I agree with what you've said except the part about greed. We know that Apple makes very little profit on the 30% they charge. That's not greed. That's wanting to cover their expenses, and insure that they do by running slightly in the black. Every company should be doing this. You may be unhappy about what Apple is doing, but don't try to characterize it that way, because you know it's not true.
The greed part applied to the new subscription charge. That is almost pure profit relative to their income from apps now. EDIT: Perhaps the greed is really just a desire for consistency (30% across the board) and cooler heads will prevail. The service they are providing is not worth 30% from my perspective.
Quote:
That's not likely correct either! If the subs are in the app store, and you download an update, where do you think that comes from? The app store! It doesn't come directly from the publisher. The update notifications come through the app store, and that's where the download is also coming from. Just think about it.
This is a "problem" associated with all free apps. No need to single out subscriptions. A lot of free apps use AdMob ads to generate revenue. Does Apple deserve 30% of that too?
Hulu won't be missed? Netflix won't be missed? Amazon outsells iBooks by a ridiculous margin, they won't be missed? I'm not saying all these services are leaving, but they definitly would be missed if they did.
This isn't just about "middle men" either. If Fox decides to stream their channels online for a fee, are they a middle man? This affects everyone who wants to sell video, text, music, or any other content across multiple platforms using services other than Apples regardless of whether or not they are distributing it on behalf of themselves are a third party.
It's not about whether they would be missed. Of course they would. But what would the actual impact be? I think it would be small, not large. It would be disconcerting though.
But I think they will work with it. It's interesting that neither Amazon nor B&N has yet commented. So they must be evaluating it, working with the numbers, and even possibly talking to Apple.
But I think they will work with it. It's interesting that neither Amazon nor B&N has yet commented. So they must be evaluating it, working with the numbers, and even possibly talking to Apple.
I also suspect that the 30% figure is not actually carved on a tablet of stone and carried down from the summit of Mount Cupertino by the Lord Jobs himself.
Hulu won't be missed? Netflix won't be missed? Amazon outsells iBooks by a ridiculous margin, they won't be missed? I'm not saying all these services are leaving, but they definitly would be missed if they did.
I wouldn't miss Netflix (or Hulu). Watching video on the tiny screen just isn't something I really care much about. I rather lose the Netflix rather than have them raise the price on me to cover the 30%. Netflix has already raised their prices since they started added titles to streaming.
Companies have a long time before they have to do anything. June 30 is months away,
It's not about whether they would be missed. Of course they would. But what would the actual impact be? I think it would be small, not large. It would be disconcerting though.
But I think they will work with it. It's interesting that neither Amazon nor B&N has yet commented. So they must be evaluating it, working with the numbers, and even possibly talking to Apple.
I'm hoping they're planning a joint press conference to announce their removal from the app store on June 30th. It's unlikely, but that's what I'd like to see at this point (not that I want to see them go, I just want to to see Apple pressured into revising their terms into something more fair).
The greed part applied to the new subscription charge. That is almost pure profit relative to their income from apps now.
This is where it gets annoying. You know nothing about the numbers at all. That's pretty obvious, as Apple and financial people have all said that Apple runs the store at a very small profit. Apple will be hosting this software, and will be using bandwidth to send it, all of which they pay for. If a magazine or book is ordered sighing Apple's system, that will happen, you are simply making this up to suit your argument, but it's wrong.
I don't even mind if you say that "you think" Apple is greedy for doing this. Then it's pretty clear that it's just your opinion. But when you state it as fact, it's something else. It's not a fact. It's even wrong.
Quote:
This is a "problem" associated with all free apps. No need to single out subscriptions. A lot of free apps use AdMob ads to generate revenue. Does Apple deserve 30% of that too?
Yes, I said it applies to all apps. And Apple is acting as an Ad agency. In fact, it owns an Ad agency. I worked for a big one a long time ago. And so yes there as well. Ad agencies always get paid for their work. Apple is very involved in all the Ads placed from within iADs. You think Google isn't getting paid for all the Ads on Android? They make, according to a report recently, 97% of their money from Ads. Do you object to that as well? If not, why?
