Both the content providers and the App Store contribute to making the content desirable. While the App Store provides a fixed value -- hassle-free payment for the subscription -- the value of the content is largely dependent on the content provider. It seems to me that splitting the revenue by a fixed ratio neglects this detail. Providers of more desirable content may feel unjustly treated to a greater extent than providers of less appealing offerings who, on the contrary, will benefit strongly from the exposure via the App Store. As a result, poor content will have a greater incentive for subscription from the App Store.
Isn't it more fair if Apple charged a fixed fee for use of the App Store per subscription, rather than a percent? After all, the effort in building the ecosystem and the value brought by Apple is a constant, while the value brought by the content providers is a variable.
Do they sell subscriptions? If they generate revenue through the app, then Apple is entitled to 30%.
How do you interpret "generate revenue"? The app itself is free with content subscription. But it may be one of many reason for the consumer to buy content subscription.
I have said before, Apple needs to come out and explain the rules because there is just too much confusion and people may decide not to buy iPhone/iPad because of it.
While I'm defending Apple, I've seen the analogy of Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes purchases on Windows a couple times, and it's beyond stupid. Microsoft doesn't host, advertise, or do quality control for iTunes. Apple does do all three for app developers. If Apple were charging people for downloading the iOS SDK, then it would be similar to Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes (though of note, Microsoft does actually charge for it's development software, whilst Xcode is free).
Bull. Apple may host the application itself, but it does not host any of the in-app content, nor does it advertise its existence (unless its in a commercial which benefits Apple's product more than the service). Apple also has zero involvement in the "quality control" of in-app content, whatever that means.
Apple is a POS system. Nothing more. They charge your credit card 10 times more than Visa and MasterCard. And why do they do it? Because we let Apple do it. Period.
Kindle is a store. Kindle hosts all of the content and sells all of the content without Apple's help. Apple, rather than competing with their fledging iBookstore, is now demanding a greedy piece of that Kindle money.
Sorry, I don't buy the argument that we have to pay the gatekeepers of our devices just to access what is already available on the net.
I understood that 30% mainly covers the cost of the distribution and purchase. I disagree that an app should be able to be free on the store and then in some way charge the user for it's use outside of the Apple structure. I get all the greed talk, but at the same time, Apple deserves revenue from both their investment in the store and to cover any costs.
In that case Apple should charge for every copy of application downloaded. If publisher wants to keep it free for end users (as they are planning to make money of it), Apple should charge publisher directly.
In that case Apple gets money for application it is hosting, advertising and quality-testing, while publisher gets money for content that is not hosted or in any way controlled by Apple.
Readability gives 70 percent of its service fees directly to writers and publishers of content, financed through a minimum $5-per-month subscription fee. But that fee is collected from outside the confines of the App Store, which means Apple does not get its mandated 30 percent cut of all transactions for iOS software.
I am more surprised by the belief of many that they are entitled to be in the Apps Store, simply because they can create Apps. And, that they must dictate the terms of entry.
The ploy to rally the "public" to their cause has been tried very loudly in high profile soapboxes during the early stage of the Apps Store.
I was quite amused by a number of those who realize that the "uncaring internet public" never sacrificed their time to fight the fight for every soapbox preacher. Not fazed by their rejection, they were shamefaced in rationalizing their embrace what they despised as the Apple "walled garden" - when they there was no viable choice where they could make profit.
What was more amusing was that the Apps of those turncoats never made it among the popular choices.
Personally, if I have anything that is worth reading, or using and worth paying for, I would not do it through an intermediary -- Readability, Amazon, etc.
The point of the Apps Store is the empowerment of the creator to ply their own inventions and creative products directly to their consumer. What the Apple Ecosystems bring is a highly valuable of hundreds of millions of Apple products users who have been proven to be voracious consumers of such inventions and creations.
How do you interpret "generate revenue"? The app itself is free with content subscription. But it may be one of many reason for the consumer to buy content subscription.
I have said before, Apple needs to come out and explain the rules because there is just too much confusion and people may decide not to buy iPhone/iPad because of it.
Apple has made their position clear - If you submit and app that uses any sort of subscription, recurring or not, you must offer that exact same subscription in-app as you do out of app.
Pandora is free, for example. Users can listen to it for free on the web, but also for free in-app. However, Pandora also offers a premium subscription per month. If your app can access that premium content, that subscription must be made available to purchase in-app as well to be compliant.
