IAP will NOT be profitable for Amazon. Period. I'm sure even YOU can agree with that. So what that means is that the addition of IAP means more purchases outside of iOS, which you should see makes absolutely no sense.
I agree. One way or another, Amazon is screwed. So? Apple will cut out the middleman. So? Do we still have buggy-whip manufacturers? Apple will buy directly from the content producer/creator, just like it does with its App Store.
Other than Amazon and the other distributors, who loses? And if THEY lose, who cares?
And no, it's not monopolistic. Amazon can sell on the Kindle and, for a while, on Google (although they, too, are getting into the distribution game). And they can sell all the other stuff they sell. They won't be put out of business. They just can't (profitably) sell content on iDevices any more.
You know who wins, big time, with Apple's approach? The content creator, that's who. They can sell DIRECTLY to Apple now, just like with apps. And they keep 70%. Funny how nobody talks about that aspect....
You are making it so much more complicated than it really is. By virtue that there are literally hundreds of millions of other devices that are capable of accessing Kindle services. There is little chance iOS will be the dominant way people use Kindle services.
I do agree that iOS is likely to be a very popular way to access Kindle services. Again that goes to the benefit of Amazon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
No, what I'm asking you to prove is that the addition of IAP will INCREASE sales outside of iOS. Your ENTIRE argument hinges on this. If most of those iOS users use IAP and not another device, iOS is USELESS to Kindle.
No, what I'm asking you to prove is that the addition of IAP will INCREASE sales outside of iOS. Your ENTIRE argument hinges on this. If most of those iOS users use IAP and not another device, iOS is USELESS to Kindle.
Our argument doesn't hinge on that at all. The issue is, will Amazon be able to make money with eBook sales if they support iOS and have to offer IAP. Our argument is that it's ridiculous to assume that Kindle users who own iOS devices will make all of their purchases through IAP. There is absolutely no reason to think this would be the case. So, the only issue is whether Amazon makes more profit by maintaining the apparent ubiquity of Kindle, staying on iOS and paying some small percentage of their revenues to Apple as agreed to in their developer agreement, or, if they make more money by dropping iOS and alienating those users and having them start thinking about buying iBooks, or Nook books, or something else. I think their best, and only sound, option is the former and that their profits will increase from increased overall sales (including sales to new Kindle users who don't even own iOS devices but adopt Kindle because of the perception that they can read their books anywhere), only a small fraction of which will take place through IAP.
Your argument is that every iOS user will purchase every book they buy through IAP and it will cost Amazon every penny of profit from every one of those users. Yet you haven't presented any reasons why your scenario is even plausible, let alone probable.
The strength of Kindle for Amazon is its ubiquity, and it's worth a small percentage of revenue to maintain that.
I agree. One way or another, Amazon is screwed. So? Apple will cut out the middleman. So? Do we still have buggy-whip manufacturers? Apple will buy directly from the content producer/creator, just like it does with its App Store.
Other than Amazon and the other distributors, who loses? And if THEY lose, who cares?
And no, it's not monopolistic. Amazon can sell on the Kindle and, for a while, on Google (although they, too, are getting into the distribution game). And they can sell all the other stuff they sell. They won't be put out of business. They just can't (profitably) sell content on iDevices any more.
You know who wins, big time, with Apple's approach? The content creator, that's who. They can sell DIRECTLY to Apple now, just like with apps. And they keep 70%. Funny how nobody talks about that aspect....
You would have a point ONLY if Apple offered easy portability of content purchased through iBooks. They don't. If you buy an iBook and want to leave iOS, not only are you giving up your device (and any purchased apps) but you're giving up that CONTENT.
HOW is this a win for customers? All you're doing is trading one distributer for another, and this new one LOCKS your content to their devices, which is worse than what Kindle offers.
Sure, it's a "win" for publishers because that means you're buying the SAME content multiple times, but that's going backward. Why is it when ANY OTHER COMPANY tries making a profit they're evil leeches, but if it's Apple, it's suddenly ok, even if you end up having to pay MORE.
... Don't tell me I'm ignoring information that counters my position when you can't even offer a single SHRED of evidence that supports yours.
As noted, your argument isn't even plausible. The idea that Kindle users who own iOS devices will likely buy books through multiple avenues and not only IAP is simply common sense. If you're going to push a wild theory against common sense, it's you who needs to give some reason why it should be believed.
Our argument doesn't hinge on that at all. The issue is, will Amazon be able to make money with eBook sales if they support iOS and have to offer IAP. Our argument is that it's ridiculous to assume that Kindle users who own iOS devices will make all of their purchases through IAP. There is absolutely no reason to think this would be the case. So, the only issue is whether Amazon makes more profit by maintaining the apparent ubiquity of Kindle, staying on iOS and paying some small percentage of their revenues to Apple as agreed to in their developer agreement, or, if they make more money by dropping iOS and alienating those users and having them start thinking about buying iBooks, or Nook books, or something else. I think their best, and only sound, option is the former and that their profits will increase from increased overall sales (including sales to new Kindle users who don't even own iOS devices but adopt Kindle because of the perception that they can read their books anywhere), only a small fraction of which will take place through IAP.
Your argument is that every iOS user will purchase every book they buy through IAP and it will cost Amazon every penny of profit from every one of those users. Yet you haven't presented any reasons why your scenario is even plausible, let alone probable.
The strength of Kindle for Amazon is its ubiquity, and it's worth a small percentage of revenue to maintain that.
Again, I'm NOT saying apple should get nothing. They just shouldn't get a PERCENTAGE of every sale.
And yes, it IS perfectly reasonable to assume that almost EVERY purchase currently made with the webapp will be made with IAP because the customer experience IMPROVES and it doesn't cost the CUSTOMER any more money. If they ANYTHING else, they would fly in the face of common sense and consumer behavior. In fact, if it was likely they would choose something OTHER than what I suggested, Apple wouldn't make this requirement in the first place.