I'm hoping they're planning a joint press conference to announce their removal from the app store on June 30th. It's unlikely, but that's what I'd like to see at this point (not that I want to see them go, I just want to to see Apple pressured into revising their terms into something more fair).
Well, that's just silly! You don't like what Apple is doing, so you hope that everyone else agrees with you as well. Fine. But what if Amazon and B&N have it worked out to their satisfaction? You want them to leave anyway just so you can be proved right? That's a numbskull idea!
Well, that's just silly! You don't like what Apple is doing, so you hope that everyone else agrees with you as well. Fine. But what if Amazon and B&N have it worked out to their satisfaction? You want them to leave anyway just so you can be proved right? That's a numbskull idea!
I don't believe they are happy and I just thought it was the most humorous (from my perspective) way to resolve it. I definitely don't expect you to share my sense of humor.
If they are happy and no costs are ever passed onto me, and none of my favorite apps get blocked from the App Store, I guess I'd be happy with the changes. I just don't see that as a likely outcome. From my perspective, I think the most likely outcome is Apple quietly backing off on their terms. Perhaps allowing "reader" apps without in-app purchases, provided they don't mention or link to the website. If I'm wrong, you can call me on it. I have been pretty adamant that this is a raw deal and you reap what you sow. If I'm right, I'm not going to be linking old posts saying I was right, that's not why I'm here. I just like a good debate.
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.
What Apple 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. ....
(IMO, that's called a choice.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2
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.
They are not "required" to do anything. They, like all businessmen, look at each situation and decide, on their own, if it's beneficial to participate, or not. If they think it is .... then participate. If they don't think that it is .... then don't participate. ... simple. .... Just don't squawk about how Apple is "forcing" them to do anything , because they're not. This is how all businesses work. You do a cost/benefit analysis and then make a decision based on your findings.
It's just plain stupid to say ...."I want to participate in your store, but it's too expensive, so you have to lower your prices for me".
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2
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.
They wanted exposure to Apple's ecosystem (think 100 million IOS device owners) by way of a "free" app (that Apple hosts for nothing) and then take the customer out of the app so as to bypass paying Apple anything ..... are you going to tell me that Apple should stand by and fall for that .... come on, even you must see that idiocy to think that that's the "right business decision".
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2
Do I really need to go on?
Only if you are going to say something somewhat intelligent.
Subscription service providers pull out from Apple's closed off eco-system, leaving Apple's own competing services with less or no competition.
What competing services? .... What "content" does Apple create? None ... they rely on content providers to see the value in choosing the Apple App Store. If the majority do ... Apple wins .... If the majority choose someone else ... Apple loses. .... What could be more fair?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voight-Kampff
It's no surprise Apple is enforcing this now. In every one of those, Apple wins, but the competitor loses.
And just what is your "business model" ..... one where your competitor wins, .. but you lose? ... Brilliant! .... Who do I make the cheque out to? ....
I love how anyone who disagrees with a move Apple makes is a troll. I have some different metrics to determine who's trolling. One of them is more than 3 consecutive posts and yet you've done TEN (10!) consecutive posts?!?!
Seriously, that's more than I've ever seen tekstud (or any of his subsequent user names) use. Use multi-quote next time.
As an aside, the Kindle example hardly applies. Apple still only allows one music store on iOS and that's iTunes and just like iTunes will accept any DRM free mp3, the kindle will accept any DRM free eBook it can read as well. We're discussing a much broader topic than one content store. We're talking about an entire development platform, something that Amazon is just getting into with the Kindle.
No, you can disagree, but senseless harping based on self-serving entering arguments and lack of willingness to even acknowledge the facts on the playing field don't show a willingness to debate. if you aren't willing to play fairly, you are trolling. If you play fairly and disagree everyone wins.
I did think it was humorous when my posts lined up. Simply a morning romp through the thread and amazingly there was only one interspersing post over the course of an hour. Is it my fault y'all took a break then? Multi quote wasn't appropriate anyway as I was addressing each post on it's own merits, I do use it when it makes sense and have already in this thread. So thakee Sai for your input, but I'll do it my way.
