Oh no, that's not true! Apple shows these apps in their tv commercials. Developers say that it results in big sales.
In addition, just go to iTunes and the App store. You'll see featured apps, favorites and such. This also results in bigger sales.
Even in their paper Ads, you can see the names of the apps in the pictures. People buy these apps. As Apple rotates them, sales move around.
From my personal experience with iTunes and Apps Store, I can't see a value in what Apple does (in order to promote apps and media) as worth 30% of the price.
I will say again that it is my personal opinion only... but as it is, I will be surprised if all those electronic publishers remain with Apple after all this.
If I were Amazon I would make IAP painfully tedious so that people would find it less tedious to do it on the website
I already prefer to do it on the Amazon website, simply because their website is so well done. One-click purchasing, full reviews of books, comparison prices between Kindle and printed versions, great search.
From my personal experience with iTunes and Apps Store, I can't see a value in what Apple does (in order to promote apps and media) as worth 30% of the price.
I will say again that it is my personal opinion only... but as it is, I will be surprised if all those electronic publishers remain with Apple after all this.
It's called exposure. Exposure to a group of users that are willing to spend money. A group of users that accounted for 80%+ of all app revenue made by all mobile devices last year. If any publisher or developer would be willing to pass up that demographic for a mere 30% fee (which is peanuts to a publisher compared to all the other revenue brought in from advertising), then more luck to them.
It amazes me that no one sees any VALUE in something like that!?
The only apps that may disappear are the content resellers, who are hawking other people's content through their stores.
You are apparently not the only one thinking that way... Wall Street Journal is also thinking about possible antitrust issues.
That wasn't very convincing, was it? I'm of the opinion that Apple would win any case here. The market is way too new to determine any company's position in it. That could change during the years that a case could run.
I know there's no way for this to not sound... "Trollish," but if you defend Apple on this, then you are biased. You are an Apple fanboy.
Please, don't try and debate this. It's a fact. If you support this, you are an Apple fanboy. It's just that simple, no matter how you rationalize it.
This has three immediate outcomes:
(1)Subscription service providers suck it up, and give a massive portion of their profit to Apple (remember, this isn't 30% of the profit they make, but 30% of the REVENUE).
(2)Subscription service providers can't afford this, so they raise their prices (not just in the App store, but everywhere, since Apple won't allow it to be more expensive for just them).
(3)Subscription service providers pull out from Apple's closed off eco-system, leaving Apple's own competing services with less or no competition.
It's no surprise Apple is enforcing this now. In every one of those, Apple wins, but the competitor loses. The customer also loses in every one of those, too; either direct or indirectly. But they're still losing; we're still losing.
Please don't be a fanboy to a company like this. They're so much worse than Microsoft ever was.
Perhaps you should have edited your post for trollism instead.
From my personal experience with iTunes and Apps Store, I can't see a value in what Apple does (in order to promote apps and media) as worth 30% of the price.
I will say again that it is my personal opinion only... but as it is, I will be surprised if all those electronic publishers remain with Apple after all this.
Maybe you don't, but then, you're not a developer trying to make money.
It's called exposure. Exposure to a group of users that are willing to spend money. A group of users that accounted for 80%+ of all app revenue made by all mobile devices last year. If any publisher or developer would be willing to pass up that demographic for a mere 30% fee (which is peanuts to a publisher compared to all the other revenue brought in from advertising), then more luck to them.
It amazes me that no one sees any VALUE in something like that!?
The only apps that may disappear are the content resellers, who are hawking other people's content through their stores.
Well, someone who doesn't want to see the value in it, won't.
did some more thinking on this and....This is Apple going after distributors without a doubt. It's trying to cut out the middle man and get publishers to work directly with Apple.
did some more thinking on this and....This is Apple going after distributors without a doubt. It's trying to cut out the middle man and get publishers to work directly with Apple.
Apple wants an iBookstore deal with Random House. Forcing the Kindle app and other e-bookreaders out of the App Store helps to frame a compelling argument that Random House needs the iBookstore to have access to millions of iOS devices.
Based on most of my posts, I imagine many might consider me an Apple fanboy. And I am also an Apple shareholder. But, I feel that this situation with subscription content and third-party retailers/distributors feels like it could blow up and wok against Apple's long-term interest.
It's called exposure. Exposure to a group of users that are willing to spend money. A group of users that accounted for 80%+ of all app revenue made by all mobile devices last year. If any publisher or developer would be willing to pass up that demographic for a mere 30% fee (which is peanuts to a publisher compared to all the other revenue brought in from advertising), then more luck to them.
