What would make this business intractable to a "government bureaucrat"? In fact, they'd better understand it, for the salaries and benefits we taxpayers pay them.
Anybody have a link to Apple's original terms for iOS developers? I read here on AI that the restrictions Apple is starting to impose have always existed. In which case it's hard for me to believe representatives of any sizable business venture didn't see this coming.
You heard wrong. The provisions - which by the way have been exhaustively poured over in these threads - said nothing about similar prices, and merely said that in app purchasing within the app should use Apple's IAP - not their own. It said nothing about linking outside the app, which is why Kindle launched on the iPad within days of it's release. They've added new bits subsequently.
Apple's new ads: we will add restrictions as we see fit during your development process, wiping out any sunk costs, so why not go develop for Android instead.
It's time for we the people to demand that government stop trying to regulate business. If the publishers choose to accept Apple's terms, that is their business. If they choose to reject or continue to negotiate. But there could be nothing worse than a bureaucrat in the government sticking his nose in to stuff he does not understand.
Why on earth do we the people permit government bureaucrats who do not have the cojones to start or operate a business to regulate anything.
Time to dump Obama and his regulators.
Wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Why on earth do we the people permit government bureaucrats who do not have the cojones to start or operate a business to regulate anything.
Time to dump Obama and his regulators.
Think of that the next time you take your Verizon phone abroad and it doesn't work. Regulation, especially in the wireless industry, is a terrible, terrible thing.
I don't think there's anything unfair about Apple's terms, EXCEPT for the part requiring that the iPad price be equal or better than prices in non-Apple outlets. It seems to cross the line into price fixing. I can see an argument that it is anti-competitive. (Wikipedia - Anti-Competitive Practices)
That's not price fixing. That's making sure your users aren't getting screwed - it is well within Apple's rights to make sure of that. It is not anti-competitive in any legal sense. Apple is not forcing them to do anything beyond Apple's own platform; play fair or get off their playground.
Amazon used to take 70% plus download fees, and they set a price of no more than 9.99. Publishers got < $3. And to get your content on the Kindle you HAD to go through Amazon. So I'm a little bewildered as to why some people think Apple's 30% is outrageous?
You heard wrong. The provisions - which by the way have been exhaustively poured over in these threads - said nothing about similar prices, and merely said that in app purchasing within the app should use Apple's IAP - not their own. It said nothing about linking outside the app, which is why Kindle launched on the iPad within days of it's release. They've added new bits subsequently.
Apple's new ads: we will add restrictions as we see fit during your development process, wiping out any sunk costs, so why not go develop for Android instead.
No they didn't. All they added was "Subscriptions".
The rules ALWAYS stated that any purchased content, features or services that are in app, need to go through Apple's IAP system. And that only content, features or services that are in app could be sold through IAP - no real world goods or services could be sold.
The difference between then and now is that Apple has to enforce that rule due to subscriptions.
Again, Amazon used to take +70% of all content sold and subscriptions. And it was the only way publishers and authors could get their content sold on the Kindle.
No they didn't. All they added was "Subscriptions".
The rules ALWAYS stated that any purchased content, features or services that are in app, need to go through Apple's IAP system. And that only content, features or services that are in app could be sold through IAP - no real world goods or services could be sold.
The difference between then and now is that Apple now Apple has to enforce that rule due to subscriptions.
Again, Amazon used to take +70% of all content sold and subscriptions. And it was the only way publishers and authors could get their content sold on the Kindle.
Yes they changed the terms. Sony was rejected for doing what Kindle already does - linking outside the app.
As for Amazons 70% that's an argument of whataboutary ( and I doubt the stats anyway). But it is not relevant to this discussion. Amazon provides a server, hosts the content, distributes the content, and pays for the rights.
Apple does none of this. Kindle doesn't owe them a penny.
I don't think there's anything unfair about Apple's terms, EXCEPT for the part requiring that the iPad price be equal or better than prices in non-Apple outlets. It seems to cross the line into price fixing. I can see an argument that it is anti-competitive. (Wikipedia - Anti-Competitive Practices)
The banning links to outside content is not great either but probably acceptable depending on how strict they are in their definitions and enforcement. The price fixing is across the line in a big way. If the iTunes store with single click is so much better that it is worth a 30% fee, than let it compete on its own terms and let customers decide. By putting in the price restriction, Apple is admiting upfront that their service is worth the same or less than other retail channels which then begs the question why the content providers should have to pay for it.