The NY Times is able to put up a free application that links to content they've made freely available on the web. But if that app can access premium content through some sort of subscription, the same subscription must be made in-app.
What about Xfinity or DirecTV? They are content subscription. Apple needs to come out and explain the rules or many existing and would be developers will jump ship.
These are good questions, and demonstrate very well why Apple's App Store policies and their enforcement have to evolve over time. The alternative to Apple trying to establish general policies that enforce the revenue sharing basis of the App Store is for them to tell everyone, "OK, submit your app, we'll review it and tell you what you have to pay us." After all, these guys were arguing that their app is unique and should get special treatment. Maybe you'd like that approach better?
I don't see what all the hub-ub is about. This is THEIR phone, using THEIR App Store. They should reserve the right for business to be run on their terms. Why shouldn't they get a cut of developer's who make money off of the software they put on their device? It's the same way when royalites are paid to creators of films or television shows that are later remade, or when actors are paid for DVDs and such that are sold of their films.
And if they do things the way they want at the expense of everyone else...they will start to lose business. People/developers/publishers will walk if Apple keeps this nonsense up.
I have no problem Apple covering the credit card cost and maybe a 1 or 2 percent charge for profits sake, but NO WAY IN HELL is 30% acceptable. They don't even host the subscription content!!! I SERIOUSLY doubt you would agree if you were publishing a magazine and had to give up 30% of the top of your sale (even before expenses). It is easy to say one thing when your money and business isn't at stake.
In that case Apple should charge for every copy of application downloaded. If publisher wants to keep it free for end users (as they are planning to make money of it), Apple should charge publisher directly.
In that case Apple gets money for application it is hosting, advertising and quality-testing, while publisher gets money for content that is not hosted or in any way controlled by Apple.
Apple already gets that. That's what their iOS Developer program is all about. You pay Apple an annual fee to have your app hosted in the web store. That's it.
Again, don't delude yourself. Apple doesn't host, advertise, or "quality test" any in-app content, and frankly, doesn't deserve a penny. They refused to release any sort of guidelines for over two years, so how could all of these businesses know this was coming? Apple has had no problems allowing this in the past, so what's changed?
Oh right, Amazon posted record quarters for Kindle books while Apple's own iBookstore is struggling to get content. Right... now it makes sense.
So? If I'm a novelist and I charge Amazon less than Apple, Apple should be able to tell the novelist to "go fish".
Your example seems backwards. If I'm an author and tell Amazon and Apple I'll sell them a book for $5 (for a MSRP $6.50 book assuming a 30% cut), why is it my fault if Apple wants a 30% cut and charges $6.50 and Amazon decides they want to take a 10% cut and sells for $5.50 instead? How can Apple tell me that I need to charge Amazon $5.90 so that both places end up selling for $6.50? (I know, Apple can tell me whatever they want since it's their developer agreement and platform... but what about subscription web sites that don't have iOS apps? Why doesn't Apple just say 'If you want to read the WSJ on IOS, you need to pay us 30% since you're using our device.'? Will that fly?)
The bigger issue on the books - as others have pointed out - is that not only do you in many cases pay more on iBooks, but you get books that are only readable on the iPad. (Sorry, can't being to imagine reading on the phone... ) Kindle or B&N stuff is readable across devices, which is much more appealing.
Now I'd rather see these stores all settle on one damned ebook format without DRM so it's MY call which reader/device to view on, but apparently that's even more of a challenge than it was with music. (???) Or at least less compelling since Amazon wants Kindle lock-in, Apple wants Apple lock-in, B&N wants... etc.
But all iApp suppliers happily pay the 30% for access to the AppStore to market their App. Why is the 30% on a subscription suddenly a different matter? When a magazine/newspaper issue is sold through a newsagent the distributor and newsagent both get a cut for every issue sold. Why is this principal now unfair?
Having said that, if Apple took a 15 -20% cut then that would look a LOT better than 30%. I wonder what their profit margin is on the AppStore business. I suppose most of their costs come from reviewing the apps for compliance?
How do you interpret "generate revenue"? The app itself is free with content subscription. But it may be one of many reason for the consumer to buy content subscription.
I have said before, Apple needs to come out and explain the rules because there is just too much confusion and people may decide not to buy iPhone/iPad because of it.