The multi-posting thing also seems to be giving you a fit because your Kindle response must be directed to someone else. Maybe you should take my tactic and reply to the appropriate poster rather than errantly stuff it all into one post and miss the mark. Dont'cha hate it when you become the example for avoiding your own advice?
As for broader topics such as what Amazon intends to do with Kindle, that's not the topic of this thread, so your points miss the mark when discussing iOS subscriptions anyway.
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.
"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. ....
(IMO, that's called a choice.)
They removed a choice from the developer and hid one from the customer. If the developer was able to choose whether or not they used in-app purchases, I'd have absolutely no qualms with this service.
Quote:
They are not "required" to do anything. They, like all businessmen, look at each situation and decide, on their own, if it's beneficial to participate, or not. If they think it is .... then participate. If they don't think that it is .... then don't participate. ... simple. .... Just don't squawk about how Apple is "forcing" them to do anything , because they're not. This is how all businesses work. You do a cost/benefit analysis and then make a decision based on your findings.
It's just plain stupid to say ...."I want to participate in your store, but it's too expensive, so you have to lower your prices for me".
They are required to support in-app purchases if they wish to remain in the app store. I'm sorry I didn't spell "in the app store" out for you. Why are you talking about new developers? I was talking about existing ones. If you were renting and your landlord knocked on your door saying he was doubling your rent, damn right you'd be pissed, and it wouldn't be absurd to ask for a lower rate. After all you've paid your rent on time, every time for the last two years. Are you familiar with the term "bait and switch"? Apple hasn't gone that far, but the change certainly isn't nice to a lot of app developers and content providers who have been using Apple's system.
Quote:
They wanted exposure to Apple's ecosystem (think 100 million IOS device owners) by way of a "free" app (that Apple hosts for nothing) and then take the customer out of the app so as to bypass paying Apple anything ..... are you going to tell me that Apple should stand by and fall for that .... come on, even you must see that idiocy to think that that's the "right business decision".
I've repeatably said Apple deserves to be paid and they are paid by virtue of the $99 developer fee and 30% of paid apps as well as increased iOS device sales from these free apps. If Apple feels they aren't getting enough from free apps, they should do something about that, not charge 30% to process a subscription. For example, why do you think that subscription apps should be paying for all the free apps that make money using Google's AdMob ads? Aren't they getting a "free ride" too? What would Google say if Apple started asking for a 30% cut of AdMob revenue?
Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon aren't even bypassing the app store. They are existing services. Yes, Apple would only get money if the user opened an account from within the app, but a lifetime 30% referral fee is a little much.
Hulu won't be missed? Netflix won't be missed? Amazon outsells iBooks by a ridiculous margin, they won't be missed? I'm not saying all these services are leaving, but they definitly would be missed if they did.
Apple survived without Netflix, Hulu and books altogether. iTunes survived without the biggest selling band of all-time (The Beatles) and still are without Led Zep's catalog. If Netflix (etc.) go a different route Apple will be fine. They will continue to make money off the business's that know the iOS/App Store model works for them.
Also, the iPad/iPhone/iPod are so popular that customers will drive demand for Netflix, Amazon and Hulu to support iDevices. If they don't, iDevice users will find an alternative product to suite there needs (or Apple will supply their own).
I guess consumers (over time) could switch to another tablet device (Android/Win Mobile 7) but if I just spent $700 - $1000 on an iPad, i am gonna use it for a couple before I sink the same amount into another device... and who knows where we will be in 2years?
No, you can disagree, but senseless harping based on self-serving entering arguments and lack of willingness to even acknowledge the facts on the playing field don't show a willingness to debate. if you aren't willing to play fairly, you are trolling. If you play fairly and disagree everyone wins.
I did think it was humorous when my posts lined up. Simply a morning romp through the thread and amazingly there was only one interspersing post over the course of an hour. Is it my fault y'all took a break then? Multi quote wasn't appropriate anyway as I was addressing each post on it's own merits, I do use it when it makes sense and have already in this thread. So thakee Sai for your input, but I'll do it my way.
Yeah I should have kept the multiposting comments to myself. It was somewhat humorous.
Quote:
The multi-posting thing also seems to be giving you a fit because your Kindle response must be directed to someone else. Maybe you should take my tactic and reply to the appropriate poster rather than errantly stuff it all into one post and miss the mark. Dont'cha hate it when you become the example for avoiding your own advice?
