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....
Its directly hurtful to the users because Kindle is the best book store on the planet right now. They have the most books. I can move between desktop and device and sync my settings. Their notes are 10x better. Their highlighting, etc.. iBooks is crap.
So users's get hurt. RIght now Apple is the buggy whip manufacturer since they have the inferior book store, trying to hurt the company that can beat them in music and books.
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?
Because I don't think most Kindle customers only read books on iOS devices, and, even if they do, I think it's quite likely they will prefer a larger screen experience when looking for books. Book readers aren't like youtube video watchers. Book purchases are not typically impulse purchases. They don't run out and buy a book every time someone says, "Oh, you have to read this book." Choosing books is a more thoughtful, deliberate process, so it's very likely they'd prefer to do this at home in front of a larger screen, because I think that's a more informative, comfortable and inviting place for a reader to decide if they want to purchase a book than the tiny screen will be.
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.
Sure there will be some mix. But we all know that in reality the vast majority of iOS users will do the vast majority of their Kindle book buying through IAP. That's a logical conclusion. If you think it isn't, I am seriously curious to know why you think the conclusion is illogical. Explain to us why you actually think that iOS users who are consuming books on their iPhones and iPads won't actually buy books on those very same devices.
Just because you prefer to shop on the PC, doesn't mean that everybody else does. You are very likely to be the exception to the rule. The whole success of the App Store is predicated on impulse buying on the iDevice. Why would it be different for book purchases? And if we're using anecdotes, than here's mine: ever since I got a smartphone, all my Kindle books have been purchased on my phone. If I was an iPhone user, under the new rules, I'd be a total loss for Amazon.
Seriously you are arguing that Apple is providing a better experience on one hand (debatable in the case of Amazon), and then suggesting that people won't actually use those enhanced services. Do you not see the lapse in logic there?
While I am sure there will be exceptions, if the vast majority of iOS users, do the vast majority of their Kindle book buying on their devices, the business case to service iOS users will be terrible. If each iOS customers buys more than half their books through in app purchasing, than Apple will be making more from each of these customers than Amazon. At this point, you have to wonder what the business case is, in continuing to serve iOS customers. Moreover, Amazon's very presence helps Apple sell iOS devices, and that's collateral damage against Amazon. Unless they are getting some kind of concession from Apple, they'd be utterly stupid to keep serving iOS customers.
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.
OK I think you're wrong. I think Menno is right and I'm about as pro-Apple as you can get. Even Matt Drance, a complete Apple cheerleader (used to work there (so did I)) thinks this is not good.
Common sense says that MOST Kindle purchases would happen through IAP and Amazon would lose money on each one. Volume just means higher costs, not greater profit. Basic business 101.
Because I don't think most Kindle customers only read books on iOS devices, and, even if they do, I think it's quite likely they will prefer a larger screen experience when looking for books. Book readers aren't like youtube video watchers. Book purchases are not typically impulse purchases. They don't run out and buy a book every time someone says, "Oh, you have to read this book." Choosing books is a more thoughtful, deliberate process, so it's very likely they'd prefer to do this at home in front of a larger screen, because I think that's a more informative, comfortable and inviting place for a reader to decide if they want to purchase a book than the tiny screen will be.
Yes, I rarely ever read a book on my iPhone. But I do on my iPad. I hate reading on my Mac. In fact nobody I know uses desktop reading software - they all use the iPad or Kindle devices.
Because I don't think most Kindle customers only read books on iOS devices, and, even if they do, I think it's quite likely they will prefer a larger screen experience when looking for books. Book readers aren't like youtube video watchers. Book purchases are not typically impulse purchases. They don't run out and buy a book every time someone says, "Oh, you have to read this book." Choosing books is a more thoughtful, deliberate process, so it's very likely they'd prefer to do this at home in front of a larger screen, because I think that's a more informative, comfortable and inviting place for a reader to decide if they want to purchase a book than the tiny screen will be.
So if someone else has an opinion, it's invalid because they don't have evidence.
You "Feel" customers will behave a certain way and people are supposed to accept it?
If what you say is true, that Amazon could DROP iOS support entirely and not lose significant revenue, since ipad/iphone devices are the inferior choice when it comes to finding and reading books.
In what world would offering an iOS app that loses money with EVERY sale ever mean a financial gain for Amazon?