Yes they changed the terms. Sony was rejected for doing what Kindle already does - linking outside the app.
As for Amazons 70% that's an argument of whataboutary ( and I doubt the stats anyway). But it is not relevant to this discussion. Amazon provides a server, hosts the content, distributes the content, and pays for the rights.
Apple does none of this. Kindle doesn't owe them a penny.
No they didn't change the terms... they started ENFORCING them. Go read the original rules. Even Sony said, "Apple changed the way it enforces its rules," on its website after Apple rejected their app.
And no, Apple's iBooks, iTunes and the AppStore all HOST the content, handle the transactions, distributes the content and pays for the rights at a flat 30% fee. What the hell was Amazon doing with all that extra money?
Apple is treating ALL content providers equally. Why do they care where the content originated from and how much the provider had to pay for it and on what terms?
No they didn't change the terms... they started ENFORCING them. Go read the original rules.
Lol.
The rules prohibited using in app purchases. The wording allowed Kindle.
Deciding that a words means one thing one month and another the next is arbitrary Orwellian bullshit. it also brings down some of the more important publishers in the world who had, or were working on, their own models and allows Google marketing muscle.
Look you fanatics don't matter. What matters is , when kindle goes, what the average Joe does.
No they didn't change the terms... they started ENFORCING them. Go read the original rules. Even Sony said, "Apple changed the way it enforces its rules," on its website after Apple rejected their app.
And no, Apple's iBooks, iTunes and the AppStore all HOST the content, handle the transactions, distributes the content and pays for the rights.
Apple is treating ALL content providers equally.
Show me the text from the orriginal rules that says content must be offered at the same price or less than it is sold through other channels.
The banning links to outside content is not great either but probably acceptable depending on how strict they are in their definitions and enforcement. The price fixing is across the line in a big way. If the iTunes store with single click is so much better that it is worth a 30% fee, than let it compete on its own terms and let customers decide. By putting in the price restriction, Apple is admiting upfront that their service is worth the same or less than other retail channels which then begs the question why the content providers should have to pay for it.
See, this is the attitude I really don't understand.
The issue here is that there is a difference in content "providers"... either the content originated from the provider, creators; publisher, authors, artists, labels, studio, etc. or the content is coming from a middleman, a reseller, a store.
Everyone thinks that Apple should differentiate between the two. They can keep their 30% for the creators to sell on iOS, but they shouldn't charge resellers. How is that even fair? Apple is saying to EVERYONE, if you're selling something we want 30%.
Apple SAID THE EXACT SAME THING when iBooks was released; any publisher that wanted to offer their books on iBooks could not sell them at a higher price than they sold anywhere else.
Show me the text from the orriginal rules that says content must be offered at the same price or less than it is sold through other channels.
I'll hold my breath.
You're right, that was never mentioned before, but neither was subscriptions. Apple instituted subscriptions and with came enforcing the original terms of not letting anyone sell anything in-app (this means any transaction originating from in an app, including linking to a web store front) without using Apple's IAP system.
And with that came a new rule , which previously applied to iBooks, that content providers cannot charge more for content. This was done for one reason and one reason only, to protect iOS users from being taken advantage of by unfairly being charged more.
That's not price fixing. That's making sure your users aren't getting screwed - it is well within Apple's rights to make sure of that. It is not anti-competitive in any legal sense. Apple is not forcing them to do anything beyond Apple's own platform; play fair or get off their playground.
Eventually, as the iPad becomes the standard way to view content, these guys won't have any choice but to play on Apple's platform. They will have to adjust or perish. At that point, I hope that Apple raises it to 51%. It will take a while, but at this rate, the publishing industry is quickly running out of options.
Should I be upset because it is not as easy to buy a computer without an operating system installed. If I buy a Dell or HP PC it will come with Windows. Part of the cost of that PC is to pay for Windows and the PC mfg. makes money too. Yes I can buy the OS separately and install it myself. It is more hassle for me, so like the vast majority I take advantage of the convenience of having it come pre installed. So Apple figures out a way to make it as seamless as possible to buy music and software, which is attractive to the consumer. Instead of all the providers taking advantage of this consumer friendly service, they fight it at the expense of the customer. However what I just said and what the article talks about is not the real issue. The issue is that Apple has created a business model that will cause the publishers etc from not being able to get your information which they can use to sell advertising.This is not about how the consumer can acquire your product this is about who gets to sell your information. Nail in the coffin. Thank you Apple for providing me a way to be a consumer and not have to reveal information about myself that I don't know I am or want to or who is getting it.
