They still have all your information, and they have their own advertising platform (iAds) that they used that information for. Not to mention the Genius suggestions. It's a nice idea, but it's basically targeted ads, you know that right?
The whole "Don't you want privacy?" argument is a red herring, but since you brought it up: Advertising keeps the cost of products down. Without that advertising data, the cost of the product will have to increase dramatically and/or the quality of the content will suffer because the venues can't afford to pay the writers what they used to.
So what? Some people would rather pay more and get less junk mail. Surely not even the most deluded fandroids could fault Apple for giving consumers a choice on the matter. After all, they're all about giving people choice! Heck, maybe magazines could give incentive to people for filling out surveys or opting in to give our information rather than just go "Yoink! Mine now!"
Yes, Apple has our information, but they aren't selling it to the highest bidders or sending us loads of junk mail. I don't see how they selling it to everybody would make anything better.
I don't fault Google for preaching openness while being, as one might say, DRACONIAN. They're a business whose primary interest is to make money, and if they want to take advantage of the people who blindly believe that Google's a humanitarian charity and not a for-profit business, then kudos to them. It's the fanboys who swallow the drivel who annoy me. And people think Apple fans are deluded. I don't think even the most rabid Apple fanboy pretends that people at Apple make awesome products just out of the goodness of their hearts.
Snake oil salesmen too are primary interested in making money. Kudos to them too?
Most of the people who read this site understand that. Most of the people who comment on this site don't.
I question your ability to speak so freely for other people.
Quote:
And the reason people are raising a fuss over the 30% cut isn't privacy issues. It NEVER has been. The issue is that Apple's essentially taking the sellers cut while all their doing is providing the venue.
When you buy something at a store do you believe that 100% of the money spent is all going to the manufacturer of the product?
Quote:
Apple shouldn't get a 30% cut of a magazine subscription I buy simply because I ordered it on my phone initially instead of waiting until I got home to order it online. A finders fee? Maybe. Have those places pay a higher premium for hosting the app? Possibly. a 30% cut? No.
Shouldn't the free market be able to decide if Apple's strategy can work or not?
Quote:
On top of that, why not at least allow the app developers to present the option to the customer? EG: two choices for payment: "Pay with itunes account" "Pay with creditcard/check/paypal/giftcard. They're not doing this for the customer's benefit, AT ALL.
That opportunity is already available. If a customer subscribes outside of the app store the publisher keeps 100% of the sale. Apple only gets 30% if the customer subscribes within the iOS app.
Quote:
They still have all your information, and they have their own advertising platform (iAds) that they used that information for. Not to mention the Genius suggestions. It's a nice idea, but it's basically targeted ads, you know that right?
iAds nor Genius are used to sell your information to other advertising companies where they can then send you more ads. That is what is meant by protecting customer information.
Quote:
The whole "Don't you want privacy?" argument is a red herring, but since you brought it up: Advertising keeps the cost of products down. Without that advertising data, the cost of the product will have to increase dramatically and/or the quality of the content will suffer because the venues can't afford to pay the writers what they used to.
Its not a red herring. Apple isn't preventing anyone from using advertising. Apple is preventing publishers from selling your information to some other 3rd party to send you more advertising without your permission.
Quote:
Apple is significantly increasing the cost of doing business without offering any incentives to do so. And no, their potential market isn't the incentive because publishers used to have access to them anyway. Apple's removing a feature they used to attract both customers and content creators and demanding that people pay for it now.
Apple is increasing the cost of doing business in newspapers and magazines?
Have you recently read up on those industries and where they are right now?
iAds nor Genius are used to sell your information to other advertising companies where they can then send you more ads. That is what is meant by protecting customer information.
Its not a red herring. Apple isn't preventing anyone from using advertising. Apple is preventing publishers from selling your information to some other 3rd party to send you more advertising without your permission.
Are you SURE that your personal surfing and buying habits aren't being harvested?
Yes they are harvesting your information for targeted ads. But that is an entirely different practice from selling your personal information to another organization so that they can target you with ads and emails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Are you SURE that your personal surfing and buying habits aren't being harvested?]
Honeycomb is half-baked and not ready for production. Which definition of "open" means you release source code while you're still writing it?
When it's released on shipping products.
Is the Xoom really that much of a flop that it's existence is not even worthy of acknowledgment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
It would be one thing if they hadn't yet given Honeycomb to anyone yet. And were waiting to give it to everyone at the same time. They gave it to Motorola and from the sounds of things Sony and Samsung will soon come out with Honeycomb tablets.
Samsung have already got it, I have used a Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1v running Honeycomb on two occasions now.
Maybe I should have used the "openness" to plug in a USB drive and copied everything off it so I can release it in the wild under the terms of the GPL.
It should be a simple enough matter according to the gSheep who continuously point out that the "freedom" of being "open" allows things like this.
--Apple demands a 30% cut of any transaction initiated on a iOS device, even for recurring subscriptions.
