This will end up costing Amazon some money, but they'll be fine, and it's only fair that they share the ecosystem costs with other, typically smaller, companies and developers.
Which costs has Amazon to pay when selling their books?
Which costs has Amazon to pay when selling their books?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion
What are not paying?
Amazon will enable in-app purchasing through the app store in their Kindle app at some point, eventually, if not immediately, simply because the disadvantage of doing so will be greater than any perceived advantages of not doing so. They will not, in the end, charge more for these books than through other avenues because it will alienate customers to do so. So they will eventually end up contributing their fair share to the costs of running the app store, where they are essentially a leach developer now, offering a free shell app and selling content out in the street to hide their revenue, and saddling other developers and Apple with picking up the costs of distributing their Kindle app.
So they will eventually end up contributing their fair share to the costs of running the app store, where they are essentially a leach developer now, offering a free shell app and selling content out in the street to hide their revenue, and saddling other developers and Apple with picking up the costs of distributing their Kindle app.
Which costs? They pay the costs with their anual developer license.
If publishers attempt to recoup Apple's 30% with a higher price, customers will either accept it or not. But at least normal free-market pricing is now possible on the platform. Those who prefer capitalism applaud this move.
More interesting is that this is not the first time that Apple has instigated a counter-productive policy and later woken up:
How many times does this have to happen before Apple simply stops making such blunders in the first place?
In a normal world I would agree with you. But for some reason publishers of content have often made poor decisions when it comes to pricing content in the new digital age. Instead of seeing it as a way to reduce costs and increase volume by being more accessible, they see often see as a way to get more revenue per sale. This has been true for music (cassettes to CDs to digital downloads), movies and tv shows, magazines, and newspapers over the years. It makes absolutely no sense that most of the major magazines and newspapers cost less in print than they did on the iPad when this change started.
It's like they see whatever is the hottest new way of experiencing content and they always attempt to set a premium price on it just because the delivery method itself is in demand. It never has to do with actual cost of delivery or take into consideration the ability to increase volume.
Some people really can't win can they. Apple accused of not listening, they listen and respond and now you're criticising them for doing so?
They didn't listen and respond, they tried to bully them into it and had their bluff called. It's a climbdown, however you want to slice it. Apple took a stance and had to back off it. They don't have to do it often, but even the apologists on here must recognize a climbdown when they see one.
If publishers attempt to recoup Apple's 30% with a higher price, customers will either accept it or not. But at least normal free-market pricing is now possible on the platform. Those who prefer capitalism applaud this move.
More interesting is that this is not the first time that Apple has instigated a counter-productive policy and later woken up:
How many times does this have to happen before Apple simply stops making such blunders in the first place?
Yeah! Why isn't apple perfect? It's ridiculous how they test out an idea, take some time to let it play out, and then adjust their position rather than being hardheaded and stubborn. They're such screw ups
Which costs? They pay the costs with their anual developer license.
There is really no talking to that guy. He thinks that being on the platform and hosting your own content means you owe Apple money when you allow people to purchase from your servers. Even Apple dont believe that any more.
Heres a trick - the app can now show its website internally. Of course that is not what they want.
Yeah! Why isn't apple perfect? It's ridiculous how they test out an idea, take some time to let it play out, and then adjust their position rather than being hardheaded and stubborn. They're such screw ups
I like that they do change when the decisions are not well thought out. Kudos.
For example. If I buy Angry Birds on my iPad, iPhone and Mac I want to be able to pick up the game and have my game play history match between devices.
Yeah, thats possible now using Apple's API. It always was possible using bespoke API.
I recall being slammed for being concerned about this policy. Good to see that I was right. And good to see that Apple backed down.
Now the interesting fight will be over subscriber data. That's gold for magazines. And they really need that data to deal with advertisers. While I agree with Apple on its stance, it's going to be quite difficult to keep publishers from following the Financial Times out the door if the lack of subscriber data hurts their business case for being on iOS.
Because higher prices is bad for consumers. Why would a consumer prefer that publishers jack up their prices? I don't see how you can say higher prices for consumers is a good thing unless you are a publisher.
