Actually analogies don't have to be exact. Best Buy the brick and mortar store is the platform that Amazon is selling it's kindle's from. If Amazon opened up a Kiosk and sold books from it instead of kindles, the analogy still work
No, because Amazon is not selling any book from Apple infrastructure.
The analogy in this case is Ikea selling its catalogue on a kiosk. The kiosk doesn't have a cut on any thing sold though this catalogue
False analogy, Best Buy doesn't take a cut of every BOOK sold on the Kindles sold by Best Buy.
Why Apple/MS/Google has to take a cut of a book sold by Amazon?
Best-buy doesn't give shelfspace to free products on which it earns no commission which can serve as delivery mechanisms to paid products on which it would also earn no commission.
Otherwise why ever sell paid content on the App store? If I'm selling a game I can just make the game free and charge for the level packs that you buy from my website. Apple pays all my distribution costs and I make all the profit.
Best-buy doesn't give shelfspace to free products on which it earns no commission which can serve as delivery mechanisms to paid products on which it would also earn no commission.
Well, if they think the need to, they can make all the apps non free. Best Buy takes any revenue from books sld on Kindles?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
Otherwise why ever sell paid content on the App store? If I'm selling a game I can just make the game free and charge for the level packs that you buy from my website. Apple pays all my distribution costs and I make all the profit.
Apple doesn't distribute anything apart of the app in the Amazon, Hulu o Netflix case.
Best-buy doesn't give shelfspace to free products on which it earns no commission which can serve as delivery mechanisms to paid products on which it would also earn no commission.
I bet they wouldn't mind if they earned a $499 cover charge per customer and said products enticed more customers through the doors!
Seriously though, all these analogies are worthless bullshit. Everyone knows this has absolutely nothing at all to do with Apple getting "their fair share" and everything to do with locking users into the Apple ecosystem before Google and others crack the tablet UX code and flood the market with iPad clones.
And that's not a slight on Apple either. As long as they aren't breaking any laws they are well within their right to push home the first mover advantage they have with the iPad.
False analogy, Best Buy doesn't take a cut of every BOOK sold on the Kindles sold by Best Buy.
Why Apple/MS/Google has to take a cut of a book sold by Amazon?
If Best Buy sold physical books in their store, yes they would take a cut.
The analogy is PHYSICAL TO DIGITAL.
If Amazon or another company is going to sell content in Apple's store (which includes In-App), Apple has a right to take a cut.
All Apple says is that Amazon or other developers can't post a "sign" saying "BUY OUR PRODUCTS CHEAPER ON OUR SITE". Best Buy wouldn't allow a similar sign in their store.
The analogy is that the App Store is equivalent to a brick-and-mortar store and doesn't have any different policies. It has nothing to do with warehousing and distribution; it has to do with delivering customers.
Well, if they think the need to, they can make all the apps non free. Best Buy takes any revenue from books sld on Kindles?
Apple doesn't distribute anything apart of the app in the Amazon, Hulu o Netflix case.
The cut that Best Buy takes when it sells just about anything is primarily because it DELIVERS CUSTOMERS and provides a purchasing environment.
That is what Apple does. Shouldn't Apple get a cut? They aren't a charity. Do you not agree that Apple provides value to developers? It provides a digital environment (like a brick-and-mortar store) where a HUGE number of customers with credit cards on file can purchase content; further, it provides an extremely easy way for said customers to purchase additional content. Is that not valuable? Apple isn't saying developers can't sell their content independently. They just can't advertise that fact INSIDE Apple's STORE, which includes In-App.
If you're hung up on the whole "distribution cost" (which is not all companies pay retail stores for), then change the analogy to a third-party salesperson who sells on commission. When a salesperson delivers a customer to a company, they get a percentage cut. If they continue to sell additional products or services to that customer, they get a cut. Usually, the company is not allowed to actively "poach" that customer from the salesperson, as that is their customer that they delivered. If the company doesn't want to pay a commission, they can deliver their own customers. But the company usually can't contact that customer and tell them they'll sell it to them cheaper if they buy directly instead of through the salesperson.
It sounds like you're against capitalism. Apple is following the principles of capitalism: if you provide value, you can demand compensation. If people don't think the value provided warrants the cost, they don't pay.
Otherwise why ever sell paid content on the App store? If I'm selling a game I can just make the game free and charge for the level packs that you buy from my website. Apple pays all my distribution costs and I make all the profit.
