It's irrelevant. Content providers will go where they profit the most. It's hard to imagine that someone else can't offer a fee for service that is less than Apples 30%. Apple is incenting content providers to go else where and giving an opening for competitors. Apple may be the place to go right now, but overcharging is never a sustainable business practice.
Actually, it is your post that is irrelevant to the point under discussion.
However, as long as iOS remains the place where there are a large number of consumers able and willing to pay for content (as opposed to alternative platforms like Android, where no one wants to pay for anything) then the content providers will be there. The incentive is that that's where the customers are, and this isn't going to cause them to go anywhere.
Since Amazon's contracts with book sellers prevent Amazon from raising its prices wholesale, and Apple's rules prevent Amazon from charging more for in-app book sales, and since Apple's new fees also require Amazon to fork over to Apple 30% of the sale price of any book sold, which is Amazon's entire margin on almost all ebooks, why would Amazon stay on the iOS platform?
If you were Amazon, would you?
And if you're like me and millions of other customers, who have large collections of Kindle books, and bought an iPad in part because it would be both a general purpose tablet and an excellent reader for our Kindle books, wouldn't that impact your next table choice?
There is a large overlap between Kindle customers and Apple customers. We're getting screwed in this situation, because Apple's asking way too much (every penny of Amazon's margin for every book sold to an iOS device) here.
If Apple's fee reflected the minor role Apple plays in the delivery, maintenance and preparation of content like Kindle books, where Apple is really only a merchant account vendor, this wouldn't be a problem. But Apple's fee is 10 times more than what a merchant account vendor charges.
Completely agree. I hope Amazon and others back out. Apple needs to be brought back to earth on this issue. A new iPad is less appealing without the Kindle app. These major apps are driving iOS device sales as much as iOS devices drive their sales. Why Apple would take a mutually beneficial scenario and attempt to exploit it is beyond me.
...the problem is they are taking functionality away, the problem is they are using monopolistic practices to force kindle off the ipad and give the horrid ibooks the only chance of viability. Amazon should have a clear case against Apple and I hope they pull out all the stops in gutting them over this greedy move.
From what I'm reading, there's no way this affects Amazon because they don't offer subscriptions on the iOS app. They do for Kindle, of course, but they don't elsewhere. All they do is direct you to their website for purchasing books.
They're talking about enforcing this on subscription sales, not all sales, right?
However, as long as iOS remains the place where there are a large number of consumers able and willing to pay for content (as opposed to alternative platforms like Android, where no one wants to pay for anything) then the content providers will be there. The incentive is that that's where the customers are, and this isn't going to cause them to go anywhere.
True that. Mindless 'sheeple' are an easy sell, and iPad has them in spades.
From what I'm reading, there's no way this affects Amazon because they don't offer subscriptions on the iOS app. They do for Kindle, of course, but they don't elsewhere. All they do is direct you to their website for purchasing books.
They're talking about enforcing this on subscription sales, not all sales, right?
Nope, it affects all sales. They already blocked the Sony Reader app to set the tone. Under the new rules, the Kindle App would not be able to link to their external store and would have to use in app purchases instead.
If they allow this to come down on things like the Kindle Reader I'm going to be pretty disappointed. This also has potential to backfire. I'm not going to get too caught up in it as I'd like to see how this plays out as Apple gets and potentially responds to feedback...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
However, as long as iOS remains the place where there are a large number of consumers able and willing to pay for content (as opposed to alternative platforms like Android, where no one wants to pay for anything) then the content providers will be there. The incentive is that that's where the customers are, and this isn't going to cause them to go anywhere.
True that. Mindless 'sheeple' are an easy sell, and iPad has them in spades.
Is that sarcasm? I wouldn't call customers who are actually willing to buy apps, books, music they like 'sheeple' by any means. Most of us consume this type of media in some manner or another, but not all of us choose to pay for it—and those who do not choose to pay for it are not doing something which we ought to commend unless the media they consume, by nature, is free. I think the main reason why there is less purchasing on a platform like Android, however, is due more to platform structure and presentation rather than individual consumers (at least on the large scale).
Since Amazon's contracts with book sellers prevent Amazon from raising its prices wholesale, and Apple's rules prevent Amazon from charging more for in-app book sales, and since Apple's new fees also require Amazon to fork over to Apple 30% of the sale price of any book sold, which is Amazon's entire margin on almost all ebooks, why would Amazon stay on the iOS platform?
If you were Amazon, would you?
And if you're like me and millions of other customers, who have large collections of Kindle books, and bought an iPad in part because it would be both a general purpose tablet and an excellent reader for our Kindle books, wouldn't that impact your next table choice?
There is a large overlap between Kindle customers and Apple customers. We're getting screwed in this situation, because Apple's asking way too much (every penny of Amazon's margin for every book sold to an iOS device) here.
