Personally, I think you are just a troll, pretending in thread after thread not to understand the basic business arrangement of the App Store.
But, for anyone who really doesn't get it, the revenue sharing part of the "rules" is the part of the developer agreement where you agree to let Apple have 30% of the revenue your app generates.
Through in app purchases. For companies who have a safari store front that doesn't apply. Apple haven't banned the safari storefront, but the link to it.
Also post reported for calling a honest argument a troll.
THIS should get posted more. THIS is the value proposition, and Apple says it is valued at 30% of revenues (including app purchases and in-app purchases).
If the developer signs up, they obviously feel it is worth is.
And by the way, that list should also include "Access to 100,000+ users with credit cards on file"...
Amazon doesn't need Apple's credit card files. They invented one touch.
Anyway the latest kindle release is getting an average of 1 star reviews on the App Store. The average customer is reacting angrily. Why has Amazon done this? Are they stupid. Most people don't follow the tech news. However the truth will out and Apple will face the mother of all back lashes.
EDIT: the situation is evolving. The average for the new release is now ( on the UK store) 2 stars. Consisting of mostly 1 stars and 3 5 stars from people saying it is Apples fault.
EDIT 2: as I wrote that I swapped innthe app store to get the actual numbers. All reviews for 2.8 are now gone!
You aren't rewording my statement, you're simply making up the fantasy version that represents your distorted and mistaken view.
Please point out which part of my statement is untrue? Apple changed the rules AFTER many of the publishers released their apps on the App Store, correct? And Apple said they would remove any app that didn't meet the new rules, even if it had been previously approved under the old rules, correct? Are you somehow suggesting that those publishers should have had crystal balls to anticiapte how and when Apple would change the rules?
As I said, it's within Apple's right to do so as they likely had that clause in the agreement. But that doesn't change the fact that there was no way for an app creator to know ahead of time what Apple's future rule changes are going to be and how those changes would impact your business plan.
Let's see. Apple provides the infrastructure to host their apps, but the vendors don't want to support that infrastructure by paying 30% of their price - they want a free ride.
Apple are being dicks about this, plain and simple. A 30% cut of content revenue is insane, unsustainable and outright greedy. I am surprised things have gone this far. People may pay a premium for high quality devices, but who wants to pay 30% more every time you buy content.
Note that Amazon and others are resellers. They are not publishers.
Publishers pay far more to distributors (such as Amazon and the corner bookstore) to sell their product.
Amazon doesn't need Apple's credit card files. They invented one touch.
You mean one-click, and by invented you mean patented. Honestly that patent alone is enough for me to cheer when somebody screws Amazon a bit. 1-click is the poster child for patent idiocy (yes I mean that in both senses).
As I said, it's within Apple's right to do so as they likely had that clause in the agreement. But that doesn't change the fact that there was no way for an app creator to know ahead of time what Apple's future rule changes are going to be and how those changes would impact your business plan.
If in your business plan Apple hosts your App for free, and you generate income outside your App which Apple gets no share of, then you have to at least vaguely suspect that at some point they may notice you are freeloading.
Now as it happens Apple has decided to treat free-loaders pretty gently, you can still do it, you'll just have to inform your customers of the pay-site some other way. You could even do it by iAds in your free App, but you'd have to pay Apple a cut on the advertising, so they'd still get paid.
This is a negative effect of Apple's change in terms, leading to poorer customer experience and reducing the benefit of the iPad.
In teh end, this is why MS will win this round too...for a few reasons:
1: they already have the distrobution channel
2: They own the Living room with xbox and tehy own the enterprise tablet market (albeit a small market) -- combine teh two and the possibilities are interesting(Windows 8 anyone?)
3: MS tends to get it right the third time: They did tablets with XP, they did it again in a much revamped way in W7 and of course slate/touch is the driving force of Windows 8...
4: Microsoft DOESNT CARE what you do with thir stuff when you buy it cause it is YOURS after all -- they will win the consumers just like they did with Windwos 95 and they will never lose the corprate market in the next 15 years.
FWIW, Apple may not really want Amazon, B&N, etc in the AppStore anyway, which may be part of the reason for the policy in the first place.
That's what I'm leaning toward as well.
This isn't about Apple needing the extra money or one person or another thinks is "fair".
It is a strategy by Apple to remove, or at least disadvantage, "middle man" type apps in the iOS app store where Apple themselves offer an alternative.
Apple's attitude is that the hardware/OS (platform) is adding value to the software/content, but then they deny that the software/content is adding value to the platform. I'd argue that, at least as far as the subscription content we are discussing here goes, the software adds far more value to the platform than the other way around. I can play Angry Birds and read the Wall Street Journal on any number of platforms, an iDevice is entirely optional.
