It's not THEIR phone it's MY friggin' phone and as a consumer and owner of iOS devices I don't see how it is in my interest to have Apple imposing an Apple Sales Tax of 43% to every content purchase that I make on MY FRIGGIN' PHONE!
What people tend to forget that we all bought iOS devices with the implicit assumption that we trade the right to install on it what we want against the promise by Apple that it will always carry free apps. If an app wanted to make money via ads and give it to us for free (very similar to most of the web), Apple would allow this.
Now, they start to go back on this initial proposition.
No, they are the ONLY middleman between you and the content creator, if the content creator sells directly through Apple.
And Apple requires that the content creator creates the possibility to sell through Apple (IAP) and that this sales channel cannot be more expensive than other channels.
What people tend to forget that we all bought iOS devices with the implicit assumption that we trade the right to install on it what we want against the promise by Apple that it will always carry free apps. If an app wanted to make money via ads and give it to us for free (very similar to most of the web), Apple would allow this.
Now, they start to go back on this initial proposition.
A free app by definition doesn't make any money. Hawking an ad is one thing. Charging via the app is another thing altogether.
There are apps that allow you to monitor home security and surveillance systems. And naturally these apps require that you log in to see actual information. Should Apple require that you can pay for these security systems (or at least their monthly fees and not the installation cost) via IAP?
Real world goods are not permitted to be sold using IAP, so, no, they won't be asking for 30% of the cost of these systems and monthly fees, just like they aren't looking to get 30% of sales made through Amazon Mobile.
I have no problem with Apple requiring in-app purchase functionality. Dictating prices outside of the App Store is what I object to.
Amazon does this sort of thing all the time, why aren't you whining about them? Not requiring price parity just opens another loophole where "developers" set ridiculous IAP prices to essentially force users not to use that mechanism.
No, they are the ONLY middleman between you and the content creator, if the content creator sells directly through Apple.
Yes, why have competition between different e-book sellers on iOS? With only iBooks available, there is only one middleman left ensuring that (a) all middlemen profits go to Apple and (b) there is no competition between middlemen to drive down margins.
Everyone understood it all right. We just wonder what it means: will Apple demand a cut from Direc TV because it offers a viewing app for the iPad?
Most likely it will not be affected because you will continue to renew via you DirecTV bill. Same thing goes for Netflix and most likely skype, hulu et al. These guys already have their own billing system, negotiations etc. What Apple is trying to prevent are the devs (particularly independent publishers; music and or print) from offering their apps for free while selling their product outside of the app store.
That's not fair to the other devs who use the system nor is it fair to Apple. It's also not fair to other distributors. (IE Amazon) who would normally take a cut of the books they sell. If publishers are trying to bypass distribution costs (and that is really what we are talking about here) then they are kidding themselves. They have to pay someone and if they threaten to go to Amazon or some such nonsense they are throwing out a red herring. Amazon, B&N etc. are entities publishers are trying to avoid.
All of you guys who are saying things like "i'm not gonna an ipad" are blowing things way out of the water. Pricing policies have nothing to do with the devices and if you think other device manufacturers care more about the consumer you are living a fantasy. For example I was "outraged" MSFT requires a paid xbox live account BEFORE I could add a Netflix account. Who did I cry to? no one. I got an ATV.
I wish AI would publish a comparative article so people can understand the costs of any distribution model wether it was print, or the insane movie distribution model or the equally insane music distribution model. Apple has done nothing but make distribution easier and cheaper in all facets concerning selling products through the Apple store.
And Apple requires that the content creator creates the possibility to sell through Apple (IAP) and that this sales channel cannot be more expensive than other channels.
So? If I'm a novelist and I charge Amazon less than Apple, Apple should be able to tell the novelist to "go fish".
Most likely it will not be affected because you will continue to renew via you DirecTV bill. Same thing goes for Netflix and most likely skype, hulu et al. These guys already have their own billing system, negotiations etc. What Apple is trying to prevent are the devs (particularly independent publishers; music and or print) from offering their apps for free while selling their product outside of the app store.
No it applies to them as well. They will get 100% of the revenue from anyone who signs up on the website, but they have to provide in app purchasing within the app and give Apple a 30% cut of that, which in a lot of cases would undermine their business models.
Quote:
That's not fair to the other devs who use the system nor is it fair to Apple.
What Apple is doing isn't fair (but with web apps as an alternative, they may be free to do so, it is their store)
Quote:
It's also not fair to other distributors. (IE Amazon) who would normally take a cut of the books they sell.
Apple's not doing Amazon a favor by making them use Apple's services and charging 30% for it when they already have their own payment systems in place.
Quote:
If publishers are trying to bypass distribution costs (and that is really what we are talking about here) then they are kidding themselves. They have to pay someone and if they threaten to go to Amazon or some such nonsense they are throwing out a red herring. Amazon, B&N etc. are entities publishers are trying to avoid.
What are you smoking? Amazon and the Kindle outsell iBooks by something like 10-1. Why wouldn't publishers want to be there? Why would I as a consumer want to buy eBooks from the iBookstore when my Kindle books can be read on the computer, iPhone/iPad, and the Kindle wheres iBooks is only on the iPhone/iPad... it isn't even on the computer yet???