The levels which are activated in the case of games are downloaded prior to being activated ( in general) - this makes Apple the provider of delivery. Once the Kindle is downloaded it can access it's own servers to get it's own content -content which Amazon has already paid for.
The store is the Kindle store, not the App store.
In fact most people here are using the term App Store to disguise the fact that once downloaded, the app is not on the App Store it is on the iPad.
False analogy, Best Buy doesn't take a cut of every BOOK sold on the Kindles sold by Best Buy.
Why Apple/MS/Google has to take a cut of a book sold by Amazon?
Regarding a Kindle sale at Best Buy -- Best Buy does not give the Kindle product away. Amazon does give the Kindle App away free, and earns their profit solely from the purchase of books. Apple gets no revenue from offering the Kindle app in their App Store, nor many other free apps. Apple gets no revenue at all from free apps, and yet Apple's costs for the App Store infrastructure are significant, as you should imagine. Apple needs to get revenue to support the environment and they should.
Amazon's costs for their infrastructure is also quite significant, and they do not given away product for free. They can't and shouldn't have to.
For Apple, Best Buy, Amazon, just because the marginal costs are likely very small, it doesn't mean they should charge just a small fraction of that marginal cost. Think bankruptcy!
Best Buy in my area did sell some books, mostly computer related, but I would be naive to believe Best Buy did not take a cut of the price. For CDs, and DVDs and Blurays, of course Best Buy takes a cut. LIkely they buy on discount, then sell for a profit, on consignment or purchase outright. Items a store does not sell goes to a discount broker who pays a further discount, and jacks up the price to pay business expenses, salaries, and for profit.
Would you believe it? Amazon also buys the books from the publishers, or the publishers' distributors at a price less than what they ask the customer to pay. They make a profit and support their infrastructure.
Everyone in the chain from raw materials to final delivery jacks up the price and takes a cut. The real question is are distribution of cuts reasonable and fair.
Seriously though, all these analogies are worthless bullshit. Everyone knows this has absolutely nothing at all to do with Apple getting "their fair share" and everything to do with locking users into the Apple ecosystem before Google and others crack the tablet UX code and flood the market with iPad clones.
Actually that is definitely not what this is. Paying for a subscription for Hulu from the iPhone and not their website doesn't lock you in. Buying a kindle book from inside the iPhone doesn't lock you in. In each it's just a question of where your purchase is made, the service you get from the purchase can still be consumed on a different device so long as Hulu and Amazon continue to support that model.
This is 100% about Apple trying to capture some of the value of the transactions that iPhones, iPads and the App Store enable
Monopolistic, huh? I guess the iPad is the ONLY place to buy Kindle books or watch Hulu, right? Stop throwing around the "M" word when you have no idea what you're talking about. Happens far too often.
It is monopolistic. They are controlling their ecosystem so that the competition within the device itself is not free.
The cut that Best Buy takes when it sells just about anything is primarily because it DELIVERS CUSTOMERS and provides a purchasing environment.
That is what Apple does. Shouldn't Apple get a cut? They aren't a charity. Do you not agree that Apple provides value to developers? It provides a digital environment (like a brick-and-mortar store) where a HUGE number of customers with credit cards on file can purchase content; further, it provides an extremely easy way for said customers to purchase additional content. Is that not valuable? Apple isn't saying developers can't sell their content independently. They just can't advertise that fact INSIDE Apple's STORE, which includes In-App.
If you're hung up on the whole "distribution cost" (which is not all companies pay retail stores for), then change the analogy to a third-party salesperson who sells on commission. When a salesperson delivers a customer to a company, they get a percentage cut. If they continue to sell additional products or services to that customer, they get a cut. Usually, the company is not allowed to actively "poach" that customer from the salesperson, as that is their customer that they delivered. If the company doesn't want to pay a commission, they can deliver their own customers. But the company usually can't contact that customer and tell them they'll sell it to them cheaper if they buy directly instead of through the salesperson.
It sounds like you're against capitalism. Apple is following the principles of capitalism: if you provide value, you can demand compensation. If people don't think the value provided warrants the cost, they don't pay.
So what cut do you think that Windows and MS should get from iTunes? Or is it that the iPad is a store, and Windows is not - even though it provides a customer base for Apple - and a developer environment etc.
We keep going around in circles. As a major Apple fan this kind of bugs me - Apple is doing something uncompetitive, something which may reduce choice, or increase costs on the iPad ( or both) and we're cheering like idiots. Making up excuses which they haven't even bothered with.
Pay no attention to Gwydion. This has all been explained to him over and over again. At this point, it's clear that he's just a troll.