This is SIMPLE logic.
-Apple is saying the ONLY way to purchase content on your iOS device is through iTunes
-Apple is MANDATING that you can't even give a LINK to an alternative payment method
-Apple is MANDATING that you can't offer an incentive to get people to purchase outside of IAP for those iOS users. This means that not only is IAP significantly more convenient for customers, that it offers no real change for customers (other than the inability to use Amazon gift cards), but that customers will have to willfully choose to purchase elsewhere.
That ubiquity IS important, but only if it's profitable. IF iOS is such a "necessary" part of of the formula to make Kindle succeed, that that lends MORE credence to my position. If it's something they could do without, then they WILL do without it.
And again, don't tell me I'm not presenting any "valid" evidence when you're not presenting any evidence, valid or otherwise.
As noted, your argument isn't even plausible. The idea that Kindle users who own iOS devices will likely buy books through multiple avenues and not only IAP is simply common sense. If you're going to push a wild theory against common sense, it's you who needs to give some reason why it should be believed.
It's entirely plausible. Which is why you refuse to attempt to refute it directly. You instead try and just write it off because you don't agree with it. You saying the notion is implausible doesn't make it so. You keep trying to expand the argument to take other points into effect that don't matter. Customers who ALREADY purchase content on something other than their iOS device will continue to do so. In fact, some might stop if they want to use an iTunes gift card.
So you NEVER use "one click pay" options? And if someone tells you about something cool you NEVER look it up on your iOS device? If presented with the choice to buy in app or go to a website (without a link) find the book again and purchase that way you MIGHT choose to go the harder route?
Yes, those iOS users might buy on other platforms, but THATS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. The ONLY customers that matter are those customers that DISCOVER kindle because it's on iOS or they use their iDevices to consume that content in almost every case.
So please, tell me why a customer would choose the less convenient route to buy books when there is NO incentive to do so.
Again, we're NOT talking about the people who already do this, as they would've done it anyway.
We're talking about customers who currently use the webapp to purchase content OR potential customers who would only discover (or use) kindle if they could get it on their iDevice.
Please tell me how the assumption that a customer who currently purchases a majority (or all) of their content via the webapp will suddenly switch to something that's NOT IAP. Not only does this mean a change in purchase habits, but there is no new cost to the customer by using IAP, so no incentive for them to look at alternatives.
Again, I'm NOT saying apple should get nothing. They just shouldn't get a PERCENTAGE of every sale. ...
They won't, only that fraction of sales that occurs through IAP. You're the one here claiming Amazon will make $0 from Kindle book sales, and that all sales will take place though IAP. Neither of those claims is at all plausible, and your trollish history of Apple Bashing here at AI doesn't give you any credibility as an objective analyst.
The idea that you can put forth any crazy theory and that the onus is on those who don't believe it to disprove it also flies in the face of common sense, especially when every aspect of the theory flies in the face of common sense. So, if you're going to push a wild doomsday theory, You're the one who needs to prove that it's at least plausible. Until then, you can't be taken seriously, and we can just assume you are here this time for the same reason you always come.
They won't, only that fraction of sales that occurs through IAP. You're the one here claiming Amazon will make $0 from Kindle book sales, and that all sales will take place though IAP. Neither of those claims is at all plausible, and your trollish history of Apple Bashing here at AI doesn't give you any credibility as an objective analyst.
No, I am claiming that Amazon will make 0 from kindle book sales on iOS devices, WHICH IS TRUE. Please tell me how this flies in the face of common sense. Just because YOU try changing the argument doesn't make my initial point invalid because you've provided NOTHING to show that your new argument is valid other than you saying it is.
Again, customers who use others methods WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO, so their purchasing habits DO NO MATTER. The ONLY things affected by this change are purchases currently made through the WebApp, or customers who would register for kindle service through an iOS device and would NOT do so otherwise. That is the ONLY market that matters here. All that other revenue that takes place OUTSIDE of iOS's webapp will not me affected with IAP, and it will not decrease should iOS not be available on the phone.
Unless you're trying to imply that all these kindle users who buy content through something other than the webapp will suddently stop using Kindle because the app is pulled. I'd like to know where you get the assumption that a customer will purchase content on something OTHER than the device he primarily consumes it on.
You're trying to say that the losses incurred by IAP will be more than made up for because suddenly all of these customers who signed up for Kindle BECAUSE/Through IAP will change that initial purchasing habit
Your trollish history of refusing to answer ANY question with anything other than petty retorts doesn't give you any credibility when you try and refute claims. People who agree with you will continue to do so, everyone else will continue to hold their own opinion.
You CANNOT demand that everyone else provide evidence for their claims when you NEVER give any of your own, no matter the argument.
You would have a point ONLY if Apple offered easy portability of content purchased through iBooks. They don't. If you buy an iBook and want to leave iOS, not only are you giving up your device (and any purchased apps) but you're giving up that CONTENT.
Now why in the world would a business want to REWARD someone for going to their competitor? That makes zero sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
HOW is this a win for customers?
I'll get to that. First the rest of your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
All you're doing is trading one distributer for another, and this new one LOCKS your content to their devices, which is worse than what Kindle offers.
So don't buy their device, or if you've already bought it, sell it on eBay and go buy into the Android universe. Or go buy a Kindle. They're dirt cheap, you know. Nobody's forcing you to stay with Apple. Personally, I'm not going anywhere. I've been an Apple-only person since 1984, and I couldn't be happier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
Sure, it's a "win" for publishers because that means you're buying the SAME content multiple times, but that's going backward. Why is it when ANY OTHER COMPANY tries making a profit they're evil leeches, but if it's Apple, it's suddenly ok, even if you end up having to pay MORE.
How are you buying the same content multiple times? By moving away from iDevices? That's your choice. And frankly, if that's your big "windfall" for publishers, they're dead meat anyway.