These forums don't do nested quotes by default, but I'd expect that you should at least remember the context of your own quote. You were quoting someone who mentioned Amazon and the Kindle, saying they were right and the other guy was a troll. I said that example that you were praising wasn't that great.
Quote:
As for broader topics such as what Amazon intends to do with Kindle, that's not the topic of this thread, so your points miss the mark when discussing iOS subscriptions anyway.
This thread has a singular topic? Other people have said "but the Kindle has a SDK too" in some context related to this thread but I'm not allowed to respond to them? I worded my response in anticipation of future comments based on what I was saying so I didn't have to reply again. I guess it was unnecessary. Taken in the context of everything that's been said here, they fit, but if you haven't followed the thread too closely, perhaps not.
But we aren't discussing the "App Store" in general, we are discussing in-app purchases within an app sold in the App Store. So we did leave the greater mall and entered a single store, in my analogy a grocery store -- maybe a Target Greatland if that makes you feel better since they are attached to malls all over.
Try to be careful and not miss the actual content of the thread.
The problem is simply this ... and I'll use the analogy of a "brick and mortar store" to simplify it.
If a store, in a mall say, .... had one of the other store's owners come in and say:
You know, I've noticed that you seem to "attract a lot of customers" in your store. They must like what they see here..... so here's what I propose: Let me hang a sign in your store .... promoting my store, so I can take advantage of your fantastic customer volume ..... oh, and by the way, I want that, at no cost to me. Thanks!
I don't know about you, but if that happened to me ... I'd throw him out on his ass. ....
Comments
I agree with what you've said except the part about greed. We know that Apple makes very little profit on the 30% they charge. That's not greed. That's wanting to cover their expenses, and insure that they do by running slightly in the black. Every company should be doing this. You may be unhappy about what Apple is doing, but don't try to characterize it that way, because you know it's not true.
The greed part applied to the new subscription charge. That is almost pure profit relative to their income from apps now. EDIT: Perhaps the greed is really just a desire for consistency (30% across the board) and cooler heads will prevail. The service they are providing is not worth 30% from my perspective.
That's not likely correct either! If the subs are in the app store, and you download an update, where do you think that comes from? The app store! It doesn't come directly from the publisher. The update notifications come through the app store, and that's where the download is also coming from. Just think about it.
This is a "problem" associated with all free apps. No need to single out subscriptions. A lot of free apps use AdMob ads to generate revenue. Does Apple deserve 30% of that too?
I love your logic. "They still make money, so it's alright"
In my example, Fox would probably go with a web app, but that's neither here nor there. They would not find Apple's terms reasonable.
The only reason that publishers recognise is the figure at the bottom of the sheet.
70% of a lot will always win over 100% of not very much.
C.
Hulu won't be missed? Netflix won't be missed? Amazon outsells iBooks by a ridiculous margin, they won't be missed? I'm not saying all these services are leaving, but they definitly would be missed if they did.
This isn't just about "middle men" either. If Fox decides to stream their channels online for a fee, are they a middle man? This affects everyone who wants to sell video, text, music, or any other content across multiple platforms using services other than Apples regardless of whether or not they are distributing it on behalf of themselves are a third party.
It's not about whether they would be missed. Of course they would. But what would the actual impact be? I think it would be small, not large. It would be disconcerting though.
But I think they will work with it. It's interesting that neither Amazon nor B&N has yet commented. So they must be evaluating it, working with the numbers, and even possibly talking to Apple.
But I think they will work with it. It's interesting that neither Amazon nor B&N has yet commented. So they must be evaluating it, working with the numbers, and even possibly talking to Apple.
I also suspect that the 30% figure is not actually carved on a tablet of stone and carried down from the summit of Mount Cupertino by the Lord Jobs himself.
C.
Hulu won't be missed? Netflix won't be missed? Amazon outsells iBooks by a ridiculous margin, they won't be missed? I'm not saying all these services are leaving, but they definitly would be missed if they did.