The problem here is that it's only in your world that Amazon "loses money with EVERY sale "
Apple's clarified the rules just a few days ago. You have absolutely no idea how Amazon is going to respond to this. They already pay the publisher's % after service charges have been deducted. It may only be a few pennies per book, but it's considerably more for multiple downloads of periodicals. It's conceivable that Amazon could add Apple's cut to service expenses.
BTW. Your maths is overly simple, and therefore incorrect. You have not accounted for the large number of books sold where Amazon still demands a 70% cut. You have also not accounted for subscriptions initiated outside of Apple's app store.
The problem here is that it's only in your world that Amazon "loses money with EVERY sale "
Apple's clarified the rules just a few days ago. You have absolutely no idea how Amazon is going to respond to this. They already pay the publisher's % after service charges have been deducted. It may only be a few pennies per book, but it's considerably more for multiple downloads of periodicals. It's conceivable that Amazon could add Apple's cut to service expenses.
BTW. Your maths is overly simple, and therefore incorrect. You have not accounted for the large number of books sold where Amazon still demands a 70% cut. You have also not accounted for subscriptions initiated outside of Apple's app store.
4/5 major publishing houses operate using the agency model. Most best sellers come from these publishing houses. The publishing market isn't all that big. a Majority of content comes from a select few publishers, which the other indie houses making up the long tail.
Out of app purchases will not matter because they are not affected one way or the other by IAP. This means that they are a constant.
If amazon bundles apple purchases into service costs those publishers will start offering through ibooks, which means amazon still loses out. The only service charge they currently pull is if the customer purchases the content via 3g on their KINDLE device, since Amazon is paying for that transmission. If they add apple purchases (and iOS devices actively purchase books) it's in the publishers BEST interest to switch to offering that content on iBooks instead. So Amazon can't really do this unless they threaten to pull ALL the books from that publisher from every device if they sign with iBooks, which AI and the public will cry is "anti-competitive"
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.
If enough big names like Amazon or Netflix or Hulu or Blockbuster leave, that's exactly what will happen. Don't you worry about that.
At the end of the day, an iDevice is just a tool to access content. Nobody buys tools to play with the tools. They buy them to get something else done. If the tool isn't up to the job, you get rid of it and get new tools.
We'll find out in due course if Apple is really that "magical". People like you seem to think the tool matters more than the content. If Apple stays firm to their stance and a number of content distributors leave the ecosystem we'll find out how true this is.
As to your stance that cutting out the middle man is good. I'd love to see that put to the test too. Apple has no replacement for Netflix Plus. iBookstore sucks. And since Amazon outsells iBooks 10:1 with the bulk of those sales not being iOS customers, there's very little hope for iBooks to suddenly get more content if Amazon leaves the iOS ecosystem. So let's see how iOS sales go if all those content creators decide that iOS customers are just not worth the effort.
Consumers tend to purchase content on the device they'll consume it on. However, most customers like knowing that if they choose to move to another platform, their content will come with them. The two points do not oppose eachother.
The problem here is that it's only in your world that Amazon "loses money with EVERY sale "
Apple's clarified the rules just a few days ago. You have absolutely no idea how Amazon is going to respond to this. They already pay the publisher's % after service charges have been deducted. It may only be a few pennies per book, but it's considerably more for multiple downloads of periodicals. It's conceivable that Amazon could add Apple's cut to service expenses.
BTW. Your maths is overly simple, and therefore incorrect. You have not accounted for the large number of books sold where Amazon still demands a 70% cut. You have also not accounted for subscriptions initiated outside of Apple's app store.
Here is the deal. We don't know what Amazon will do. We don't know what Apple will do. One major problem is the rule as written is too vague. My big issue is that we're even having to talk about this. It hurts Apple. Do you know how many people now think less of Apple? That hurts their sales. If that happens, it hurts me both as a user and developer.
Here is the deal. We don't know what Amazon will do. We don't know what Apple will do. One major problem is the rule as written is too vague. My big issue is that we're even having to talk about this. It hurts Apple. Do you know how many people now think less of Apple? That hurts their sales. If that happens, it hurts me both as a user and developer.
That's my beef with the whole shoddy mess.
