple actually wants that - force them out and move users to iBooks. I think that would be very much in line with other moves Apple did in the past (like preventing Apple devices to work with anything else but iTunes).
Why don't you tell us then? Explain how Apple is a monopoly, if that's what you're trying to do. I'd be very interested in what you say.
A monopoly is when there is a single entity that has a majority share of a market to the degree that its actions can influence how that market behaves.
Antitrust is when an entity has taken advantage of a situation to promote anti-competitive behavior.
You keep repeating yourself.
Don't buy the products of greedy companies, as you seem to think.
No one can force you to buy Apple products. You have choices -- for e-Readers, there's Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Sony, etc.
I "heard rumors" that those new tablets from all other companies will offer free access to their own Apps store. After all, it won't cost Google, and those companies anything, as you say. You may order Android, Windows 7 tablets and those products touted by Samsung, HP, even Dell has several choices, and Nokia is coming out SOON with their own Windows-based mobile systems.
After all, "everyone" likes products other than Apple's, the greedy company, as you say.
And, if you do not like the choices, there is as posted here, the choice of reading all those papers online -- via their traditional websites. That's what I do, right now. Cost me nothing at all -- except all those annoying Ads, and malwares, sometimes, etc., etc.
If you still maintain that doing what Apple does is almost nothing at all, you can always band together with people like yourself and collaborate with companies that will offer this services, for almost nothing at all...
This is a free world, you can establish your own company. Offer your services, "for almost nothing at all"
And, if you make any success out of "nothing at all", share it with us, the services that your group and cohorts will offer "for almost nothing at all".
But please, DO NOT assume that what you believe in, is also what other Apple users believe in. I surely don't. I am hard up financially but I still buy Apple products, if I need them.
Apple Ecosystems
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!
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.
Major credit cards don't provide the visibility - which is marketing. Real big difference here. There is nothing stopping you from providing content that Kindle (or for another eReader) can read and selling it on your web site. I think Apple's bottom line is if you want to advertise it through an App (especially one that you give away for free - and generates no direct revenue for Apple) then it is fair to pay a toll. The other way you could approach this is with an iAd for advertising on the device itself or some other print or digital media outlet if you really want to avoid paying Apple all together
What visibility Apple is providing? Are they advertising Amazon, Sony... books on iTunes? They are hardly advertising readers apps - all I have downloaded, I have read about somewhere else.
Gizmodo actually offers some pretty good coverage of this, including this bit: "Rhapsody says straight up: 'an Apple-imposed arrangement that requires us to pay 30 percent of our revenue to Apple, in addition to content fees that we pay to the music labels, publishers and artists, is economically untenable.'"
the Giz post - "Apple's New Subscription Model Is Evil" - is stupid bullshit. for good example, it also says:
"But check it. Suppose you've never used Rhapsody before (or the NYT or Rdio or whatever), and you download the app. When you open the app, you need to buy a subscription. Do you:
A) Subscribe on the device, and start getting the stuff you want immediately?
or
the idiot couldn't even think of C) Open Safari (or other Giz-approved browser) on the device, go to Rhapsody's webpage, and sign up there for the subscription before you download/open the app.
is that so hard to figure out? is it such a terrible inconvenience to do?
yes, Rhapsody will have to give up that 30% to those who sign up via its app first. so it should focus all its marketing on bringing potential new customers to its website, not the app. as it has for years anyway. or heck, i suppose they can sign up via the Android app.
of course, Rhapsody's real problem is that is gonna die anyway (sold cheap to ?).
Gizmodo is a trashcan of the blogsphere.
Are you out of your mind. Should Microsoft charge any app 30% for making money on Windows???
Not the same thing. It would impossible to enforce such a thing. Microsoft promotes and licenses Windows as an open development platform, just as Apple does with Mac OS X. There are no restrictions only that each platform proprietor not be held liable for your application and its content.
Apple's iOS is not and has never made such promises. It has been a governed development platform with restrictions subject to Apple's approval.
As a more extreme example of a closed development platform, think of the iPod classics, where only those developers that Apple invited where allowed to create games for the platform.
And even more extreme, the original iPhone only allowed applications that Apple created, just as the iPod nano does now.
They dont host any content.
( is it worth replying to every moron, I wonder?)
It seems now everything becomes Apple product. I would laugh here, but such perspective is actually a bit scary.
I'm really happy this year will see some decent alternatives to iPad.