Besides, I never said it was a "win" for publishers. I said it was a "win" for CONTENT CREATORS. There's a huge difference between the two. For publishers, it's a draw, assuming they're paying 30% now to their distributors. It's only a win for them if/when they pay more than 30% (i.e., when Amazon has to raise their prices to keep selling into the iDevice market).
Look, a leech is a parasite that adds nothing, like Amazon and the rest of the distributors, which have had a free ride on Apple's back. They are leeches. If Apple did the same thing on the Kindle or the Nook, then THEY would be leeches!
4. Possibility in the future of purchasing directly from content creators and bypassing content producers. That could DRASTICALLY reduce the price to the consumer.
Now why in the world would a business want to REWARD someone for going to their competitor? That makes zero sense.
So you want to go back to the days when music you purchased could ONLY be used on certain devices? When they tried DRM locking cd's?
You want all file formats to be proprietary so that if I write a document in word on my PC you won't be able to read it on your mac?
Quote:
I'll get to that. First the rest of your post:
So don't buy their device, or if you've already bought it, sell it on eBay and go buy into the Android universe. Or go buy a Kindle. They're dirt cheap, you know. Nobody's forcing you to stay with Apple. Personally, I'm not going anywhere. I've been an Apple-only person since 1984, and I couldn't be happier.
How are you buying the same content multiple times? By moving away from iDevices? That's your choice. And frankly, if that's your big "windfall" for publishers, they're dead meat anyway.
Besides, I never said it was a "win" for publishers. I said it was a "win" for CONTENT CREATORS. There's a huge difference between the two. For publishers, it's a draw, assuming they're paying 30% now to their distributors. It's only a win for them if/when they pay more than 30% (i.e., when Amazon has to raise their prices to keep selling into the iDevice market).
Look, a leech is a parasite that adds nothing. Amazon and the rest of the distributors, which have had a free ride on Apple's back. They are leeches. If Apple did the same thing on the Kindle or the Nook, then THEY would be leeches!
Really? So you're saying having big name content providers like Amazon, Netflix, Hulu+, Pandora, etc haven't helped to sell a SINGLE iDevice? Sorry, that's just stupid. If apps didn't sell iDevices, then Apple wouldn't use third party apps almost Exclusively to market their products.
And you're missing the point with iBooks. The point is that if you're perfectly happy with your iphone NOW, that is not a guarantee that you will be in the future. What content distributors like kindle offer that Apple DOES NOT is portability. So say in 5 years a customer wants to try a different platform or they are FORCED to because of work. Not only will they lose their device, but they'll lose all the content they bought on it as well.
You might be happy being Mac only, but not everyone will be. Portability is HUGE. Or did you miss Steve Jobs constant speeches about how proprietary internet needed to die, or how DRM locked music hurt the consumer (even though it was great for Apple).
No, I am claiming that Amazon will make 0 from kindle book sales on iOS devices, WHICH IS TRUE. Please tell me how this flies in the face of common sense. Just because YOU try changing the argument doesn't make my initial point invalid because you've provided NOTHING to show that your new argument is valid other than you saying it is. ...
No, your initial argument was that with IAP enabled, Amazon would make $0 off iOS users. That's what your "numbers" and "math" were intended to show. It assumes that they will all only buy books through IAP, and, again, that's not even plausible. What's plausible is that there will be some mix of sales, and that "Apple's cut" of Kindle book sales will be substantially less than 30% overall. It's not even plausible that someone who uses the Kindle reader only on iOS will never go buy books directly from Amazon's web site, simply because it's easier to browse through books there from one's personal computer than it would be to do so from an iPhone (I much prefer to buy apps through the iTunes app on my Mac than through the App Store apps on iPhone or iPad, simply because it's easier to browse the store and read reviews from there.) and some people will simply prefer to do that.
4. Possibility in the future of purchasing directly from content creators and bypassing content producers. That could DRASTICALLY reduce the price to the consumer.
1. That you're locked into a DEVICE when you decide to purchase content. Also, allowing customers to use their amazon account to pay on iDevices is STILL one stop shopping.
2. Amazon ALREADY offers this.
3. No, you get no more control. Apple still gets ALL your information and they still sell it to advertisers. Blocking purchase data means increased costs for products that use advertising because they'll be able to claim less money for their ads.
4. This is only a win if there is portability. There isn't. iBooks isn't a solution here, it's WORSE for the consumer than kindle currently is because your locked to a single ecosystem.
The only way this could be a WIN is if this pushed content creators towards DRM free formats, with an easy way to re-download content if I switched devices. This WILL NOT HAPPEN under Apple's model. Content producers will either switch to ibooks (more restrictive) or write their own apps, and you can bet that they WON'T make the content portable. book sellers HATE portability. They'd prefer there would be no used book market if it was at all possible.
No, your initial argument was that with IAP enabled, Amazon would make $0 off iOS users. That's what your "numbers" and "math" were intended to show. It assumes that they will all only buy books through IAP, and, again, that's not even plausible. What's plausible is that there will be some mix of sales, and that "Apple's cut" of Kindle book sales will be substantially less than 30% overall. It's not even plausible that someone who uses the Kindle reader only on iOS will never go buy books directly from Amazon's web site, simply because it's easier to browse through books there from one's personal computer than it would be to do so from an iPhone (I much prefer to buy apps through the iTunes app on my Mac than through the App Store apps on iPhone or iPad, simply because it's easier to browse the store and read reviews from there.) and some people will simply prefer to do that.
Some people will, most won't. Again, assuming similar price convenience wins. Most book discoveries are made because of recommendations from friends/familiars. generally when someone refers something to you, you want to look it up right away, not wait until you have a bigger screen unless there is some incentive to do so. The fact that you're posting on a forum on the internet, specifically a tech forum, means that you (and I) are nowhere near typical users.