Then Apple should've worked this out with the major players before making the announcement. Or better yet, if they had a rule out there they should enforce it from the start, not let devs work for 2.5 years under one assumption and then have all of that work potentially discarded because Apple decided they wanted a bigger slice of the pie.
This SHOULD hurt apple. They're doing something that is highly unpopular with a lot of users and with several developers. Hopefully they'll either learn from this and change, or they stick to their guns and those content providers leave. If a company does a stupid move (which they did, either by making this rule, or finally choosing to enforce it) there will be a backlash.
Because I don't think most Kindle customers only read books on iOS devices, and, even if they do, I think it's quite likely they will prefer a larger screen experience when looking for books. Book readers aren't like youtube video watchers. Book purchases are not typically impulse purchases. They don't run out and buy a book every time someone says, "Oh, you have to read this book." Choosing books is a more thoughtful, deliberate process, so it's very likely they'd prefer to do this at home in front of a larger screen, because I think that's a more informative, comfortable and inviting place for a reader to decide if they want to purchase a book than the tiny screen will be.
Only if those kindle users go out and buy a kindle or switch to another platform. If those users remain with iOS they will NEVER make amazon money.
If those users remain totally within iOS then Amazon gets pretty much what they deserve eh?
Here's the deal...ePub with Adobe DRM can be read by a standalone reader app on the iPad. No subs involved, you just sideload the books you want in iTunes.
Nook and Sony uses ePub with Adobe DRM. They might pull their native Nook and Sony readers but this doesn't impact their customers all that much. That reader doesn't quite exist at the moment, partly because Amazon bought Stanza and killed ePub w/Adobe DRM support, partly because the native Nook app works but some current eReader will get updated or some new one will get written.
Amazon on the other hand doesn't even license the Kindle DRM to Stanza which they own...
Consumers tend to purchase content on the device they'll consume it on. However, most customers like knowing that if they choose to move to another platform, their content will come with them. The two points do not oppose eachother.
Well I sure as hell wouldn't buy Kindle books in that scenario.
OK I think you're wrong. I think Menno is right and I'm about as pro-Apple as you can get. Even Matt Drance, a complete Apple cheerleader (used to work there (so did I)) thinks this is not good.
Common sense says that MOST Kindle purchases would happen through IAP and Amazon would lose money on each one. Volume just means higher costs, not greater profit. Basic business 101.
Common sense only says that if you think buying books is an impulse purchase for most people. Show me some numbers that show that Kindle (the hardware) owners buy all or most of their books through the device, and not through the Amazon web site.
Yes, I rarely ever read a book on my iPhone. But I do on my iPad. I hate reading on my Mac. In fact nobody I know uses desktop reading software - they all use the iPad or Kindle devices.
I read on my iPhone all the time, but I don't purchase books from it.
Here is the deal. We don't know what Amazon will do. We don't know what Apple will do. One major problem is the rule as written is too vague. My big issue is that we're even having to talk about this. It hurts Apple. Do you know how many people now think less of Apple? That hurts their sales. If that happens, it hurts me both as a user and developer.
That's my beef with the whole shoddy mess.
Apple may make an exception for Amazon, Netflix, etc. That's what should get you upset as a developer..... if they choose to enforce this policy unevenly. It means that if you have a service that helps Apple sell hardware you get a break. But if you're obscure or if Apple decides to compete with you, too bad, so sad.
So if someone else has an opinion, it's invalid because they don't have evidence.
You "Feel" customers will behave a certain way and people are supposed to accept it?
If what you say is true, that Amazon could DROP iOS support entirely and not lose significant revenue, since ipad/iphone devices are the inferior choice when it comes to finding and reading books.
Let's look at your last paragraph above. I haven't said anything that could be even loosely interpreted as meaning that iPad/iPhone devices are the inferior choice for reading books. Yet, there you are implying that I did. This is why I don't consider you an honest poster here. Too much of this making stuff up approach by you.
Which is exactly why I consider your opinion invalid, because it's entirely based on cooked numbers from a cooked scenario, and everything since then has simply been an attempt to dig yourself out of a hole.
Comments
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....
Its directly hurtful to the users because Kindle is the best book store on the planet right now. They have the most books. I can move between desktop and device and sync my settings. Their notes are 10x better. Their highlighting, etc.. iBooks is crap.