The app is a shell, distributed free, thus sharing no costs of it's distribution. Apple decided that they would allow free apps, but some developers have used this loophole to distribute shell apps that have no value unless the user buys in-app content. That's exactly what's happening in this case. They planned to shelter their revenue so they didn't have to share any of it.
This argument is raging on tech sites, but it's going to have no effect on IOS device sales.
While I'm defending Apple, I've seen the analogy of Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes purchases on Windows a couple times, and it's beyond stupid. Microsoft doesn't host, advertise, or do quality control for iTunes. Apple does do all three for app developers. If Apple were charging people for downloading the iOS SDK, then it would be similar to Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes (though of note, Microsoft does actually charge for it's development software, whilst Xcode is free).
Apple doesn't host the subscription content either. I also question how much Apple really does in regards to quality control either. I have at least five $1.00 apps that didn't work from the start or stopped working and after SEVERAL complaints to the developer and Apple nothing has been done. Apple is still selling the broken apps and has no intention of taking them down. Quality control my arse. Xcode may be free, but to be a developer you have a yearly subscription fee.
But all iApp suppliers happily pay the 30% for access to the AppStore to market their App. Why is the 30% on a subscription suddenly a different matter? When a magazine/newspaper issue is sold through a newsagent the distributor and newsagent both get a cut for every issue sold. Why is this principal now unfair?
Having said that, if Apple took a 15 -20% cut then that would look a LOT better than 30%. I wonder what their profit margin is on the AppStore business. I suppose most of their costs come from reviewing the apps for compliance?
I'd agree if Apple actually was distributing anything. They are taking money for doing NOTHING. They do not host or distribute the content at all, in any way... the content publisher/developer still has to host the content the App can get to and download and pay for all that, plus pay Apple an extra 30% of it simply because its in an iOS App, even though they get NOTHING at all from Apple for this 30%.
30% for an App sale makes sense since Apple is doing something... but not for content they are doing nothing what-so-ever for.
The rule 11.2 at its current form leaves too much for interpretition. It could mean that Apple will not approve a "reader" app with ANY kind of out-of-app subscription service.
HTML 5 and a home screen link on your phone and then there is no need for a reader app, or any app for that matter. What is Apple going to do next, start blocking websites? If so, it is time to go!!!
Apple is delivering so much for the developers of an App. Happy consumers, a safe marketplace, a wonderful iOS interface... 30% is nothing.
I understand if SJ backs down on this one because of all the bad press. But that's all this is.
This is an ecosystem that I love being a part of-- and I will pay more if that's what the whiners want now that Apple has finally decided to start enforcing their payment rules.
Wanna complain about price-gouging? Look how much your cell-phone company is charging you for SMS.
Google Voice = $0.00 for texting. Who actually PAYS for texting?
In that case Apple should charge for every copy of application downloaded. If publisher wants to keep it free for end users (as they are planning to make money of it), Apple should charge publisher directly.
In that case Apple gets money for application it is hosting, advertising and quality-testing, while publisher gets money for content that is not hosted or in any way controlled by Apple.
From many of your postings, in numerous threads, I take it, you have never experienced creating an ecosystem, promoting it not only to attract the suppliers but also the consumers?
Can you create something that is worth selling through the various choices available:
Sell it door to door yourself
Persuade the management, to be included in the merchandise of the pertinent brick and mortar stores
Use the internet by creating a website
Use the Apple Apps store
Use the Amazon everything worth selling internet market
Use the Google (coming soon)
Wait and use the upcoming stores from Microsoft-Nokia, RIM, HP, Sony, etc.
What you may discover is that "armchair publishing, selling and administration of any business are not always as easy as they seem. Creating an ecosystem, just like what Apple has achieved, where many companies failed before is even more difficult.
Companies and organizations, including non-profit organization make decent profit simply selling their information database their consumers or membership (mind you without your consent or right to opt in or opt out). In fact, many do not even inform you doing that. They did nothing but collect those information.
What Apple built with their ecosystem took years, the sheer number of users (in hundreds of millions) and the willingness of these customers to purchase Apps make the Apple "walled garden" comparable to a diamond mine.
Publishers know that (because they tried other options), Apps developer know that. Their instincts tell them that they are likely to make it, even in the "walled garden" of Apple, simply because of the sheer size of the customer base.