AI commenters INSISTED this was mainly for convenience and privacy for the customer, and besides Apple was losing SO MUCH MONEY by not charging that they deserved a part of the income developers (who they actively recruited for YEARS and didn't try and screw them like this).
Nevermind that companies like Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc already had developed Ecosystems before they came to iOS, or that this could be (in large part) because they were competing directly against services Apple offered or was planning on offering in the near future. That the hosting and payment for these "In app purchases" was handled by those companies already, and the only burden on Apple was hosting the initial app (which the companies did pay for)
In fact, I even argued that Apple was still in their rights to ask for a finders fee, or a "rental" fee for opening their customer base up to these companies, but a 30% tax was too high, and This wasn't enough for you and others. No, Apple was doing this for YOUR GOOD, so they deserved that 30%
Just got an iPad, I downloaded a free newspaper App from the App Store™ that came with a one week trial, which I registered for using my email address.
On the day before the trial ended the publishing company sent me an email with pricing information AND A LINK TO RENEW THE SUBSCRIPTION THROUGH THEM, which I can do from my iPhone without having to "wait to get home".
So now I have a choice, I can renew through the App Store™ using my iTunes account OR I can renew through the publishing company's website using a credit card, the decision is mine to make.
The publishing company sweetened their deal by offering hard copy newspaper deliveries on holiday weekends to my home.
See, this is called doing business, APPLE DOES NOT CONTROL THIS.
Take off the Google Goggles and stop reciting from the Google manual for the terminally brainwashed.
So what? Some people would rather pay more and get less junk mail. Surely not even the most deluded fandroids could fault Apple for giving consumers a choice on the matter. After all, they're all about giving people choice! Heck, maybe magazines could give incentive to people for filling out surveys or opting in to give our information rather than just go "Yoink! Mine now!"
Yes, Apple has our information, but they aren't selling it to the highest bidders or sending us loads of junk mail. I don't see how they selling it to everybody would make anything better.
Some people would choose to do that. The point is that Apple's not giving you a choice.
And yes, they are selling you to the highest bidder. Again, it's called iAds. Apple also owns a patent for an Advertisement driven OS. Don't think they're not thinking of monetizing your data. (not saying they're evil, just pointing out they're like every other company)
Just got an iPad, I downloaded a free newspaper App from the App Store? that came with a one week trial, which I registered for using my email address.
On the day before the trial ended the publishing company sent me an email with pricing information AND A LINK TO RENEW THE SUBSCRIPTION THROUGH THEM, which I can do from my iPhone without having to "wait to get home".
So now I have a choice, I can renew through the App Store? using my iTunes account OR I can renew through the publishing company's website using a credit card, the decision is mine to make.
The publishing company sweetened their deal by offering hard copy newspaper deliveries on holiday weekends to my home.
See, this is called doing business, APPLE DOES NOT CONTROL THIS.
Take off the Google Goggles and stop reciting from the Google manual for the terminally brainwashed.
That newspaper company was breaking the TOS. Not the email, but the "sweetened the deal" part. Under apple's TOS, they can't do that.
I question your ability to speak so freely for other people.
I don't. I'm speaking from the comments I see on this site. I read this site for years before I ever registered.
Quote:
When you buy something at a store do you believe that 100% of the money spent is all going to the manufacturer of the product?
Of course it doesn't But that store first buys the product from the producer to re-sell and then they mark it up. This is the standard business model and it's what Netflix, Hulu, etc. are ALREADY DOING.
Apple in your analogy is the lease holder for the land the store is on. Do they get a monthly rent for the property? Yes. Can they increase that rent if the location is desirable? Yes. Do they deserve to take a 30% cut of EVERY SALE (higher than most digital content reseller's margins) no.
Again, them charging a "rent" for "finders fee" is fine. Them getting the lionshare (or all) of the profits of every transaction simply because they have a captive audience is not fine.
Quote:
Shouldn't the free market be able to decide if Apple's strategy can work or not?
If apple allowed you to get content on their devices without using their ecosystem, maybe. But even in the "free market" people draw issue with the Bait and Switch Apple's trying to pull here.
Most people disagreeing with Apple's policy WOULD NOT BE DOING SO if Apple did this from day one. The thing is, they didn't. They encouraged developers to bring their popular ecosystems to iOS, and nto they're trying to demand payment for it.
Quote:
That opportunity is already available. If a customer subscribes outside of the app store the publisher keeps 100% of the sale. Apple only gets 30% if the customer subscribes within the iOS app.
You don't understand impulse buying. Most of our purchases are made off of recommendations of others. If I see a thing for a really cool book, and it comes highly recommended, I'm not going to wait until I get home to order it, I'm going to pull out my phone and do it there because that's WHY I have a phone.
Furthermore, Apple's 30% is recurring. Let's take something like Netflix. What if I register through my phone (because it's easy) but consume 95% of the content on my HD TV? Why should apple get 30% of the revenue for as long as I have the service simply because I chose to register on my phone instead of my computer?
Quote:
iAds nor Genius are used to sell your information to other advertising companies where they can then send you more ads. That is what is meant by protecting customer information.