Again, iOS users who don't use the webAPP will most likely NOT use IAP, so it's a non issue. the ONLY customers that matter here are the ones who use the webapp or have yet to register for kindle. ALL OTHER PURCHASES will be static (ideally) or go down (itunes gift cards) so they do not factor here.
You're implying that Amazon will LOSE more money by pulling an app (meaning all current customers who purchase via other venues will stop using the service) than they will lose thanks to IAP, but you're giving nothing to back that up.
It is a GIVEN that amazon will lose money EVERY time someone uses IAP unless they change their contracts with publishers.
It is a GIVEN that customers prefer convenience, and that IAP is extremely convenient
It is a GIVEN that media content is largely recommendation driven, and that mobile computing is quickly overtaking traditional computers.
It is a GIVEN that not every book purchased via IAP is a sale that would not occur without Apple. IAP is just the path of least resistance for purchase. Moreover, apple is assuming NONE of the distribution/licensing costs associated with the purchase.
It is a GIVEN that some customers (no matter ho small) purchased their iDevices in part because of these 3rd party ecosystems and Apple didn't give these companies a Dime for that referral.
Again, if this will cost amazon next to nothing because so few people will use IAP then why is APPLE requiring that they use it, and why are they making it impossible for amazon to offer another alternative within the app? Why not allow them to make a Read Only application? That way apple isn't bringing them a SINGLE customer.
This math lesson was brought to you by your third grade teacher, she really wishes you paid attention.
That's not what he is getting at. He's suggesting that since Amazon does not get 100% of its customers from iOS, the impact on them is limited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Let's be realistic and assume that, on average, it costs Amazon $0.50/book. (And I think that's a very generous to Amazon estimate of the true cost of this to them.)
With IAP
Book Price: $10
Publisher Cut: $7
Apple Cut: $0.50
Amazon Cut: $2.50
That's a much truer picture of what, in reality, this actually means to Amazon's bottom line. Your numbers falsely assume that every eBook Amazon sells will be sold through IAP, which is patently absurd, given the number of avenues customers have to purchase Kindle books. Frankly, I think that $0.50 as Apple's cut of the $10, spread over all of Amazon's eBook sales is probably significantly higher than it is likely to be, so the above is pretty much a worst case scenario for Amazon.
This still creates a questionable business case for Amazon to offer its services on iOS. In effect, Apple is requiring them to subsidize iOS customers with revenue from other customers, all to pad Apple's profit. If they have an business sense at all, they will declare the iOS ecosystem to be a loss-making part of their division and drop them. There is such a thing as a customer being not worthwhile. And with this policy, it may very well be true that the iOS customer is not worth serving.
I am sure their business analysts are crunching the numbers right now. And I am sure that they are trying to work out some kind of exception with Apple. I think that's why we haven't heard anything from them. Or other big guys like Netflix or Hulu. We're just hearing from the small fish right now.
I hope that if Apple doesn't give in, that they apply the policy evenly. If it compels companies like Amazon, Netflix, etc. to drop support for iOS, so be it. I don't see why non-iOS clients of those companies should have to subsidize iFans.
As noted, your argument isn't even plausible. The idea that Kindle users who own iOS devices will likely buy books through multiple avenues and not only IAP is simply common sense. If you're going to push a wild theory against common sense, it's you who needs to give some reason why it should be believed.
On the rare occassion, maybe. But if your iPhone or iPod Touch is your primary mobile device (and how many people carry multiple smart phones) and/or your iPad is primary e-reader, why would you buy your books through any other means when you can have one click purchasing through iTunes?
Apple is forcing Amazon to replace one click purchasing through Amazon with one click purchasing through iTunes. Yet you somehow think people won't use this on a regular basis.
Can you explain your logic? Please explain why you think somebody who probably consumes Kindle books mostly on their iPad and iPhone won't buy their books through the iPad or iPhone app?
1. That you're locked into a DEVICE when you decide to purchase content. Also, allowing customers to use their amazon account to pay on iDevices is STILL one stop shopping.
2. Amazon ALREADY offers this.
3. No, you get no more control. Apple still gets ALL your information and they still sell it to advertisers. Blocking purchase data means increased costs for products that use advertising because they'll be able to claim less money for their ads.
4. This is only a win if there is portability. There isn't. iBooks isn't a solution here, it's WORSE for the consumer than kindle currently is because your locked to a single ecosystem.
The only way this could be a WIN is if this pushed content creators towards DRM free formats, with an easy way to re-download content if I switched devices. This WILL NOT HAPPEN under Apple's model. Content producers will either switch to ibooks (more restrictive) or write their own apps, and you can bet that they WON'T make the content portable. book sellers HATE portability. They'd prefer there would be no used book market if it was at all possible.
I, and probably many, many others, could care less about your vaunted portability. If that's the make-or-break for you, fine. But it sure as heck doesn't rise to that level for me. The solution's obvious: You shouldn't buy Apple.
Frankly, I'm tired of beating this dead horse of yours. 'Bye now.
I, and probably many, many others, could care less about your vaunted portability. If that's the make-or-break for you, fine. But it sure as heck doesn't rise to that level for me. The solution's obvious: You shouldn't buy Apple.
Frankly, I'm tired of beating this dead horse of yours. 'Bye now.
Yes, because a majority of consumers LOVE DRM, right?
I stopped buying Apple when they told me I would have to give them MORE money to purchase DRM free copies of music I already owned. (.30 a song)
The thing is, when I decided to do that, I lost access to almost $300 of music, of which a good chunk I replaced (via amazonMP3 and other sites).
Now, how will someone react when they find out that the books they've been buying (via ibooks) are not portable when they go to switch to another platform in a few years? That in order for them to choose another platform they have to repurchase ALL that content.
Most customers understand that apps and games are locked to a platform, most of them DON'T understand (or accept) that media files are, thanks in a large part for Apple's push to end music DRM.
Comments
IAP will NOT be profitable for Amazon. Period. I'm sure even YOU can agree with that. So what that means is that the addition of IAP means more purchases outside of iOS, which you should see makes absolutely no sense.