If Apple's fee reflected the minor role Apple plays in the delivery, maintenance and preparation of content like Kindle books, where Apple is really only a merchant account vendor, this wouldn't be a problem. But Apple's fee is 10 times more than what a merchant account vendor charges.
As an Apple fan it certainly makes me think twice about getting an Ipad 2.
Not many credit card companies deliver new customers and deliver the goods to your doorstep. They just process a sale that someone else has worked to achieve.
Apple didn't develop my apps. They just process transactions (using a credit card) and use customers' ISPs to deliver the goods.
I bought Ipad because I saw it had a Kindle app and I knew I wouldn't have to choose between Amazon and Apple. I'd complain if I were Amazon. People buy Amazon books because it's Amazon...not because of anything apple did. Amazon has as much recognition as Apple. Apple needs to only charge 2% for being the facilitator of a purchase like others have already said.
The subject that the folks here conveniently (fail) to consider is the simplicity that Apple is trying to give to the end-consumer. I as a consumer would not want to go to website A, to buy something on my iPhone, then go to website B to get something else. Apple is wanting it all to be nice and neat and go through them. The end-user will get one clean bill/statement from Apple with all their purchases in place. I like that.
You can come up with as many conspiracy theories as you want. The end result will be this:
Your concerns do not remotely apply to what Joe-Consumer will think. Joe Consumer could care less, so long as it makes it easier for them.
Geeks/TechHeads/Anarchists/wutever think what's best for them, surely must be best for everyone. You are wrong. Apple is completely within their right to do with their platform as the best see fit. You have issues, go with that mess call Android and be done with it. I'll bet that a majority of you critics don't have iPhones, but are merely here to sling your typical anti-Apple agenda.
I don't hear any iOS developers criticizing Apple's 30% policy. They know in the big picture, it provides value for the developer, and for the end-user.
Time will tell whether Apple's decision comes back to haunt them. I personally don't have a problem with it as I don't want to have to deal with multiple accounts from various websites to purchase something on my iPhone/iPad.
But Apple is dictating what price (or the lowest price) the publisher can charge on their own web site to sell their own content. That's the part that will get them in trouble. Maybe not with the regulators, but with the publishers. The overall net effect will be that it will take longer for subscriptions to be available on iOS devices and they will be more expensive than they would be otherswise. So the customers are the big loser in all of this.
Yes, Apple should get a cut. But 30% is too high.
As noted above, Apple IS restricting the publishsers actions by dictating pricing guidelines for the publisher's own web site. Imagine if when Apple was struggling CompUSA came along and told Apple they couldn't sell their own products directly to customers for a lower price than CompUSA sold the products for after adding on a hefty profit margin. After all, CompUSA helps get Mac into customer's hands so they should be able to dictate such terms to Apple, right?
Apple is clearly taking advantage of their position to go for a money grab? Illegal? Probably not. But I think it will be detrimental to the platform. It will give Android and MS a leg up if they can offer cheaper subscriptions because of Apple's 30% "tax" on content.
Tell that to the PC manufacturers. They were MS's real customers, not the end users. MS dicatated a lot of conditions to allow a PC maker to include Windows on their hardware. That also got them in trouble with the regulators.
No, the content must be available for in-app purchasing under all conditions. Even if there is no link in the app, if the content is sold on the providers web site, it must also be sold on iTunes.
the OEM's couldn't pre-install applications like Mozilla, but you could always download it yourself
MS is so open that Quicktime is now the dominant media player on Windows and not WMP
Actually, it is your post that is irrelevant to the point under discussion.
However, as long as iOS remains the place where there are a large number of consumers able and willing to pay for content (as opposed to alternative platforms like Android, where no one wants to pay for anything) then the content providers will be there. The incentive is that that's where the customers are, and this isn't going to cause them to go anywhere.
That only holds true if iOS is a PROFITABLE venue for their content, which this change might make impossible. Digital distribution isn't a high-margin industry. Those companies rely on VOLUME to turn the profit, not individual sales. If you take 30% of the revenue for each sale out, that leaves next to no room (if any) for any form of profit, and if a marketplace isn't profitable, companies leave that marketplace.
There is NO way you can spin this as a net gain for customers. The in app purchase option is nice, but people WON'T offer it unless it makes the money. So they either need to raise prices across the board (and punish everyone) or they withdrawl from the iOS store entirely.
We're not talking alternative platforms here. We're talking profitability. Even if Amazon/netflix/hulu+ had NO other mobile platform to go to, they would still pull out of apple's ecosystem if it stopped making them money.
Because Jobs said that in-app purchases must offer the "same deal," app developers won't be able to offer small discounts to entice people to make out-app purchases (and avoid paying 30% to Apple).
I wonder what the law is for that.
Can Apple make it a contractual agreement that prices must match?
IMO Tit-for-tat -Apple makes them put the purchase 'option' on the app, vendor sets the price.
