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.
Yes, we're all familiar with your childish, petulant, selfish views on this topic. But, repeating them doesn't make them any less so.
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.
So you think Netflix is freeloading on the backs of honest developers?
Do you think Amazon has to pay Microsoft or Google when a book is sold though thier mobile browsers?
If I buy a B&N book from my Macbook Air to read it on my iPhone or Android phone do I have to pay Apple or Google?
Amazon will still have to remove the Kindle web link from the Kindle app, and will no doubt be hit with lots of negative reviews on iTunes for doing so.
Or won't. Those that had Kindles before or even used Amazon before have their accounts set up already and will keep using them. Same as the folks that signed up for Hulu, Netflix etc. Few major companies are likely to change their prices over this rule until they see if it really makes a difference. Which they will likely find it doesn't. Even the smaller companies may not see a serious effect by the rule since they would also have existing customers that will stick with what is already set up and gets Apple nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
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.
Crazy thing is that Apple stopped short of really making that one way road by saying 'in app and in app only'. That would really have achieved their goal
Quote:
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).
You assume the prices will go up. They might not. This change is rule is more playing to the developer's egos than anything else. They aren't saying they will charge more, they just want to feel they are in control and can change the price. Just like they did when Apple wanted to take DRM off the music, just like when they were being asked to put their books in the ibooks store
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.
I agree the the $99 developer license has nothing to do with this discussion. But do you really think Apple's expenses to run the App Store are 30% of revenue and that Apple doesn't make a profit? I realize there are a lot of free and extemely low priced apps, but I find it hard to believe that Apple's operation is that inefficient.
I agree the the $99 developer license has nothing to do with this discussion. But do you really think Apple's expenses to run the App Store are 30% of revenue and that Apple doesn't make a profit? I realize there are a lot of free and extemely low priced apps, but I find it hard to believe that Apple's operation is that inefficient.
I highly doubt that Apple makes any kind of notable profit from the App Store any more than they do from the other iTunes stores. These fees are to try to get them closer to breaking even. The profit comes from the hardware.
The original policy would effectively have meant higher prices for everybody.
There is zero evidence to support that notion, just like there is zero to support the notion that publishers/developers are definitely going to charge more in app than out under the new rule.
Maybe there is something missing n the AI article because this doesn't seem like a very good outcome for anyone.
I'm not familiar with the issues around FT but take Kindle for an example. If Amazon wants to make the same margin on a sale through Itunes they will raise the Itune price by 30%. Without an in-app link consumers will either have to pay the extra 30% or go through a cumbersome process to buy outside the app.
I think a far better solution would be for Apple to take a lower cut on purchases where the product is hosted outside of Aople. If they had taken a more reasonable cut, I think Amazon would be willing to keep the Itunes price the same, customers would have an easy link for the purchase and Apple would retain some revenue. The current solution looks like a poorly thought out mess.
Near as I can see, this doesn't help apps like the Kindle who'd like to enable in-app purchases. Under the Agency model, the publisher sets the price, and Amazon gets 30%. Amazon can't change the price, so they're screwed.
Apple would do better to drop the in-app purchase cut for third-party content (books, movies, etc.) to 15%. At that rate, at least they'd get a piece of the action. As is, no in-app purchase option for Kindle. Or Netflix. Or...
Glad Apple came to their senses over this. I've had many a heated discussion on these boards over this topic, so this reversal feels somewhat vindicating.
The option to include in app purchases is good, but the price fixing and forcing of companies with established online, cross platform businesses to use the in app purchase/subscription model was not.
It would be nice if all our transactions could go through Apple, but Apple would have to charge a lot less than 30% to simply process a transaction before it would become reasonable for them to force companies to include the in app purchase option.
As far as subscriber info goes, it was a major sticking point, but I understand publishers have seen a high rate of iOS users agreeing to share their information under Apple's opt in model, so it's become much less of an issue.
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.
Because higher prices is [sic] 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.
Convenience. Consumers have always been asked to pay more for any service they can be convinced is a greater convenience. Banks charge for the convenience of ATM access (and some now charge for teller access [!]), and customers shrug and pay. This will be no different.
