You are missing the part about pricing. Apple is demanding defacto controll of the pricing through other retail channels. They have a right to charge whatever premium they want for content sold through their store, but they have no right to set a price floor for the content sold at other stores.
This crap is going to drive content off the iOS platform and content availability will impact consumer decisions. They guys at Google must be cheering. Verizon iPhone, who cares now?
You aren't aware of the way all of these other stores are set up. Amazon demands that they have the best pricing. It's in the contracts publishers sign with them. This has been documented publicly. Apple is demanding that they get the same or better pricing. That seems fair enough.
Apple is not demanding control of pricing out of the apps store. They are requiring that pricing in the apps store be no higher. That's very different.
You clearly are misinformed on the economics of these businesses. In many cases that 30% is going to have a huge impact on profit.
If Amazon is forced into these rules I bet you will see the Kindle app disappear from the App store. It would be more cost effective for Amazon to give iOS users Kindle hardware then to give Apple a 30% cut of the sales.
Being an Apple user is like living in a crime ridden neighborhood when a gang moves in and promises to clean it up. At first it is great, but then the gang starts wanting more and more for their services and soon the neighborhood is worse off.
I would encourage everyone to avoid these in-app purchases and subscriptions.
I would also like to point out the quote in my sig. It seems Steve's views on users are quite clear. They are money machines to suck dry, pure and simple.
-kpluck
Please try again, Publishers make money from advertising, (apple gets 0.0% of it) and not from the price of a subscription. By the warped arguments made by some, apple should have a right to some of that ad money too! Apple is not taking 30% of the publishers' profits, merely 30% of what they charge for the magazine. You see, there are these people who pay the publisher to put in these things called ads. These ads, just like on tv and the like are where the profits come from, not from just selling a magazine. It is fine if you want to argue against this, just do it in a informed and/or honest manner.
However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a website, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.
The Kindle App is toast! There is no way they are going to give Apple 30% of their revenue and if they can't charge a higher price for books purchased through In-App to offset it they won't make any money on In-App sales. Apple will probably turn towards publishers directly and do deals to increase the range of books through iBooks thereby cutting out Amazon.
No, it has always been a mix, ie, all apps were screened by Apple but as long as you stuck to an overall sensible set of rules, you could get in for free (or almost free, $99/year).
People overall liked this mix. If the mix had been different from the beginning, eg, no free apps allowed, iOS would have had somewhat less of an appeal.
... This crap is going to drive content off the iOS platform and content availability will impact consumer decisions. ...
Well, I, and apparently Apple, disagree with you on that point, which is simply wishful thinking on your part. Content will go to where the users (buyers) are, and that is, and will continue to be iOS. (It's certainly not Android where the vocal users all seem to believe they are entitled to everything for free.)
Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc would be fine without the App Store. Apple shouldn't stomp on the toes connected to the hands that feed them. The iPhone needs high profile apps, if they leave, many customers will follow them.
It's amazing just how much misunderstanding is going on here.
Apple clearly stated that if they didn't bring the customer in, they wouldn't get anything. All those subscribers will be giving these companies 100% of their payments. Only if someone subscribes within Apple's system will Apple get their cut. The resolution is easy, get subs to continue to subscribe they way they always have. Any incremental subs from the iTunes or app store are adds to that. This isn't a problem, because these companies have specials anyway, where they give away big amounts.
You aren't aware of the way all of these other stores are set up. Amazon demands that they have the best pricing. It's in the contracts publishers sign with them. This has been documented publicly. Apple is demanding that they get the same or better pricing. That seems fair enough.
Apple is not demanding control of pricing out of the apps store. They are requiring that pricing in the apps store be no higher. That's very different.
But is Apple fair in charging 30%?
Doesn't iBooks gain an advantage if Amazon is forced to mark up their books to accommodate Apple's 30% fee, when they are fully capable of handling the transaction themselves? It's an abuse of market position. At the very least, we the customers will pay more than we are now and Apple will have a bigger profit on their books.
The Kindle App is toast! There is no way they are going to give Apple 30% of their revenue
There is no way any publisher walks away from tens of millions of customers - who are all downloading books like crazy. Apple knows this. Amazon knows this.