You obviously are completely unaware of what the old policy was and didn't catch error in AI's article. It was the OLD policy that would lead to higher prices because publishers would have to increase the price they charge to make up for the 30% Apple was taking, and the it was Apple who was preventing the publisher from setting a lower price on their own web site. There was no restriction on the publisher setting a higher price on their website.
The only thing the new policy changes is it allows the publisher to set a lower price on their own web site. Everything else is the same. Therefore, good for the consumer.
Which costs? They pay the costs with their anual developer license.
You're deluded if you think $99/year covers the costs of distributing even one app on the App Store. The App Store runs on, and pays for itself, with a very simple revenue sharing system: if you generate revenue from your app, you share 30% of that revenue with Apple to cover the costs of running the store. The App Store is not a profit generator for Apple, the revenue sharing system is there to cover the costs of running it, and developers/companies whose business model is to give away free apps and sell the content outside the App Store are freeloading on the backs of honest developers.
There is really no talking to that guy. He thinks that being on the platform and hosting your own content means you owe Apple money when you allow people to purchase from your servers. Even Apple dont believe that any more.
Heres a trick - the app can now show its website internally. Of course that is not what they want.
The other common viewpoint, and one that Apple tried to use to justrify the old policy and their 30% cut, is that iDevices add value to the apps by making them possible; but then they completely ignore the fact that the apps add value to the iDevices so people will buy them in the first place. It's a two-way street but Apple tried to make it a one-way toll booth.
Now the customers can decide if the extra convenience of in-app purchasing is worth a higher price (because let's face it, no publisher is going to charge a higher price on their own web site than it is on iTunes). Apple dictating the prices they charge on their own web site based on Apple's markup was always wrong.
Comments
This will end up costing Amazon some money, but they'll be fine, and it's only fair that they share the ecosystem costs with other, typically smaller, companies and developers.
Which costs has Amazon to pay when selling their books?
People like Amazon are asking for access to the iOS ecosystem but don't want to pay for it. In the end, that could end up hurting consumers.
What are not paying?
Can anyone spell climbdown?
Bitch slapped by the Financial Times.
Can anyone spell climbdown?
FT issue was really about subscription data which Apple does not allow by default.
Which costs has Amazon to pay when selling their books?
What are not paying?
Amazon will enable in-app purchasing through the app store in their Kindle app at some point, eventually, if not immediately, simply because the disadvantage of doing so will be greater than any perceived advantages of not doing so. They will not, in the end, charge more for these books than through other avenues because it will alienate customers to do so. So they will eventually end up contributing their fair share to the costs of running the app store, where they are essentially a leach developer now, offering a free shell app and selling content out in the street to hide their revenue, and saddling other developers and Apple with picking up the costs of distributing their Kindle app.
So they will eventually end up contributing their fair share to the costs of running the app store, where they are essentially a leach developer now, offering a free shell app and selling content out in the street to hide their revenue, and saddling other developers and Apple with picking up the costs of distributing their Kindle app.
Which costs? They pay the costs with their anual developer license.
The market will decide the price.
If publishers attempt to recoup Apple's 30% with a higher price, customers will either accept it or not. But at least normal free-market pricing is now possible on the platform. Those who prefer capitalism applaud this move.
More interesting is that this is not the first time that Apple has instigated a counter-productive policy and later woken up:
Apple Blinks. Flash Tools Now Allowed
http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/201...w-allowed.html
How many times does this have to happen before Apple simply stops making such blunders in the first place?
In a normal world I would agree with you. But for some reason publishers of content have often made poor decisions when it comes to pricing content in the new digital age. Instead of seeing it as a way to reduce costs and increase volume by being more accessible, they see often see as a way to get more revenue per sale. This has been true for music (cassettes to CDs to digital downloads), movies and tv shows, magazines, and newspapers over the years. It makes absolutely no sense that most of the major magazines and newspapers cost less in print than they did on the iPad when this change started.
It's like they see whatever is the hottest new way of experiencing content and they always attempt to set a premium price on it just because the delivery method itself is in demand. It never has to do with actual cost of delivery or take into consideration the ability to increase volume.
Bitch slapped by the Financial Times.
Can anyone spell climbdown?