Quote:
All of you guys who are saying things like "i'm not gonna an ipad" are blowing things way out of the water. Pricing policies have nothing to do with the devices and if you think other device manufacturers care more about the consumer you are living a fantasy. For example I was "outraged" MSFT requires a paid xbox live account BEFORE I could add a Netflix account. Who did I cry to? no one. I got an ATV.
I won't get an iPad if the apps I use leave iOS. Whether they do of course remains to be seen, but Apps make the device and if the ipad doesn't have the apps I want, I have no reason to buy it.
Quote:
I wish AI would publish a comparative article so people can understand the costs of any distribution model wether it was print, or the insane movie distribution model or the equally insane music distribution model. Apple has done nothing but make distribution easier and cheaper in all facets concerning selling products through the Apple store.
30% is a good deal for anyone wishing to make something directly for the iPad. It's not a good deal for cross platform services.
Yes, why have competition between different e-book sellers on iOS? With only iBooks available, there is only one middleman left ensuring that (a) all middlemen profits go to Apple and (b) there is no competition between middlemen to drive down margins.
The competition exists on other platforms that the middlemen can choose to sell through. Obviously. Including the Kindle or the Nook, for example.
Real world goods are not permitted to be sold using IAP, so, no, they won't be asking for 30% of the cost of these systems and monthly fees, just like they aren't looking to get 30% of sales made through Amazon Mobile.
Well, the remote viewing access via iOS apps is not a physical good. Basically the company now has to sell their general services separately from remote viewing access since that remote viewing access has to be made purchasable via IAP.
The competition exists on other platforms that the middlemen can choose to sell through. Obviously.
And MS could bundle whatever they wanted with Windows and kill all other vendors offering software for Windows since their always was competition via other platforms.
And MS could bundle whatever they wanted with Windows and kill all other vendors offering software for Windows since their always was competition via other platforms.
Comments
It's not THEIR phone it's MY friggin' phone and as a consumer and owner of iOS devices I don't see how it is in my interest to have Apple imposing an Apple Sales Tax of 43% to every content purchase that I make on MY FRIGGIN' PHONE!
What people tend to forget that we all bought iOS devices with the implicit assumption that we trade the right to install on it what we want against the promise by Apple that it will always carry free apps. If an app wanted to make money via ads and give it to us for free (very similar to most of the web), Apple would allow this.
Now, they start to go back on this initial proposition.
Did you drink the Apple fanboy koolaid so extensively that you forgot the concept of private property? It's not THEIR phone
Wrong. You don't own the patents on it. They do. So go pedal YOUR KoolAid somewhere else!
No, they are the ONLY middleman between you and the content creator, if the content creator sells directly through Apple.
And Apple requires that the content creator creates the possibility to sell through Apple (IAP) and that this sales channel cannot be more expensive than other channels.
0% cut for subscribed, ad-free apps
Apple would be doing a service to it's customers by taxing the developers' greed.
No, they are the ONLY middleman between you and the content creator, if the content creator sells directly through Apple.
That's a pretty darn big "if". So every author should now become and App Store developer?
What people tend to forget that we all bought iOS devices with the implicit assumption that we trade the right to install on it what we want against the promise by Apple that it will always carry free apps. If an app wanted to make money via ads and give it to us for free (very similar to most of the web), Apple would allow this.
Now, they start to go back on this initial proposition.
A free app by definition doesn't make any money. Hawking an ad is one thing. Charging via the app is another thing altogether.
False equivalency.
There are apps that allow you to monitor home security and surveillance systems. And naturally these apps require that you log in to see actual information. Should Apple require that you can pay for these security systems (or at least their monthly fees and not the installation cost) via IAP?
Real world goods are not permitted to be sold using IAP, so, no, they won't be asking for 30% of the cost of these systems and monthly fees, just like they aren't looking to get 30% of sales made through Amazon Mobile.
That's a pretty darn big "if". So every author should now become and App Store developer?
Ideally, yes. That's the beauty of the Apple approach.
I have no problem with Apple requiring in-app purchase functionality. Dictating prices outside of the App Store is what I object to.
Amazon does this sort of thing all the time, why aren't you whining about them? Not requiring price parity just opens another loophole where "developers" set ridiculous IAP prices to essentially force users not to use that mechanism.
No, they are the ONLY middleman between you and the content creator, if the content creator sells directly through Apple.
Yes, why have competition between different e-book sellers on iOS? With only iBooks available, there is only one middleman left ensuring that (a) all middlemen profits go to Apple and (b) there is no competition between middlemen to drive down margins.
Everyone understood it all right. We just wonder what it means: will Apple demand a cut from Direc TV because it offers a viewing app for the iPad?
Most likely it will not be affected because you will continue to renew via you DirecTV bill. Same thing goes for Netflix and most likely skype, hulu et al. These guys already have their own billing system, negotiations etc. What Apple is trying to prevent are the devs (particularly independent publishers; music and or print) from offering their apps for free while selling their product outside of the app store.