LOL... You honestly believe that? It's not worth arguing this point because if you think Apple's not Monetizing you as a consumer, you're not paying attention.
Quote:
Its not a red herring. Apple isn't preventing anyone from using advertising. Apple is preventing publishers from selling your information to some other 3rd party to send you more advertising without your permission.
Yes, because Mass mailers to EVERYONE are much more effective than targeted advertisement.
Targeted ads sell for a lot more because they have a higher rate of return. They're also (ironically) cheaper for the company to buy because they don't have to hit as many people. If you remove customer information, you remove those targeted ads. This means companies will have to charge a LOT less for ad space, and fewer firms will be interested in that ad space since the Return on Investment will drop.
And yes, it is a red herring because Practically EVERY single person talking against apple's 30% cut isn't doing so because of the advertising, they're doing so because 30% is higher than the profit margin most of these companies operate on to begin with.
And that's not even TALKING about another company getting access to the data. This is first party companies using the data. Apple's removing that capability, making it so that they are the sole owners of your data, so they can charge whatever they wish to companies that want to gain access to it.
Quote:
Apple is increasing the cost of doing business in newspapers and magazines?
Yes, they are. They're removing the most lucrative part of the industry, the part that supports the magazines (Targeted ads) while giving those companies no way to recoup those losses (iOS price must be cheapest price)
Quote:
Have you recently read up on those industries and where they are right now?
So It's ok for Apple to continue to screw over the companies because they're struggling as it is?
Wrong, I become a subscriber TO THE NEWSPAPER, which entitles me to FREE access to the publication via the App Store™.
But they can only offer that "Perk" to you if they also offered the same perk (or better) to someone who purchased through the app store. A company CANNOT offer any incentives (monetary or otherwise) to get a customer to sign up for service outside of IAP, If that company offers a product viewable on iOS devices, they have to offer that purchase (at the same price or less) within the app. SO if that company truly offered you home delivery as a perk for signing up on their website, they were violating the TOS.
Geez, some of you guys must have gone to the same school as Bill Clinton, arguing over the definition of "is".
How's this for a practical application of "open": If Apple desired to build an Android handset of their own, they're welcome to. The latest handset source-code, code-named "Gingerbread" is free for them to use. They can even modify it as they see fit. Or if an Android tablet is the target, they can do that too using the latest for tablets, "Honeycomb". For all practical purposes, that would be considered open by most normal rational people.
Except that is not true, the latest code is locked down by google. Keep up.
Except that is not true, the latest code is locked down by google. Keep up.
As Menno said, it's certainly not locked down. Moto has it. Samsung has it. Asus is using it on a currently shipping device. Probably others also developing it for their tablets. And if Apple wants it, I'm sure they can have it too. They almost surely have all the versions leading up to it. You need to read your news from places other than just AI. They're certainly a good source, but just like Rachel Maddow don't count on 'em for an unblemished view.
I don't. I'm speaking from the comments I see on this site. I read this site for years before I ever registered.
In your mind you are selectively thinking of comments and how you interpret them. Then deeming your interpretation the truth.
Quote:
Do they deserve to take a 30% cut of EVERY SALE (higher than most digital content reseller's margins) no.
Again, them charging a "rent" for "finders fee" is fine. Them getting the lionshare (or all) of the profits of every transaction simply because they have a captive audience is not fine.
Well the 30% is for access to the 200+ million paying customers that would not have been available had apple not created the platform.
Do you think Apple should survey all developers and ask them what think is a desirable cut? Or does Apple get to charge what it wants and allow the market to determine if its cut is fair?
Quote:
If apple allowed you to get content on their devices without using their ecosystem, maybe. But even in the "free market" people draw issue with the Bait and Switch Apple's trying to pull here.
Apple does allow you to get content onto their devices with their ecosystem. Its called the Web Browser. Apple is actively contributing to making the web a rich content platform that allows developers to create highly functional websites.
Quote:
Most people disagreeing with Apple's policy WOULD NOT BE DOING SO if Apple did this from day one. The thing is, they didn't. They encouraged developers to bring their popular ecosystems to iOS, and nto they're trying to demand payment for it.
The 30% for paid apps has been in the policy from day one. Publishers to get around paying that 30% through subscription model outside of iOS. If they feel this isn't fair they are free to take their business elsewhere.
Quote:
You don't understand impulse buying. Most of our purchases are made off of recommendations of others. If I see a thing for a really cool book, and it comes highly recommended, I'm not going to wait until I get home to order it, I'm going to pull out my phone and do it there because that's WHY I have a phone.
So......what's your point?
Quote:
Furthermore, Apple's 30% is recurring. Let's take something like Netflix. What if I register through my phone (because it's easy) but consume 95% of the content on my HD TV? Why should apple get 30% of the revenue for as long as I have the service simply because I chose to register on my phone instead of my computer?
We don't know what Apple is working out with Netflix, anything you say at this point is pure speculation.
Quote:
LOL... You honestly believe that? It's not worth arguing this point because if you think Apple's not Monetizing you as a consumer, you're not paying attention.