I did say I was going to report your posts if you called long standing commentators here who merely disagree with you a troll. That post was reported and all your previous accusations of trolling will be when I get around to it.
I don't see how this is anything but monopolistic business practices, even after dropping the ridiculous requirement that in app pricing is the same price as elsewhere. (Which I am sure would have triggered an investigation had they not backed down.) I do love Apple's products and I respect their right to approve or deny apps, but in my opinion these subscription policies cross the line.
...It doesn't mean what you think it means. There is nothing monopolistic about it, period. Try using language that accurately expresses your thoughts instead of going for large words for which you have clue as to their actual meaning. Apple OWNS iOS, the App Store that serves it and makes the rules concerning how to use it. You can call them anal, draconian, overbearing but they cannot by definition (because in business, MONOPOLY has a very specific definiftion) monopolize what they in fact own. It is tantamount to you be charged with monopolistic practices for your car. You own your car, and can pretty much do with what you please. You can drive by yourself, you can pick up passengers for hire (subject to applicable local laws), you can give friends rides or even keep a fish pond in the back seat. It's your car to do with as you please. The exact same situation is in place for the App Store - Apple set it up, made the rules and invited developers to participate under those rules. Whether or not those subscription policies "cross a line" is determined by acceptance by developers, not you or anyone else.
Same this for the Android Marketplace - Google owns it but keeps the rules to a very minimum. But they can if they wish impose more rules if they desire because Google owns the Android Marketplace.
Like you, I ditched cable, and I am paying for Hulu (but on a trail basis). I currently have Netflix, which is great for older TV shows and a lot of movies.
Hulu is nice for things like House, and Glee, which is not on Netflix. I am never short on anything to watch. I cut a $90 a month bill down to half (with Internet, Netflix, and Hulu Plus).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jims1973
I pay for it! It's replaced my cable bill which was $90 a month to $8 a month for Hulu and the only thing that's changed is I watch shows a day later... no big deal for me.
For me anyway, it's time to start evaluating alternatives to Apple products.
heh. You should, as an intelligent consumer (and not a fanboy), do this constantly. I scan the markets constantly to see what's out there and what is a best fit for my needs set. While I have a number of Apple products and have been very pleased with them, they do not automatically get preference over someone else until I've had a chance to look over the existing alternatives.
It is monopolistic. They are controlling their ecosystem so that the competition within the device itself is not free.
Except the iPad, iPhone, etc. compete in the overall computer and device market, and do not warrant a large enough share of the market to ever be considered a monopoly.
"Monopoly" in a legal sense is a very specific term and has specific requirements, at least in the US. Further, Apple isn't preventing competition. Companies like Netflix can operate just fine. Apple relaxed any rules that could be considered a colloquial "monopoly".
If Best Buy sold physical books in their store, yes they would take a cut.
The analogy is PHYSICAL TO DIGITAL.
If Amazon or another company is going to sell content in Apple's store (which includes In-App), Apple has a right to take a cut.
All Apple says is that Amazon or other developers can't post a "sign" saying "BUY OUR PRODUCTS CHEAPER ON OUR SITE". Best Buy wouldn't allow a similar sign in their store.
The analogy is that the App Store is equivalent to a brick-and-mortar store and doesn't have any different policies. It has nothing to do with warehousing and distribution; it has to do with delivering customers.
Selling content in-app is NOT equivalent to selling via the App Store. That's what it comes down to. If you can't grasp that concept, there's really nothing that can be done.
How about this analogy: Best Buy sells magazines. Best Buy starts demanding a cut from all subscriptions and products that are purchased from that magazine. After all, by your reasoning Best Buy delivered that customer.
If Best Buy sold books, then absolutely they'd take a cut. But Apple isn't selling or even hosting Amazon's electronic Kindle books. All Apple is doing with in-app purchases is forcing Amazon to use them as the transaction processor. I'm fairly certain Amazon can handle that just fine without Apple's help.
Or if you're going to argue about Apple delivering customers to Amazon, how about the counter argument? How many customers does Amazon deliver to Apple? How many people were going to purchase a Kindle and decided to get an iPad since there was an app for the device? By the logic you've espoused, Amazon should get some amount of compensation from Apple for that customer. How many people choose an iPad because of apps like Netflix, Hulu Plus and Kindle? Clearly, Apple owes those companies some compensation.