Ok, so you posit that software/content adds value to idevices which makes Apple greedy for asking 30% of revenue from NEW subscribers using in app purchases. In the above statement, you acknowledge that both Angry Birds and WSJ can be purchased/used on any number of platforms and an idevice is optional. Well, that seems to show that the software/content DOESN'T in fact add much value since customers are flocking to idevices in droves compared to other platforms. Why is that? Could it be the OS Apple has developed? Or the superior design and build of Apple's hardware? Or the tight integration in the ecosystem that Apple has created? All of those things cost billions of dollars to develop and execute so excuse me if I'm not crying a river for big corporations who think they can spend 99 bucks to get in the app store and make millions.
You mean one-click, and by invented you mean patented. Honestly that patent alone is enough for me to cheer when somebody screws Amazon a bit. 1-click is the poster child for patent idiocy (yes I mean that in both senses).
In Europe that patent application was denied as too obvious.
In teh end, this is why MS will win this round too...for a few reasons:
1: they already have the distrobution channel
Yeh their retail stores are bitchin!
Quote:
2: They own the Living room with xbox
Interestingly xbox live is reported as also charging a 30% commission. Outrage eh?
55Mil Xbox-360s since launch in 4Q2005.
50Mil PS-3 since launch in 4Q2006
86MIl Wii since launch in 4Q2006
29Mil iPads since launch in 2Q2010.
Sorry but Xbox doesn't own the living room.
Quote:
and tehy own the enterprise tablet market (albeit a small market) -- combine teh two and the possibilities are interesting(Windows 8 anyone?)
iPad is the highest selling tablet in the enterprise too. So no, they don't own that either.
Quote:
3: MS tends to get it right the third time: They did tablets with XP, they did it again in a much revamped way in W7 and of course slate/touch is the driving force of Windows 8...
XP on tablet - try 1
Vista on tablet - try 2
Win 7 on tablet - try 3
4th time lucky this time eh? 5th if we count project Origami separately. 6th if we include windows for pen computing. But next time will be really good right? Hey it's their 7th attempt on the smartphone platform and that's a whole 1% of US handset sales!
Quote:
4: Microsoft DOESNT CARE what you do with thir stuff when you buy it cause it is YOURS after all -- they will win the consumers just like they did with Windwos 95 and they will never lose the corprate market in the next 15 years.
Once you've installed your copy of windows on a box it's locked to that box. Far from 'owning it and you can do what you like', it's limited to a single machine and if you upgrade the motherboard you'll have to phone them and ask nicely before you can install it on something else. No they're not obliged to let you.
The fact that you're a hopeless fanboy is much less embarrassing than the fact that you're a clueless hopeless fanboy.
You mean one-click, and by invented you mean patented. Honestly that patent alone is enough for me to cheer when somebody screws Amazon a bit. 1-click is the poster child for patent idiocy (yes I mean that in both senses).
It's not final yet, but the 1-click patent was recently ruled invalid also. Not unique enough to be patentable and prior art exists etc. Amazon is still fighting it and it isn't final, but the smart money is on one-click being history very soon.
If in your business plan Apple hosts your App for free, and you generate income outside your App which Apple gets no share of, then you have to at least vaguely suspect that at some point they may notice you are freeloading.
The App Store and iOS apps in general are a "value add" for Apple. And in truth, it's a HUGE "value add" for iOS devices. Where do you think the iPhone and iPad would be if Apple had never allowed apps on those devices? Apple has spent a lot of time and effort advertising apps because they know how much value apps add to their products.
People like to point out that the iTunes Store and App Store are basically break even propositions. You can't really "freeload" (which apps don't since they add value to Apple's products) when there's no real expectation that the store is going to make any money or not. People really need to make up their minds. Does Apple expect to make a profit on the App Store or not?
FT's html5-based web app is seriously good. No different from their award-winning native iOS app for the iPad. Moving to html5 gives them the ability to go cross-platform (including Android), and they claim enables easier content updates, better videos etc.
Moreover, they don't have to jump through Apple's app update hoops (and non-existent, or at best, unresponsive customer service) every time they want to add/change something by way of functionality in the app.
I have to wonder what this means for the future of iOS native-apps if more and more big names do this, and by inference, what it means for iPad sales (since web-based apps will look and perform the same, to a large degree, on any hardware).
... I've also purchased Kindle books from the Amazon website and sent it to my iPad running the Kindle app. It is is faster and more flexible because you are on the full amazon.com website, which looks great on the iPad. Based on that experience, no, it's not necessarily something I miss.
The full Amazon website looks "great?" I wasn't aware it looked good on anything, let alone an iPad.
I find it hard to even think of a more confusing, craptastic, chock-full of ads & BS web site in existence than Amazon. Amazon is the MySpace of commerce websites.
