The people who use the In-App model are likely going to be purchasers who are new to the product. They download an app, try it out, and then purchase the content In-App.
Customers who subscribe to the service before getting the app are likely to purchase on the web, and then use the app, entering their existing login info.
If you're like Amazon, just don't offer an In-App option, like Netflix doesn't.
I'd say it works smoothly. If the customer finds the product through the App Store, they'll likely use the In-App method, and Apple gets a cut. They delivered the customer. If the publisher delivered the customer, they'll likely subscribe on the web and then get the app.
I don't know if I can agree that what Apple brings is only 3% of the value. They bring the entire iOS ecosystem, the App Store, and over 200 million customers. Without Apple's efforts none of that would exist in the way it does. I think that is worth far more than only 3%.
Perhaps we can take the "ecosystem" analogy a little further and say that relationships between its participants have to symbiotic for one to flourish. Once any particular thing becomes parasitic, the whole balance is thrown out: the other things will look for other places to survive.
Obviously, Apple have worked out in this context that it is not so. They have the data, and maybe the dude from the Rolling Stone was right in respect of the amount of revenue generated through the subscription policy, for instance. As people suggest, it's not the revenue to Apple that's important, it's essentially a "break even" proposition for them (although break even for Apple might be an entirely different relativity than for someone else).
However the revenue is important for the person providing the content, despite the other relevant argument about the value of customer information. If they're not selling content through iTunes, why invest the time in the first place to provide an iOS app? Is 70% of very little really worth the effort.
Quote:
I agree that I'm happy it comes to a conclusion that works for everyone.
I guess that remains to be seen. To take the case of magazines, while I'd just prefer a magazine delivered differently (perhaps with better navigation), it seems many others prefer the idea of a rich interactive experience. It might the case that reason these subs aren't turning up because the content is not what people are expecting inside such a new paradigm.
It's more than convenience - it's also about bringing you new customers. I guarantee, if it wasn't' for the Kindle app on the iPad I wouldn't own the growing library of Kindle ebooks that I have. I doubt I'm alone. There are 200 million iOS devices. And with iOS 5 and the dropping of the requirement for a computer, Apple is now opening up markets for those who don't even own a computer - or if they do own one, barely use it for more than email or basic web browsing. The potential iOS userbase is a HUGE market - and that has value. Apple created it, so they should get a cut.
That these concepts are confusing or flat out misunderstood is depressing...
You and numerous others are operating under the false premise that having these apps in the App Store add no value to the iOS ecosystem which is flat out WRONG. If Apple is operating the App Store as a mostly break even operation, why are they doing that? Do you know of any business that operates with a break even philosophy? The ONLY reason Apple is willing to do that is because it adds a HUGE amount of value to iOS devices.
If developers started abandoning iOS, the value it had would drop dramatically. It's not the parasitic, leach-like relationship some people here try to characterize it as. It's a symbiotic relationship. Where would iOS be without high profile apps like Kindle, Netflix and Angry Birds?
If they didn't know they could get it for $10 on the web they would happily pay $13
Only an arrogant or ignorant person would assume that everyone shares the same world view they do.
EDIT: and again I find it amusing that you assume that everyone will automatically charge more now that they can...
Then again if content publishers are as stupid as the record companies perhaps they will. And they will probably see their sales plummet just like the music companies did once they got multi-tierd pricing and went crazy jacking up prices.
I mean you can go get a physical CD for the same or cheeper AND you have a physical CD... Yup, that whole convenience thing is overblown
It was in response to a question on whether convenience was worth an extra 30%. My original post was that if Apple took a reasonable cut while still allowing non itune in-app purchases everyone would be better off.
Personally I find it amusing how many arrogant and ignorant people post here Does the shoe fit?
Because higher prices is bad for consumers. Why would a consumer prefer that publishers jack up their prices? I don't see how you can say higher prices for consumers is a good thing unless you are a publisher.
Paying a higher price for something you need is not necessarily a bad thing.
Let's suppose that I need Publication A for my work. Unfortunately Publication A went out of business because they did not make enough profits.
In this case, the lower price has hurt me. I now no longer have it as a resource and need to spend some time ($) to find a replacement.
For the majority of people, the lower price may have been good for them, while the publication was still around.
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?
Lol! Too funny! I personally prefer books on iBooks. I wish iBooks was compatible with kindle but I can see why they have their own format...the whole relying on 3rd parties for crucial software...