By putting in the price restriction, Apple is admiting upfront that their service is worth the same or less than other retail channels which then begs the question why the content providers should have to pay for it.
If the content providers want people to read their stuff on an iPad, then the content providers can pay Apple for that privilege.
If the publishers want to lose millions of iPad owners forever, then they have no reason to pay Apple for the services that Apple provides to them.
Same as anybody else. There will always be el-cheapo alternatives to Apple, and the most foolish amongst us always picks that alternative. But the wise publishers will come around, more and more as the iPad becomes the standard way to view magazines.
The rules prohibited using in app purchases. The wording allowed Kindle.
Deciding that a words means one thing one month and another the next is arbitrary Orwellian bullshit. it also brings down some of the more important publishers in the world who had, or were working on, their own models and allows Google marketing muscle.
Look you fanatics don't matter. What matters is , when kindle goes, what the average Joe does.
No, it didn't allow Kindle. Apple overlooked it, because it wasn't a big deal and they didn't need to enforce. NOw that they have a subscription model in place, they HAVE to enforce the rule for everyone.
The rule stated all and any content that enhanced an application had to go through IAP. No other purchasing system could be used which included redirecting someone to a website.
Amazon will NOT remove the Kindle app because of this. There is too much at stake. Apple's user base is the most "spendiest" group of users on any platform. The exposure is too great for anyone to remove their apps.
Sure everybody gets 30% of their gross, taken by Apple including Apple.
Jesus wept.
You can laugh all you want. Bottom line is Apple is not doing anything illegal. There is no antitrust issue here. Apple is not telling providers how they should conduct business beyond Apple's own platform. They are making sure that iOS users have an easy one-click method for purchasing content and making sure the users are not getting screwed.
Comments
What would make this business intractable to a "government bureaucrat"? In fact, they'd better understand it, for the salaries and benefits we taxpayers pay them.
Anybody have a link to Apple's original terms for iOS developers? I read here on AI that the restrictions Apple is starting to impose have always existed. In which case it's hard for me to believe representatives of any sizable business venture didn't see this coming.
You heard wrong. The provisions - which by the way have been exhaustively poured over in these threads - said nothing about similar prices, and merely said that in app purchasing within the app should use Apple's IAP - not their own. It said nothing about linking outside the app, which is why Kindle launched on the iPad within days of it's release. They've added new bits subsequently.
Apple's new ads: we will add restrictions as we see fit during your development process, wiping out any sunk costs, so why not go develop for Android instead.
It's time for we the people to demand that government stop trying to regulate business. If the publishers choose to accept Apple's terms, that is their business. If they choose to reject or continue to negotiate. But there could be nothing worse than a bureaucrat in the government sticking his nose in to stuff he does not understand.
Why on earth do we the people permit government bureaucrats who do not have the cojones to start or operate a business to regulate anything.
Time to dump Obama and his regulators.
Wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Read some history.
Why on earth do we the people permit government bureaucrats who do not have the cojones to start or operate a business to regulate anything.
Time to dump Obama and his regulators.
Think of that the next time you take your Verizon phone abroad and it doesn't work. Regulation, especially in the wireless industry, is a terrible, terrible thing.
I don't think there's anything unfair about Apple's terms, EXCEPT for the part requiring that the iPad price be equal or better than prices in non-Apple outlets. It seems to cross the line into price fixing. I can see an argument that it is anti-competitive. (Wikipedia - Anti-Competitive Practices)
That's not price fixing. That's making sure your users aren't getting screwed - it is well within Apple's rights to make sure of that. It is not anti-competitive in any legal sense. Apple is not forcing them to do anything beyond Apple's own platform; play fair or get off their playground.
Amazon used to take 70% plus download fees, and they set a price of no more than 9.99. Publishers got < $3. And to get your content on the Kindle you HAD to go through Amazon. So I'm a little bewildered as to why some people think Apple's 30% is outrageous?