Once again it seems that everyone has forgotten that the App Store does not operate under a fee for services model, it operates under a revenue sharing model. All the criticisms related to where content is hosted/delivered from and based on whether 30% is "fair" for what Apple does in one of these transactions are entirely irrelevant, beside the point, moot.
The problem with all of these Apple restrictions is that they can't enforce each new rule without harming the usefulness of the device in some other way. At what point are you not allowed to put a link to a website of any type? What is next, no opinions other than those approved by Apple are allowed in your content? Little by little they keep locking down everything until there is no more freedom. All the while trying to spin it as if it is a good thing for end users when in fact it is all about control of the market.
We will see if they can win this battle or not. Eventually the publishers and consumers may abandon the platform in frustration if they keep chiseling away at what you are allowed to do. Instead of a rich ecosystem it will turn into a desolate wasteland populated only by brainwashed Apple fanatics. Microsoft may have a chance in this game after all.
Doesn't iBooks gain an advantage if Amazon is forced to mark up their books to accommodate Apple's 30% fee, when they are fully capable of handling the transaction themselves? It's an abuse of market position. At the very least, we the customers will pay more than we are now and Apple will have a bigger profit on their books.
What do Amazon charge Apple for iBooks sales on the Kindle.
It's amazing just how much misunderstanding is going on here.
Apple clearly stated that if they didn't bring the customer in, they wouldn't get anything. All those subscribers will be giving these companies 100% of their payments. Only if someone subscribes within Apple's system will Apple get their cut. The resolution is easy, get subs to continue to subscribe they way they always have. Any incremental subs from the iTunes or app store are adds to that. This isn't a problem, because these companies have specials anyway, where they give away big amounts.
They won't leave.
Subscribing to something from within iOS means that you will only use that subscription in iOS? That's news to me. I'm pretty sure I signed up for Netflix on my iPhone, but I primarily use it on my computer.
Doesn't iBooks gain an advantage if Amazon is forced to mark up their books to accommodate Apple's 30% fee?
Assume Apple and Amazon pay the same to a given publisher for a book. Can Apple force Amazon to mark it up by 43% and themselves only add 10% and thus undercut Amazon?
It's amazing just how much misunderstanding is going on here.
Apple clearly stated that if they didn't bring the customer in, they wouldn't get anything. All those subscribers will be giving these companies 100% of their payments. Only if someone subscribes within Apple's system will Apple get their cut. The resolution is easy, get subs to continue to subscribe they way they always have. Any incremental subs from the iTunes or app store are adds to that. This isn't a problem, because these companies have specials anyway, where they give away big amounts.
They won't leave.
And Apple is FORCING to give in-app subscription and purchasing at the same or lower price than outside Apple.
Pull all 3rd party content from iOS and iTunes and see where Apple is in 5 years.
Yeah, and then we'll see where those companies are as well. Do you really think that Amazon and B&N are doing this for the benefit of the publishers? They're squeezing them pretty hard. Apple is being fairer than they are by just allowing them to sell in competition to them. See how far you get complaining to Amazon or B&N about not being to be able to buy from other retailers in their apps. I'm sure they will respond by opening them up to all others.
Assume Apple and Amazon pay the same to a given publisher for a book. Can Apple force Amazon to mark it up by 43% and themselves only add 10% and thus undercut Amazon?
It's not Apple's role to support Amazon's business model.
Comments
Yes, I understand. But there are varying degrees and iOS is has just moved one step further away from an open platform.
I am not happy if the original model gets shifted further into a direction that makes it less attractive.
It's never been open.
Actually I am seeing more and more content come to the platform, at it evolves into a mature and reliable device with a massive audience.
I am not seeing the opposite.
C.
Thank you for agreeing it's a store.
Now, if you don't want to sell your goods or shop in it: Kindly go away.
But they weren't sellling anything
You are missing the part about pricing. Apple is demanding defacto controll of the pricing through other retail channels. They have a right to charge whatever premium they want for content sold through their store, but they have no right to set a price floor for the content sold at other stores.