Comments
Actually analogies don't have to be exact. Best Buy the brick and mortar store is the platform that Amazon is selling it's kindle's from. If Amazon opened up a Kiosk and sold books from it instead of kindles, the analogy still work
No, because Amazon is not selling any book from Apple infrastructure.
The analogy in this case is Ikea selling its catalogue on a kiosk. The kiosk doesn't have a cut on any thing sold though this catalogue
False analogy, Best Buy doesn't take a cut of every BOOK sold on the Kindles sold by Best Buy.
Why Apple/MS/Google has to take a cut of a book sold by Amazon?
Best-buy doesn't give shelfspace to free products on which it earns no commission which can serve as delivery mechanisms to paid products on which it would also earn no commission.
Otherwise why ever sell paid content on the App store? If I'm selling a game I can just make the game free and charge for the level packs that you buy from my website. Apple pays all my distribution costs and I make all the profit.
Best-buy doesn't give shelfspace to free products on which it earns no commission which can serve as delivery mechanisms to paid products on which it would also earn no commission.
Well, if they think the need to, they can make all the apps non free. Best Buy takes any revenue from books sld on Kindles?
Otherwise why ever sell paid content on the App store? If I'm selling a game I can just make the game free and charge for the level packs that you buy from my website. Apple pays all my distribution costs and I make all the profit.
Apple doesn't distribute anything apart of the app in the Amazon, Hulu o Netflix case.
Best-buy doesn't give shelfspace to free products on which it earns no commission which can serve as delivery mechanisms to paid products on which it would also earn no commission.
I bet they wouldn't mind if they earned a $499 cover charge per customer and said products enticed more customers through the doors!
Seriously though, all these analogies are worthless bullshit. Everyone knows this has absolutely nothing at all to do with Apple getting "their fair share" and everything to do with locking users into the Apple ecosystem before Google and others crack the tablet UX code and flood the market with iPad clones.
And that's not a slight on Apple either. As long as they aren't breaking any laws they are well within their right to push home the first mover advantage they have with the iPad.
False analogy, Best Buy doesn't take a cut of every BOOK sold on the Kindles sold by Best Buy.
Why Apple/MS/Google has to take a cut of a book sold by Amazon?
If Best Buy sold physical books in their store, yes they would take a cut.
The analogy is PHYSICAL TO DIGITAL.
If Amazon or another company is going to sell content in Apple's store (which includes In-App), Apple has a right to take a cut.
All Apple says is that Amazon or other developers can't post a "sign" saying "BUY OUR PRODUCTS CHEAPER ON OUR SITE". Best Buy wouldn't allow a similar sign in their store.
The analogy is that the App Store is equivalent to a brick-and-mortar store and doesn't have any different policies. It has nothing to do with warehousing and distribution; it has to do with delivering customers.
Well, if they think the need to, they can make all the apps non free. Best Buy takes any revenue from books sld on Kindles?
Apple doesn't distribute anything apart of the app in the Amazon, Hulu o Netflix case.
The cut that Best Buy takes when it sells just about anything is primarily because it DELIVERS CUSTOMERS and provides a purchasing environment.
That is what Apple does. Shouldn't Apple get a cut? They aren't a charity. Do you not agree that Apple provides value to developers? It provides a digital environment (like a brick-and-mortar store) where a HUGE number of customers with credit cards on file can purchase content; further, it provides an extremely easy way for said customers to purchase additional content. Is that not valuable? Apple isn't saying developers can't sell their content independently. They just can't advertise that fact INSIDE Apple's STORE, which includes In-App.
If you're hung up on the whole "distribution cost" (which is not all companies pay retail stores for), then change the analogy to a third-party salesperson who sells on commission. When a salesperson delivers a customer to a company, they get a percentage cut. If they continue to sell additional products or services to that customer, they get a cut. Usually, the company is not allowed to actively "poach" that customer from the salesperson, as that is their customer that they delivered. If the company doesn't want to pay a commission, they can deliver their own customers. But the company usually can't contact that customer and tell them they'll sell it to them cheaper if they buy directly instead of through the salesperson.
It sounds like you're against capitalism. Apple is following the principles of capitalism: if you provide value, you can demand compensation. If people don't think the value provided warrants the cost, they don't pay.
Otherwise why ever sell paid content on the App store? If I'm selling a game I can just make the game free and charge for the level packs that you buy from my website. Apple pays all my distribution costs and I make all the profit.
The levels which are activated in the case of games are downloaded prior to being activated ( in general) - this makes Apple the provider of delivery. Once the Kindle is downloaded it can access it's own servers to get it's own content -content which Amazon has already paid for.