Sorry, but you apparently had your usual trouble with reading comprehension since none of my posts say anything even remotely close to what you claimed they did. Or, maybe you're just being your usual dishonest self and misrepresenting things.
Sorry, but you apparently had your usual trouble with reading comprehension since none of my posts say anything even remotely close to what you claimed they did. Or, maybe you're just being your usual dishonest self and misrepresenting things.
It's kinda funny to see people whose arguments about revenue sharing having been quashed by Apple still continue their insanity.
If Apple is running a revenue sharing model it has just allowed people to "cheat" by buying content outside the app. There is no need for a link. Just give an app price on a button and mention the website price.
Nobody will buy in app.
Apparently Apple don't feel they are running a revenue sharing model on the iPad. Time to stop a defence they don't even make.
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
What about all the people defending Apple's position, slamming those who disagree, but now they have egg on their faces?
It's kinda funny to see people whose arguments about revenue sharing having been quashed by Apple still continue their insanity.
If Apple is running a revenue sharing model it has just allowed people to "cheat" by buying content outside the app. There is no need for a link. Just give an app price on a button and mention the website price.
Nobody will buy in app.
Apparently Apple don't feel they are running a revenue sharing model on the iPad. Time to stop a defence they don't even make.
This is just a dumb comment. Just because Apple seems to have carved out a few loopholes for specific content types, doesn't mean that the App Store no longer runs on a revenue sharing model. The whole thing is and always has been based on revenue sharing, and it still will be entirely for most apps.
For some reason, this topic seems to generate the most irrational comments from people who are apparently able to remain utterly blind to those most obvious things.
I don't know if I can agree that what Apple brings is only 3% of the value. They bring the entire iOS ecosystem, the App Store, and over 200 million customers. Without Apple's efforts none of that would exist in the way it does. I think that is worth far more than only 3%.
My qualifier was "quantifiable". The part of the transaction that can be assigned real dollars in either costs or savings.
Yes, Apple does bring some additional value but it's hard to attach a number to that value. The developers also bring value as Apple's ecosystem would not be worth nearly as much and probably wouldn't have 200 million customers without them.
So who's value is greater? Apple has paid out something like $3 billion to developers over a couple of years. On the other hand, the availability of all those apps has contributed some amount (and I think a very large amount) of sales to Apple. On which Apple has made $25 billion per quarter in revenue. It looks to me like Apple owes the developers more than the developers owe Apple.
There are many ways of looking at the relative values which is why we can all disagree so violently about them.
For some reason, this topic seems to generate the most irrational comments from people who are apparently able to remain utterly blind to those most obvious things.
Like you? Still waiting any actual proof of revenue sharing model. It's a pity that even Apple doesn't back your opinions
My qualifier was "quantifiable". The part of the transaction that can be assigned real dollars in either costs or savings.
Yes, Apple does bring some additional value but it's hard to attach a number to that value. The developers also bring value as Apple's ecosystem would not be worth nearly as much and probably wouldn't have 200 million customers without them.
Developing the iOS, App Store, and iDevices has cost real money. It is quantifiable. The value attached to that would be the cost to any developer of going out and building their own hardware devices and marketing them to the general consumer. The cost of that is the value that Apple brings.
Quote:
So who's value is greater? Apple has paid out something like $3 billion to developers over a couple of years. On the other hand, the availability of all those apps has contributed some amount (and I think a very large amount) of sales to Apple. On which Apple has made $25 billion per quarter in revenue. It looks to me like Apple owes the developers more than the developers owe Apple.
I'm not looking at this in an either or way. Of course the apps are contributing to the value of the iOS ecosystem. I'm not pitting the value of Apple against the developers. Apple had to build the iOS platform before the developers were able to take advantage of it. Your statements give the majority of the credit to developers for successfully using a system that Apple created. That doesn't make much sense to me.
Quote:
There are many ways of looking at the relative values which is why we can all disagree so violently about them.
Its not all that complicated. Apple floated a policy idea (that never went into effect) to see how people would respond to it. Once they received feedback they changed it to something that most everyone could agree was reasonable.
The truth is that nothing was really ever changed. The final policy will be far milder than most feared it would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly
Perhaps we can take the "ecosystem" analogy a little further and say that relationships between its participants have to symbiotic for one to flourish. Once any particular thing becomes parasitic, the whole balance is thrown out: the other things will look for other places to survive.
You've got to be a troll because this simply cannot be a serious question. Or do you just not count the 70/30 revenue split as revenue sharing?