I don't see a problem with Apple harvesting my iTunes information to sell me more content from iTunes.
I've never heard of emails or advertisements from other organizations because Apple sold my iTunes information to them.
Are you suggesting that they do.
Quote:
Yes, because Mass mailers to EVERYONE are much more effective than targeted advertisement.
And yes, it is a red herring because Practically EVERY single person talking against apple's 30% cut isn't doing so because of the advertising, they're doing so because 30% is higher than the profit margin most of these companies operate on to begin with.
If your business model relies more on data mining and selling customer information than it relies on selling your core product. To me that sounds like an indication that your business model isn't working. Which gives some good indication as to why the newspaper and magazine industries are failing.
Quote:
And that's not even TALKING about another company getting access to the data. This is first party companies using the data. Apple's removing that capability, making it so that they are the sole owners of your data, so they can charge whatever they wish to companies that want to gain access to it.
What are you talking about. Apple isn't in the business of selling information for its iTunes accounts.
Quote:
Yes, they are. They're removing the most lucrative part of the industry, the part that supports the magazines (Targeted ads) while giving those companies no way to recoup those losses (iOS price must be cheapest price)
Exactly why that industry is dying.
Quote:
So It's ok for Apple to continue to screw over the companies because they're struggling as it is?
What if the iOS platform did not exist. In their current condition what do you believe the newspaper and magazine publishers would do to continue surviving?
It's not worth replying to you. You don't understand the conversation. (you believe that Apple deserves a higher cut of the revenue than most companies get for profit simply because they restrict all other venues)
And you also don't understand how print media works.
So enjoy your cherry flavored Kool Aide, and have a great night.
But they can only offer that "Perk" to you if they also offered the same perk (or better) to someone who purchased through the app store. A company CANNOT offer any incentives (monetary or otherwise) to get a customer to sign up for service outside of IAP, If that company offers a product viewable on iOS devices, they have to offer that purchase (at the same price or less) within the app. SO if that company truly offered you home delivery as a perk for signing up on their website, they were violating the TOS.
I haven't seen the iPad offer yet, it hasn't popped up as a push notification.
At this stage I have three options:-
a) accept the email option
b) see what I am offered through iTunes
c) deleting the App altogether based on my assessment of the trial.
It is MY decision to make, it's not Apple's, it's not the publishing companies, it's MY CHOICE.
I can make that decision based on the offers and the benefits of the offers, Apple has no say in it, the publisher has no say in it.
If I wanted to base my decision on the idealistic motives that you are shoving down everyones throats then I can subscribe via the email, Apple will get nothing again that is MY choice.
The publisher has every right to make a pitch to me, Apple supplied me as a lead and I supplied an email address and agreed to the terms.
If I didn't see the App in the App Store™ the publisher would have nothing except maybe a slim hope that I responded to their advertising elsewhere.
Your argument is stupid and futile, Apple doesn't FORCE anyone to do anything in this area, it is up to the consumer to make the decision.
I haven't seen the iPad offer yet, it hasn't popped up as a push notification.
At this stage I have three options:-
a) accept the email option
b) see what I am offered through iTunes
c) deleting the App altogether based on my assessment of the trial.
It is MY decision to make, it's not Apple's, it's not the publishing companies, it's MY CHOICE.
I can make that decision based on the offers and the benefits of the offers, Apple has no say in it, the publisher has no say in it.
If I wanted to base my decision on the idealistic motives that you are shoving down everyones throats then I can subscribe via the email, Apple will get nothing again that is MY choice.
The publisher has every right to make a pitch to me, Apple supplied me as a lead and I supplied an email address and agreed to the terms.
If I didn't see the App in the App Store™ the publisher would have nothing except maybe a slim hope that I responded to their advertising elsewhere.
Your argument is stupid and futile, Apple doesn't FORCE anyone to do anything in this area, it is up to the consumer to make the decision.
And again, then why not allow the app developer to put a link in the app to allow someone to subscribe from the website?
And 90% of customers will choose the first payment method they're offered, and that's (usually) through their mobile device since they have it on them all the time.
And no, the publisher CANNOT make a pitch at you to entice you to sign up through the website instead of the app. If they do so, Apple will PULL their app from the market.
And I'm not shoving any ideals down anyone's throat. You can do what you want. What I'm arguing is that there should be a choice ON THE DEVICE on how you want to pay, or apple should allow developers to offer an incentive to get customers to choose a different payment method. Right now they can't do either one.
Remember, you're not a typical customer, I'm not a typical customer. The typical customer will almost certainly click the "Pay in app" option. That's what apple's banking on, and that's why publishers are so opposed to the change. And you KNOW apple's going to do a "pay with your iphone" ad campaign once the deadline is past, just to make sure it's what all customers will do anyway.
Yes, the customer technically has a choice, but Apple is going out of it's way to make sure that the average customer isn't aware of it, and making it difficult for developers to try and educate the customer's about the choices.