You heard wrong. The provisions - which by the way have been exhaustively poured over in these threads - said nothing about similar prices, and merely said that in app purchasing within the app should use Apple's IAP - not their own. It said nothing about linking outside the app, which is why Kindle launched on the iPad within days of it's release. They've added new bits subsequently.
Apple's new ads: we will add restrictions as we see fit during your development process, wiping out any sunk costs, so why not go develop for Android instead.
No they didn't. All they added was "Subscriptions".
The rules ALWAYS stated that any purchased content, features or services that are in app, need to go through Apple's IAP system. And that only content, features or services that are in app could be sold through IAP - no real world goods or services could be sold.
The difference between then and now is that Apple has to enforce that rule due to subscriptions.
Again, Amazon used to take +70% of all content sold and subscriptions. And it was the only way publishers and authors could get their content sold on the Kindle.
No they didn't. All they added was "Subscriptions".
The rules ALWAYS stated that any purchased content, features or services that are in app, need to go through Apple's IAP system. And that only content, features or services that are in app could be sold through IAP - no real world goods or services could be sold.
The difference between then and now is that Apple now Apple has to enforce that rule due to subscriptions.
Again, Amazon used to take +70% of all content sold and subscriptions. And it was the only way publishers and authors could get their content sold on the Kindle.
Yes they changed the terms. Sony was rejected for doing what Kindle already does - linking outside the app.
As for Amazons 70% that's an argument of whataboutary ( and I doubt the stats anyway). But it is not relevant to this discussion. Amazon provides a server, hosts the content, distributes the content, and pays for the rights.
Apple does none of this. Kindle doesn't owe them a penny.
I don't think there's anything unfair about Apple's terms, EXCEPT for the part requiring that the iPad price be equal or better than prices in non-Apple outlets. It seems to cross the line into price fixing. I can see an argument that it is anti-competitive. (Wikipedia - Anti-Competitive Practices)
BINGO! We have a winner in post #1!
The banning links to outside content is not great either but probably acceptable depending on how strict they are in their definitions and enforcement. The price fixing is across the line in a big way. If the iTunes store with single click is so much better that it is worth a 30% fee, than let it compete on its own terms and let customers decide. By putting in the price restriction, Apple is admiting upfront that their service is worth the same or less than other retail channels which then begs the question why the content providers should have to pay for it.
I think Apple fans would be more keen on government intervention if Windows were doing something like this.
First of all, i'd be all for that even if Apple were doing this for Mac OS X.
But that is an entirely different situation. Both Windows and Mac OS X are open platforms, iOS is not and has never been.
Yes they changed the terms. Sony was rejected for doing what Kindle already does - linking outside the app.
As for Amazons 70% that's an argument of whataboutary ( and I doubt the stats anyway). But it is not relevant to this discussion. Amazon provides a server, hosts the content, distributes the content, and pays for the rights.
Apple does none of this. Kindle doesn't owe them a penny.
No they didn't change the terms... they started ENFORCING them. Go read the original rules. Even Sony said, "Apple changed the way it enforces its rules," on its website after Apple rejected their app.
And no, Apple's iBooks, iTunes and the AppStore all HOST the content, handle the transactions, distributes the content and pays for the rights at a flat 30% fee. What the hell was Amazon doing with all that extra money?
Apple is treating ALL content providers equally. Why do they care where the content originated from and how much the provider had to pay for it and on what terms?
Umm....there's no mention of a race in that post, so how is it racism?
Because anyone who does not agree with 100% of what Obama says and does is only disagreeing because he is black and they are a racist.
No they didn't change the terms... they started ENFORCING them. Go read the original rules.
Lol.
The rules prohibited using in app purchases. The wording allowed Kindle.
Deciding that a words means one thing one month and another the next is arbitrary Orwellian bullshit. it also brings down some of the more important publishers in the world who had, or were working on, their own models and allows Google marketing muscle.
Look you fanatics don't matter. What matters is , when kindle goes, what the average Joe does.
No they didn't change the terms... they started ENFORCING them. Go read the original rules.
And no, Apple's iBooks, iTunes and the AppStore all HOST the content, handle the transactions, distributes the content and pays for the rights.
Apple is treating ALL content providers equally.
HaHaHaHaHaHa
Sure everybody gets 30% of their gross, taken by Apple including Apple.
Jesus wept.