I agree. One way or another, Amazon is screwed. So? Apple will cut out the middleman. So? Do we still have buggy-whip manufacturers? Apple will buy directly from the content producer/creator, just like it does with its App Store.
Other than Amazon and the other distributors, who loses? And if THEY lose, who cares?
And no, it's not monopolistic. Amazon can sell on the Kindle and, for a while, on Google (although they, too, are getting into the distribution game). And they can sell all the other stuff they sell. They won't be put out of business. They just can't (profitably) sell content on iDevices any more.
You know who wins, big time, with Apple's approach? The content creator, that's who. They can sell DIRECTLY to Apple now, just like with apps. And they keep 70%. Funny how nobody talks about that aspect....
I do agree that iOS is likely to be a very popular way to access Kindle services. Again that goes to the benefit of Amazon.
No, what I'm asking you to prove is that the addition of IAP will INCREASE sales outside of iOS. Your ENTIRE argument hinges on this. If most of those iOS users use IAP and not another device, iOS is USELESS to Kindle.
No, what I'm asking you to prove is that the addition of IAP will INCREASE sales outside of iOS. Your ENTIRE argument hinges on this. If most of those iOS users use IAP and not another device, iOS is USELESS to Kindle.
Our argument doesn't hinge on that at all. The issue is, will Amazon be able to make money with eBook sales if they support iOS and have to offer IAP. Our argument is that it's ridiculous to assume that Kindle users who own iOS devices will make all of their purchases through IAP. There is absolutely no reason to think this would be the case. So, the only issue is whether Amazon makes more profit by maintaining the apparent ubiquity of Kindle, staying on iOS and paying some small percentage of their revenues to Apple as agreed to in their developer agreement, or, if they make more money by dropping iOS and alienating those users and having them start thinking about buying iBooks, or Nook books, or something else. I think their best, and only sound, option is the former and that their profits will increase from increased overall sales (including sales to new Kindle users who don't even own iOS devices but adopt Kindle because of the perception that they can read their books anywhere), only a small fraction of which will take place through IAP.
Your argument is that every iOS user will purchase every book they buy through IAP and it will cost Amazon every penny of profit from every one of those users. Yet you haven't presented any reasons why your scenario is even plausible, let alone probable.
The strength of Kindle for Amazon is its ubiquity, and it's worth a small percentage of revenue to maintain that.
I agree. One way or another, Amazon is screwed. So? Apple will cut out the middleman. So? Do we still have buggy-whip manufacturers? Apple will buy directly from the content producer/creator, just like it does with its App Store.
Other than Amazon and the other distributors, who loses? And if THEY lose, who cares?
And no, it's not monopolistic. Amazon can sell on the Kindle and, for a while, on Google (although they, too, are getting into the distribution game). And they can sell all the other stuff they sell. They won't be put out of business. They just can't (profitably) sell content on iDevices any more.
You know who wins, big time, with Apple's approach? The content creator, that's who. They can sell DIRECTLY to Apple now, just like with apps. And they keep 70%. Funny how nobody talks about that aspect....
You would have a point ONLY if Apple offered easy portability of content purchased through iBooks. They don't. If you buy an iBook and want to leave iOS, not only are you giving up your device (and any purchased apps) but you're giving up that CONTENT.
HOW is this a win for customers? All you're doing is trading one distributer for another, and this new one LOCKS your content to their devices, which is worse than what Kindle offers.
Sure, it's a "win" for publishers because that means you're buying the SAME content multiple times, but that's going backward. Why is it when ANY OTHER COMPANY tries making a profit they're evil leeches, but if it's Apple, it's suddenly ok, even if you end up having to pay MORE.
... Don't tell me I'm ignoring information that counters my position when you can't even offer a single SHRED of evidence that supports yours.
As noted, your argument isn't even plausible. The idea that Kindle users who own iOS devices will likely buy books through multiple avenues and not only IAP is simply common sense. If you're going to push a wild theory against common sense, it's you who needs to give some reason why it should be believed.
Our argument doesn't hinge on that at all. The issue is, will Amazon be able to make money with eBook sales if they support iOS and have to offer IAP. Our argument is that it's ridiculous to assume that Kindle users who own iOS devices will make all of their purchases through IAP. There is absolutely no reason to think this would be the case. So, the only issue is whether Amazon makes more profit by maintaining the apparent ubiquity of Kindle, staying on iOS and paying some small percentage of their revenues to Apple as agreed to in their developer agreement, or, if they make more money by dropping iOS and alienating those users and having them start thinking about buying iBooks, or Nook books, or something else. I think their best, and only sound, option is the former and that their profits will increase from increased overall sales (including sales to new Kindle users who don't even own iOS devices but adopt Kindle because of the perception that they can read their books anywhere), only a small fraction of which will take place through IAP.
Your argument is that every iOS user will purchase every book they buy through IAP and it will cost Amazon every penny of profit from every one of those users. Yet you haven't presented any reasons why your scenario is even plausible, let alone probable.
The strength of Kindle for Amazon is its ubiquity, and it's worth a small percentage of revenue to maintain that.
Again, I'm NOT saying apple should get nothing. They just shouldn't get a PERCENTAGE of every sale.
And yes, it IS perfectly reasonable to assume that almost EVERY purchase currently made with the webapp will be made with IAP because the customer experience IMPROVES and it doesn't cost the CUSTOMER any more money. If they ANYTHING else, they would fly in the face of common sense and consumer behavior. In fact, if it was likely they would choose something OTHER than what I suggested, Apple wouldn't make this requirement in the first place.
This is SIMPLE logic.
-Apple is saying the ONLY way to purchase content on your iOS device is through iTunes
-Apple is MANDATING that you can't even give a LINK to an alternative payment method
-Apple is MANDATING that you can't offer an incentive to get people to purchase outside of IAP for those iOS users. This means that not only is IAP significantly more convenient for customers, that it offers no real change for customers (other than the inability to use Amazon gift cards), but that customers will have to willfully choose to purchase elsewhere.
