Buy a native app and increase your lock-in into iOS (the money would be lost if switching to a different platform), use a web-app and no lock-in exists. That is why Apple prefers native apps.
First of all, the developer creates the lock-in not Apple... If a developer wanted, they could give their users a free version for other platforms if the user switched platforms.
Apple prefers native apps, because they provide for a better user experience and make more efficient use of system resources. Plain and simple.
Buy a native app and increase your lock-in into iOS (the money would be lost if switching to a different platform), use a web-app and no lock-in exists. That is why Apple prefers native apps. Naturally, for free apps this lock-in does not apply but some apps can switch their business model from paid app to free app + some sort of 'in-app' purchase. Those are the apps Apple would be loth to lose by them converting to web-apps.
The other element is the general platform appeal, any web app is immediately available to all 'tablet' devices (more or less), native apps will first appear on the most popular platform, ie, for iPads, web apps will erode that advantage.
You haters just don't get it. Apple created the Web Apps for the iPhone first. This is how they wanted to do apps because it was more secure than giving native access to the phone. Everyone complained so they invested a ton of cash into creating the app store. Then they marketed the hell out of it. It worked and became an immediate success. Apple would prefer competitors like amazon use web apps. If they are on the if they want to use Apples marketing they pay 30% or offer the the product for free. In the case of amazon the product is ebooks, not the free app. Do you think Barns and Noble would let you set up a table in the middle if their store to sell books from another book store? It's the same thing. Apple doesn't care if you buy from then or Amazon on your IOS device. They just want to insure that anyone using their ad dollars is paying their part to increase the platform to take from it.
You haters just don't get it. Apple created the Web Apps for the iPhone first. This is how they wanted to do apps because it was more secure than giving native access to the phone. Everyone complained so they invested a ton of cash into creating the app store. Then they marketed the hell out of it. It worked and became an immediate success. Apple would prefer competitors like amazon use web apps. If they are on the if they want to use Apples marketing they pay 30% or offer the the product for free. In the case of amazon the product is ebooks, not the free app. Do you think Barns and Noble would let you set up a table in the middle if their store to sell books from another book store? It's the same thing. Apple doesn't care if you buy from then or Amazon on your IOS device. They just want to insure that anyone using their ad dollars is paying their part to increase the platform to take from it.
I don't think most reasonable people would argue your point, BUT they would argue the asking price of 30 fraking percent is unreasonable.
Queue outraged stock holders bleating about being cheated.
.
In
.
3
.
2
.
1
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
Heard a rumor of Apple banning Safari on iPad3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
I don't think most reasonable people would argue your point, BUT they would argue the asking price of 30 fraking percent is unreasonable.
The trolls are out in force on this one. I know a lot of you have trouble wrapping your heads around simple concepts, but lets review.
The App Store/SDK, one of Apples iOS application platforms, runs on a revenue sharing basis. Thirty percent, is, as any knowledgeable and rational person knows, quite a reasonable figure.
The other iOS application platform, Safari/WebKit is an entirely open platform for which no developer agreement or revenue sharing is required, and which you are encouraged to use as an alternative to the App Store/SDK when it better suits your purposes.
See, it's very simple, so, read, comprehend, don't look foolish.
I don't think most reasonable people would argue your point, BUT they would argue the asking price of 30 fraking percent is unreasonable.
The going rate is 30/40 freaking percent to resell items in retail. If you buy retail you pay 100 freaking percent and the store keeps the 30/40 percent that they have to use to pay employees, rent, insurance, lawyers, etc. This is the AMERICAN AND WORLDLY WAY MY FRIEND.
If Amazon wants to add to its sales and expand its eyeballs... there is no free lunch. I think Apple is fair in their percent scheme. Very similar to the rest of the WWW.
[QUOTE=genovelle;1918275]Do you think Barns and Noble would let you set up a table in the middle if their store to sell books from another book store? It's the same thing. [QUOTE]
Actually Barns and Nobles would let you setup a table in the middle of their store to sell books from another bookstore - if they're allowed to get a big enough cut out of it. The problem right now is that Apple is not getting a cut at all out of the other companies using the App Store. Now 30% is likely too much for a lot of stuffs so Apple just have to figure out a way, right now a flat 30% is simple to implement but doesn't make sense to be applied to everything. They need to start offering different kinds of packages (e.g. for ebooks they charge like 3-5% of the sale price of each ebook, separated from App sales).
The going rate is 30/40 freaking percent to resell items in retail. If you buy retail you pay 100 freaking percent and the store keeps the 30/40 percent that they have to use to pay employees, rent, insurance, lawyers, etc. This is the AMERICAN AND WORLDLY WAY MY FRIEND.
The expenses to sell hardware on retail is not in the same league of the expenses to sell eThings online. 30% is a rip off for resellers of content like Kindle, netflix, hulu, and its very expensive even for authors.
I don't think most reasonable people would argue your point, BUT they would argue the asking price of 30 fraking percent is unreasonable.