I wouldn't miss Netflix (or Hulu). Watching video on the tiny screen just isn't something I really care much about. I rather lose the Netflix rather than have them raise the price on me to cover the 30%. Netflix has already raised their prices since they started added titles to streaming.
Companies have a long time before they have to do anything. June 30 is months away,
It's not about whether they would be missed. Of course they would. But what would the actual impact be? I think it would be small, not large. It would be disconcerting though.
But I think they will work with it. It's interesting that neither Amazon nor B&N has yet commented. So they must be evaluating it, working with the numbers, and even possibly talking to Apple.
I'm hoping they're planning a joint press conference to announce their removal from the app store on June 30th. It's unlikely, but that's what I'd like to see at this point (not that I want to see them go, I just want to to see Apple pressured into revising their terms into something more fair).
The greed part applied to the new subscription charge. That is almost pure profit relative to their income from apps now.
This is where it gets annoying. You know nothing about the numbers at all. That's pretty obvious, as Apple and financial people have all said that Apple runs the store at a very small profit. Apple will be hosting this software, and will be using bandwidth to send it, all of which they pay for. If a magazine or book is ordered sighing Apple's system, that will happen, you are simply making this up to suit your argument, but it's wrong.
I don't even mind if you say that "you think" Apple is greedy for doing this. Then it's pretty clear that it's just your opinion. But when you state it as fact, it's something else. It's not a fact. It's even wrong.
This is a "problem" associated with all free apps. No need to single out subscriptions. A lot of free apps use AdMob ads to generate revenue. Does Apple deserve 30% of that too?
Yes, I said it applies to all apps. And Apple is acting as an Ad agency. In fact, it owns an Ad agency. I worked for a big one a long time ago. And so yes there as well. Ad agencies always get paid for their work. Apple is very involved in all the Ads placed from within iADs. You think Google isn't getting paid for all the Ads on Android? They make, according to a report recently, 97% of their money from Ads. Do you object to that as well? If not, why?
They are connected, just not directly (but I never said they were).
PS: Democracy is a political system, not an economic one.
Communism is a political system too .... try "earning your fortune" under it.
I'm hoping they're planning a joint press conference to announce their removal from the app store on June 30th. It's unlikely, but that's what I'd like to see at this point (not that I want to see them go, I just want to to see Apple pressured into revising their terms into something more fair).
Well, that's just silly! You don't like what Apple is doing, so you hope that everyone else agrees with you as well. Fine. But what if Amazon and B&N have it worked out to their satisfaction? You want them to leave anyway just so you can be proved right? That's a numbskull idea!
Well, that's just silly! You don't like what Apple is doing, so you hope that everyone else agrees with you as well. Fine. But what if Amazon and B&N have it worked out to their satisfaction? You want them to leave anyway just so you can be proved right? That's a numbskull idea!
I don't believe they are happy and I just thought it was the most humorous (from my perspective) way to resolve it. I definitely don't expect you to share my sense of humor.
If they are happy and no costs are ever passed onto me, and none of my favorite apps get blocked from the App Store, I guess I'd be happy with the changes. I just don't see that as a likely outcome. From my perspective, I think the most likely outcome is Apple quietly backing off on their terms. Perhaps allowing "reader" apps without in-app purchases, provided they don't mention or link to the website. If I'm wrong, you can call me on it. I have been pretty adamant that this is a raw deal and you reap what you sow. If I'm right, I'm not going to be linking old posts saying I was right, that's not why I'm here. I just like a good debate.
. I just like a good debate.
Me too.
What I like about these discussions is that time itself is the referee. In a month or twelve we get to see who is right. (If anyone).
C.
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.
What Apple 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. ....
(IMO, that's called a choice.)
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.
They are not "required" to do anything. They, like all businessmen, look at each situation and decide, on their own, if it's beneficial to participate, or not. If they think it is .... then participate. If they don't think that it is .... then don't participate. ... simple. .... Just don't squawk about how Apple is "forcing" them to do anything , because they're not. This is how all businesses work. You do a cost/benefit analysis and then make a decision based on your findings.
It's just plain stupid to say ...."I want to participate in your store, but it's too expensive, so you have to lower your prices for me".
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.