Comments
They still have all your information, and they have their own advertising platform (iAds) that they used that information for. Not to mention the Genius suggestions. It's a nice idea, but it's basically targeted ads, you know that right?
The whole "Don't you want privacy?" argument is a red herring, but since you brought it up: Advertising keeps the cost of products down. Without that advertising data, the cost of the product will have to increase dramatically and/or the quality of the content will suffer because the venues can't afford to pay the writers what they used to.
So what? Some people would rather pay more and get less junk mail. Surely not even the most deluded fandroids could fault Apple for giving consumers a choice on the matter. After all, they're all about giving people choice! Heck, maybe magazines could give incentive to people for filling out surveys or opting in to give our information rather than just go "Yoink! Mine now!"
Yes, Apple has our information, but they aren't selling it to the highest bidders or sending us loads of junk mail. I don't see how they selling it to everybody would make anything better.
I don't fault Google for preaching openness while being, as one might say, DRACONIAN. They're a business whose primary interest is to make money, and if they want to take advantage of the people who blindly believe that Google's a humanitarian charity and not a for-profit business, then kudos to them. It's the fanboys who swallow the drivel who annoy me. And people think Apple fans are deluded. I don't think even the most rabid Apple fanboy pretends that people at Apple make awesome products just out of the goodness of their hearts.
Snake oil salesmen too are primary interested in making money. Kudos to them too?
Most of the people who read this site understand that. Most of the people who comment on this site don't.
I question your ability to speak so freely for other people.
And the reason people are raising a fuss over the 30% cut isn't privacy issues. It NEVER has been. The issue is that Apple's essentially taking the sellers cut while all their doing is providing the venue.
When you buy something at a store do you believe that 100% of the money spent is all going to the manufacturer of the product?
Apple shouldn't get a 30% cut of a magazine subscription I buy simply because I ordered it on my phone initially instead of waiting until I got home to order it online. A finders fee? Maybe. Have those places pay a higher premium for hosting the app? Possibly. a 30% cut? No.
Shouldn't the free market be able to decide if Apple's strategy can work or not?
On top of that, why not at least allow the app developers to present the option to the customer? EG: two choices for payment: "Pay with itunes account" "Pay with creditcard/check/paypal/giftcard. They're not doing this for the customer's benefit, AT ALL.
That opportunity is already available. If a customer subscribes outside of the app store the publisher keeps 100% of the sale. Apple only gets 30% if the customer subscribes within the iOS app.
They still have all your information, and they have their own advertising platform (iAds) that they used that information for. Not to mention the Genius suggestions. It's a nice idea, but it's basically targeted ads, you know that right?
iAds nor Genius are used to sell your information to other advertising companies where they can then send you more ads. That is what is meant by protecting customer information.
The whole "Don't you want privacy?" argument is a red herring, but since you brought it up: Advertising keeps the cost of products down. Without that advertising data, the cost of the product will have to increase dramatically and/or the quality of the content will suffer because the venues can't afford to pay the writers what they used to.
Its not a red herring. Apple isn't preventing anyone from using advertising. Apple is preventing publishers from selling your information to some other 3rd party to send you more advertising without your permission.
Apple is significantly increasing the cost of doing business without offering any incentives to do so. And no, their potential market isn't the incentive because publishers used to have access to them anyway. Apple's removing a feature they used to attract both customers and content creators and demanding that people pay for it now.
Apple is increasing the cost of doing business in newspapers and magazines?
Have you recently read up on those industries and where they are right now?
iAds nor Genius are used to sell your information to other advertising companies where they can then send you more ads. That is what is meant by protecting customer information.
Its not a red herring. Apple isn't preventing anyone from using advertising. Apple is preventing publishers from selling your information to some other 3rd party to send you more advertising without your permission.
Are you SURE that your personal surfing and buying habits aren't being harvested?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...are_rules.html
Are you SURE that your personal surfing and buying habits aren't being harvested?]
Honeycomb is half-baked and not ready for production. Which definition of "open" means you release source code while you're still writing it?
When it's released on shipping products.
Is the Xoom really that much of a flop that it's existence is not even worthy of acknowledgment?
It would be one thing if they hadn't yet given Honeycomb to anyone yet. And were waiting to give it to everyone at the same time. They gave it to Motorola and from the sounds of things Sony and Samsung will soon come out with Honeycomb tablets.
Samsung have already got it, I have used a Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1v running Honeycomb on two occasions now.
Maybe I should have used the "openness" to plug in a USB drive and copied everything off it so I can release it in the wild under the terms of the GPL.
It should be a simple enough matter according to the gSheep who continuously point out that the "freedom" of being "open" allows things like this.
--Apple demands a 30% cut of any transaction initiated on a iOS device, even for recurring subscriptions.
AI commenters INSISTED this was mainly for convenience and privacy for the customer, and besides Apple was losing SO MUCH MONEY by not charging that they deserved a part of the income developers (who they actively recruited for YEARS and didn't try and screw them like this).
