Well, this is actually not the case. The newspapers host their own content and do all their billings and payment processing over their own website. Apple is only hosting the app itself (and has to serve only updates to the app itself).
if that's the case, there is nothing they need to worry about.
There are already apps on the app store that's doing just that.
look to me they are talking about something else, maybe a magazine equivalent of the iBook store.
I believe what they are talking about is, some newspaper want to use app store's "in-app purchase" feature for free.
Can you tell me how newspapers could use the 'in-app purchasing' for free, when all in-app purchases are billed to your Apple ID account? Difficult to prevent you payment processor from taking its cut, isn't it?
This is not about newspapers asking to use the in-app purchasing feature for free or for a reduced percentage. This is not about what newspapers would like to do in the future. It is about what they are already doing and Apple is asking them to stop doing it until April.
if that's the case, there is nothing they need to worry about.
There are already apps on the app store that's doing just that.
Which is exactly the point. There are already apps doing just that. And Apple is asking those offering those apps to change their business model or be chucked out of the App Store. By April.
Just like Kindle, you buy on Amazon store, content gets downloaded to your Kindle app.
And what would prevent Apple from asking Amazon for a commission for every book sold through the iOS Kindle app under threat of disallowing the Kindle app?
What we are talking about are papers that are downloaded from apple each time.
No, that is not it. Some newspapers (I know of at least one German one), tried to publish each new version as an update to their app. Apple clearly told them that that is not the way to distribute a newspaper. Which is completely understandable.
This is really about newspapers that host the content on their own servers, handle their own payment but have Apple host (and before that accept) their free iOS app.
I love the way people without a clue are so eager to prove that.
The average cut that a retail store gets is 50% of selling price.
Not on anything with an Apple logo.
I worked for an Apple dealer and we made 8% on the Mac mini. Most days it was better to stand behind the counter selling $19 iPod cases than waste your time extolling the virtues of the Mac mini to potential buyers.
Apple accessories are just as bad or worse. I think the wholesale price of the $29 iPod connection cable was $26.25.
Is there any evidence that Apple does this for anyone? I am asking because I don't actually know, but I suspect that they do not. Practically every newspaper in the country if not the world already supplies digital content, so I don't think this distinction is a useful one.
Go the Economist's web site. They clearly state that their new editions are available to online subscribers via the web and from within their iPad and iPhone apps every Thursday at 9 PM London time. If Apple were serving this content, the Economist could never make this to-the-minute promise.
The article repeatably mentions print and if it suggests anything else it is misleading.
No, what this article says that if you give away content for free, you can also do this through free iOS apps without Apple paying anything (even if you make money through ads).
Only when you require payment to get content via free iOS apps, Apple wants a cut (ie, 30%) of it. The point is that the online content of these newspapers is not free, you either need an online subscription or a print subscription.
And what would prevent Apple from asking Amazon for a commission for every book sold through the iOS Kindle app under threat of disallowing the Kindle app?
I don't think so. the iOS Kindle app doesn't sell anything.
This makes no sense. There are already free apps that provide functionality to users of various paid products and web services, which pre-dated the App Store and have nothing to do with Apple. Why should newspapers be different from those services? (Such as Skype-to-phone and Netflix, for instance.)
I don’t care much personally since I don’t read paper news, but this sounds like a policy that needs to evolve.
I wonder how this was resolved with in-app purchases of train and air tickets - there was a dispute between the Swiss railways and Apple about this, as far as I know, since the railway company was not prepared to let Apple earn 30% off every ticket sold (obviously they can't have higher prices for electronic tickets, as this would kill the market right off).
While I understand Apple has to and wants to make money, lots of it in fact, I think sometimes they would be wise to be satisfied with what they earn on their hardware sales, and not milk each end every penny out of the ecosystem wherever they can.
Those Android 3.0 tablets don't look too shabby, and I for one may well feel temped to switch.
I don't think so. the iOS Kindle app doesn't sell anything.
Do you even have an iPad or any iOS device?