This forum isnt going to survive if people who disagree with Annonymouse - whose ideas are held by tiny minority even within the Apple community - are labelled trolls.
Quote:
This is just a dumb comment. Just because Apple seems to have carved out a few loopholes for specific content types, doesn't mean that the App Store no longer runs on a revenue sharing model. The whole thing is and always has been based on revenue sharing, and it still will be entirely for most apps.
The iPad store has a form of revenue sharing for paid apps. That is: Apple hosts your content and when sold you get 70%. If you choose to use their iAd advertising framework there is also revenue sharing. If you use in-app purchasing, the same. Since Apple allow you not to use IAP and developers are free to use adMob or make their own advertising models, your point lies in tatters, and I am only on my second paragraph.
When a free app is downloaded and no subsequent costs pertain to Apple, there is no more revenue sharing unless an app uses the IAP or iAds. Apple try and force the use of IAP by banning external links - their last uncompetitive act, which probably wont last either - but the fact is that a Kindle customer can buy externally, and the purchased item show in the app. Externally can be on safari on the iPad, externally anywhere else: web, android app, and so on.
On the subject of quantifiable costs the "its a revenue sharing" argument has moved onto the original naive claim when this first came out that Apple should get paid as they are hosting the content to the argument thatApple should get paid as they are hosting the free app to begin with.
Nonsense. If Apple want that model they can charge per download - thats the cost, since storing a digital copy of a popular app is the same as storing the digital copy of an unpopular one. If they charge per download, a not uncommon industry standard in fact, then the free app market disappears.
After an app is installed the costs to Apple are zero. If Kindle want to link to an external website to buy something, then download it within the app, the costs to Apple are none.
The final spurious argument is that Apple is bringing customers to Kindle, but as been pointed out exhaustively that would appply to the Windows version of iTunes. The counter argument to that made by anonymouse and others is tautological - they argue that an installed app on the iPad is different to one on Windows because the iPad has a revenue sharing model in order to prove their point that the iPad has a revenue sharing model.
But that is where we disagree and what has to be proven.
If Apple is operating the App Store as a mostly break even operation,
Sorry, but Apple don't do nothing that merely breaks even. Where do you get the "if"? The App Store was at breakeven shortly after it started, and by now, it is likely a huge cash cow.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Apple has utterly failed with the App Store? It looks quite successful to me.
Comments
Customers who subscribe to the service before getting the app are likely to purchase on the web, and then use the app, entering their existing login info.
If you're like Amazon, just don't offer an In-App option, like Netflix doesn't.
I'd say it works smoothly. If the customer finds the product through the App Store, they'll likely use the In-App method, and Apple gets a cut. They delivered the customer. If the publisher delivered the customer, they'll likely subscribe on the web and then get the app.
I don't know if I can agree that what Apple brings is only 3% of the value. They bring the entire iOS ecosystem, the App Store, and over 200 million customers. Without Apple's efforts none of that would exist in the way it does. I think that is worth far more than only 3%.
Perhaps we can take the "ecosystem" analogy a little further and say that relationships between its participants have to symbiotic for one to flourish. Once any particular thing becomes parasitic, the whole balance is thrown out: the other things will look for other places to survive.
Obviously, Apple have worked out in this context that it is not so. They have the data, and maybe the dude from the Rolling Stone was right in respect of the amount of revenue generated through the subscription policy, for instance. As people suggest, it's not the revenue to Apple that's important, it's essentially a "break even" proposition for them (although break even for Apple might be an entirely different relativity than for someone else).
However the revenue is important for the person providing the content, despite the other relevant argument about the value of customer information. If they're not selling content through iTunes, why invest the time in the first place to provide an iOS app? Is 70% of very little really worth the effort.
I agree that I'm happy it comes to a conclusion that works for everyone.
I guess that remains to be seen. To take the case of magazines, while I'd just prefer a magazine delivered differently (perhaps with better navigation), it seems many others prefer the idea of a rich interactive experience. It might the case that reason these subs aren't turning up because the content is not what people are expecting inside such a new paradigm.
It's more than convenience - it's also about bringing you new customers. I guarantee, if it wasn't' for the Kindle app on the iPad I wouldn't own the growing library of Kindle ebooks that I have. I doubt I'm alone. There are 200 million iOS devices. And with iOS 5 and the dropping of the requirement for a computer, Apple is now opening up markets for those who don't even own a computer - or if they do own one, barely use it for more than email or basic web browsing. The potential iOS userbase is a HUGE market - and that has value. Apple created it, so they should get a cut.