This article implies a vendor cannot set a different price(if Im reading this correctly)
Comments
It's irrelevant. Content providers will go where they profit the most. It's hard to imagine that someone else can't offer a fee for service that is less than Apples 30%. Apple is incenting content providers to go else where and giving an opening for competitors. Apple may be the place to go right now, but overcharging is never a sustainable business practice.
Actually, it is your post that is irrelevant to the point under discussion.
However, as long as iOS remains the place where there are a large number of consumers able and willing to pay for content (as opposed to alternative platforms like Android, where no one wants to pay for anything) then the content providers will be there. The incentive is that that's where the customers are, and this isn't going to cause them to go anywhere.
Since Amazon's contracts with book sellers prevent Amazon from raising its prices wholesale, and Apple's rules prevent Amazon from charging more for in-app book sales, and since Apple's new fees also require Amazon to fork over to Apple 30% of the sale price of any book sold, which is Amazon's entire margin on almost all ebooks, why would Amazon stay on the iOS platform?
If you were Amazon, would you?
And if you're like me and millions of other customers, who have large collections of Kindle books, and bought an iPad in part because it would be both a general purpose tablet and an excellent reader for our Kindle books, wouldn't that impact your next table choice?
There is a large overlap between Kindle customers and Apple customers. We're getting screwed in this situation, because Apple's asking way too much (every penny of Amazon's margin for every book sold to an iOS device) here.
If Apple's fee reflected the minor role Apple plays in the delivery, maintenance and preparation of content like Kindle books, where Apple is really only a merchant account vendor, this wouldn't be a problem. But Apple's fee is 10 times more than what a merchant account vendor charges.
Completely agree. I hope Amazon and others back out. Apple needs to be brought back to earth on this issue. A new iPad is less appealing without the Kindle app. These major apps are driving iOS device sales as much as iOS devices drive their sales. Why Apple would take a mutually beneficial scenario and attempt to exploit it is beyond me.
They're talking about enforcing this on subscription sales, not all sales, right?
However, as long as iOS remains the place where there are a large number of consumers able and willing to pay for content (as opposed to alternative platforms like Android, where no one wants to pay for anything) then the content providers will be there. The incentive is that that's where the customers are, and this isn't going to cause them to go anywhere.
True that. Mindless 'sheeple' are an easy sell, and iPad has them in spades.
From what I'm reading, there's no way this affects Amazon because they don't offer subscriptions on the iOS app. They do for Kindle, of course, but they don't elsewhere. All they do is direct you to their website for purchasing books.
They're talking about enforcing this on subscription sales, not all sales, right?
Nope, it affects all sales. They already blocked the Sony Reader app to set the tone. Under the new rules, the Kindle App would not be able to link to their external store and would have to use in app purchases instead.
However, as long as iOS remains the place where there are a large number of consumers able and willing to pay for content (as opposed to alternative platforms like Android, where no one wants to pay for anything) then the content providers will be there. The incentive is that that's where the customers are, and this isn't going to cause them to go anywhere.
True that. Mindless 'sheeple' are an easy sell, and iPad has them in spades.
Is that sarcasm? I wouldn't call customers who are actually willing to buy apps, books, music they like 'sheeple' by any means. Most of us consume this type of media in some manner or another, but not all of us choose to pay for it—and those who do not choose to pay for it are not doing something which we ought to commend unless the media they consume, by nature, is free. I think the main reason why there is less purchasing on a platform like Android, however, is due more to platform structure and presentation rather than individual consumers (at least on the large scale).
Since Amazon's contracts with book sellers prevent Amazon from raising its prices wholesale, and Apple's rules prevent Amazon from charging more for in-app book sales, and since Apple's new fees also require Amazon to fork over to Apple 30% of the sale price of any book sold, which is Amazon's entire margin on almost all ebooks, why would Amazon stay on the iOS platform?
If you were Amazon, would you?
And if you're like me and millions of other customers, who have large collections of Kindle books, and bought an iPad in part because it would be both a general purpose tablet and an excellent reader for our Kindle books, wouldn't that impact your next table choice?
There is a large overlap between Kindle customers and Apple customers. We're getting screwed in this situation, because Apple's asking way too much (every penny of Amazon's margin for every book sold to an iOS device) here.
If Apple's fee reflected the minor role Apple plays in the delivery, maintenance and preparation of content like Kindle books, where Apple is really only a merchant account vendor, this wouldn't be a problem. But Apple's fee is 10 times more than what a merchant account vendor charges.
As an Apple fan it certainly makes me think twice about getting an Ipad 2.
Not many credit card companies deliver new customers and deliver the goods to your doorstep. They just process a sale that someone else has worked to achieve.
Apple didn't develop my apps. They just process transactions (using a credit card) and use customers' ISPs to deliver the goods.