So users's get hurt. RIght now Apple is the buggy whip manufacturer since they have the inferior book store, trying to hurt the company that can beat them in music and books.
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?
Because I don't think most Kindle customers only read books on iOS devices, and, even if they do, I think it's quite likely they will prefer a larger screen experience when looking for books. Book readers aren't like youtube video watchers. Book purchases are not typically impulse purchases. They don't run out and buy a book every time someone says, "Oh, you have to read this book." Choosing books is a more thoughtful, deliberate process, so it's very likely they'd prefer to do this at home in front of a larger screen, because I think that's a more informative, comfortable and inviting place for a reader to decide if they want to purchase a book than the tiny screen will be.
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.
Sure there will be some mix. But we all know that in reality the vast majority of iOS users will do the vast majority of their Kindle book buying through IAP. That's a logical conclusion. If you think it isn't, I am seriously curious to know why you think the conclusion is illogical. Explain to us why you actually think that iOS users who are consuming books on their iPhones and iPads won't actually buy books on those very same devices.
Just because you prefer to shop on the PC, doesn't mean that everybody else does. You are very likely to be the exception to the rule. The whole success of the App Store is predicated on impulse buying on the iDevice. Why would it be different for book purchases? And if we're using anecdotes, than here's mine: ever since I got a smartphone, all my Kindle books have been purchased on my phone. If I was an iPhone user, under the new rules, I'd be a total loss for Amazon.
Seriously you are arguing that Apple is providing a better experience on one hand (debatable in the case of Amazon), and then suggesting that people won't actually use those enhanced services. Do you not see the lapse in logic there?
While I am sure there will be exceptions, if the vast majority of iOS users, do the vast majority of their Kindle book buying on their devices, the business case to service iOS users will be terrible. If each iOS customers buys more than half their books through in app purchasing, than Apple will be making more from each of these customers than Amazon. At this point, you have to wonder what the business case is, in continuing to serve iOS customers. Moreover, Amazon's very presence helps Apple sell iOS devices, and that's collateral damage against Amazon. Unless they are getting some kind of concession from Apple, they'd be utterly stupid to keep serving iOS customers.
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.
OK I think you're wrong. I think Menno is right and I'm about as pro-Apple as you can get. Even Matt Drance, a complete Apple cheerleader (used to work there (so did I)) thinks this is not good.
http://www.appleoutsider.com/2011/02/22/omgiapbbq/
Common sense says that MOST Kindle purchases would happen through IAP and Amazon would lose money on each one. Volume just means higher costs, not greater profit. Basic business 101.
Because I don't think most Kindle customers only read books on iOS devices, and, even if they do, I think it's quite likely they will prefer a larger screen experience when looking for books. Book readers aren't like youtube video watchers. Book purchases are not typically impulse purchases. They don't run out and buy a book every time someone says, "Oh, you have to read this book." Choosing books is a more thoughtful, deliberate process, so it's very likely they'd prefer to do this at home in front of a larger screen, because I think that's a more informative, comfortable and inviting place for a reader to decide if they want to purchase a book than the tiny screen will be.
Yes, I rarely ever read a book on my iPhone. But I do on my iPad. I hate reading on my Mac. In fact nobody I know uses desktop reading software - they all use the iPad or Kindle devices.
Because I don't think most Kindle customers only read books on iOS devices, and, even if they do, I think it's quite likely they will prefer a larger screen experience when looking for books. Book readers aren't like youtube video watchers. Book purchases are not typically impulse purchases. They don't run out and buy a book every time someone says, "Oh, you have to read this book." Choosing books is a more thoughtful, deliberate process, so it's very likely they'd prefer to do this at home in front of a larger screen, because I think that's a more informative, comfortable and inviting place for a reader to decide if they want to purchase a book than the tiny screen will be.
So if someone else has an opinion, it's invalid because they don't have evidence.
You "Feel" customers will behave a certain way and people are supposed to accept it?
If what you say is true, that Amazon could DROP iOS support entirely and not lose significant revenue, since ipad/iphone devices are the inferior choice when it comes to finding and reading books.
In what world would offering an iOS app that loses money with EVERY sale ever mean a financial gain for Amazon?