Yes we have already argued it. The most reasonable and knowledgeable contributors to the argument made the case that it was actually quite reasonable for an electronic distribution model when the chain follows as such... publisher - Apple - Subscriber. It turned out to be less of a deal for Amazon and others when the chain was publisher - Amazon - Apple - User. In this case there was an extra middle man in the chain. I don't believe Apple ever intended to provide and infrastructure for companies like Amazon, hence the reason they supported web Apps from the beginning. Wb Apps make it easy for companies with their own infrastructure to "sell their wares" and not have to rely on Apple. Conversely, the App store is generally for smaller companies that don't necessarily have their own infrastructure (ecommerce, marketing etc) hence; revenue sharing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
ROFL Apple got own at is own game and to top it off it's in HTML5 code. Maybe we will see the birth of a different "appstore" on ios devices.
Very clever move by Amazon.
Don't open your mouth again until you learn what's going on.
[QUOTE=drobforever;1918313][QUOTE=genovelle;1918275]Do you think Barns and Noble would let you set up a table in the middle if their store to sell books from another book store? It's the same thing.
Quote:
so Apple just have to figure out a way, right now a flat 30% is simple to implement but doesn't make sense to be applied to everything. They need to start offering different kinds of packages (e.g. for ebooks they charge like 3-5% of the sale price of each ebook, separated from App sales).
Agreed, the cost for selling a 1 gig movie is not the same has selling a 20k book. The two should not have the same % cut.
I like this move by Amazon. It shows that you can have an app in the store and still maintain your sell margins even playing within Apple's rules. ( I sure Apple will find a way to kill this however )....
The best part of the Amazon store is that you can read books across diffferent platforms. The Apple stuff only works on Apple hardware. Well over 1/2 of the word is on Other platforms. That is why I use Zino over any of the Apple media as I have other hardware and it is nice to have a truly cross platform cloud. It is also why I sync everything through Google and will most likely not use iCloud.
The App Store/SDK, one of Apples iOS application platforms, runs on a revenue sharing basis. Thirty percent, is, as any knowledgeable and rational person knows, quite a reasonable figure.
Sort of depends on the industry. Since there are no other iOS App Stores thus no competition, thirty percent would seem just low enough to keep people from feeling totally ripped off, but in the retail books industry the margins are much lower. There are all kinds of retail environments. I, for example mark up my vendors services 100% where as a grocery store only makes 1-2%. Banks charge 4-5% for many loans. I just don't get your comments 'as any knowledgeable and rational person knows, quite a reasonable figure.' as having any logical basis.
Comments
Queue outraged stock holders bleating about being cheated.
.
In
.
3
.
2
.
1
So far your off by an hour.
This is a well done app and shows the power of the web apps on iOS. A fully supported application platform developed by Apple...
Buy a native app and increase your lock-in into iOS (the money would be lost if switching to a different platform), use a web-app and no lock-in exists. That is why Apple prefers native apps.
First of all, the developer creates the lock-in not Apple... If a developer wanted, they could give their users a free version for other platforms if the user switched platforms.
Apple prefers native apps, because they provide for a better user experience and make more efficient use of system resources. Plain and simple.
Buy a native app and increase your lock-in into iOS (the money would be lost if switching to a different platform), use a web-app and no lock-in exists. That is why Apple prefers native apps. Naturally, for free apps this lock-in does not apply but some apps can switch their business model from paid app to free app + some sort of 'in-app' purchase. Those are the apps Apple would be loth to lose by them converting to web-apps.
The other element is the general platform appeal, any web app is immediately available to all 'tablet' devices (more or less), native apps will first appear on the most popular platform, ie, for iPads, web apps will erode that advantage.
You haters just don't get it. Apple created the Web Apps for the iPhone first. This is how they wanted to do apps because it was more secure than giving native access to the phone. Everyone complained so they invested a ton of cash into creating the app store. Then they marketed the hell out of it. It worked and became an immediate success. Apple would prefer competitors like amazon use web apps. If they are on the if they want to use Apples marketing they pay 30% or offer the the product for free. In the case of amazon the product is ebooks, not the free app. Do you think Barns and Noble would let you set up a table in the middle if their store to sell books from another book store? It's the same thing. Apple doesn't care if you buy from then or Amazon on your IOS device. They just want to insure that anyone using their ad dollars is paying their part to increase the platform to take from it.
You haters just don't get it. Apple created the Web Apps for the iPhone first. This is how they wanted to do apps because it was more secure than giving native access to the phone. Everyone complained so they invested a ton of cash into creating the app store. Then they marketed the hell out of it. It worked and became an immediate success. Apple would prefer competitors like amazon use web apps. If they are on the if they want to use Apples marketing they pay 30% or offer the the product for free. In the case of amazon the product is ebooks, not the free app. Do you think Barns and Noble would let you set up a table in the middle if their store to sell books from another book store? It's the same thing. Apple doesn't care if you buy from then or Amazon on your IOS device. They just want to insure that anyone using their ad dollars is paying their part to increase the platform to take from it.