Then, there is the case of voting with your feet, words, or success/failure. If you really feel that Apple is unfair and the alternatives are more fair, shouldn't you follow what you believe is right and fair?
Anything else would be sheer grandstanding or worse, the delusion that our perspective is the only one that is right or true. Anything that does not conform to our views must be untrue, wrong and unfair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doh123
I'd agree if Apple actually was distributing anything. They are taking money for doing NOTHING. They do not host or distribute the content at all, in any way... the content publisher/developer still has to host the content the App can get to and download and pay for all that, plus pay Apple an extra 30% of it simply because its in an iOS App, even though they get NOTHING at all from Apple for this 30%.
The response to Nikon applies.
If your argument is correct: that Apple's "walled garden" does not add value to publishers' goal to sell their product to the public, why all the desire to get into an overpriced and useless Apple ecosystem?
Why don't publishers just do it on their own, since each publisher is doing EVERYTHING (and Apple is doing NOTHING as you claim)? If as you claim Apple does NOTHING or does not add value to the process of selling, what do you think would be a fair fee that Apple should charge publishers.
Simple logic would dictate that if you think a fee, other than "zero fee" for NOTHING, would be acceptance that Apple's ecosystem does SOMETHING, not NOTHING or at least contribute value. The actual number is sheer negotiation.
Among the choices, I outlined above (in response to nikon), which would you consider to be fair value in terms of percent cut? Google (soon to be created), Amazon's, Sony's, RIM's Microsoft-Nokia's, HP's
Please choose one. Anything else would be a copt out on your part.
And, if you believe that the other ecosystems are more fair and potentially as successful as, if not more so that that of "Apple's walled garden", as many tech bloggers, mass media pundits claim, then to repeat the question raised:
Why do publishers waste their time condemning and trying to get into the Apple ecosystem, which as you claim does NOTHING (nor add value)?
Some things are utterly not logical in the reasoning and the actions, both of publishers and many who believe that Apple does NOTHING (nor contribute anything of value).
Finally, do you think every publisher, simply because they can publish has innate entitlement to be part of the Apple's ecosystems?
Then you have no objection. Apple is not telling anyone what to charge for their product outside of the App Store. Only inside.
Incorrect. They are stating that the price outside the app store MUST match the app store price. Their wording states that the price cannot be cheaper than in the store.
Comments
Isn't it more fair if Apple charged a fixed fee for use of the App Store per subscription, rather than a percent? After all, the effort in building the ecosystem and the value brought by Apple is a constant, while the value brought by the content providers is a variable.
Do they sell subscriptions? If they generate revenue through the app, then Apple is entitled to 30%.
How do you interpret "generate revenue"? The app itself is free with content subscription. But it may be one of many reason for the consumer to buy content subscription.
I have said before, Apple needs to come out and explain the rules because there is just too much confusion and people may decide not to buy iPhone/iPad because of it.
While I'm defending Apple, I've seen the analogy of Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes purchases on Windows a couple times, and it's beyond stupid. Microsoft doesn't host, advertise, or do quality control for iTunes. Apple does do all three for app developers. If Apple were charging people for downloading the iOS SDK, then it would be similar to Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes (though of note, Microsoft does actually charge for it's development software, whilst Xcode is free).
Bull. Apple may host the application itself, but it does not host any of the in-app content, nor does it advertise its existence (unless its in a commercial which benefits Apple's product more than the service). Apple also has zero involvement in the "quality control" of in-app content, whatever that means.
Apple is a POS system. Nothing more. They charge your credit card 10 times more than Visa and MasterCard. And why do they do it? Because we let Apple do it. Period.
Kindle is a store. Kindle hosts all of the content and sells all of the content without Apple's help. Apple, rather than competing with their fledging iBookstore, is now demanding a greedy piece of that Kindle money.
Sorry, I don't buy the argument that we have to pay the gatekeepers of our devices just to access what is already available on the net.
I understood that 30% mainly covers the cost of the distribution and purchase. I disagree that an app should be able to be free on the store and then in some way charge the user for it's use outside of the Apple structure. I get all the greed talk, but at the same time, Apple deserves revenue from both their investment in the store and to cover any costs.
In that case Apple should charge for every copy of application downloaded. If publisher wants to keep it free for end users (as they are planning to make money of it), Apple should charge publisher directly.
In that case Apple gets money for application it is hosting, advertising and quality-testing, while publisher gets money for content that is not hosted or in any way controlled by Apple.