The problem here is that it's only in your world that Amazon "loses money with EVERY sale "
Apple's clarified the rules just a few days ago. You have absolutely no idea how Amazon is going to respond to this. They already pay the publisher's % after service charges have been deducted. It may only be a few pennies per book, but it's considerably more for multiple downloads of periodicals. It's conceivable that Amazon could add Apple's cut to service expenses.
BTW. Your maths is overly simple, and therefore incorrect. You have not accounted for the large number of books sold where Amazon still demands a 70% cut. You have also not accounted for subscriptions initiated outside of Apple's app store.
The problem here is that it's only in your world that Amazon "loses money with EVERY sale "
Apple's clarified the rules just a few days ago. You have absolutely no idea how Amazon is going to respond to this. They already pay the publisher's % after service charges have been deducted. It may only be a few pennies per book, but it's considerably more for multiple downloads of periodicals. It's conceivable that Amazon could add Apple's cut to service expenses.
BTW. Your maths is overly simple, and therefore incorrect. You have not accounted for the large number of books sold where Amazon still demands a 70% cut. You have also not accounted for subscriptions initiated outside of Apple's app store.
4/5 major publishing houses operate using the agency model. Most best sellers come from these publishing houses. The publishing market isn't all that big. a Majority of content comes from a select few publishers, which the other indie houses making up the long tail.
Out of app purchases will not matter because they are not affected one way or the other by IAP. This means that they are a constant.
If amazon bundles apple purchases into service costs those publishers will start offering through ibooks, which means amazon still loses out. The only service charge they currently pull is if the customer purchases the content via 3g on their KINDLE device, since Amazon is paying for that transmission. If they add apple purchases (and iOS devices actively purchase books) it's in the publishers BEST interest to switch to offering that content on iBooks instead. So Amazon can't really do this unless they threaten to pull ALL the books from that publisher from every device if they sign with iBooks, which AI and the public will cry is "anti-competitive"
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.
If enough big names like Amazon or Netflix or Hulu or Blockbuster leave, that's exactly what will happen. Don't you worry about that.
At the end of the day, an iDevice is just a tool to access content. Nobody buys tools to play with the tools. They buy them to get something else done. If the tool isn't up to the job, you get rid of it and get new tools.
We'll find out in due course if Apple is really that "magical". People like you seem to think the tool matters more than the content. If Apple stays firm to their stance and a number of content distributors leave the ecosystem we'll find out how true this is.
As to your stance that cutting out the middle man is good. I'd love to see that put to the test too. Apple has no replacement for Netflix Plus. iBookstore sucks. And since Amazon outsells iBooks 10:1 with the bulk of those sales not being iOS customers, there's very little hope for iBooks to suddenly get more content if Amazon leaves the iOS ecosystem. So let's see how iOS sales go if all those content creators decide that iOS customers are just not worth the effort.
Furthermore, Amazon (and other companies) have developed an ecosystem that encourages cross platform compatibility with their products....
And if you're buying a book, you're going to purchase the book on the platform you'll consume it on.
Make your mind up!
Make your mind up!
Only after you learn to read.
Consumers tend to purchase content on the device they'll consume it on. However, most customers like knowing that if they choose to move to another platform, their content will come with them. The two points do not oppose eachother.
The problem here is that it's only in your world that Amazon "loses money with EVERY sale "
Apple's clarified the rules just a few days ago. You have absolutely no idea how Amazon is going to respond to this. They already pay the publisher's % after service charges have been deducted. It may only be a few pennies per book, but it's considerably more for multiple downloads of periodicals. It's conceivable that Amazon could add Apple's cut to service expenses.
BTW. Your maths is overly simple, and therefore incorrect. You have not accounted for the large number of books sold where Amazon still demands a 70% cut. You have also not accounted for subscriptions initiated outside of Apple's app store.
Here is the deal. We don't know what Amazon will do. We don't know what Apple will do. One major problem is the rule as written is too vague. My big issue is that we're even having to talk about this. It hurts Apple. Do you know how many people now think less of Apple? That hurts their sales. If that happens, it hurts me both as a user and developer.
That's my beef with the whole shoddy mess.
Here is the deal. We don't know what Amazon will do. We don't know what Apple will do. One major problem is the rule as written is too vague. My big issue is that we're even having to talk about this. It hurts Apple. Do you know how many people now think less of Apple? That hurts their sales. If that happens, it hurts me both as a user and developer.