Yes, I own an iPad and an iPhone and I have bought a book for the Kindle app with my iPad. And yes, this example is not 100% perfect as you actually buy the book in the browser. But that is just an implementation detail (Amazon could have included the store functionality into its Kindle app, it was just easier for them this way, as they already had a functioning web version of their store) and there are lots of other free apps that actually do sell something directly from within the app, Ebay for example, you can find items and bid on (and thus buy) them through the free iOS app.
So, to be precise, my original post should have read, that if Kindle books could be bought through the Kindle app, should Apple be getting a cut? And what is the difference between buying an online subscription from the Economist's website and buying a Kindle book from Amazon's website and then reading both in their respective free iOS apps?
I wonder how this was resolved with in-app purchases of train and air tickets - there was a dispute between the Swiss railways and Apple about this, as far as I know, since the railway company was not prepared to let Apple earn 30% off every ticket sold (obviously they can't have higher prices for electronic tickets, as this would kill the market right off).
While I understand Apple has to and wants to make money, lots of it in fact, I think sometimes they would be wise to be satisfied with what they earn on their hardware sales, and not milk each end every penny out of the ecosystem wherever they can.
The simple solution would be to say that whenever something that is bought is served from Apple's servers and payment is processed through Apple's payment system, Apple should get its cut.
If an app is just a limited-purpose web client for another companies services, then Apple should not get anything, except possibly a fee for vetting and hosting the app itself.
I love the way people without a clue are so eager to prove that.
The average cut that a retail store gets is 50% of selling price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
Not on anything with an Apple logo.
I worked for an Apple dealer and we made 8% on the Mac mini. Most days it was better to stand behind the counter selling $19 iPod cases than waste your time extolling the virtues of the Mac mini to potential buyers.
Apple accessories are just as bad or worse. I think the wholesale price of the $29 iPod connection cable was $26.25.
You mean of course an Independent Apple Reseller, no?
Consumer electronics sellers of all kinds tend to work on incredibly thin margins in a brutally competitive atmosphere. And small operations, unless a) their bread and butter comes from other sources - e.g., repair, non-Apple branded accessories, software sales (which the Mac App store will now quickly or slowly steal from the IAR's) - or b) run as unethical or even criminal ops, e.g. as front for laundering cash, shipping grey/black market goods, shipping sloooow or not at all, charging high restocking fees, reboxing/reshpping returned merch., etc. - small operations in the long run, will never make it up in the volume they don't have (the way a B&H Photo Video can - and they're only mid-discounters and legal).
There are plenty of smaller, hungrier discounters than these - I'm told some of these mostly online and mail-order ops simply sell at (or even slightly below) cost and then collect - but don't pay - sales tax, and that this is their only margin.
Maybe that's why you no longer work there, i.e., there's no there there anymore???
Whereas Jewelry probably has the highest goss profit margin on cost of goods - often 1/3 of "suggested" list - which is why Jewelry stores can sell goods at "40% off list" and still make a decent gross profit. (And there are also sleaze operators in this industry.)
I wonder how this was resolved with in-app purchases of train and air tickets - there was a dispute between the Swiss railways and Apple about this, as far as I know, since the railway company was not prepared to let Apple earn 30% off every ticket sold (obviously they can't have higher prices for electronic tickets, as this would kill the market right off).
Don't forget that carriers and hotels allow travel agents to purchase tickets and make reservations at discounted rates. This is really no different.
One approach for dealing with publishers who also distribute a print edition would be to offer two subscription options:
Electronic version only - Apple takes their standard in-app purchase cut
Electronic plus print subscription - Apple takes a reduced cut (to reflect that much of the cost occurs outside the in-app purchase.
And the Economist is already offering an online subscription only, sold via their website, accessed via their website or via their free iPad and iPhone apps.
What is the difference between an online subscription to a newspaper (ie, to a fixed number of issues) and buying an electronic book from Amazon? Both are bought via their respective websites, both can be accessed via free iPad and iPhone apps.
Does Apple ask for a cut for every Kindle book that a user is reading via the iOS Kindle app?