No they didn't change the terms... they started ENFORCING them. Go read the original rules. Even Sony said, "Apple changed the way it enforces its rules," on its website after Apple rejected their app.
And no, Apple's iBooks, iTunes and the AppStore all HOST the content, handle the transactions, distributes the content and pays for the rights.
Apple is treating ALL content providers equally.
Show me the text from the orriginal rules that says content must be offered at the same price or less than it is sold through other channels.
I'll hold my breath.
BINGO! We have a winner in post #1!
The banning links to outside content is not great either but probably acceptable depending on how strict they are in their definitions and enforcement. The price fixing is across the line in a big way. If the iTunes store with single click is so much better that it is worth a 30% fee, than let it compete on its own terms and let customers decide. By putting in the price restriction, Apple is admiting upfront that their service is worth the same or less than other retail channels which then begs the question why the content providers should have to pay for it.
See, this is the attitude I really don't understand.
The issue here is that there is a difference in content "providers"... either the content originated from the provider, creators; publisher, authors, artists, labels, studio, etc. or the content is coming from a middleman, a reseller, a store.
Everyone thinks that Apple should differentiate between the two. They can keep their 30% for the creators to sell on iOS, but they shouldn't charge resellers. How is that even fair? Apple is saying to EVERYONE, if you're selling something we want 30%.
Apple SAID THE EXACT SAME THING when iBooks was released; any publisher that wanted to offer their books on iBooks could not sell them at a higher price than they sold anywhere else.
Show me the text from the orriginal rules that says content must be offered at the same price or less than it is sold through other channels.
I'll hold my breath.
You're right, that was never mentioned before, but neither was subscriptions. Apple instituted subscriptions and with came enforcing the original terms of not letting anyone sell anything in-app (this means any transaction originating from in an app, including linking to a web store front) without using Apple's IAP system.
And with that came a new rule , which previously applied to iBooks, that content providers cannot charge more for content. This was done for one reason and one reason only, to protect iOS users from being taken advantage of by unfairly being charged more.
That's not price fixing. That's making sure your users aren't getting screwed - it is well within Apple's rights to make sure of that. It is not anti-competitive in any legal sense. Apple is not forcing them to do anything beyond Apple's own platform; play fair or get off their playground.
Eventually, as the iPad becomes the standard way to view content, these guys won't have any choice but to play on Apple's platform. They will have to adjust or perish. At that point, I hope that Apple raises it to 51%. It will take a while, but at this rate, the publishing industry is quickly running out of options.
By putting in the price restriction, Apple is admiting upfront that their service is worth the same or less than other retail channels which then begs the question why the content providers should have to pay for it.
If the content providers want people to read their stuff on an iPad, then the content providers can pay Apple for that privilege.
If the publishers want to lose millions of iPad owners forever, then they have no reason to pay Apple for the services that Apple provides to them.
Same as anybody else. There will always be el-cheapo alternatives to Apple, and the most foolish amongst us always picks that alternative. But the wise publishers will come around, more and more as the iPad becomes the standard way to view magazines.
Steve knows what he is doing.
Lol.
The rules prohibited using in app purchases. The wording allowed Kindle.
Deciding that a words means one thing one month and another the next is arbitrary Orwellian bullshit. it also brings down some of the more important publishers in the world who had, or were working on, their own models and allows Google marketing muscle.
Look you fanatics don't matter. What matters is , when kindle goes, what the average Joe does.
No, it didn't allow Kindle. Apple overlooked it, because it wasn't a big deal and they didn't need to enforce. NOw that they have a subscription model in place, they HAVE to enforce the rule for everyone.
The rule stated all and any content that enhanced an application had to go through IAP. No other purchasing system could be used which included redirecting someone to a website.
Amazon will NOT remove the Kindle app because of this. There is too much at stake. Apple's user base is the most "spendiest" group of users on any platform. The exposure is too great for anyone to remove their apps.
HaHaHaHaHaHa
Sure everybody gets 30% of their gross, taken by Apple including Apple.
Jesus wept.
You can laugh all you want. Bottom line is Apple is not doing anything illegal. There is no antitrust issue here. Apple is not telling providers how they should conduct business beyond Apple's own platform. They are making sure that iOS users have an easy one-click method for purchasing content and making sure the users are not getting screwed.
And Jesus was a bitch anyway, of course it wept.