Nevermind that companies like Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc already had developed Ecosystems before they came to iOS, or that this could be (in large part) because they were competing directly against services Apple offered or was planning on offering in the near future. That the hosting and payment for these "In app purchases" was handled by those companies already, and the only burden on Apple was hosting the initial app (which the companies did pay for)
In fact, I even argued that Apple was still in their rights to ask for a finders fee, or a "rental" fee for opening their customer base up to these companies, but a 30% tax was too high, and This wasn't enough for you and others. No, Apple was doing this for YOUR GOOD, so they deserved that 30%
Just got an iPad, I downloaded a free newspaper App from the App Store™ that came with a one week trial, which I registered for using my email address.
On the day before the trial ended the publishing company sent me an email with pricing information AND A LINK TO RENEW THE SUBSCRIPTION THROUGH THEM, which I can do from my iPhone without having to "wait to get home".
So now I have a choice, I can renew through the App Store™ using my iTunes account OR I can renew through the publishing company's website using a credit card, the decision is mine to make.
The publishing company sweetened their deal by offering hard copy newspaper deliveries on holiday weekends to my home.
See, this is called doing business, APPLE DOES NOT CONTROL THIS.
Take off the Google Goggles and stop reciting from the Google manual for the terminally brainwashed.
So what? Some people would rather pay more and get less junk mail. Surely not even the most deluded fandroids could fault Apple for giving consumers a choice on the matter. After all, they're all about giving people choice! Heck, maybe magazines could give incentive to people for filling out surveys or opting in to give our information rather than just go "Yoink! Mine now!"
Yes, Apple has our information, but they aren't selling it to the highest bidders or sending us loads of junk mail. I don't see how they selling it to everybody would make anything better.
Some people would choose to do that. The point is that Apple's not giving you a choice.
And yes, they are selling you to the highest bidder. Again, it's called iAds. Apple also owns a patent for an Advertisement driven OS. Don't think they're not thinking of monetizing your data. (not saying they're evil, just pointing out they're like every other company)
Just got an iPad, I downloaded a free newspaper App from the App Store? that came with a one week trial, which I registered for using my email address.
On the day before the trial ended the publishing company sent me an email with pricing information AND A LINK TO RENEW THE SUBSCRIPTION THROUGH THEM, which I can do from my iPhone without having to "wait to get home".
So now I have a choice, I can renew through the App Store? using my iTunes account OR I can renew through the publishing company's website using a credit card, the decision is mine to make.
The publishing company sweetened their deal by offering hard copy newspaper deliveries on holiday weekends to my home.
See, this is called doing business, APPLE DOES NOT CONTROL THIS.
Take off the Google Goggles and stop reciting from the Google manual for the terminally brainwashed.
That newspaper company was breaking the TOS. Not the email, but the "sweetened the deal" part. Under apple's TOS, they can't do that.
That newspaper company was breaking the TOS. Not the email, but the "sweetened the deal" part. Under apple's TOS, they can't do that.
Wrong, I become a subscriber TO THE NEWSPAPER, which entitles me to FREE access to the publication via the App Store?.
I question your ability to speak so freely for other people.
I don't. I'm speaking from the comments I see on this site. I read this site for years before I ever registered.
When you buy something at a store do you believe that 100% of the money spent is all going to the manufacturer of the product?
Of course it doesn't But that store first buys the product from the producer to re-sell and then they mark it up. This is the standard business model and it's what Netflix, Hulu, etc. are ALREADY DOING.
Apple in your analogy is the lease holder for the land the store is on. Do they get a monthly rent for the property? Yes. Can they increase that rent if the location is desirable? Yes. Do they deserve to take a 30% cut of EVERY SALE (higher than most digital content reseller's margins) no.
Again, them charging a "rent" for "finders fee" is fine. Them getting the lionshare (or all) of the profits of every transaction simply because they have a captive audience is not fine.
Shouldn't the free market be able to decide if Apple's strategy can work or not?
If apple allowed you to get content on their devices without using their ecosystem, maybe. But even in the "free market" people draw issue with the Bait and Switch Apple's trying to pull here.
Most people disagreeing with Apple's policy WOULD NOT BE DOING SO if Apple did this from day one. The thing is, they didn't. They encouraged developers to bring their popular ecosystems to iOS, and nto they're trying to demand payment for it.
That opportunity is already available. If a customer subscribes outside of the app store the publisher keeps 100% of the sale. Apple only gets 30% if the customer subscribes within the iOS app.
You don't understand impulse buying. Most of our purchases are made off of recommendations of others. If I see a thing for a really cool book, and it comes highly recommended, I'm not going to wait until I get home to order it, I'm going to pull out my phone and do it there because that's WHY I have a phone.
Furthermore, Apple's 30% is recurring. Let's take something like Netflix. What if I register through my phone (because it's easy) but consume 95% of the content on my HD TV? Why should apple get 30% of the revenue for as long as I have the service simply because I chose to register on my phone instead of my computer?
iAds nor Genius are used to sell your information to other advertising companies where they can then send you more ads. That is what is meant by protecting customer information.