That's not fair to the other devs who use the system nor is it fair to Apple. It's also not fair to other distributors. (IE Amazon) who would normally take a cut of the books they sell. If publishers are trying to bypass distribution costs (and that is really what we are talking about here) then they are kidding themselves. They have to pay someone and if they threaten to go to Amazon or some such nonsense they are throwing out a red herring. Amazon, B&N etc. are entities publishers are trying to avoid.
All of you guys who are saying things like "i'm not gonna an ipad" are blowing things way out of the water. Pricing policies have nothing to do with the devices and if you think other device manufacturers care more about the consumer you are living a fantasy. For example I was "outraged" MSFT requires a paid xbox live account BEFORE I could add a Netflix account. Who did I cry to? no one. I got an ATV.
I wish AI would publish a comparative article so people can understand the costs of any distribution model wether it was print, or the insane movie distribution model or the equally insane music distribution model. Apple has done nothing but make distribution easier and cheaper in all facets concerning selling products through the Apple store.
And Apple requires that the content creator creates the possibility to sell through Apple (IAP) and that this sales channel cannot be more expensive than other channels.
So? If I'm a novelist and I charge Amazon less than Apple, Apple should be able to tell the novelist to "go fish".
Most likely it will not be affected because you will continue to renew via you DirecTV bill. Same thing goes for Netflix and most likely skype, hulu et al. These guys already have their own billing system, negotiations etc. What Apple is trying to prevent are the devs (particularly independent publishers; music and or print) from offering their apps for free while selling their product outside of the app store.
No it applies to them as well. They will get 100% of the revenue from anyone who signs up on the website, but they have to provide in app purchasing within the app and give Apple a 30% cut of that, which in a lot of cases would undermine their business models.
That's not fair to the other devs who use the system nor is it fair to Apple.
What Apple is doing isn't fair (but with web apps as an alternative, they may be free to do so, it is their store)
It's also not fair to other distributors. (IE Amazon) who would normally take a cut of the books they sell.
Apple's not doing Amazon a favor by making them use Apple's services and charging 30% for it when they already have their own payment systems in place.
If publishers are trying to bypass distribution costs (and that is really what we are talking about here) then they are kidding themselves. They have to pay someone and if they threaten to go to Amazon or some such nonsense they are throwing out a red herring. Amazon, B&N etc. are entities publishers are trying to avoid.
What are you smoking? Amazon and the Kindle outsell iBooks by something like 10-1. Why wouldn't publishers want to be there? Why would I as a consumer want to buy eBooks from the iBookstore when my Kindle books can be read on the computer, iPhone/iPad, and the Kindle wheres iBooks is only on the iPhone/iPad... it isn't even on the computer yet???
All of you guys who are saying things like "i'm not gonna an ipad" are blowing things way out of the water. Pricing policies have nothing to do with the devices and if you think other device manufacturers care more about the consumer you are living a fantasy. For example I was "outraged" MSFT requires a paid xbox live account BEFORE I could add a Netflix account. Who did I cry to? no one. I got an ATV.
I won't get an iPad if the apps I use leave iOS. Whether they do of course remains to be seen, but Apps make the device and if the ipad doesn't have the apps I want, I have no reason to buy it.
I wish AI would publish a comparative article so people can understand the costs of any distribution model wether it was print, or the insane movie distribution model or the equally insane music distribution model. Apple has done nothing but make distribution easier and cheaper in all facets concerning selling products through the Apple store.
30% is a good deal for anyone wishing to make something directly for the iPad. It's not a good deal for cross platform services.
I have no problem with Apple requiring in-app purchase functionality. Dictating prices outside of the App Store is what I object to.
Then you have no objection. Apple is not telling anyone what to charge for their product outside of the App Store. Only inside.
Yes, why have competition between different e-book sellers on iOS? With only iBooks available, there is only one middleman left ensuring that (a) all middlemen profits go to Apple and (b) there is no competition between middlemen to drive down margins.
The competition exists on other platforms that the middlemen can choose to sell through. Obviously. Including the Kindle or the Nook, for example.
Plus, Amazon hosts the content for those publishers. Apple doesn't in this case besides the initial app.
Amazon charges publisher every megabyte transfered via 3G.
Real world goods are not permitted to be sold using IAP, so, no, they won't be asking for 30% of the cost of these systems and monthly fees, just like they aren't looking to get 30% of sales made through Amazon Mobile.
Well, the remote viewing access via iOS apps is not a physical good. Basically the company now has to sell their general services separately from remote viewing access since that remote viewing access has to be made purchasable via IAP.
The competition exists on other platforms that the middlemen can choose to sell through. Obviously.
And MS could bundle whatever they wanted with Windows and kill all other vendors offering software for Windows since their always was competition via other platforms.
And MS could bundle whatever they wanted with Windows and kill all other vendors offering software for Windows since their always was competition via other platforms.
False equivalency. And you know it.
Everyone understood it all right. We just wonder what it means: will Apple demand a cut from Direc TV because it offers a viewing app for the iPad?
Do they sell subscriptions? If they generate revenue through the app, then Apple is entitled to 30%.