That these concepts are confusing or flat out misunderstood is depressing...
You and numerous others are operating under the false premise that having these apps in the App Store add no value to the iOS ecosystem which is flat out WRONG. If Apple is operating the App Store as a mostly break even operation, why are they doing that? Do you know of any business that operates with a break even philosophy? The ONLY reason Apple is willing to do that is because it adds a HUGE amount of value to iOS devices.
If developers started abandoning iOS, the value it had would drop dramatically. It's not the parasitic, leach-like relationship some people here try to characterize it as. It's a symbiotic relationship. Where would iOS be without high profile apps like Kindle, Netflix and Angry Birds?
If they didn't know they could get it for $10 on the web they would happily pay $13
Only an arrogant or ignorant person would assume that everyone shares the same world view they do.
EDIT: and again I find it amusing that you assume that everyone will automatically charge more now that they can...
Then again if content publishers are as stupid as the record companies perhaps they will. And they will probably see their sales plummet just like the music companies did once they got multi-tierd pricing and went crazy jacking up prices.
I mean you can go get a physical CD for the same or cheeper AND you have a physical CD... Yup, that whole convenience thing is overblown
It was in response to a question on whether convenience was worth an extra 30%. My original post was that if Apple took a reasonable cut while still allowing non itune in-app purchases everyone would be better off.
Personally I find it amusing how many arrogant and ignorant people post here Does the shoe fit?
Because higher prices is bad for consumers. Why would a consumer prefer that publishers jack up their prices? I don't see how you can say higher prices for consumers is a good thing unless you are a publisher.
Paying a higher price for something you need is not necessarily a bad thing.
Let's suppose that I need Publication A for my work. Unfortunately Publication A went out of business because they did not make enough profits.
In this case, the lower price has hurt me. I now no longer have it as a resource and need to spend some time ($) to find a replacement.
For the majority of people, the lower price may have been good for them, while the publication was still around.
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?
Lol! Too funny!
I was replying to another poster - oh, that was you:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=100
See also: http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1565
Sorry, but you apparently had your usual trouble with reading comprehension since none of my posts say anything even remotely close to what you claimed they did. Or, maybe you're just being your usual dishonest self and misrepresenting things.
Sorry, but you apparently had your usual trouble with reading comprehension since none of my posts say anything even remotely close to what you claimed they did. Or, maybe you're just being your usual dishonest self and misrepresenting things.
I think you two should get a room.
If Apple is running a revenue sharing model it has just allowed people to "cheat" by buying content outside the app. There is no need for a link. Just give an app price on a button and mention the website price.
Nobody will buy in app.
Apparently Apple don't feel they are running a revenue sharing model on the iPad. Time to stop a defence they don't even make.
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
What about all the people defending Apple's position, slamming those who disagree, but now they have egg on their faces?
It's kinda funny to see people whose arguments about revenue sharing having been quashed by Apple still continue their insanity.
If Apple is running a revenue sharing model it has just allowed people to "cheat" by buying content outside the app. There is no need for a link. Just give an app price on a button and mention the website price.
Nobody will buy in app.
Apparently Apple don't feel they are running a revenue sharing model on the iPad. Time to stop a defence they don't even make.
This is just a dumb comment. Just because Apple seems to have carved out a few loopholes for specific content types, doesn't mean that the App Store no longer runs on a revenue sharing model. The whole thing is and always has been based on revenue sharing, and it still will be entirely for most apps.
For some reason, this topic seems to generate the most irrational comments from people who are apparently able to remain utterly blind to those most obvious things.
I think you two should get a room.
You should get a room with yourself.
You should get a room with yourself.
wow. you're good.
I don't know if I can agree that what Apple brings is only 3% of the value. They bring the entire iOS ecosystem, the App Store, and over 200 million customers. Without Apple's efforts none of that would exist in the way it does. I think that is worth far more than only 3%.
My qualifier was "quantifiable". The part of the transaction that can be assigned real dollars in either costs or savings.
Yes, Apple does bring some additional value but it's hard to attach a number to that value. The developers also bring value as Apple's ecosystem would not be worth nearly as much and probably wouldn't have 200 million customers without them.
So who's value is greater? Apple has paid out something like $3 billion to developers over a couple of years. On the other hand, the availability of all those apps has contributed some amount (and I think a very large amount) of sales to Apple. On which Apple has made $25 billion per quarter in revenue. It looks to me like Apple owes the developers more than the developers owe Apple.