Readability gives 70 percent of its service fees directly to writers and publishers of content, financed through a minimum $5-per-month subscription fee. But that fee is collected from outside the confines of the App Store, which means Apple does not get its mandated 30 percent cut of all transactions for iOS software.
I am more surprised by the belief of many that they are entitled to be in the Apps Store, simply because they can create Apps. And, that they must dictate the terms of entry.
The ploy to rally the "public" to their cause has been tried very loudly in high profile soapboxes during the early stage of the Apps Store.
I was quite amused by a number of those who realize that the "uncaring internet public" never sacrificed their time to fight the fight for every soapbox preacher. Not fazed by their rejection, they were shamefaced in rationalizing their embrace what they despised as the Apple "walled garden" - when they there was no viable choice where they could make profit.
What was more amusing was that the Apps of those turncoats never made it among the popular choices.
Personally, if I have anything that is worth reading, or using and worth paying for, I would not do it through an intermediary -- Readability, Amazon, etc.
The point of the Apps Store is the empowerment of the creator to ply their own inventions and creative products directly to their consumer. What the Apple Ecosystems bring is a highly valuable of hundreds of millions of Apple products users who have been proven to be voracious consumers of such inventions and creations.
CGC
How do you interpret "generate revenue"? The app itself is free with content subscription. But it may be one of many reason for the consumer to buy content subscription.
I have said before, Apple needs to come out and explain the rules because there is just too much confusion and people may decide not to buy iPhone/iPad because of it.
Apple has made their position clear - If you submit and app that uses any sort of subscription, recurring or not, you must offer that exact same subscription in-app as you do out of app.
Pandora is free, for example. Users can listen to it for free on the web, but also for free in-app. However, Pandora also offers a premium subscription per month. If your app can access that premium content, that subscription must be made available to purchase in-app as well to be compliant.
The NY Times is able to put up a free application that links to content they've made freely available on the web. But if that app can access premium content through some sort of subscription, the same subscription must be made in-app.
Etc.
What about Xfinity or DirecTV? They are content subscription. Apple needs to come out and explain the rules or many existing and would be developers will jump ship.
These are good questions, and demonstrate very well why Apple's App Store policies and their enforcement have to evolve over time. The alternative to Apple trying to establish general policies that enforce the revenue sharing basis of the App Store is for them to tell everyone, "OK, submit your app, we'll review it and tell you what you have to pay us." After all, these guys were arguing that their app is unique and should get special treatment. Maybe you'd like that approach better?
I don't see what all the hub-ub is about. This is THEIR phone, using THEIR App Store. They should reserve the right for business to be run on their terms. Why shouldn't they get a cut of developer's who make money off of the software they put on their device? It's the same way when royalites are paid to creators of films or television shows that are later remade, or when actors are paid for DVDs and such that are sold of their films.
And if they do things the way they want at the expense of everyone else...they will start to lose business. People/developers/publishers will walk if Apple keeps this nonsense up.
I have no problem Apple covering the credit card cost and maybe a 1 or 2 percent charge for profits sake, but NO WAY IN HELL is 30% acceptable. They don't even host the subscription content!!! I SERIOUSLY doubt you would agree if you were publishing a magazine and had to give up 30% of the top of your sale (even before expenses). It is easy to say one thing when your money and business isn't at stake.
In that case Apple should charge for every copy of application downloaded. If publisher wants to keep it free for end users (as they are planning to make money of it), Apple should charge publisher directly.
In that case Apple gets money for application it is hosting, advertising and quality-testing, while publisher gets money for content that is not hosted or in any way controlled by Apple.
Apple already gets that. That's what their iOS Developer program is all about. You pay Apple an annual fee to have your app hosted in the web store. That's it.
Again, don't delude yourself. Apple doesn't host, advertise, or "quality test" any in-app content, and frankly, doesn't deserve a penny. They refused to release any sort of guidelines for over two years, so how could all of these businesses know this was coming? Apple has had no problems allowing this in the past, so what's changed?
Oh right, Amazon posted record quarters for Kindle books while Apple's own iBookstore is struggling to get content. Right... now it makes sense.
So? If I'm a novelist and I charge Amazon less than Apple, Apple should be able to tell the novelist to "go fish".