True that. Mindless 'sheeple' are an easy sell, and iPad has them in spades.
So, basically, you have no argument, nothing left but name calling?
How often does it have to be pointed out to you that the App Store isn't a fee for services system?
Then why does Apple need to charge any overhead?
As an Apple fan it certainly makes me think twice about getting an Ipad 2.
Bump that. Hopefully Amazon will satisfy Apple's requirements. I'll be sure to buy all my Kindle books through amazon.com, though.
Try make a coherent argument.
You mean - like this?
This Is GREAT BECAUSE THE DEAR LEADER SAID IT WAS GREAT.
BEGONE HERETICS!!!
You can come up with as many conspiracy theories as you want. The end result will be this:
Your concerns do not remotely apply to what Joe-Consumer will think. Joe Consumer could care less, so long as it makes it easier for them.
Geeks/TechHeads/Anarchists/wutever think what's best for them, surely must be best for everyone. You are wrong. Apple is completely within their right to do with their platform as the best see fit. You have issues, go with that mess call Android and be done with it. I'll bet that a majority of you critics don't have iPhones, but are merely here to sling your typical anti-Apple agenda.
I don't hear any iOS developers criticizing Apple's 30% policy. They know in the big picture, it provides value for the developer, and for the end-user.
Time will tell whether Apple's decision comes back to haunt them. I personally don't have a problem with it as I don't want to have to deal with multiple accounts from various websites to purchase something on my iPhone/iPad.
But then, it's all about you.
Then why does Apple need to charge any overhead?
Overhead? What overhead? There's no overhead, it's a simple revenue sharing system. If your app generates revenue, you agree to share it.
But Apple is dictating what price (or the lowest price) the publisher can charge on their own web site to sell their own content. That's the part that will get them in trouble. Maybe not with the regulators, but with the publishers. The overall net effect will be that it will take longer for subscriptions to be available on iOS devices and they will be more expensive than they would be otherswise. So the customers are the big loser in all of this.
Yes, Apple should get a cut. But 30% is too high.
As noted above, Apple IS restricting the publishsers actions by dictating pricing guidelines for the publisher's own web site. Imagine if when Apple was struggling CompUSA came along and told Apple they couldn't sell their own products directly to customers for a lower price than CompUSA sold the products for after adding on a hefty profit margin. After all, CompUSA helps get Mac into customer's hands so they should be able to dictate such terms to Apple, right?
Apple is clearly taking advantage of their position to go for a money grab? Illegal? Probably not. But I think it will be detrimental to the platform. It will give Android and MS a leg up if they can offer cheaper subscriptions because of Apple's 30% "tax" on content.
Tell that to the PC manufacturers. They were MS's real customers, not the end users. MS dicatated a lot of conditions to allow a PC maker to include Windows on their hardware. That also got them in trouble with the regulators.
No, the content must be available for in-app purchasing under all conditions. Even if there is no link in the app, if the content is sold on the providers web site, it must also be sold on iTunes.
the OEM's couldn't pre-install applications like Mozilla, but you could always download it yourself
MS is so open that Quicktime is now the dominant media player on Windows and not WMP
Actually, it is your post that is irrelevant to the point under discussion.
However, as long as iOS remains the place where there are a large number of consumers able and willing to pay for content (as opposed to alternative platforms like Android, where no one wants to pay for anything) then the content providers will be there. The incentive is that that's where the customers are, and this isn't going to cause them to go anywhere.
That only holds true if iOS is a PROFITABLE venue for their content, which this change might make impossible. Digital distribution isn't a high-margin industry. Those companies rely on VOLUME to turn the profit, not individual sales. If you take 30% of the revenue for each sale out, that leaves next to no room (if any) for any form of profit, and if a marketplace isn't profitable, companies leave that marketplace.
There is NO way you can spin this as a net gain for customers. The in app purchase option is nice, but people WON'T offer it unless it makes the money. So they either need to raise prices across the board (and punish everyone) or they withdrawl from the iOS store entirely.
We're not talking alternative platforms here. We're talking profitability. Even if Amazon/netflix/hulu+ had NO other mobile platform to go to, they would still pull out of apple's ecosystem if it stopped making them money.
Because Jobs said that in-app purchases must offer the "same deal," app developers won't be able to offer small discounts to entice people to make out-app purchases (and avoid paying 30% to Apple).
I wonder what the law is for that.
Can Apple make it a contractual agreement that prices must match?
IMO Tit-for-tat -Apple makes them put the purchase 'option' on the app, vendor sets the price.
This article implies a vendor cannot set a different price(if Im reading this correctly)
http://www.freshfields.com/publicati...2006/13899.pdf
Is there a lawyer in the house?
What is the percentage that Amazon takes from an outside, independent Amazon Marketplace vendor accessed through their site? Anyone know?
According to amazon website, it's 6-25%.