The store is the Kindle store, not the App store.
In fact most people here are using the term App Store to disguise the fact that once downloaded, the app is not on the App Store it is on the iPad.
False analogy, Best Buy doesn't take a cut of every BOOK sold on the Kindles sold by Best Buy.
Why Apple/MS/Google has to take a cut of a book sold by Amazon?
Regarding a Kindle sale at Best Buy -- Best Buy does not give the Kindle product away. Amazon does give the Kindle App away free, and earns their profit solely from the purchase of books. Apple gets no revenue from offering the Kindle app in their App Store, nor many other free apps. Apple gets no revenue at all from free apps, and yet Apple's costs for the App Store infrastructure are significant, as you should imagine. Apple needs to get revenue to support the environment and they should.
Amazon's costs for their infrastructure is also quite significant, and they do not given away product for free. They can't and shouldn't have to.
For Apple, Best Buy, Amazon, just because the marginal costs are likely very small, it doesn't mean they should charge just a small fraction of that marginal cost. Think bankruptcy!
Best Buy in my area did sell some books, mostly computer related, but I would be naive to believe Best Buy did not take a cut of the price. For CDs, and DVDs and Blurays, of course Best Buy takes a cut. LIkely they buy on discount, then sell for a profit, on consignment or purchase outright. Items a store does not sell goes to a discount broker who pays a further discount, and jacks up the price to pay business expenses, salaries, and for profit.
Would you believe it? Amazon also buys the books from the publishers, or the publishers' distributors at a price less than what they ask the customer to pay. They make a profit and support their infrastructure.
Everyone in the chain from raw materials to final delivery jacks up the price and takes a cut. The real question is are distribution of cuts reasonable and fair.
Seriously though, all these analogies are worthless bullshit. Everyone knows this has absolutely nothing at all to do with Apple getting "their fair share" and everything to do with locking users into the Apple ecosystem before Google and others crack the tablet UX code and flood the market with iPad clones.
Actually that is definitely not what this is. Paying for a subscription for Hulu from the iPhone and not their website doesn't lock you in. Buying a kindle book from inside the iPhone doesn't lock you in. In each it's just a question of where your purchase is made, the service you get from the purchase can still be consumed on a different device so long as Hulu and Amazon continue to support that model.
This is 100% about Apple trying to capture some of the value of the transactions that iPhones, iPads and the App Store enable
False analogy, Best Buy doesn't take a cut of every BOOK sold on the Kindles sold by Best Buy.
Why Apple/MS/Google has to take a cut of a book sold by Amazon?
Pay no attention to Gwydion. This has all been explained to him over and over again. At this point, it's clear that he's just a troll.
Monopolistic, huh? I guess the iPad is the ONLY place to buy Kindle books or watch Hulu, right? Stop throwing around the "M" word when you have no idea what you're talking about. Happens far too often.
It is monopolistic. They are controlling their ecosystem so that the competition within the device itself is not free.
The cut that Best Buy takes when it sells just about anything is primarily because it DELIVERS CUSTOMERS and provides a purchasing environment.
That is what Apple does. Shouldn't Apple get a cut? They aren't a charity. Do you not agree that Apple provides value to developers? It provides a digital environment (like a brick-and-mortar store) where a HUGE number of customers with credit cards on file can purchase content; further, it provides an extremely easy way for said customers to purchase additional content. Is that not valuable? Apple isn't saying developers can't sell their content independently. They just can't advertise that fact INSIDE Apple's STORE, which includes In-App.
If you're hung up on the whole "distribution cost" (which is not all companies pay retail stores for), then change the analogy to a third-party salesperson who sells on commission. When a salesperson delivers a customer to a company, they get a percentage cut. If they continue to sell additional products or services to that customer, they get a cut. Usually, the company is not allowed to actively "poach" that customer from the salesperson, as that is their customer that they delivered. If the company doesn't want to pay a commission, they can deliver their own customers. But the company usually can't contact that customer and tell them they'll sell it to them cheaper if they buy directly instead of through the salesperson.
It sounds like you're against capitalism. Apple is following the principles of capitalism: if you provide value, you can demand compensation. If people don't think the value provided warrants the cost, they don't pay.
So what cut do you think that Windows and MS should get from iTunes? Or is it that the iPad is a store, and Windows is not - even though it provides a customer base for Apple - and a developer environment etc.
We keep going around in circles. As a major Apple fan this kind of bugs me - Apple is doing something uncompetitive, something which may reduce choice, or increase costs on the iPad ( or both) and we're cheering like idiots. Making up excuses which they haven't even bothered with.