It amazes me that no one sees any VALUE in something like that!?
The only apps that may disappear are the content resellers, who are hawking other people's content through their stores.
Publishers do. At work they did a number of studies and people with Ipads are far and away more willing to spend their money on subscription type services. I mean the results were so astounding they did repeat studies and additional studies and they all confirmed the same thing.
I feel that this situation with subscription content and third-party retailers/distributors feels like it could blow up and wok against Apple's long-term interest.
It could. But so could letting Kindle become completely dominant because it runs on the iPad as well as the Kindle and the Nook Color with jailbreak. That's probably pissing of B&N to some degree.
It could. But so could letting Kindle become completely dominant because it runs on the iPad as well as the Kindle and the Nook Color with jailbreak. That's probably pissing of B&N to some degree.
Don't get me wrong - these companies should definitely be paying for access to Apple's customers (plus the payment processing fees), but thirty percent just seems too much.
My major concern is for the long-term relationships that Apple establishes with publishers and other content providers. It appears, based on the information we have, that Apple has run a bit roughshod over them.
Here's a pretty good article that covers some of the issues:
Here's a couple of questions: if Apple execs didn't run the new requirements past big media companies, can Apple be sure how they will respond? What if Apple succeeds only in pushing them into the arms of Amazon or another competitor?
and
Quote:
Some newspaper publishers suspect Apple is trying to lock them into the App Store and is "setting itself up as a toll taker," according to Joshua Benton, director of Harvard's Nieman Journalism Lab who formerly worked for the Dallas Morning News.
"It's disappointing to learn that in exchange for the convenience of a 'Buy' button in their iPad app," Benton wrote, "[publishers will] have to give up 30 percent of the revenue."
In that case Apple should charge end users (or publishers, if publishers opt to keep end users' cost at zero) for every downloaded copy of application, as application is the one that gets "exposure" on App Store and is hosted by Apple.
Apple charges 30% of every single download of any developer's app. Very few are complaining, and many have made a LOT of money by sticking with the app store. Why should books be different?
I know there's no way for this to not sound... "Trollish," but if you defend Apple on this, then you are biased. You are an Apple fanboy.
Please, don't try and debate this. It's a fact. If you support this, you are an Apple fanboy. It's just that simple, no matter how you rationalize it.
This has three immediate outcomes:
(1)Subscription service providers suck it up, and give a massive portion of their profit to Apple (remember, this isn't 30% of the profit they make, but 30% of the REVENUE).
(2)Subscription service providers can't afford this, so they raise their prices (not just in the App store, but everywhere, since Apple won't allow it to be more expensive for just them).
(3)Subscription service providers pull out from Apple's closed off eco-system, leaving Apple's own competing services with less or no competition.
It's no surprise Apple is enforcing this now. In every one of those, Apple wins, but the competitor loses. The customer also loses in every one of those, too; either direct or indirectly. But they're still losing; we're still losing.
Please don't be a fanboy to a company like this. They're so much worse than Microsoft ever was.
If you are so confident in your opinion why tell people they can't respond? I really don't think you have any basis to label someone else. Everyone has their opinions. You make statements without much basis.
Don't get me wrong - these companies should definitely be paying for access to Apple's customers (plus the payment processing fees), but thirty percent just seems too much.
My major concern is for the long-term relationships that Apple establishes with publishers and other content providers. It appears, based on the information we have, that Apple has run a bit roughshod over them.
Here's a pretty good article that covers some of the issues:
Well, if they can make $75M selling same stuff outside of iTunes (which is still more than what they are left with, after Apple cuts their share)... why would they stay?
That's simply not what happens. The revenue Amazon get from the iPad is IN ADDITION to what they are getting from their Kindle readers.
Think about this from a publisher's point of view. Why would they tolerate selling through Amazon if they shut down half of the sources of revenue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
For me, question is not if Apple can try to pull that sort of move... it is more like, can that move be good for Apple and their users, in the long run?
It's obviously much better for users if
1) they are not forced to leave apps to make purchases
2) their subscription details are not resold to marketing companies.
It would be worse for users if great content left the app store. My guess is really not going to happen. Publishers are not that stupid.
Comments
Thank you. I'm glad someone understands and appreciates the undebatable truth behind my words.
Take comfort in the outcome... Moses was the bearer of the "first Holy Tablets", and the Pharoah got his pyramid to immortalize him.
Both however would be just a dust in the infinite of time...
Apple Ecosystems
Oh no, that's not true! Apple shows these apps in their tv commercials. Developers say that it results in big sales.