I disagree on #5. iBooks is way better than Amazon kindle on the ipad and iphone.
Agreed. I love iBooks' UI and read eBooks exclusively through it. For me, the visuals are half the story. The Kindle app is ugly and non-realistic, giving me a sterile, lifeless sort of feeling. I bought a full-length 341-page book in the iBookstore yesterday afternoon for $2.99 and read the entire thing in one sitting. That's about 5 hours of non-stop reading. Absolutely loved it. I just bought the other 2 books in the trilogy for $6.99 each.
As a side note, I loved the fact that I downloaded the book on my iPod Touch on my way out of work yesterday; read a few pages on it before docking it for the night; and picked up my iPad to find it already downloaded (through iCloud) and began reading right where I stopped on my iPod until I finished. iCloud is so great.
I agree the the $99 developer license has nothing to do with this discussion. But do you really think Apple's expenses to run the App Store are 30% of revenue and that Apple doesn't make a profit? I realize there are a lot of free and extemely low priced apps, but I find it hard to believe that Apple's operation is that inefficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15
OK, I give up... what does it cost ?
Apple has stated publicly, including in quarterly calls, numerous times that the App Store is essentially a break even operation. I think one of you is ignoring everything that's involved in running the App Store and the app approval process, and the other is being intentionally obtuse.
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.
Pretty much correct if analysts estimates are correct. Thru middle of last year Piper-Jaffray figured around 1% of Apple's net profit came from the Appstore. But as they also correctly pointed out, that's not why Apple put it in place anyway. It's meant to push hardware sales.
Comments
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.
Yes, we're all familiar with your childish, petulant, selfish views on this topic. But, repeating them doesn't make them any less so.
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.
So you think Netflix is freeloading on the backs of honest developers?
Do you think Amazon has to pay Microsoft or Google when a book is sold though thier mobile browsers?
If I buy a B&N book from my Macbook Air to read it on my iPhone or Android phone do I have to pay Apple or Google?
Amazon will still have to remove the Kindle web link from the Kindle app, and will no doubt be hit with lots of negative reviews on iTunes for doing so.
Or won't. Those that had Kindles before or even used Amazon before have their accounts set up already and will keep using them. Same as the folks that signed up for Hulu, Netflix etc. Few major companies are likely to change their prices over this rule until they see if it really makes a difference. Which they will likely find it doesn't. Even the smaller companies may not see a serious effect by the rule since they would also have existing customers that will stick with what is already set up and gets Apple nothing.
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.
Crazy thing is that Apple stopped short of really making that one way road by saying 'in app and in app only'. That would really have achieved their goal
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).
You assume the prices will go up. They might not. This change is rule is more playing to the developer's egos than anything else. They aren't saying they will charge more, they just want to feel they are in control and can change the price. Just like they did when Apple wanted to take DRM off the music, just like when they were being asked to put their books in the ibooks store
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.
I agree the the $99 developer license has nothing to do with this discussion. But do you really think Apple's expenses to run the App Store are 30% of revenue and that Apple doesn't make a profit? I realize there are a lot of free and extemely low priced apps, but I find it hard to believe that Apple's operation is that inefficient.
I agree the the $99 developer license has nothing to do with this discussion. But do you really think Apple's expenses to run the App Store are 30% of revenue and that Apple doesn't make a profit? I realize there are a lot of free and extemely low priced apps, but I find it hard to believe that Apple's operation is that inefficient.
I highly doubt that Apple makes any kind of notable profit from the App Store any more than they do from the other iTunes stores. These fees are to try to get them closer to breaking even. The profit comes from the hardware.
FT issue was really about subscription data which Apple does not allow by default.
Really? Because FT requires you to log in with your FT account in the FT App, so they do not need Apple to get subscriber data.
The original policy would effectively have meant higher prices for everybody.
There is zero evidence to support that notion, just like there is zero to support the notion that publishers/developers are definitely going to charge more in app than out under the new rule.
I'm not familiar with the issues around FT but take Kindle for an example. If Amazon wants to make the same margin on a sale through Itunes they will raise the Itune price by 30%. Without an in-app link consumers will either have to pay the extra 30% or go through a cumbersome process to buy outside the app.