I don't think most reasonable people would argue your point, BUT they would argue the asking price of 30 fraking percent is unreasonable.
Queue outraged stock holders bleating about being cheated.
.
In
.
3
.
2
.
1
Heard a rumor of Apple banning Safari on iPad3.
I don't think most reasonable people would argue your point, BUT they would argue the asking price of 30 fraking percent is unreasonable.
The trolls are out in force on this one. I know a lot of you have trouble wrapping your heads around simple concepts, but lets review.
The App Store/SDK, one of Apples iOS application platforms, runs on a revenue sharing basis. Thirty percent, is, as any knowledgeable and rational person knows, quite a reasonable figure.
The other iOS application platform, Safari/WebKit is an entirely open platform for which no developer agreement or revenue sharing is required, and which you are encouraged to use as an alternative to the App Store/SDK when it better suits your purposes.
See, it's very simple, so, read, comprehend, don't look foolish.
Very clever move by Amazon.
I don't think most reasonable people would argue your point, BUT they would argue the asking price of 30 fraking percent is unreasonable.
The going rate is 30/40 freaking percent to resell items in retail. If you buy retail you pay 100 freaking percent and the store keeps the 30/40 percent that they have to use to pay employees, rent, insurance, lawyers, etc. This is the AMERICAN AND WORLDLY WAY MY FRIEND.
If Amazon wants to add to its sales and expand its eyeballs... there is no free lunch. I think Apple is fair in their percent scheme. Very similar to the rest of the WWW.
Actually Barns and Nobles would let you setup a table in the middle of their store to sell books from another bookstore - if they're allowed to get a big enough cut out of it. The problem right now is that Apple is not getting a cut at all out of the other companies using the App Store. Now 30% is likely too much for a lot of stuffs so Apple just have to figure out a way, right now a flat 30% is simple to implement but doesn't make sense to be applied to everything. They need to start offering different kinds of packages (e.g. for ebooks they charge like 3-5% of the sale price of each ebook, separated from App sales).
The going rate is 30/40 freaking percent to resell items in retail. If you buy retail you pay 100 freaking percent and the store keeps the 30/40 percent that they have to use to pay employees, rent, insurance, lawyers, etc. This is the AMERICAN AND WORLDLY WAY MY FRIEND.
The expenses to sell hardware on retail is not in the same league of the expenses to sell eThings online. 30% is a rip off for resellers of content like Kindle, netflix, hulu, and its very expensive even for authors.
I don't think most reasonable people would argue your point, BUT they would argue the asking price of 30 fraking percent is unreasonable.
Yes we have already argued it. The most reasonable and knowledgeable contributors to the argument made the case that it was actually quite reasonable for an electronic distribution model when the chain follows as such... publisher - Apple - Subscriber. It turned out to be less of a deal for Amazon and others when the chain was publisher - Amazon - Apple - User. In this case there was an extra middle man in the chain. I don't believe Apple ever intended to provide and infrastructure for companies like Amazon, hence the reason they supported web Apps from the beginning. Wb Apps make it easy for companies with their own infrastructure to "sell their wares" and not have to rely on Apple. Conversely, the App store is generally for smaller companies that don't necessarily have their own infrastructure (ecommerce, marketing etc) hence; revenue sharing.
ROFL Apple got own at is own game and to top it off it's in HTML5 code. Maybe we will see the birth of a different "appstore" on ios devices.
Very clever move by Amazon.
so Apple just have to figure out a way, right now a flat 30% is simple to implement but doesn't make sense to be applied to everything. They need to start offering different kinds of packages (e.g. for ebooks they charge like 3-5% of the sale price of each ebook, separated from App sales).
Agreed, the cost for selling a 1 gig movie is not the same has selling a 20k book. The two should not have the same % cut.
Hodor !?
The best part of the Amazon store is that you can read books across diffferent platforms. The Apple stuff only works on Apple hardware. Well over 1/2 of the word is on Other platforms. That is why I use Zino over any of the Apple media as I have other hardware and it is nice to have a truly cross platform cloud. It is also why I sync everything through Google and will most likely not use iCloud.
The App Store/SDK, one of Apples iOS application platforms, runs on a revenue sharing basis. Thirty percent, is, as any knowledgeable and rational person knows, quite a reasonable figure.
Sort of depends on the industry. Since there are no other iOS App Stores thus no competition, thirty percent would seem just low enough to keep people from feeling totally ripped off, but in the retail books industry the margins are much lower. There are all kinds of retail environments. I, for example mark up my vendors services 100% where as a grocery store only makes 1-2%. Banks charge 4-5% for many loans. I just don't get your comments 'as any knowledgeable and rational person knows, quite a reasonable figure.' as having any logical basis.
Any idea why this does work in the mobile safari on iPhone?
This is a strange part. Does it need to be coded differently between desktop and mobile browser?
This is a strange part. Does it need to be coded differently between desktop and mobile browser?
No, but the layout really should be optimized for small screens. Having to zoom and pan around does not make for a good experience.