That ubiquity IS important, but only if it's profitable. IF iOS is such a "necessary" part of of the formula to make Kindle succeed, that that lends MORE credence to my position. If it's something they could do without, then they WILL do without it.
And again, don't tell me I'm not presenting any "valid" evidence when you're not presenting any evidence, valid or otherwise.
As noted, your argument isn't even plausible. The idea that Kindle users who own iOS devices will likely buy books through multiple avenues and not only IAP is simply common sense. If you're going to push a wild theory against common sense, it's you who needs to give some reason why it should be believed.
It's entirely plausible. Which is why you refuse to attempt to refute it directly. You instead try and just write it off because you don't agree with it. You saying the notion is implausible doesn't make it so. You keep trying to expand the argument to take other points into effect that don't matter. Customers who ALREADY purchase content on something other than their iOS device will continue to do so. In fact, some might stop if they want to use an iTunes gift card.
So you NEVER use "one click pay" options? And if someone tells you about something cool you NEVER look it up on your iOS device? If presented with the choice to buy in app or go to a website (without a link) find the book again and purchase that way you MIGHT choose to go the harder route?
Yes, those iOS users might buy on other platforms, but THATS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. The ONLY customers that matter are those customers that DISCOVER kindle because it's on iOS or they use their iDevices to consume that content in almost every case.
So please, tell me why a customer would choose the less convenient route to buy books when there is NO incentive to do so.
Again, we're NOT talking about the people who already do this, as they would've done it anyway.
We're talking about customers who currently use the webapp to purchase content OR potential customers who would only discover (or use) kindle if they could get it on their iDevice.
Please tell me how the assumption that a customer who currently purchases a majority (or all) of their content via the webapp will suddenly switch to something that's NOT IAP. Not only does this mean a change in purchase habits, but there is no new cost to the customer by using IAP, so no incentive for them to look at alternatives.
Again, I'm NOT saying apple should get nothing. They just shouldn't get a PERCENTAGE of every sale. ...
They won't, only that fraction of sales that occurs through IAP. You're the one here claiming Amazon will make $0 from Kindle book sales, and that all sales will take place though IAP. Neither of those claims is at all plausible, and your trollish history of Apple Bashing here at AI doesn't give you any credibility as an objective analyst.
The idea that you can put forth any crazy theory and that the onus is on those who don't believe it to disprove it also flies in the face of common sense, especially when every aspect of the theory flies in the face of common sense. So, if you're going to push a wild doomsday theory, You're the one who needs to prove that it's at least plausible. Until then, you can't be taken seriously, and we can just assume you are here this time for the same reason you always come.
They won't, only that fraction of sales that occurs through IAP. You're the one here claiming Amazon will make $0 from Kindle book sales, and that all sales will take place though IAP. Neither of those claims is at all plausible, and your trollish history of Apple Bashing here at AI doesn't give you any credibility as an objective analyst.
No, I am claiming that Amazon will make 0 from kindle book sales on iOS devices, WHICH IS TRUE. Please tell me how this flies in the face of common sense. Just because YOU try changing the argument doesn't make my initial point invalid because you've provided NOTHING to show that your new argument is valid other than you saying it is.
Again, customers who use others methods WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO, so their purchasing habits DO NO MATTER. The ONLY things affected by this change are purchases currently made through the WebApp, or customers who would register for kindle service through an iOS device and would NOT do so otherwise. That is the ONLY market that matters here. All that other revenue that takes place OUTSIDE of iOS's webapp will not me affected with IAP, and it will not decrease should iOS not be available on the phone.
Unless you're trying to imply that all these kindle users who buy content through something other than the webapp will suddently stop using Kindle because the app is pulled. I'd like to know where you get the assumption that a customer will purchase content on something OTHER than the device he primarily consumes it on.
You're trying to say that the losses incurred by IAP will be more than made up for because suddenly all of these customers who signed up for Kindle BECAUSE/Through IAP will change that initial purchasing habit
Your trollish history of refusing to answer ANY question with anything other than petty retorts doesn't give you any credibility when you try and refute claims. People who agree with you will continue to do so, everyone else will continue to hold their own opinion.
You CANNOT demand that everyone else provide evidence for their claims when you NEVER give any of your own, no matter the argument.
You would have a point ONLY if Apple offered easy portability of content purchased through iBooks. They don't. If you buy an iBook and want to leave iOS, not only are you giving up your device (and any purchased apps) but you're giving up that CONTENT.
Now why in the world would a business want to REWARD someone for going to their competitor? That makes zero sense.
HOW is this a win for customers?
I'll get to that. First the rest of your post:
All you're doing is trading one distributer for another, and this new one LOCKS your content to their devices, which is worse than what Kindle offers.
So don't buy their device, or if you've already bought it, sell it on eBay and go buy into the Android universe. Or go buy a Kindle. They're dirt cheap, you know. Nobody's forcing you to stay with Apple. Personally, I'm not going anywhere. I've been an Apple-only person since 1984, and I couldn't be happier.
Sure, it's a "win" for publishers because that means you're buying the SAME content multiple times, but that's going backward. Why is it when ANY OTHER COMPANY tries making a profit they're evil leeches, but if it's Apple, it's suddenly ok, even if you end up having to pay MORE.
How are you buying the same content multiple times? By moving away from iDevices? That's your choice. And frankly, if that's your big "windfall" for publishers, they're dead meat anyway.
Besides, I never said it was a "win" for publishers. I said it was a "win" for CONTENT CREATORS. There's a huge difference between the two. For publishers, it's a draw, assuming they're paying 30% now to their distributors. It's only a win for them if/when they pay more than 30% (i.e., when Amazon has to raise their prices to keep selling into the iDevice market).