And the Economist is already offering an online subscription only, sold via their website, accessed via their website or via their free iPad and iPhone apps.
What is the difference between an online subscription to a newspaper (ie, to a fixed number of issues) and buying an electronic book from Amazon? Both are bought via their respective websites, both can be accessed via free iPad and iPhone apps.
Does Apple ask for a cut for every Kindle book that a user is reading via the iOS Kindle app?
As already mentioned, it depends who is doing the content delivery. Amazon delivers the content for their Kindle. If Apple provides the content delivery for the in-app purchase, then they should be compensates (they are already providing all the billing support).
As already mentioned, it depends who is doing the content delivery. Amazon delivers the content for their Kindle. If Apple provides the content delivery for the in-app purchase, then they should be compensates (they are already providing all the billing support).
And to say it for the tenth time in this thread, Apple is not doing the content delivery and Apple is not doing the payment processing for the newspapers in question here (if Apple already did the payment processing you could be sure that they already subtracted their 30%). The individual issues are downloaded from the newspapers servers. And there are no in-app purchases, you subscribe to the newspaper on the newspaper's website, pay on that website and get an access code, which you then enter in your iOS app.
The only thing Apple is doing is vetting the free iOS app and hosting the app, as it does for a 100000 other free apps as well. If Apple wanted to ensure that whenever a free app is creating revenue for the app creator it should equally demand to get a cut from every sale of products or services or ad revenue that is generated with the help of any free app.
Have a look at the websites of the Economist, the Financial Times, the Wallstreet Journal, Bloomberg, etc., their iPad apps do not have in-app purchases, the billing is done via their websites not via your Apple ID.
And to say it for the tenth time in this thread, Apple is not doing the content delivery and Apple is not doing the payment processing for the newspapers in question here (if Apple already did the payment processing you could be sure that they already subtracted their 30%).
I was speaking specifically of the new arrangement (such as The Daily) which appears will allow in-app purchases. I believe Apple will be providing both the payment processing and the content distribution services for in-app purchases. They want to make sure that they are not being "used" for free content delivery by existing publishers of print editions. Other than for strategic reasons, I doubt Apple would care if the publisher provides all the purchase and delivery services.
Apple's new rule is forward-looking - they hope to replace physical subscriptions with electronic subscriptions.
Comments
Well, this is actually not the case. The newspapers host their own content and do all their billings and payment processing over their own website. Apple is only hosting the app itself (and has to serve only updates to the app itself).
if that's the case, there is nothing they need to worry about.
There are already apps on the app store that's doing just that.
look to me they are talking about something else, maybe a magazine equivalent of the iBook store.
I believe what they are talking about is, some newspaper want to use app store's "in-app purchase" feature for free.
Can you tell me how newspapers could use the 'in-app purchasing' for free, when all in-app purchases are billed to your Apple ID account? Difficult to prevent you payment processor from taking its cut, isn't it?
This is not about newspapers asking to use the in-app purchasing feature for free or for a reduced percentage. This is not about what newspapers would like to do in the future. It is about what they are already doing and Apple is asking them to stop doing it until April.
if that's the case, there is nothing they need to worry about.
There are already apps on the app store that's doing just that.
Which is exactly the point. There are already apps doing just that. And Apple is asking those offering those apps to change their business model or be chucked out of the App Store. By April.
Just like Kindle, you buy on Amazon store, content gets downloaded to your Kindle app.
And what would prevent Apple from asking Amazon for a commission for every book sold through the iOS Kindle app under threat of disallowing the Kindle app?
What we are talking about are papers that are downloaded from apple each time.
No, that is not it. Some newspapers (I know of at least one German one), tried to publish each new version as an update to their app. Apple clearly told them that that is not the way to distribute a newspaper. Which is completely understandable.
This is really about newspapers that host the content on their own servers, handle their own payment but have Apple host (and before that accept) their free iOS app.
I love the way people without a clue are so eager to prove that.
The average cut that a retail store gets is 50% of selling price.