Comments
Personally, I think you are just a troll, pretending in thread after thread not to understand the basic business arrangement of the App Store.
But, for anyone who really doesn't get it, the revenue sharing part of the "rules" is the part of the developer agreement where you agree to let Apple have 30% of the revenue your app generates.
Through in app purchases. For companies who have a safari store front that doesn't apply. Apple haven't banned the safari storefront, but the link to it.
Also post reported for calling a honest argument a troll.
THIS should get posted more. THIS is the value proposition, and Apple says it is valued at 30% of revenues (including app purchases and in-app purchases).
If the developer signs up, they obviously feel it is worth is.
And by the way, that list should also include "Access to 100,000+ users with credit cards on file"...
Amazon doesn't need Apple's credit card files. They invented one touch.
EDIT: the situation is evolving. The average for the new release is now ( on the UK store) 2 stars. Consisting of mostly 1 stars and 3 5 stars from people saying it is Apples fault.
EDIT 2: as I wrote that I swapped innthe app store to get the actual numbers. All reviews for 2.8 are now gone!
You aren't rewording my statement, you're simply making up the fantasy version that represents your distorted and mistaken view.
Please point out which part of my statement is untrue? Apple changed the rules AFTER many of the publishers released their apps on the App Store, correct? And Apple said they would remove any app that didn't meet the new rules, even if it had been previously approved under the old rules, correct? Are you somehow suggesting that those publishers should have had crystal balls to anticiapte how and when Apple would change the rules?
As I said, it's within Apple's right to do so as they likely had that clause in the agreement. But that doesn't change the fact that there was no way for an app creator to know ahead of time what Apple's future rule changes are going to be and how those changes would impact your business plan.
Let's see. Apple provides the infrastructure to host their apps, but the vendors don't want to support that infrastructure by paying 30% of their price - they want a free ride.
Apple hosts the app.
They do not host content.
Apple are being dicks about this, plain and simple. A 30% cut of content revenue is insane, unsustainable and outright greedy. I am surprised things have gone this far. People may pay a premium for high quality devices, but who wants to pay 30% more every time you buy content.
Note that Amazon and others are resellers. They are not publishers.
Publishers pay far more to distributors (such as Amazon and the corner bookstore) to sell their product.
Amazon doesn't need Apple's credit card files. They invented one touch.
You mean one-click, and by invented you mean patented. Honestly that patent alone is enough for me to cheer when somebody screws Amazon a bit. 1-click is the poster child for patent idiocy (yes I mean that in both senses).
And by the way, that list should also include "Access to 100,000+ users with credit cards on file"...
That would be +200 million users with credit cards on file.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/02/app...unes-accounts/
As I said, it's within Apple's right to do so as they likely had that clause in the agreement. But that doesn't change the fact that there was no way for an app creator to know ahead of time what Apple's future rule changes are going to be and how those changes would impact your business plan.
If in your business plan Apple hosts your App for free, and you generate income outside your App which Apple gets no share of, then you have to at least vaguely suspect that at some point they may notice you are freeloading.
Now as it happens Apple has decided to treat free-loaders pretty gently, you can still do it, you'll just have to inform your customers of the pay-site some other way. You could even do it by iAds in your free App, but you'd have to pay Apple a cut on the advertising, so they'd still get paid.
This is a negative effect of Apple's change in terms, leading to poorer customer experience and reducing the benefit of the iPad.
In teh end, this is why MS will win this round too...for a few reasons:
1: they already have the distrobution channel
2: They own the Living room with xbox and tehy own the enterprise tablet market (albeit a small market) -- combine teh two and the possibilities are interesting(Windows 8 anyone?)
3: MS tends to get it right the third time: They did tablets with XP, they did it again in a much revamped way in W7 and of course slate/touch is the driving force of Windows 8...
4: Microsoft DOESNT CARE what you do with thir stuff when you buy it cause it is YOURS after all -- they will win the consumers just like they did with Windwos 95 and they will never lose the corprate market in the next 15 years.
FWIW, Apple may not really want Amazon, B&N, etc in the AppStore anyway, which may be part of the reason for the policy in the first place.
That's what I'm leaning toward as well.
This isn't about Apple needing the extra money or one person or another thinks is "fair".
It is a strategy by Apple to remove, or at least disadvantage, "middle man" type apps in the iOS app store where Apple themselves offer an alternative.
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/07/25/study...es-on-ios-and/
Apple's attitude is that the hardware/OS (platform) is adding value to the software/content, but then they deny that the software/content is adding value to the platform. I'd argue that, at least as far as the subscription content we are discussing here goes, the software adds far more value to the platform than the other way around. I can play Angry Birds and read the Wall Street Journal on any number of platforms, an iDevice is entirely optional.