Look, a leech is a parasite that adds nothing, like Amazon and the rest of the distributors, which have had a free ride on Apple's back. They are leeches. If Apple did the same thing on the Kindle or the Nook, then THEY would be leeches!
HOW is this a win for customers?
1. One stop shopping.
2. One click shopping
3. Control of your personal information
4. Possibility in the future of purchasing directly from content creators and bypassing content producers. That could DRASTICALLY reduce the price to the consumer.
Now why in the world would a business want to REWARD someone for going to their competitor? That makes zero sense.
So you want to go back to the days when music you purchased could ONLY be used on certain devices? When they tried DRM locking cd's?
You want all file formats to be proprietary so that if I write a document in word on my PC you won't be able to read it on your mac?
I'll get to that. First the rest of your post:
So don't buy their device, or if you've already bought it, sell it on eBay and go buy into the Android universe. Or go buy a Kindle. They're dirt cheap, you know. Nobody's forcing you to stay with Apple. Personally, I'm not going anywhere. I've been an Apple-only person since 1984, and I couldn't be happier.
How are you buying the same content multiple times? By moving away from iDevices? That's your choice. And frankly, if that's your big "windfall" for publishers, they're dead meat anyway.
Besides, I never said it was a "win" for publishers. I said it was a "win" for CONTENT CREATORS. There's a huge difference between the two. For publishers, it's a draw, assuming they're paying 30% now to their distributors. It's only a win for them if/when they pay more than 30% (i.e., when Amazon has to raise their prices to keep selling into the iDevice market).
Look, a leech is a parasite that adds nothing. Amazon and the rest of the distributors, which have had a free ride on Apple's back. They are leeches. If Apple did the same thing on the Kindle or the Nook, then THEY would be leeches!
Really? So you're saying having big name content providers like Amazon, Netflix, Hulu+, Pandora, etc haven't helped to sell a SINGLE iDevice? Sorry, that's just stupid. If apps didn't sell iDevices, then Apple wouldn't use third party apps almost Exclusively to market their products.
And you're missing the point with iBooks. The point is that if you're perfectly happy with your iphone NOW, that is not a guarantee that you will be in the future. What content distributors like kindle offer that Apple DOES NOT is portability. So say in 5 years a customer wants to try a different platform or they are FORCED to because of work. Not only will they lose their device, but they'll lose all the content they bought on it as well.
You might be happy being Mac only, but not everyone will be. Portability is HUGE. Or did you miss Steve Jobs constant speeches about how proprietary internet needed to die, or how DRM locked music hurt the consumer (even though it was great for Apple).
No, I am claiming that Amazon will make 0 from kindle book sales on iOS devices, WHICH IS TRUE. Please tell me how this flies in the face of common sense. Just because YOU try changing the argument doesn't make my initial point invalid because you've provided NOTHING to show that your new argument is valid other than you saying it is. ...
No, your initial argument was that with IAP enabled, Amazon would make $0 off iOS users. That's what your "numbers" and "math" were intended to show. It assumes that they will all only buy books through IAP, and, again, that's not even plausible. What's plausible is that there will be some mix of sales, and that "Apple's cut" of Kindle book sales will be substantially less than 30% overall. It's not even plausible that someone who uses the Kindle reader only on iOS will never go buy books directly from Amazon's web site, simply because it's easier to browse through books there from one's personal computer than it would be to do so from an iPhone (I much prefer to buy apps through the iTunes app on my Mac than through the App Store apps on iPhone or iPad, simply because it's easier to browse the store and read reviews from there.) and some people will simply prefer to do that.
1. One stop shopping.
2. One click shopping
3. Control of your personal information
4. Possibility in the future of purchasing directly from content creators and bypassing content producers. That could DRASTICALLY reduce the price to the consumer.
1. That you're locked into a DEVICE when you decide to purchase content. Also, allowing customers to use their amazon account to pay on iDevices is STILL one stop shopping.
2. Amazon ALREADY offers this.
3. No, you get no more control. Apple still gets ALL your information and they still sell it to advertisers. Blocking purchase data means increased costs for products that use advertising because they'll be able to claim less money for their ads.
4. This is only a win if there is portability. There isn't. iBooks isn't a solution here, it's WORSE for the consumer than kindle currently is because your locked to a single ecosystem.
The only way this could be a WIN is if this pushed content creators towards DRM free formats, with an easy way to re-download content if I switched devices. This WILL NOT HAPPEN under Apple's model. Content producers will either switch to ibooks (more restrictive) or write their own apps, and you can bet that they WON'T make the content portable. book sellers HATE portability. They'd prefer there would be no used book market if it was at all possible.
No, your initial argument was that with IAP enabled, Amazon would make $0 off iOS users. That's what your "numbers" and "math" were intended to show. It assumes that they will all only buy books through IAP, and, again, that's not even plausible. What's plausible is that there will be some mix of sales, and that "Apple's cut" of Kindle book sales will be substantially less than 30% overall. It's not even plausible that someone who uses the Kindle reader only on iOS will never go buy books directly from Amazon's web site, simply because it's easier to browse through books there from one's personal computer than it would be to do so from an iPhone (I much prefer to buy apps through the iTunes app on my Mac than through the App Store apps on iPhone or iPad, simply because it's easier to browse the store and read reviews from there.) and some people will simply prefer to do that.
Some people will, most won't. Again, assuming similar price convenience wins. Most book discoveries are made because of recommendations from friends/familiars. generally when someone refers something to you, you want to look it up right away, not wait until you have a bigger screen unless there is some incentive to do so. The fact that you're posting on a forum on the internet, specifically a tech forum, means that you (and I) are nowhere near typical users.
Again, iOS users who don't use the webAPP will most likely NOT use IAP, so it's a non issue. the ONLY customers that matter here are the ones who use the webapp or have yet to register for kindle. ALL OTHER PURCHASES will be static (ideally) or go down (itunes gift cards) so they do not factor here.