This crap is going to drive content off the iOS platform and content availability will impact consumer decisions. They guys at Google must be cheering. Verizon iPhone, who cares now?
You aren't aware of the way all of these other stores are set up. Amazon demands that they have the best pricing. It's in the contracts publishers sign with them. This has been documented publicly. Apple is demanding that they get the same or better pricing. That seems fair enough.
Apple is not demanding control of pricing out of the apps store. They are requiring that pricing in the apps store be no higher. That's very different.
One thing has nothing to do with another. windows isn't a store. If you're going to use an analogy, use one that is actually real.
Windows is a platform, iOS is a platform.
Thank you for agreeing it's a store.
Now, if you don't want to sell your goods or shop in it: Kindly go away.
Have you read anything I posted or are you just cherry picking quotes?
You clearly are misinformed on the economics of these businesses. In many cases that 30% is going to have a huge impact on profit.
If Amazon is forced into these rules I bet you will see the Kindle app disappear from the App store. It would be more cost effective for Amazon to give iOS users Kindle hardware then to give Apple a 30% cut of the sales.
Being an Apple user is like living in a crime ridden neighborhood when a gang moves in and promises to clean it up. At first it is great, but then the gang starts wanting more and more for their services and soon the neighborhood is worse off.
I would encourage everyone to avoid these in-app purchases and subscriptions.
I would also like to point out the quote in my sig. It seems Steve's views on users are quite clear. They are money machines to suck dry, pure and simple.
-kpluck
Please try again, Publishers make money from advertising, (apple gets 0.0% of it) and not from the price of a subscription. By the warped arguments made by some, apple should have a right to some of that ad money too! Apple is not taking 30% of the publishers' profits, merely 30% of what they charge for the magazine. You see, there are these people who pay the publisher to put in these things called ads. These ads, just like on tv and the like are where the profits come from, not from just selling a magazine. It is fine if you want to argue against this, just do it in a informed and/or honest manner.
However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a website, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.
The Kindle App is toast! There is no way they are going to give Apple 30% of their revenue and if they can't charge a higher price for books purchased through In-App to offset it they won't make any money on In-App sales. Apple will probably turn towards publishers directly and do deals to increase the range of books through iBooks thereby cutting out Amazon.
It's never been open.
No, it has always been a mix, ie, all apps were screened by Apple but as long as you stuck to an overall sensible set of rules, you could get in for free (or almost free, $99/year).
People overall liked this mix. If the mix had been different from the beginning, eg, no free apps allowed, iOS would have had somewhat less of an appeal.
The mixed has been changed by this announcement.
... This crap is going to drive content off the iOS platform and content availability will impact consumer decisions. ...
Well, I, and apparently Apple, disagree with you on that point, which is simply wishful thinking on your part. Content will go to where the users (buyers) are, and that is, and will continue to be iOS. (It's certainly not Android where the vocal users all seem to believe they are entitled to everything for free.)
Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc would be fine without the App Store. Apple shouldn't stomp on the toes connected to the hands that feed them. The iPhone needs high profile apps, if they leave, many customers will follow them.
It's amazing just how much misunderstanding is going on here.
Apple clearly stated that if they didn't bring the customer in, they wouldn't get anything. All those subscribers will be giving these companies 100% of their payments. Only if someone subscribes within Apple's system will Apple get their cut. The resolution is easy, get subs to continue to subscribe they way they always have. Any incremental subs from the iTunes or app store are adds to that. This isn't a problem, because these companies have specials anyway, where they give away big amounts.
They won't leave.
You aren't aware of the way all of these other stores are set up. Amazon demands that they have the best pricing. It's in the contracts publishers sign with them. This has been documented publicly. Apple is demanding that they get the same or better pricing. That seems fair enough.
Apple is not demanding control of pricing out of the apps store. They are requiring that pricing in the apps store be no higher. That's very different.
But is Apple fair in charging 30%?
Doesn't iBooks gain an advantage if Amazon is forced to mark up their books to accommodate Apple's 30% fee, when they are fully capable of handling the transaction themselves? It's an abuse of market position. At the very least, we the customers will pay more than we are now and Apple will have a bigger profit on their books.