They wanted exposure to Apple's ecosystem (think 100 million IOS device owners) by way of a "free" app (that Apple hosts for nothing) and then take the customer out of the app so as to bypass paying Apple anything ..... are you going to tell me that Apple should stand by and fall for that .... come on, even you must see that idiocy to think that that's the "right business decision".
Do I really need to go on?
Only if you are going to say something somewhat intelligent.
Subscription service providers pull out from Apple's closed off eco-system, leaving Apple's own competing services with less or no competition.
What competing services? .... What "content" does Apple create? None ... they rely on content providers to see the value in choosing the Apple App Store. If the majority do ... Apple wins .... If the majority choose someone else ... Apple loses. .... What could be more fair?
It's no surprise Apple is enforcing this now. In every one of those, Apple wins, but the competitor loses.
And just what is your "business model" ..... one where your competitor wins, .. but you lose? ... Brilliant! .... Who do I make the cheque out to? ....
I love how anyone who disagrees with a move Apple makes is a troll. I have some different metrics to determine who's trolling. One of them is more than 3 consecutive posts and yet you've done TEN (10!) consecutive posts?!?!
Seriously, that's more than I've ever seen tekstud (or any of his subsequent user names) use. Use multi-quote next time.
As an aside, the Kindle example hardly applies. Apple still only allows one music store on iOS and that's iTunes and just like iTunes will accept any DRM free mp3, the kindle will accept any DRM free eBook it can read as well. We're discussing a much broader topic than one content store. We're talking about an entire development platform, something that Amazon is just getting into with the Kindle.
No, you can disagree, but senseless harping based on self-serving entering arguments and lack of willingness to even acknowledge the facts on the playing field don't show a willingness to debate. if you aren't willing to play fairly, you are trolling. If you play fairly and disagree everyone wins.
I did think it was humorous when my posts lined up. Simply a morning romp through the thread and amazingly there was only one interspersing post over the course of an hour. Is it my fault y'all took a break then? Multi quote wasn't appropriate anyway as I was addressing each post on it's own merits, I do use it when it makes sense and have already in this thread. So thakee Sai for your input, but I'll do it my way.
The multi-posting thing also seems to be giving you a fit because your Kindle response must be directed to someone else. Maybe you should take my tactic and reply to the appropriate poster rather than errantly stuff it all into one post and miss the mark. Dont'cha hate it when you become the example for avoiding your own advice?
As for broader topics such as what Amazon intends to do with Kindle, that's not the topic of this thread, so your points miss the mark when discussing iOS subscriptions anyway.
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.
And you won't ... unless you have something worthwhile to sell. OTOH .... just ask "Pixelmator" what they think ..... http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...t_20_days.html
One million dollars in 20 days .... not too shabby.
What Apple 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. ....
(IMO, that's called a choice.)
They removed a choice from the developer and hid one from the customer. If the developer was able to choose whether or not they used in-app purchases, I'd have absolutely no qualms with this service.
They are not "required" to do anything. They, like all businessmen, look at each situation and decide, on their own, if it's beneficial to participate, or not. If they think it is .... then participate. If they don't think that it is .... then don't participate. ... simple. .... Just don't squawk about how Apple is "forcing" them to do anything , because they're not. This is how all businesses work. You do a cost/benefit analysis and then make a decision based on your findings.
It's just plain stupid to say ...."I want to participate in your store, but it's too expensive, so you have to lower your prices for me".
They are required to support in-app purchases if they wish to remain in the app store. I'm sorry I didn't spell "in the app store" out for you. Why are you talking about new developers? I was talking about existing ones. If you were renting and your landlord knocked on your door saying he was doubling your rent, damn right you'd be pissed, and it wouldn't be absurd to ask for a lower rate. After all you've paid your rent on time, every time for the last two years. Are you familiar with the term "bait and switch"? Apple hasn't gone that far, but the change certainly isn't nice to a lot of app developers and content providers who have been using Apple's system.
They wanted exposure to Apple's ecosystem (think 100 million IOS device owners) by way of a "free" app (that Apple hosts for nothing) and then take the customer out of the app so as to bypass paying Apple anything ..... are you going to tell me that Apple should stand by and fall for that .... come on, even you must see that idiocy to think that that's the "right business decision".