You're implying that Amazon will LOSE more money by pulling an app (meaning all current customers who purchase via other venues will stop using the service) than they will lose thanks to IAP, but you're giving nothing to back that up.
It is a GIVEN that amazon will lose money EVERY time someone uses IAP unless they change their contracts with publishers.
It is a GIVEN that customers prefer convenience, and that IAP is extremely convenient
It is a GIVEN that media content is largely recommendation driven, and that mobile computing is quickly overtaking traditional computers.
It is a GIVEN that not every book purchased via IAP is a sale that would not occur without Apple. IAP is just the path of least resistance for purchase. Moreover, apple is assuming NONE of the distribution/licensing costs associated with the purchase.
It is a GIVEN that some customers (no matter ho small) purchased their iDevices in part because of these 3rd party ecosystems and Apple didn't give these companies a Dime for that referral.
Again, if this will cost amazon next to nothing because so few people will use IAP then why is APPLE requiring that they use it, and why are they making it impossible for amazon to offer another alternative within the app? Why not allow them to make a Read Only application? That way apple isn't bringing them a SINGLE customer.
.05 != 30% of $10.
30% of $10 is $3.
This math lesson was brought to you by your third grade teacher, she really wishes you paid attention.
That's not what he is getting at. He's suggesting that since Amazon does not get 100% of its customers from iOS, the impact on them is limited.
Let's be realistic and assume that, on average, it costs Amazon $0.50/book. (And I think that's a very generous to Amazon estimate of the true cost of this to them.)
With IAP
Book Price: $10
Publisher Cut: $7
Apple Cut: $0.50
Amazon Cut: $2.50
That's a much truer picture of what, in reality, this actually means to Amazon's bottom line. Your numbers falsely assume that every eBook Amazon sells will be sold through IAP, which is patently absurd, given the number of avenues customers have to purchase Kindle books. Frankly, I think that $0.50 as Apple's cut of the $10, spread over all of Amazon's eBook sales is probably significantly higher than it is likely to be, so the above is pretty much a worst case scenario for Amazon.
This still creates a questionable business case for Amazon to offer its services on iOS. In effect, Apple is requiring them to subsidize iOS customers with revenue from other customers, all to pad Apple's profit. If they have an business sense at all, they will declare the iOS ecosystem to be a loss-making part of their division and drop them. There is such a thing as a customer being not worthwhile. And with this policy, it may very well be true that the iOS customer is not worth serving.
I am sure their business analysts are crunching the numbers right now. And I am sure that they are trying to work out some kind of exception with Apple. I think that's why we haven't heard anything from them. Or other big guys like Netflix or Hulu. We're just hearing from the small fish right now.
I hope that if Apple doesn't give in, that they apply the policy evenly. If it compels companies like Amazon, Netflix, etc. to drop support for iOS, so be it. I don't see why non-iOS clients of those companies should have to subsidize iFans.
As noted, your argument isn't even plausible. The idea that Kindle users who own iOS devices will likely buy books through multiple avenues and not only IAP is simply common sense. If you're going to push a wild theory against common sense, it's you who needs to give some reason why it should be believed.
On the rare occassion, maybe. But if your iPhone or iPod Touch is your primary mobile device (and how many people carry multiple smart phones) and/or your iPad is primary e-reader, why would you buy your books through any other means when you can have one click purchasing through iTunes?
Apple is forcing Amazon to replace one click purchasing through Amazon with one click purchasing through iTunes. Yet you somehow think people won't use this on a regular basis.
Can you explain your logic? Please explain why you think somebody who probably consumes Kindle books mostly on their iPad and iPhone won't buy their books through the iPad or iPhone app?
1. That you're locked into a DEVICE when you decide to purchase content. Also, allowing customers to use their amazon account to pay on iDevices is STILL one stop shopping.
2. Amazon ALREADY offers this.
3. No, you get no more control. Apple still gets ALL your information and they still sell it to advertisers. Blocking purchase data means increased costs for products that use advertising because they'll be able to claim less money for their ads.
4. This is only a win if there is portability. There isn't. iBooks isn't a solution here, it's WORSE for the consumer than kindle currently is because your locked to a single ecosystem.
The only way this could be a WIN is if this pushed content creators towards DRM free formats, with an easy way to re-download content if I switched devices. This WILL NOT HAPPEN under Apple's model. Content producers will either switch to ibooks (more restrictive) or write their own apps, and you can bet that they WON'T make the content portable. book sellers HATE portability. They'd prefer there would be no used book market if it was at all possible.
I, and probably many, many others, could care less about your vaunted portability. If that's the make-or-break for you, fine. But it sure as heck doesn't rise to that level for me. The solution's obvious: You shouldn't buy Apple.
Frankly, I'm tired of beating this dead horse of yours. 'Bye now.
I, and probably many, many others, could care less about your vaunted portability. If that's the make-or-break for you, fine. But it sure as heck doesn't rise to that level for me. The solution's obvious: You shouldn't buy Apple.
Frankly, I'm tired of beating this dead horse of yours. 'Bye now.
Yes, because a majority of consumers LOVE DRM, right?
I stopped buying Apple when they told me I would have to give them MORE money to purchase DRM free copies of music I already owned. (.30 a song)
The thing is, when I decided to do that, I lost access to almost $300 of music, of which a good chunk I replaced (via amazonMP3 and other sites).
Now, how will someone react when they find out that the books they've been buying (via ibooks) are not portable when they go to switch to another platform in a few years? That in order for them to choose another platform they have to repurchase ALL that content.
Most customers understand that apps and games are locked to a platform, most of them DON'T understand (or accept) that media files are, thanks in a large part for Apple's push to end music DRM.
I do agree that iOS is likely to be a very popular way to access Kindle services. Again that goes to the benefit of Amazon.
Actually it'd be to the benefit of the publishers, not Amazon. Amazon is there to make money. They won't make money on iOS devices.