In addition, just go to iTunes and the App store. You'll see featured apps, favorites and such. This also results in bigger sales.
Even in their paper Ads, you can see the names of the apps in the pictures. People buy these apps. As Apple rotates them, sales move around.
From my personal experience with iTunes and Apps Store, I can't see a value in what Apple does (in order to promote apps and media) as worth 30% of the price.
I will say again that it is my personal opinion only... but as it is, I will be surprised if all those electronic publishers remain with Apple after all this.
If I were Amazon I would make IAP painfully tedious so that people would find it less tedious to do it on the website
I already prefer to do it on the Amazon website, simply because their website is so well done. One-click purchasing, full reviews of books, comparison prices between Kindle and printed versions, great search.
From my personal experience with iTunes and Apps Store, I can't see a value in what Apple does (in order to promote apps and media) as worth 30% of the price.
I will say again that it is my personal opinion only... but as it is, I will be surprised if all those electronic publishers remain with Apple after all this.
It's called exposure. Exposure to a group of users that are willing to spend money. A group of users that accounted for 80%+ of all app revenue made by all mobile devices last year. If any publisher or developer would be willing to pass up that demographic for a mere 30% fee (which is peanuts to a publisher compared to all the other revenue brought in from advertising), then more luck to them.
It amazes me that no one sees any VALUE in something like that!?
The only apps that may disappear are the content resellers, who are hawking other people's content through their stores.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...997208194.html
You are apparently not the only one thinking that way... Wall Street Journal is also thinking about possible antitrust issues.
That wasn't very convincing, was it? I'm of the opinion that Apple would win any case here. The market is way too new to determine any company's position in it. That could change during the years that a case could run.
I know there's no way for this to not sound... "Trollish," but if you defend Apple on this, then you are biased. You are an Apple fanboy.
Please, don't try and debate this. It's a fact. If you support this, you are an Apple fanboy. It's just that simple, no matter how you rationalize it.
This has three immediate outcomes:
(1)Subscription service providers suck it up, and give a massive portion of their profit to Apple (remember, this isn't 30% of the profit they make, but 30% of the REVENUE).
(2)Subscription service providers can't afford this, so they raise their prices (not just in the App store, but everywhere, since Apple won't allow it to be more expensive for just them).
(3)Subscription service providers pull out from Apple's closed off eco-system, leaving Apple's own competing services with less or no competition.
It's no surprise Apple is enforcing this now. In every one of those, Apple wins, but the competitor loses. The customer also loses in every one of those, too; either direct or indirectly. But they're still losing; we're still losing.
Please don't be a fanboy to a company like this. They're so much worse than Microsoft ever was.
Perhaps you should have edited your post for trollism instead.
From my personal experience with iTunes and Apps Store, I can't see a value in what Apple does (in order to promote apps and media) as worth 30% of the price.
I will say again that it is my personal opinion only... but as it is, I will be surprised if all those electronic publishers remain with Apple after all this.
Maybe you don't, but then, you're not a developer trying to make money.
It's called exposure. Exposure to a group of users that are willing to spend money. A group of users that accounted for 80%+ of all app revenue made by all mobile devices last year. If any publisher or developer would be willing to pass up that demographic for a mere 30% fee (which is peanuts to a publisher compared to all the other revenue brought in from advertising), then more luck to them.
It amazes me that no one sees any VALUE in something like that!?
The only apps that may disappear are the content resellers, who are hawking other people's content through their stores.
Well, someone who doesn't want to see the value in it, won't.
did some more thinking on this and....This is Apple going after distributors without a doubt. It's trying to cut out the middle man and get publishers to work directly with Apple.
Apple wants an iBookstore deal with Random House. Forcing the Kindle app and other e-bookreaders out of the App Store helps to frame a compelling argument that Random House needs the iBookstore to have access to millions of iOS devices.
Based on most of my posts, I imagine many might consider me an Apple fanboy. And I am also an Apple shareholder. But, I feel that this situation with subscription content and third-party retailers/distributors feels like it could blow up and wok against Apple's long-term interest.
It's called exposure. Exposure to a group of users that are willing to spend money. A group of users that accounted for 80%+ of all app revenue made by all mobile devices last year. If any publisher or developer would be willing to pass up that demographic for a mere 30% fee (which is peanuts to a publisher compared to all the other revenue brought in from advertising), then more luck to them.
It amazes me that no one sees any VALUE in something like that!?
The only apps that may disappear are the content resellers, who are hawking other people's content through their stores.