Not on anything with an Apple logo.
I worked for an Apple dealer and we made 8% on the Mac mini. Most days it was better to stand behind the counter selling $19 iPod cases than waste your time extolling the virtues of the Mac mini to potential buyers.
Apple accessories are just as bad or worse. I think the wholesale price of the $29 iPod connection cable was $26.25.
Is there any evidence that Apple does this for anyone? I am asking because I don't actually know, but I suspect that they do not. Practically every newspaper in the country if not the world already supplies digital content, so I don't think this distinction is a useful one.
Go the Economist's web site. They clearly state that their new editions are available to online subscribers via the web and from within their iPad and iPhone apps every Thursday at 9 PM London time. If Apple were serving this content, the Economist could never make this to-the-minute promise.
The article repeatably mentions print and if it suggests anything else it is misleading.
No, what this article says that if you give away content for free, you can also do this through free iOS apps without Apple paying anything (even if you make money through ads).
Only when you require payment to get content via free iOS apps, Apple wants a cut (ie, 30%) of it. The point is that the online content of these newspapers is not free, you either need an online subscription or a print subscription.
And what would prevent Apple from asking Amazon for a commission for every book sold through the iOS Kindle app under threat of disallowing the Kindle app?
I don't think so. the iOS Kindle app doesn't sell anything.
Do you even have an iPad or any iOS device?
I don’t care much personally since I don’t read paper news, but this sounds like a policy that needs to evolve.
While I understand Apple has to and wants to make money, lots of it in fact, I think sometimes they would be wise to be satisfied with what they earn on their hardware sales, and not milk each end every penny out of the ecosystem wherever they can.
Those Android 3.0 tablets don't look too shabby, and I for one may well feel temped to switch.
I don't think so. the iOS Kindle app doesn't sell anything.
Do you even have an iPad or any iOS device?
Yes, I own an iPad and an iPhone and I have bought a book for the Kindle app with my iPad. And yes, this example is not 100% perfect as you actually buy the book in the browser. But that is just an implementation detail (Amazon could have included the store functionality into its Kindle app, it was just easier for them this way, as they already had a functioning web version of their store) and there are lots of other free apps that actually do sell something directly from within the app, Ebay for example, you can find items and bid on (and thus buy) them through the free iOS app.
So, to be precise, my original post should have read, that if Kindle books could be bought through the Kindle app, should Apple be getting a cut? And what is the difference between buying an online subscription from the Economist's website and buying a Kindle book from Amazon's website and then reading both in their respective free iOS apps?
I wonder how this was resolved with in-app purchases of train and air tickets - there was a dispute between the Swiss railways and Apple about this, as far as I know, since the railway company was not prepared to let Apple earn 30% off every ticket sold (obviously they can't have higher prices for electronic tickets, as this would kill the market right off).
While I understand Apple has to and wants to make money, lots of it in fact, I think sometimes they would be wise to be satisfied with what they earn on their hardware sales, and not milk each end every penny out of the ecosystem wherever they can.
The simple solution would be to say that whenever something that is bought is served from Apple's servers and payment is processed through Apple's payment system, Apple should get its cut.
If an app is just a limited-purpose web client for another companies services, then Apple should not get anything, except possibly a fee for vetting and hosting the app itself.
Originally Posted by jragosta
I love the way people without a clue are so eager to prove that.
The average cut that a retail store gets is 50% of selling price.
Not on anything with an Apple logo.
I worked for an Apple dealer and we made 8% on the Mac mini. Most days it was better to stand behind the counter selling $19 iPod cases than waste your time extolling the virtues of the Mac mini to potential buyers.
Apple accessories are just as bad or worse. I think the wholesale price of the $29 iPod connection cable was $26.25.
You mean of course an Independent Apple Reseller, no?