There are many ways of looking at the relative values which is why we can all disagree so violently about them.
For some reason, this topic seems to generate the most irrational comments from people who are apparently able to remain utterly blind to those most obvious things.
Like you? Still waiting any actual proof of revenue sharing model. It's a pity that even Apple doesn't back your opinions
Like you? Still waiting any actual proof of revenue sharing model. It's a pity that even Apple doesn't back your opinions
You've got to be a troll because this simply cannot be a serious question. Or do you just not count the 70/30 revenue split as revenue sharing?
My qualifier was "quantifiable". The part of the transaction that can be assigned real dollars in either costs or savings.
Yes, Apple does bring some additional value but it's hard to attach a number to that value. The developers also bring value as Apple's ecosystem would not be worth nearly as much and probably wouldn't have 200 million customers without them.
Developing the iOS, App Store, and iDevices has cost real money. It is quantifiable. The value attached to that would be the cost to any developer of going out and building their own hardware devices and marketing them to the general consumer. The cost of that is the value that Apple brings.
So who's value is greater? Apple has paid out something like $3 billion to developers over a couple of years. On the other hand, the availability of all those apps has contributed some amount (and I think a very large amount) of sales to Apple. On which Apple has made $25 billion per quarter in revenue. It looks to me like Apple owes the developers more than the developers owe Apple.
I'm not looking at this in an either or way. Of course the apps are contributing to the value of the iOS ecosystem. I'm not pitting the value of Apple against the developers. Apple had to build the iOS platform before the developers were able to take advantage of it. Your statements give the majority of the credit to developers for successfully using a system that Apple created. That doesn't make much sense to me.
There are many ways of looking at the relative values which is why we can all disagree so violently about them.
What do you feel was violent in my statements?
The truth is that nothing was really ever changed. The final policy will be far milder than most feared it would be.
Perhaps we can take the "ecosystem" analogy a little further and say that relationships between its participants have to symbiotic for one to flourish. Once any particular thing becomes parasitic, the whole balance is thrown out: the other things will look for other places to survive.
You've got to be a troll because this simply cannot be a serious question. Or do you just not count the 70/30 revenue split as revenue sharing?
This forum isnt going to survive if people who disagree with Annonymouse - whose ideas are held by tiny minority even within the Apple community - are labelled trolls.
This is just a dumb comment. Just because Apple seems to have carved out a few loopholes for specific content types, doesn't mean that the App Store no longer runs on a revenue sharing model. The whole thing is and always has been based on revenue sharing, and it still will be entirely for most apps.
The iPad store has a form of revenue sharing for paid apps. That is: Apple hosts your content and when sold you get 70%. If you choose to use their iAd advertising framework there is also revenue sharing. If you use in-app purchasing, the same. Since Apple allow you not to use IAP and developers are free to use adMob or make their own advertising models, your point lies in tatters, and I am only on my second paragraph.
When a free app is downloaded and no subsequent costs pertain to Apple, there is no more revenue sharing unless an app uses the IAP or iAds. Apple try and force the use of IAP by banning external links - their last uncompetitive act, which probably wont last either - but the fact is that a Kindle customer can buy externally, and the purchased item show in the app. Externally can be on safari on the iPad, externally anywhere else: web, android app, and so on.
On the subject of quantifiable costs the "its a revenue sharing" argument has moved onto the original naive claim when this first came out that Apple should get paid as they are hosting the content to the argument thatApple should get paid as they are hosting the free app to begin with.
Nonsense. If Apple want that model they can charge per download - thats the cost, since storing a digital copy of a popular app is the same as storing the digital copy of an unpopular one. If they charge per download, a not uncommon industry standard in fact, then the free app market disappears.
After an app is installed the costs to Apple are zero. If Kindle want to link to an external website to buy something, then download it within the app, the costs to Apple are none.
The final spurious argument is that Apple is bringing customers to Kindle, but as been pointed out exhaustively that would appply to the Windows version of iTunes. The counter argument to that made by anonymouse and others is tautological - they argue that an installed app on the iPad is different to one on Windows because the iPad has a revenue sharing model in order to prove their point that the iPad has a revenue sharing model.
But that is where we disagree and what has to be proven.
If Apple is operating the App Store as a mostly break even operation,
Sorry, but Apple don't do nothing that merely breaks even. Where do you get the "if"? The App Store was at breakeven shortly after it started, and by now, it is likely a huge cash cow.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Apple has utterly failed with the App Store? It looks quite successful to me.