I've repeatably said Apple deserves to be paid and they are paid by virtue of the $99 developer fee and 30% of paid apps as well as increased iOS device sales from these free apps. If Apple feels they aren't getting enough from free apps, they should do something about that, not charge 30% to process a subscription. For example, why do you think that subscription apps should be paying for all the free apps that make money using Google's AdMob ads? Aren't they getting a "free ride" too? What would Google say if Apple started asking for a 30% cut of AdMob revenue?
Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon aren't even bypassing the app store. They are existing services. Yes, Apple would only get money if the user opened an account from within the app, but a lifetime 30% referral fee is a little much.
Another statement like that, and if I'm here, he's off.
Melgross, Melgross, Melgross, Melgross ....(the sound of one fanboy (me) cheering ) ....
Hulu won't be missed? Netflix won't be missed? Amazon outsells iBooks by a ridiculous margin, they won't be missed? I'm not saying all these services are leaving, but they definitly would be missed if they did.
Apple survived without Netflix, Hulu and books altogether. iTunes survived without the biggest selling band of all-time (The Beatles) and still are without Led Zep's catalog. If Netflix (etc.) go a different route Apple will be fine. They will continue to make money off the business's that know the iOS/App Store model works for them.
Also, the iPad/iPhone/iPod are so popular that customers will drive demand for Netflix, Amazon and Hulu to support iDevices. If they don't, iDevice users will find an alternative product to suite there needs (or Apple will supply their own).
I guess consumers (over time) could switch to another tablet device (Android/Win Mobile 7) but if I just spent $700 - $1000 on an iPad, i am gonna use it for a couple before I sink the same amount into another device... and who knows where we will be in 2years?
No, you can disagree, but senseless harping based on self-serving entering arguments and lack of willingness to even acknowledge the facts on the playing field don't show a willingness to debate. if you aren't willing to play fairly, you are trolling. If you play fairly and disagree everyone wins.
I did think it was humorous when my posts lined up. Simply a morning romp through the thread and amazingly there was only one interspersing post over the course of an hour. Is it my fault y'all took a break then? Multi quote wasn't appropriate anyway as I was addressing each post on it's own merits, I do use it when it makes sense and have already in this thread. So thakee Sai for your input, but I'll do it my way.
Yeah I should have kept the multiposting comments to myself. It was somewhat humorous.
The multi-posting thing also seems to be giving you a fit because your Kindle response must be directed to someone else. Maybe you should take my tactic and reply to the appropriate poster rather than errantly stuff it all into one post and miss the mark. Dont'cha hate it when you become the example for avoiding your own advice?
These forums don't do nested quotes by default, but I'd expect that you should at least remember the context of your own quote. You were quoting someone who mentioned Amazon and the Kindle, saying they were right and the other guy was a troll. I said that example that you were praising wasn't that great.
As for broader topics such as what Amazon intends to do with Kindle, that's not the topic of this thread, so your points miss the mark when discussing iOS subscriptions anyway.
This thread has a singular topic? Other people have said "but the Kindle has a SDK too" in some context related to this thread but I'm not allowed to respond to them? I worded my response in anticipation of future comments based on what I was saying so I didn't have to reply again. I guess it was unnecessary. Taken in the context of everything that's been said here, they fit, but if you haven't followed the thread too closely, perhaps not.
But we aren't discussing the "App Store" in general, we are discussing in-app purchases within an app sold in the App Store. So we did leave the greater mall and entered a single store, in my analogy a grocery store -- maybe a Target Greatland if that makes you feel better since they are attached to malls all over.
Try to be careful and not miss the actual content of the thread.
The problem is simply this ... and I'll use the analogy of a "brick and mortar store" to simplify it.
If a store, in a mall say, .... had one of the other store's owners come in and say:
You know, I've noticed that you seem to "attract a lot of customers" in your store. They must like what they see here..... so here's what I propose: Let me hang a sign in your store .... promoting my store, so I can take advantage of your fantastic customer volume ..... oh, and by the way, I want that, at no cost to me. Thanks!
I don't know about you, but if that happened to me ... I'd throw him out on his ass. ....