Consumer electronics sellers of all kinds tend to work on incredibly thin margins in a brutally competitive atmosphere. And small operations, unless a) their bread and butter comes from other sources - e.g., repair, non-Apple branded accessories, software sales (which the Mac App store will now quickly or slowly steal from the IAR's) - or b) run as unethical or even criminal ops, e.g. as front for laundering cash, shipping grey/black market goods, shipping sloooow or not at all, charging high restocking fees, reboxing/reshpping returned merch., etc. - small operations in the long run, will never make it up in the volume they don't have (the way a B&H Photo Video can - and they're only mid-discounters and legal).
There are plenty of smaller, hungrier discounters than these - I'm told some of these mostly online and mail-order ops simply sell at (or even slightly below) cost and then collect - but don't pay - sales tax, and that this is their only margin.
Maybe that's why you no longer work there, i.e., there's no there there anymore???
Whereas Jewelry probably has the highest goss profit margin on cost of goods - often 1/3 of "suggested" list - which is why Jewelry stores can sell goods at "40% off list" and still make a decent gross profit. (And there are also sleaze operators in this industry.)
I wonder how this was resolved with in-app purchases of train and air tickets - there was a dispute between the Swiss railways and Apple about this, as far as I know, since the railway company was not prepared to let Apple earn 30% off every ticket sold (obviously they can't have higher prices for electronic tickets, as this would kill the market right off).
Don't forget that carriers and hotels allow travel agents to purchase tickets and make reservations at discounted rates. This is really no different.
One approach for dealing with publishers who also distribute a print edition would be to offer two subscription options:
And the Economist is already offering an online subscription only, sold via their website, accessed via their website or via their free iPad and iPhone apps.
What is the difference between an online subscription to a newspaper (ie, to a fixed number of issues) and buying an electronic book from Amazon? Both are bought via their respective websites, both can be accessed via free iPad and iPhone apps.
Does Apple ask for a cut for every Kindle book that a user is reading via the iOS Kindle app?
And the Economist is already offering an online subscription only, sold via their website, accessed via their website or via their free iPad and iPhone apps.
What is the difference between an online subscription to a newspaper (ie, to a fixed number of issues) and buying an electronic book from Amazon? Both are bought via their respective websites, both can be accessed via free iPad and iPhone apps.
Does Apple ask for a cut for every Kindle book that a user is reading via the iOS Kindle app?
As already mentioned, it depends who is doing the content delivery. Amazon delivers the content for their Kindle. If Apple provides the content delivery for the in-app purchase, then they should be compensates (they are already providing all the billing support).
As already mentioned, it depends who is doing the content delivery. Amazon delivers the content for their Kindle. If Apple provides the content delivery for the in-app purchase, then they should be compensates (they are already providing all the billing support).
And to say it for the tenth time in this thread, Apple is not doing the content delivery and Apple is not doing the payment processing for the newspapers in question here (if Apple already did the payment processing you could be sure that they already subtracted their 30%). The individual issues are downloaded from the newspapers servers. And there are no in-app purchases, you subscribe to the newspaper on the newspaper's website, pay on that website and get an access code, which you then enter in your iOS app.
The only thing Apple is doing is vetting the free iOS app and hosting the app, as it does for a 100000 other free apps as well. If Apple wanted to ensure that whenever a free app is creating revenue for the app creator it should equally demand to get a cut from every sale of products or services or ad revenue that is generated with the help of any free app.
Have a look at the websites of the Economist, the Financial Times, the Wallstreet Journal, Bloomberg, etc., their iPad apps do not have in-app purchases, the billing is done via their websites not via your Apple ID.
And to say it for the tenth time in this thread, Apple is not doing the content delivery and Apple is not doing the payment processing for the newspapers in question here (if Apple already did the payment processing you could be sure that they already subtracted their 30%).
I was speaking specifically of the new arrangement (such as The Daily) which appears will allow in-app purchases. I believe Apple will be providing both the payment processing and the content distribution services for in-app purchases. They want to make sure that they are not being "used" for free content delivery by existing publishers of print editions. Other than for strategic reasons, I doubt Apple would care if the publisher provides all the purchase and delivery services.
Apple's new rule is forward-looking - they hope to replace physical subscriptions with electronic subscriptions.