The Kindle App is toast! There is no way they are going to give Apple 30% of their revenue
There is no way any publisher walks away from tens of millions of customers - who are all downloading books like crazy. Apple knows this. Amazon knows this.
C.
Once again it seems that everyone has forgotten that the App Store does not operate under a fee for services model, it operates under a revenue sharing model. All the criticisms related to where content is hosted/delivered from and based on whether 30% is "fair" for what Apple does in one of these transactions are entirely irrelevant, beside the point, moot.
The problem with all of these Apple restrictions is that they can't enforce each new rule without harming the usefulness of the device in some other way. At what point are you not allowed to put a link to a website of any type? What is next, no opinions other than those approved by Apple are allowed in your content? Little by little they keep locking down everything until there is no more freedom. All the while trying to spin it as if it is a good thing for end users when in fact it is all about control of the market.
We will see if they can win this battle or not. Eventually the publishers and consumers may abandon the platform in frustration if they keep chiseling away at what you are allowed to do. Instead of a rich ecosystem it will turn into a desolate wasteland populated only by brainwashed Apple fanatics. Microsoft may have a chance in this game after all.
But is Apple fair in charging 30%?
Doesn't iBooks gain an advantage if Amazon is forced to mark up their books to accommodate Apple's 30% fee, when they are fully capable of handling the transaction themselves? It's an abuse of market position. At the very least, we the customers will pay more than we are now and Apple will have a bigger profit on their books.
What do Amazon charge Apple for iBooks sales on the Kindle.
What's that you say? They don't allow it?!!!!
ABUSE OF MARKET POSITION!!!!!!
C.
It's amazing just how much misunderstanding is going on here.
Apple clearly stated that if they didn't bring the customer in, they wouldn't get anything. All those subscribers will be giving these companies 100% of their payments. Only if someone subscribes within Apple's system will Apple get their cut. The resolution is easy, get subs to continue to subscribe they way they always have. Any incremental subs from the iTunes or app store are adds to that. This isn't a problem, because these companies have specials anyway, where they give away big amounts.
They won't leave.
Subscribing to something from within iOS means that you will only use that subscription in iOS? That's news to me. I'm pretty sure I signed up for Netflix on my iPhone, but I primarily use it on my computer.
Doesn't iBooks gain an advantage if Amazon is forced to mark up their books to accommodate Apple's 30% fee?
Assume Apple and Amazon pay the same to a given publisher for a book. Can Apple force Amazon to mark it up by 43% and themselves only add 10% and thus undercut Amazon?
It's amazing just how much misunderstanding is going on here.
Apple clearly stated that if they didn't bring the customer in, they wouldn't get anything. All those subscribers will be giving these companies 100% of their payments. Only if someone subscribes within Apple's system will Apple get their cut. The resolution is easy, get subs to continue to subscribe they way they always have. Any incremental subs from the iTunes or app store are adds to that. This isn't a problem, because these companies have specials anyway, where they give away big amounts.
They won't leave.
And Apple is FORCING to give in-app subscription and purchasing at the same or lower price than outside Apple.
Pull all 3rd party content from iOS and iTunes and see where Apple is in 5 years.
Yeah, and then we'll see where those companies are as well. Do you really think that Amazon and B&N are doing this for the benefit of the publishers? They're squeezing them pretty hard. Apple is being fairer than they are by just allowing them to sell in competition to them. See how far you get complaining to Amazon or B&N about not being to be able to buy from other retailers in their apps. I'm sure they will respond by opening them up to all others.
Assume Apple and Amazon pay the same to a given publisher for a book. Can Apple force Amazon to mark it up by 43% and themselves only add 10% and thus undercut Amazon?
It's not Apple's role to support Amazon's business model.
C.
What do Amazon charge Apple for iBooks sales on the Kindle.
What's that you say? They don't allow it?!!!!
ABUSE OF MARKET POSITION!!!!!!
C.
I didn't know you can install apps on kindle or that you can buy ibooks outside iTunes