Ok, so you posit that software/content adds value to idevices which makes Apple greedy for asking 30% of revenue from NEW subscribers using in app purchases. In the above statement, you acknowledge that both Angry Birds and WSJ can be purchased/used on any number of platforms and an idevice is optional. Well, that seems to show that the software/content DOESN'T in fact add much value since customers are flocking to idevices in droves compared to other platforms. Why is that? Could it be the OS Apple has developed? Or the superior design and build of Apple's hardware? Or the tight integration in the ecosystem that Apple has created? All of those things cost billions of dollars to develop and execute so excuse me if I'm not crying a river for big corporations who think they can spend 99 bucks to get in the app store and make millions.
You mean one-click, and by invented you mean patented. Honestly that patent alone is enough for me to cheer when somebody screws Amazon a bit. 1-click is the poster child for patent idiocy (yes I mean that in both senses).
In Europe that patent application was denied as too obvious.
In teh end, this is why MS will win this round too...for a few reasons:
1: they already have the distrobution channel
Yeh their retail stores are bitchin!
2: They own the Living room with xbox
Interestingly xbox live is reported as also charging a 30% commission. Outrage eh?
55Mil Xbox-360s since launch in 4Q2005.
50Mil PS-3 since launch in 4Q2006
86MIl Wii since launch in 4Q2006
29Mil iPads since launch in 2Q2010.
Sorry but Xbox doesn't own the living room.
and tehy own the enterprise tablet market (albeit a small market) -- combine teh two and the possibilities are interesting(Windows 8 anyone?)
iPad is the highest selling tablet in the enterprise too. So no, they don't own that either.
3: MS tends to get it right the third time: They did tablets with XP, they did it again in a much revamped way in W7 and of course slate/touch is the driving force of Windows 8...
XP on tablet - try 1
Vista on tablet - try 2
Win 7 on tablet - try 3
4th time lucky this time eh? 5th if we count project Origami separately. 6th if we include windows for pen computing. But next time will be really good right? Hey it's their 7th attempt on the smartphone platform and that's a whole 1% of US handset sales!
4: Microsoft DOESNT CARE what you do with thir stuff when you buy it cause it is YOURS after all -- they will win the consumers just like they did with Windwos 95 and they will never lose the corprate market in the next 15 years.
Once you've installed your copy of windows on a box it's locked to that box. Far from 'owning it and you can do what you like', it's limited to a single machine and if you upgrade the motherboard you'll have to phone them and ask nicely before you can install it on something else. No they're not obliged to let you.
The fact that you're a hopeless fanboy is much less embarrassing than the fact that you're a clueless hopeless fanboy.
You mean one-click, and by invented you mean patented. Honestly that patent alone is enough for me to cheer when somebody screws Amazon a bit. 1-click is the poster child for patent idiocy (yes I mean that in both senses).
It's not final yet, but the 1-click patent was recently ruled invalid also. Not unique enough to be patentable and prior art exists etc. Amazon is still fighting it and it isn't final, but the smart money is on one-click being history very soon.
By your logic Apple has to pay MS for every song I buy using iTunes on my Windows machine. Way to go genius.
WTF are you talking about and why make it a personal attack? The real Holy Steven would not approve.
May a rock fall from the sky and hit you on the head.
If in your business plan Apple hosts your App for free, and you generate income outside your App which Apple gets no share of, then you have to at least vaguely suspect that at some point they may notice you are freeloading.
The App Store and iOS apps in general are a "value add" for Apple. And in truth, it's a HUGE "value add" for iOS devices. Where do you think the iPhone and iPad would be if Apple had never allowed apps on those devices? Apple has spent a lot of time and effort advertising apps because they know how much value apps add to their products.
People like to point out that the iTunes Store and App Store are basically break even propositions. You can't really "freeload" (which apps don't since they add value to Apple's products) when there's no real expectation that the store is going to make any money or not. People really need to make up their minds. Does Apple expect to make a profit on the App Store or not?
Moreover, they don't have to jump through Apple's app update hoops (and non-existent, or at best, unresponsive customer service) every time they want to add/change something by way of functionality in the app.
I have to wonder what this means for the future of iOS native-apps if more and more big names do this, and by inference, what it means for iPad sales (since web-based apps will look and perform the same, to a large degree, on any hardware).
... I've also purchased Kindle books from the Amazon website and sent it to my iPad running the Kindle app. It is is faster and more flexible because you are on the full amazon.com website, which looks great on the iPad. Based on that experience, no, it's not necessarily something I miss.
The full Amazon website looks "great?" I wasn't aware it looked good on anything, let alone an iPad.
I find it hard to even think of a more confusing, craptastic, chock-full of ads & BS web site in existence than Amazon. Amazon is the MySpace of commerce websites.