LOL... You honestly believe that? It's not worth arguing this point because if you think Apple's not Monetizing you as a consumer, you're not paying attention.
Its not a red herring. Apple isn't preventing anyone from using advertising. Apple is preventing publishers from selling your information to some other 3rd party to send you more advertising without your permission.
Yes, because Mass mailers to EVERYONE are much more effective than targeted advertisement.
Targeted ads sell for a lot more because they have a higher rate of return. They're also (ironically) cheaper for the company to buy because they don't have to hit as many people. If you remove customer information, you remove those targeted ads. This means companies will have to charge a LOT less for ad space, and fewer firms will be interested in that ad space since the Return on Investment will drop.
And yes, it is a red herring because Practically EVERY single person talking against apple's 30% cut isn't doing so because of the advertising, they're doing so because 30% is higher than the profit margin most of these companies operate on to begin with.
And that's not even TALKING about another company getting access to the data. This is first party companies using the data. Apple's removing that capability, making it so that they are the sole owners of your data, so they can charge whatever they wish to companies that want to gain access to it.
Apple is increasing the cost of doing business in newspapers and magazines?
Yes, they are. They're removing the most lucrative part of the industry, the part that supports the magazines (Targeted ads) while giving those companies no way to recoup those losses (iOS price must be cheapest price)
Have you recently read up on those industries and where they are right now?
So It's ok for Apple to continue to screw over the companies because they're struggling as it is?
Wrong, I become a subscriber TO THE NEWSPAPER, which entitles me to FREE access to the publication via the App Store™.
But they can only offer that "Perk" to you if they also offered the same perk (or better) to someone who purchased through the app store. A company CANNOT offer any incentives (monetary or otherwise) to get a customer to sign up for service outside of IAP, If that company offers a product viewable on iOS devices, they have to offer that purchase (at the same price or less) within the app. SO if that company truly offered you home delivery as a perk for signing up on their website, they were violating the TOS.
Geez, some of you guys must have gone to the same school as Bill Clinton, arguing over the definition of "is".
How's this for a practical application of "open": If Apple desired to build an Android handset of their own, they're welcome to. The latest handset source-code, code-named "Gingerbread" is free for them to use. They can even modify it as they see fit. Or if an Android tablet is the target, they can do that too using the latest for tablets, "Honeycomb". For all practical purposes, that would be considered open by most normal rational people.
Except that is not true, the latest code is locked down by google. Keep up.
Except that is not true, the latest code is locked down by google. Keep up.
It's actually not. It just isn't released yet. There is a pretty big difference between "Not out yet" and "Locked Down."
Except that is not true, the latest code is locked down by google. Keep up.
As Menno said, it's certainly not locked down. Moto has it. Samsung has it. Asus is using it on a currently shipping device. Probably others also developing it for their tablets. And if Apple wants it, I'm sure they can have it too. They almost surely have all the versions leading up to it. You need to read your news from places other than just AI. They're certainly a good source, but just like Rachel Maddow don't count on 'em for an unblemished view.
I don't. I'm speaking from the comments I see on this site. I read this site for years before I ever registered.
In your mind you are selectively thinking of comments and how you interpret them. Then deeming your interpretation the truth.
Do they deserve to take a 30% cut of EVERY SALE (higher than most digital content reseller's margins) no.
Again, them charging a "rent" for "finders fee" is fine. Them getting the lionshare (or all) of the profits of every transaction simply because they have a captive audience is not fine.
Well the 30% is for access to the 200+ million paying customers that would not have been available had apple not created the platform.
Do you think Apple should survey all developers and ask them what think is a desirable cut? Or does Apple get to charge what it wants and allow the market to determine if its cut is fair?
If apple allowed you to get content on their devices without using their ecosystem, maybe. But even in the "free market" people draw issue with the Bait and Switch Apple's trying to pull here.
Apple does allow you to get content onto their devices with their ecosystem. Its called the Web Browser. Apple is actively contributing to making the web a rich content platform that allows developers to create highly functional websites.
Most people disagreeing with Apple's policy WOULD NOT BE DOING SO if Apple did this from day one. The thing is, they didn't. They encouraged developers to bring their popular ecosystems to iOS, and nto they're trying to demand payment for it.
The 30% for paid apps has been in the policy from day one. Publishers to get around paying that 30% through subscription model outside of iOS. If they feel this isn't fair they are free to take their business elsewhere.
You don't understand impulse buying. Most of our purchases are made off of recommendations of others. If I see a thing for a really cool book, and it comes highly recommended, I'm not going to wait until I get home to order it, I'm going to pull out my phone and do it there because that's WHY I have a phone.
So......what's your point?
Furthermore, Apple's 30% is recurring. Let's take something like Netflix. What if I register through my phone (because it's easy) but consume 95% of the content on my HD TV? Why should apple get 30% of the revenue for as long as I have the service simply because I chose to register on my phone instead of my computer?
We don't know what Apple is working out with Netflix, anything you say at this point is pure speculation.