That's my beef with the whole shoddy mess.
Then Apple should've worked this out with the major players before making the announcement. Or better yet, if they had a rule out there they should enforce it from the start, not let devs work for 2.5 years under one assumption and then have all of that work potentially discarded because Apple decided they wanted a bigger slice of the pie.
This SHOULD hurt apple. They're doing something that is highly unpopular with a lot of users and with several developers. Hopefully they'll either learn from this and change, or they stick to their guns and those content providers leave. If a company does a stupid move (which they did, either by making this rule, or finally choosing to enforce it) there will be a backlash.
Because I don't think most Kindle customers only read books on iOS devices, and, even if they do, I think it's quite likely they will prefer a larger screen experience when looking for books. Book readers aren't like youtube video watchers. Book purchases are not typically impulse purchases. They don't run out and buy a book every time someone says, "Oh, you have to read this book." Choosing books is a more thoughtful, deliberate process, so it's very likely they'd prefer to do this at home in front of a larger screen, because I think that's a more informative, comfortable and inviting place for a reader to decide if they want to purchase a book than the tiny screen will be.
So the iPad has a tiny screen?
Only if those kindle users go out and buy a kindle or switch to another platform. If those users remain with iOS they will NEVER make amazon money.
If those users remain totally within iOS then Amazon gets pretty much what they deserve eh?
Here's the deal...ePub with Adobe DRM can be read by a standalone reader app on the iPad. No subs involved, you just sideload the books you want in iTunes.
Nook and Sony uses ePub with Adobe DRM. They might pull their native Nook and Sony readers but this doesn't impact their customers all that much. That reader doesn't quite exist at the moment, partly because Amazon bought Stanza and killed ePub w/Adobe DRM support, partly because the native Nook app works but some current eReader will get updated or some new one will get written.
Amazon on the other hand doesn't even license the Kindle DRM to Stanza which they own...
Only after you learn to read.
Consumers tend to purchase content on the device they'll consume it on. However, most customers like knowing that if they choose to move to another platform, their content will come with them. The two points do not oppose eachother.
Well I sure as hell wouldn't buy Kindle books in that scenario.
OK I think you're wrong. I think Menno is right and I'm about as pro-Apple as you can get. Even Matt Drance, a complete Apple cheerleader (used to work there (so did I)) thinks this is not good.
http://www.appleoutsider.com/2011/02/22/omgiapbbq/
Common sense says that MOST Kindle purchases would happen through IAP and Amazon would lose money on each one. Volume just means higher costs, not greater profit. Basic business 101.
Common sense only says that if you think buying books is an impulse purchase for most people. Show me some numbers that show that Kindle (the hardware) owners buy all or most of their books through the device, and not through the Amazon web site.
Yes, I rarely ever read a book on my iPhone. But I do on my iPad. I hate reading on my Mac. In fact nobody I know uses desktop reading software - they all use the iPad or Kindle devices.
I read on my iPhone all the time, but I don't purchase books from it.
Here is the deal. We don't know what Amazon will do. We don't know what Apple will do. One major problem is the rule as written is too vague. My big issue is that we're even having to talk about this. It hurts Apple. Do you know how many people now think less of Apple? That hurts their sales. If that happens, it hurts me both as a user and developer.
That's my beef with the whole shoddy mess.
Apple may make an exception for Amazon, Netflix, etc. That's what should get you upset as a developer..... if they choose to enforce this policy unevenly. It means that if you have a service that helps Apple sell hardware you get a break. But if you're obscure or if Apple decides to compete with you, too bad, so sad.
So if someone else has an opinion, it's invalid because they don't have evidence.
You "Feel" customers will behave a certain way and people are supposed to accept it?
If what you say is true, that Amazon could DROP iOS support entirely and not lose significant revenue, since ipad/iphone devices are the inferior choice when it comes to finding and reading books.
Let's look at your last paragraph above. I haven't said anything that could be even loosely interpreted as meaning that iPad/iPhone devices are the inferior choice for reading books. Yet, there you are implying that I did. This is why I don't consider you an honest poster here. Too much of this making stuff up approach by you.
Which is exactly why I consider your opinion invalid, because it's entirely based on cooked numbers from a cooked scenario, and everything since then has simply been an attempt to dig yourself out of a hole.