Publishers do. At work they did a number of studies and people with Ipads are far and away more willing to spend their money on subscription type services. I mean the results were so astounding they did repeat studies and additional studies and they all confirmed the same thing.
I feel that this situation with subscription content and third-party retailers/distributors feels like it could blow up and wok against Apple's long-term interest.
It could. But so could letting Kindle become completely dominant because it runs on the iPad as well as the Kindle and the Nook Color with jailbreak. That's probably pissing of B&N to some degree.
It could. But so could letting Kindle become completely dominant because it runs on the iPad as well as the Kindle and the Nook Color with jailbreak. That's probably pissing of B&N to some degree.
Don't get me wrong - these companies should definitely be paying for access to Apple's customers (plus the payment processing fees), but thirty percent just seems too much.
My major concern is for the long-term relationships that Apple establishes with publishers and other content providers. It appears, based on the information we have, that Apple has run a bit roughshod over them.
Here's a pretty good article that covers some of the issues:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20032143-261.html
From the article:
Here's a couple of questions: if Apple execs didn't run the new requirements past big media companies, can Apple be sure how they will respond? What if Apple succeeds only in pushing them into the arms of Amazon or another competitor?
and
Some newspaper publishers suspect Apple is trying to lock them into the App Store and is "setting itself up as a toll taker," according to Joshua Benton, director of Harvard's Nieman Journalism Lab who formerly worked for the Dallas Morning News.
"It's disappointing to learn that in exchange for the convenience of a 'Buy' button in their iPad app," Benton wrote, "[publishers will] have to give up 30 percent of the revenue."
In that case Apple should charge end users (or publishers, if publishers opt to keep end users' cost at zero) for every downloaded copy of application, as application is the one that gets "exposure" on App Store and is hosted by Apple.
Apple charges 30% of every single download of any developer's app. Very few are complaining, and many have made a LOT of money by sticking with the app store. Why should books be different?
I know there's no way for this to not sound... "Trollish," but if you defend Apple on this, then you are biased. You are an Apple fanboy.
You win! You are a troll!
I know there's no way for this to not sound... "Trollish," but if you defend Apple on this, then you are biased. You are an Apple fanboy.
Please, don't try and debate this. It's a fact. If you support this, you are an Apple fanboy. It's just that simple, no matter how you rationalize it.
This has three immediate outcomes:
(1)Subscription service providers suck it up, and give a massive portion of their profit to Apple (remember, this isn't 30% of the profit they make, but 30% of the REVENUE).
(2)Subscription service providers can't afford this, so they raise their prices (not just in the App store, but everywhere, since Apple won't allow it to be more expensive for just them).
(3)Subscription service providers pull out from Apple's closed off eco-system, leaving Apple's own competing services with less or no competition.
It's no surprise Apple is enforcing this now. In every one of those, Apple wins, but the competitor loses. The customer also loses in every one of those, too; either direct or indirectly. But they're still losing; we're still losing.
Please don't be a fanboy to a company like this. They're so much worse than Microsoft ever was.
If you are so confident in your opinion why tell people they can't respond? I really don't think you have any basis to label someone else. Everyone has their opinions. You make statements without much basis.
Don't get me wrong - these companies should definitely be paying for access to Apple's customers (plus the payment processing fees), but thirty percent just seems too much.
My major concern is for the long-term relationships that Apple establishes with publishers and other content providers. It appears, based on the information we have, that Apple has run a bit roughshod over them.
Here's a pretty good article that covers some of the issues:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20032143-261.html
From the article:
and
I think it's too early to know just yet if this is bad or good because Apple didn't really explain the whys.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...997208194.html
You are apparently not the only one thinking that way... Wall Street Journal is also thinking about possible antitrust issues.
Doesn't the Amazon book store have an unfair advantage on the Kindle reader?
C.
Well, if they can make $75M selling same stuff outside of iTunes (which is still more than what they are left with, after Apple cuts their share)... why would they stay?
That's simply not what happens. The revenue Amazon get from the iPad is IN ADDITION to what they are getting from their Kindle readers.
Think about this from a publisher's point of view. Why would they tolerate selling through Amazon if they shut down half of the sources of revenue?
For me, question is not if Apple can try to pull that sort of move... it is more like, can that move be good for Apple and their users, in the long run?
It's obviously much better for users if
1) they are not forced to leave apps to make purchases
2) their subscription details are not resold to marketing companies.
It would be worse for users if great content left the app store. My guess is really not going to happen. Publishers are not that stupid.
C.
Doesn't the Amazon book store have an unfair advantage on the Kindle reader?
C.
Why not give readers the option of the iBooks or some other format?