LOL... You honestly believe that? It's not worth arguing this point because if you think Apple's not Monetizing you as a consumer, you're not paying attention.
I don't see a problem with Apple harvesting my iTunes information to sell me more content from iTunes.
I've never heard of emails or advertisements from other organizations because Apple sold my iTunes information to them.
Are you suggesting that they do.
Yes, because Mass mailers to EVERYONE are much more effective than targeted advertisement.
And yes, it is a red herring because Practically EVERY single person talking against apple's 30% cut isn't doing so because of the advertising, they're doing so because 30% is higher than the profit margin most of these companies operate on to begin with.
If your business model relies more on data mining and selling customer information than it relies on selling your core product. To me that sounds like an indication that your business model isn't working. Which gives some good indication as to why the newspaper and magazine industries are failing.
And that's not even TALKING about another company getting access to the data. This is first party companies using the data. Apple's removing that capability, making it so that they are the sole owners of your data, so they can charge whatever they wish to companies that want to gain access to it.
What are you talking about. Apple isn't in the business of selling information for its iTunes accounts.
Yes, they are. They're removing the most lucrative part of the industry, the part that supports the magazines (Targeted ads) while giving those companies no way to recoup those losses (iOS price must be cheapest price)
Exactly why that industry is dying.
So It's ok for Apple to continue to screw over the companies because they're struggling as it is?
What if the iOS platform did not exist. In their current condition what do you believe the newspaper and magazine publishers would do to continue surviving?
Kool aide ramblings
It's not worth replying to you. You don't understand the conversation. (you believe that Apple deserves a higher cut of the revenue than most companies get for profit simply because they restrict all other venues)
And you also don't understand how print media works.
So enjoy your cherry flavored Kool Aide, and have a great night.
But they can only offer that "Perk" to you if they also offered the same perk (or better) to someone who purchased through the app store. A company CANNOT offer any incentives (monetary or otherwise) to get a customer to sign up for service outside of IAP, If that company offers a product viewable on iOS devices, they have to offer that purchase (at the same price or less) within the app. SO if that company truly offered you home delivery as a perk for signing up on their website, they were violating the TOS.
I haven't seen the iPad offer yet, it hasn't popped up as a push notification.
At this stage I have three options:-
a) accept the email option
b) see what I am offered through iTunes
c) deleting the App altogether based on my assessment of the trial.
It is MY decision to make, it's not Apple's, it's not the publishing companies, it's MY CHOICE.
I can make that decision based on the offers and the benefits of the offers, Apple has no say in it, the publisher has no say in it.
If I wanted to base my decision on the idealistic motives that you are shoving down everyones throats then I can subscribe via the email, Apple will get nothing again that is MY choice.
The publisher has every right to make a pitch to me, Apple supplied me as a lead and I supplied an email address and agreed to the terms.
If I didn't see the App in the App Store™ the publisher would have nothing except maybe a slim hope that I responded to their advertising elsewhere.
Your argument is stupid and futile, Apple doesn't FORCE anyone to do anything in this area, it is up to the consumer to make the decision.
I haven't seen the iPad offer yet, it hasn't popped up as a push notification.
At this stage I have three options:-
a) accept the email option
b) see what I am offered through iTunes
c) deleting the App altogether based on my assessment of the trial.
It is MY decision to make, it's not Apple's, it's not the publishing companies, it's MY CHOICE.
I can make that decision based on the offers and the benefits of the offers, Apple has no say in it, the publisher has no say in it.
If I wanted to base my decision on the idealistic motives that you are shoving down everyones throats then I can subscribe via the email, Apple will get nothing again that is MY choice.
The publisher has every right to make a pitch to me, Apple supplied me as a lead and I supplied an email address and agreed to the terms.
If I didn't see the App in the App Store™ the publisher would have nothing except maybe a slim hope that I responded to their advertising elsewhere.
Your argument is stupid and futile, Apple doesn't FORCE anyone to do anything in this area, it is up to the consumer to make the decision.
And again, then why not allow the app developer to put a link in the app to allow someone to subscribe from the website?
And 90% of customers will choose the first payment method they're offered, and that's (usually) through their mobile device since they have it on them all the time.
And no, the publisher CANNOT make a pitch at you to entice you to sign up through the website instead of the app. If they do so, Apple will PULL their app from the market.
And I'm not shoving any ideals down anyone's throat. You can do what you want. What I'm arguing is that there should be a choice ON THE DEVICE on how you want to pay, or apple should allow developers to offer an incentive to get customers to choose a different payment method. Right now they can't do either one.
Remember, you're not a typical customer, I'm not a typical customer. The typical customer will almost certainly click the "Pay in app" option. That's what apple's banking on, and that's why publishers are so opposed to the change. And you KNOW apple's going to do a "pay with your iphone" ad campaign once the deadline is past, just to make sure it's what all customers will do anyway.
Yes, the customer technically has a choice, but Apple is going out of it's way to make sure that the average customer isn't aware of it, and making it difficult for developers to try and educate the customer's about the choices.