Your example seems backwards. If I'm an author and tell Amazon and Apple I'll sell them a book for $5 (for a MSRP $6.50 book assuming a 30% cut), why is it my fault if Apple wants a 30% cut and charges $6.50 and Amazon decides they want to take a 10% cut and sells for $5.50 instead? How can Apple tell me that I need to charge Amazon $5.90 so that both places end up selling for $6.50? (I know, Apple can tell me whatever they want since it's their developer agreement and platform... but what about subscription web sites that don't have iOS apps? Why doesn't Apple just say 'If you want to read the WSJ on IOS, you need to pay us 30% since you're using our device.'? Will that fly?)
The bigger issue on the books - as others have pointed out - is that not only do you in many cases pay more on iBooks, but you get books that are only readable on the iPad. (Sorry, can't being to imagine reading on the phone...
Now I'd rather see these stores all settle on one damned ebook format without DRM so it's MY call which reader/device to view on, but apparently that's even more of a challenge than it was with music. (???) Or at least less compelling since Amazon wants Kindle lock-in, Apple wants Apple lock-in, B&N wants... etc.
Having said that, if Apple took a 15 -20% cut then that would look a LOT better than 30%. I wonder what their profit margin is on the AppStore business. I suppose most of their costs come from reviewing the apps for compliance?
How do you interpret "generate revenue"? The app itself is free with content subscription. But it may be one of many reason for the consumer to buy content subscription.
I have said before, Apple needs to come out and explain the rules because there is just too much confusion and people may decide not to buy iPhone/iPad because of it.
The app is a shell, distributed free, thus sharing no costs of it's distribution. Apple decided that they would allow free apps, but some developers have used this loophole to distribute shell apps that have no value unless the user buys in-app content. That's exactly what's happening in this case. They planned to shelter their revenue so they didn't have to share any of it.
This argument is raging on tech sites, but it's going to have no effect on IOS device sales.
While I'm defending Apple, I've seen the analogy of Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes purchases on Windows a couple times, and it's beyond stupid. Microsoft doesn't host, advertise, or do quality control for iTunes. Apple does do all three for app developers. If Apple were charging people for downloading the iOS SDK, then it would be similar to Microsoft charging Apple for iTunes (though of note, Microsoft does actually charge for it's development software, whilst Xcode is free).
Apple doesn't host the subscription content either. I also question how much Apple really does in regards to quality control either. I have at least five $1.00 apps that didn't work from the start or stopped working and after SEVERAL complaints to the developer and Apple nothing has been done. Apple is still selling the broken apps and has no intention of taking them down. Quality control my arse. Xcode may be free, but to be a developer you have a yearly subscription fee.
But all iApp suppliers happily pay the 30% for access to the AppStore to market their App. Why is the 30% on a subscription suddenly a different matter? When a magazine/newspaper issue is sold through a newsagent the distributor and newsagent both get a cut for every issue sold. Why is this principal now unfair?
Having said that, if Apple took a 15 -20% cut then that would look a LOT better than 30%. I wonder what their profit margin is on the AppStore business. I suppose most of their costs come from reviewing the apps for compliance?
I'd agree if Apple actually was distributing anything. They are taking money for doing NOTHING. They do not host or distribute the content at all, in any way... the content publisher/developer still has to host the content the App can get to and download and pay for all that, plus pay Apple an extra 30% of it simply because its in an iOS App, even though they get NOTHING at all from Apple for this 30%.
30% for an App sale makes sense since Apple is doing something... but not for content they are doing nothing what-so-ever for.
The rule 11.2 at its current form leaves too much for interpretition. It could mean that Apple will not approve a "reader" app with ANY kind of out-of-app subscription service.
HTML 5 and a home screen link on your phone and then there is no need for a reader app, or any app for that matter. What is Apple going to do next, start blocking websites? If so, it is time to go!!!
30% is not that big of a deal guys.
Apple is delivering so much for the developers of an App. Happy consumers, a safe marketplace, a wonderful iOS interface... 30% is nothing.
I understand if SJ backs down on this one because of all the bad press. But that's all this is.
This is an ecosystem that I love being a part of-- and I will pay more if that's what the whiners want now that Apple has finally decided to start enforcing their payment rules.
Wanna complain about price-gouging? Look how much your cell-phone company is charging you for SMS.
Google Voice = $0.00 for texting. Who actually PAYS for texting?