Some people really can't win can they. Apple accused of not listening, they listen and respond and now you're criticising them for doing so?
Some people really can't win can they. Apple accused of not listening, they listen and respond and now you're criticising them for doing so?
They didn't listen and respond, they tried to bully them into it and had their bluff called. It's a climbdown, however you want to slice it. Apple took a stance and had to back off it. They don't have to do it often, but even the apologists on here must recognize a climbdown when they see one.
Listen and respond. Nice one.
Bitch slapped by the Financial Times.
Can anyone spell climbdown?
Can anyone spell "I see the world through the eyes of an abused 13 year old?"
The market will decide the price.
If publishers attempt to recoup Apple's 30% with a higher price, customers will either accept it or not. But at least normal free-market pricing is now possible on the platform. Those who prefer capitalism applaud this move.
More interesting is that this is not the first time that Apple has instigated a counter-productive policy and later woken up:
Apple Blinks. Flash Tools Now Allowed
http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/201...w-allowed.html
How many times does this have to happen before Apple simply stops making such blunders in the first place?
Yeah! Why isn't apple perfect? It's ridiculous how they test out an idea, take some time to let it play out, and then adjust their position rather than being hardheaded and stubborn. They're such screw ups
Which costs? They pay the costs with their anual developer license.
There is really no talking to that guy. He thinks that being on the platform and hosting your own content means you owe Apple money when you allow people to purchase from your servers. Even Apple dont believe that any more.
Heres a trick - the app can now show its website internally. Of course that is not what they want.
Yeah! Why isn't apple perfect? It's ridiculous how they test out an idea, take some time to let it play out, and then adjust their position rather than being hardheaded and stubborn. They're such screw ups
I like that they do change when the decisions are not well thought out. Kudos.
For example. If I buy Angry Birds on my iPad, iPhone and Mac I want to be able to pick up the game and have my game play history match between devices.
Yeah, thats possible now using Apple's API. It always was possible using bespoke API.
Now the interesting fight will be over subscriber data. That's gold for magazines. And they really need that data to deal with advertisers. While I agree with Apple on its stance, it's going to be quite difficult to keep publishers from following the Financial Times out the door if the lack of subscriber data hurts their business case for being on iOS.
Because higher prices is bad for consumers. Why would a consumer prefer that publishers jack up their prices? I don't see how you can say higher prices for consumers is a good thing unless you are a publisher.
You obviously are completely unaware of what the old policy was and didn't catch error in AI's article. It was the OLD policy that would lead to higher prices because publishers would have to increase the price they charge to make up for the 30% Apple was taking, and the it was Apple who was preventing the publisher from setting a lower price on their own web site. There was no restriction on the publisher setting a higher price on their website.
The only thing the new policy changes is it allows the publisher to set a lower price on their own web site. Everything else is the same. Therefore, good for the consumer.
Can anyone spell "I see the world through the eyes of an abused 13 year old?"
That's a well reasoned and mature comeback.
p.s. Climbdown.
Which costs? They pay the costs with their anual developer license.
You're deluded if you think $99/year covers the costs of distributing even one app on the App Store. The App Store runs on, and pays for itself, with a very simple revenue sharing system: if you generate revenue from your app, you share 30% of that revenue with Apple to cover the costs of running the store. The App Store is not a profit generator for Apple, the revenue sharing system is there to cover the costs of running it, and developers/companies whose business model is to give away free apps and sell the content outside the App Store are freeloading on the backs of honest developers.
There is really no talking to that guy. He thinks that being on the platform and hosting your own content means you owe Apple money when you allow people to purchase from your servers. Even Apple dont believe that any more.
Heres a trick - the app can now show its website internally. Of course that is not what they want.
The other common viewpoint, and one that Apple tried to use to justrify the old policy and their 30% cut, is that iDevices add value to the apps by making them possible; but then they completely ignore the fact that the apps add value to the iDevices so people will buy them in the first place. It's a two-way street but Apple tried to make it a one-way toll booth.
Now the customers can decide if the extra convenience of in-app purchasing is worth a higher price (because let's face it, no publisher is going to charge a higher price on their own web site than it is on iTunes). Apple dictating the prices they charge on their own web site based on Apple's markup was always wrong.