I think a far better solution would be for Apple to take a lower cut on purchases where the product is hosted outside of Aople. If they had taken a more reasonable cut, I think Amazon would be willing to keep the Itunes price the same, customers would have an easy link for the purchase and Apple would retain some revenue. The current solution looks like a poorly thought out mess.
Apple would do better to drop the in-app purchase cut for third-party content (books, movies, etc.) to 15%. At that rate, at least they'd get a piece of the action. As is, no in-app purchase option for Kindle. Or Netflix. Or...
The option to include in app purchases is good, but the price fixing and forcing of companies with established online, cross platform businesses to use the in app purchase/subscription model was not.
It would be nice if all our transactions could go through Apple, but Apple would have to charge a lot less than 30% to simply process a transaction before it would become reasonable for them to force companies to include the in app purchase option.
As far as subscriber info goes, it was a major sticking point, but I understand publishers have seen a high rate of iOS users agreeing to share their information under Apple's opt in model, so it's become much less of an issue.
Apple have had few missteps in recent memory. I can only really think of a handful.
1. iPod hifi lol
2. This in app policy
3. Button less shuffle
4. That app compilation things.
5. iBooks thus far
Btw, where's the chanting about 70% of something is better than 100% of nothing?
I disagree on #5. iBooks is way better than Amazon kindle on the ipad and iphone.
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.
OK, I give up... what does it cost ?
So you think Netflix is freeloading on the backs of honest developers?
Yes.
Do you think Amazon has to pay Microsoft or Google when a book is sold though thier mobile browsers?
Irrelevant to the issue at hand.
If I buy a B&N book from my Macbook Air to read it on my iPhone or Android phone do I have to pay Apple or Google?
Also irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Yes.
Why?
Irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Can you answer?
Also irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Can you answer?
So you think any free app with adds is no honest and it has to pay Apple, don't you?
Because higher prices is [sic] 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.
Convenience. Consumers have always been asked to pay more for any service they can be convinced is a greater convenience. Banks charge for the convenience of ATM access (and some now charge for teller access [!]), and customers shrug and pay. This will be no different.
I disagree on #5. iBooks is way better than Amazon kindle on the ipad and iphone.
Agreed. I love iBooks' UI and read eBooks exclusively through it. For me, the visuals are half the story. The Kindle app is ugly and non-realistic, giving me a sterile, lifeless sort of feeling. I bought a full-length 341-page book in the iBookstore yesterday afternoon for $2.99 and read the entire thing in one sitting. That's about 5 hours of non-stop reading. Absolutely loved it. I just bought the other 2 books in the trilogy for $6.99 each.
As a side note, I loved the fact that I downloaded the book on my iPod Touch on my way out of work yesterday; read a few pages on it before docking it for the night; and picked up my iPad to find it already downloaded (through iCloud) and began reading right where I stopped on my iPod until I finished. iCloud is so great.
It just works.
I agree the the $99 developer license has nothing to do with this discussion. But do you really think Apple's expenses to run the App Store are 30% of revenue and that Apple doesn't make a profit? I realize there are a lot of free and extemely low priced apps, but I find it hard to believe that Apple's operation is that inefficient.
OK, I give up... what does it cost ?
Apple has stated publicly, including in quarterly calls, numerous times that the App Store is essentially a break even operation. I think one of you is ignoring everything that's involved in running the App Store and the app approval process, and the other is being intentionally obtuse.
Why?
Can you answer?
Can you answer?
So you think any free app with adds is no honest and it has to pay Apple, don't you?
1. I've already answered "why?" in this thread.
2. Since it's irrelevant, there's no need to address it.
3. See 2 above.
4. Yes, those distributing free apps that generate revenue through ad sources other than iAds are freeloading on the backs of honest developers.
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.
Pretty much correct if analysts estimates are correct. Thru middle of last year Piper-Jaffray figured around 1% of Apple's net profit came from the Appstore. But as they also correctly pointed out, that's not why Apple put it in place anyway. It's meant to push hardware sales.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/06/...-gross-profit/