In that case Apple should charge for every copy of application downloaded. If publisher wants to keep it free for end users (as they are planning to make money of it), Apple should charge publisher directly.
In that case Apple gets money for application it is hosting, advertising and quality-testing, while publisher gets money for content that is not hosted or in any way controlled by Apple.
From many of your postings, in numerous threads, I take it, you have never experienced creating an ecosystem, promoting it not only to attract the suppliers but also the consumers?
Can you create something that is worth selling through the various choices available:
- Sell it door to door yourself
- Persuade the management, to be included in the merchandise of the pertinent brick and mortar stores
- Use the internet by creating a website
- Use the Apple Apps store
- Use the Amazon everything worth selling internet market
- Use the Google (coming soon)
- Wait and use the upcoming stores from Microsoft-Nokia, RIM, HP, Sony, etc.
What you may discover is that "armchair publishing, selling and administration of any business are not always as easy as they seem. Creating an ecosystem, just like what Apple has achieved, where many companies failed before is even more difficult.Companies and organizations, including non-profit organization make decent profit simply selling their information database their consumers or membership (mind you without your consent or right to opt in or opt out). In fact, many do not even inform you doing that. They did nothing but collect those information.
What Apple built with their ecosystem took years, the sheer number of users (in hundreds of millions) and the willingness of these customers to purchase Apps make the Apple "walled garden" comparable to a diamond mine.
Publishers know that (because they tried other options), Apps developer know that. Their instincts tell them that they are likely to make it, even in the "walled garden" of Apple, simply because of the sheer size of the customer base.
Then, there is the case of voting with your feet, words, or success/failure. If you really feel that Apple is unfair and the alternatives are more fair, shouldn't you follow what you believe is right and fair?
Anything else would be sheer grandstanding or worse, the delusion that our perspective is the only one that is right or true. Anything that does not conform to our views must be untrue, wrong and unfair.
I'd agree if Apple actually was distributing anything. They are taking money for doing NOTHING. They do not host or distribute the content at all, in any way... the content publisher/developer still has to host the content the App can get to and download and pay for all that, plus pay Apple an extra 30% of it simply because its in an iOS App, even though they get NOTHING at all from Apple for this 30%.
The response to Nikon applies.
If your argument is correct: that Apple's "walled garden" does not add value to publishers' goal to sell their product to the public, why all the desire to get into an overpriced and useless Apple ecosystem?
Why don't publishers just do it on their own, since each publisher is doing EVERYTHING (and Apple is doing NOTHING as you claim)? If as you claim Apple does NOTHING or does not add value to the process of selling, what do you think would be a fair fee that Apple should charge publishers.
Simple logic would dictate that if you think a fee, other than "zero fee" for NOTHING, would be acceptance that Apple's ecosystem does SOMETHING, not NOTHING or at least contribute value. The actual number is sheer negotiation.
Among the choices, I outlined above (in response to nikon), which would you consider to be fair value in terms of percent cut? Google (soon to be created), Amazon's, Sony's, RIM's Microsoft-Nokia's, HP's
Please choose one. Anything else would be a copt out on your part.
And, if you believe that the other ecosystems are more fair and potentially as successful as, if not more so that that of "Apple's walled garden", as many tech bloggers, mass media pundits claim, then to repeat the question raised:
Why do publishers waste their time condemning and trying to get into the Apple ecosystem, which as you claim does NOTHING (nor add value)?
Some things are utterly not logical in the reasoning and the actions, both of publishers and many who believe that Apple does NOTHING (nor contribute anything of value).
Finally, do you think every publisher, simply because they can publish has innate entitlement to be part of the Apple's ecosystems?
CGC
Then you have no objection. Apple is not telling anyone what to charge for their product outside of the App Store. Only inside.
Incorrect. They are stating that the price outside the app store MUST match the app store price. Their wording states that the price cannot be cheaper than in the store.
Should they also be able to control the price outside of the store on your website too?
No. But they have the right to refuse you, if you raise the price of the content you offer to them. Which is exactly what the new rules dictate.
You might not like it but the App Store is Walmart. You want to sell your Baked Beans at Walmart? Then you better give them your best price.
Do they sell subscriptions? If they generate revenue through the app, then Apple is entitled to 30%.
NO. Apple is not ENTITLED to 30%. Apple is requiring 30%. Again Apple is NOT ENTITLED to 30%. How do you come to the conclusion?