It sounds like you're against capitalism
We're against feudalism. The difference is profit can be non-zero sum, rent is never anything but zero sum.
Pay no attention to Gwydion. This has all been explained to him over and over again. At this point, it's clear that he's just a troll.
I did say I was going to report your posts if you called long standing commentators here who merely disagree with you a troll. That post was reported and all your previous accusations of trolling will be when I get around to it.
I don't see how this is anything but monopolistic business practices, even after dropping the ridiculous requirement that in app pricing is the same price as elsewhere. (Which I am sure would have triggered an investigation had they not backed down.) I do love Apple's products and I respect their right to approve or deny apps, but in my opinion these subscription policies cross the line.
...It doesn't mean what you think it means. There is nothing monopolistic about it, period. Try using language that accurately expresses your thoughts instead of going for large words for which you have clue as to their actual meaning. Apple OWNS iOS, the App Store that serves it and makes the rules concerning how to use it. You can call them anal, draconian, overbearing but they cannot by definition (because in business, MONOPOLY has a very specific definiftion) monopolize what they in fact own. It is tantamount to you be charged with monopolistic practices for your car. You own your car, and can pretty much do with what you please. You can drive by yourself, you can pick up passengers for hire (subject to applicable local laws), you can give friends rides or even keep a fish pond in the back seat. It's your car to do with as you please. The exact same situation is in place for the App Store - Apple set it up, made the rules and invited developers to participate under those rules. Whether or not those subscription policies "cross a line" is determined by acceptance by developers, not you or anyone else.
Same this for the Android Marketplace - Google owns it but keeps the rules to a very minimum. But they can if they wish impose more rules if they desire because Google owns the Android Marketplace.
Hulu is nice for things like House, and Glee, which is not on Netflix. I am never short on anything to watch. I cut a $90 a month bill down to half (with Internet, Netflix, and Hulu Plus).
I pay for it! It's replaced my cable bill which was $90 a month to $8 a month for Hulu and the only thing that's changed is I watch shows a day later... no big deal for me.
For me anyway, it's time to start evaluating alternatives to Apple products.
heh. You should, as an intelligent consumer (and not a fanboy), do this constantly. I scan the markets constantly to see what's out there and what is a best fit for my needs set. While I have a number of Apple products and have been very pleased with them, they do not automatically get preference over someone else until I've had a chance to look over the existing alternatives.
It is monopolistic. They are controlling their ecosystem so that the competition within the device itself is not free.
Except the iPad, iPhone, etc. compete in the overall computer and device market, and do not warrant a large enough share of the market to ever be considered a monopoly.
"Monopoly" in a legal sense is a very specific term and has specific requirements, at least in the US. Further, Apple isn't preventing competition. Companies like Netflix can operate just fine. Apple relaxed any rules that could be considered a colloquial "monopoly".
If Best Buy sold physical books in their store, yes they would take a cut.
The analogy is PHYSICAL TO DIGITAL.
If Amazon or another company is going to sell content in Apple's store (which includes In-App), Apple has a right to take a cut.
All Apple says is that Amazon or other developers can't post a "sign" saying "BUY OUR PRODUCTS CHEAPER ON OUR SITE". Best Buy wouldn't allow a similar sign in their store.
The analogy is that the App Store is equivalent to a brick-and-mortar store and doesn't have any different policies. It has nothing to do with warehousing and distribution; it has to do with delivering customers.
Selling content in-app is NOT equivalent to selling via the App Store. That's what it comes down to. If you can't grasp that concept, there's really nothing that can be done.
How about this analogy: Best Buy sells magazines. Best Buy starts demanding a cut from all subscriptions and products that are purchased from that magazine. After all, by your reasoning Best Buy delivered that customer.
If Best Buy sold books, then absolutely they'd take a cut. But Apple isn't selling or even hosting Amazon's electronic Kindle books. All Apple is doing with in-app purchases is forcing Amazon to use them as the transaction processor. I'm fairly certain Amazon can handle that just fine without Apple's help.
Or if you're going to argue about Apple delivering customers to Amazon, how about the counter argument? How many customers does Amazon deliver to Apple? How many people were going to purchase a Kindle and decided to get an iPad since there was an app for the device? By the logic you've espoused, Amazon should get some amount of compensation from Apple for that customer. How many people choose an iPad because of apps like Netflix, Hulu Plus and Kindle? Clearly, Apple owes those companies some compensation.