Except that Apple has not made any such demand. You can buy software via the Mac store or anywhere else. On the Mac store, 30% of the cost is known to be for the store cut. Anywhere else, the cut is whatever it is--traditionally more than 30%.
On iOS the user is not constrained at all. He can buy books from a web site. He can buy them from the iBookstore. He can buy them as an in-app purchase.
But an app developer cannot link to them ONLY at his for-pay web site. If he expects Apple to host the data, he must also, as one option, provide them directly in the app.
I'm not aware of anyone buying groceries or eBay office supplies for iPad streaming.
Either block them completely or let them develop an app how they want. Don't start dictating their prices.
Explain your view on my post above.
If Apple wanted to... they could ask for 100% markup. And yes, at their very whim or flight of fancy, or if SJ is having just a bad day, he can pull an App... for whatever reason.
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS! It's Apple's store. Their platform. They do and can DICTATE their terms, whether you, a small dev, or a conglomerate wants to play in THEIR sandbox.
The only "monopoly" that Apple has is making devices that people want and choose to buy... and that work out of the gate, rather than in version 3+ and calling it a dessert.
When Google/Microsoft and their OEMS get "their" S*** together... and it works... you will have more choices.
Until then... give it up. Sell your i-Stuff on Ebay... and be patient.
PS. reminds me of the famous line, "How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?". That's how old "I" am!
And why Apple/Sony/put the name you want can have the privilege of getting 30% from something they don't store, don't distribute and don't sell.
Amazon charges sellers in its store 6-25% of the purchase price. So why do they have the privilege of getting that cut from something they don't store, don't distribute and don't sell?
Amazon charges sellers in its store 6-25% of the purchase price. So why do they have the privilege of getting that cut from something they don't store, don't distribute and don't sell?
Oh, no, Amazon backs the finnncial transactions, covers the client, etc.
The only excuse I think they have is that - maybe - tomorrow there will be a new model announced with the Daily and they are rejecting apps for now, so they can re-tool. As usual Apple is being secretive.
There is something to this insight. Hopefully your on the right track.
Exactly as predicted, this was yet another in a long string of ridiculous anti-Apple shitstorms based on completely wrong information.
"official comment from Apple spokesperson Trudy Miller, who said the company has not "changed our developer terms or guidelines," while noting that "we are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase."
In other words, this is the exact opposite of the situation reported by the Times.
Now will you Apple bashers kindly STFU for a while? (I'm talking to you, Gwydion, asdasd, iLiver, etc.)
Nothing in this thread proves the opposite despite the over-eager defence of Apple.
to believe the opposite we would need to believe that Sony doesnt understand in-app purchasing, and cant redirect a link to an external website.
We defend Apple because their record speaks for itself. And this is yet another example, as it has now surfaced that the Times completely misconstrued Apple's position. We defend Apple because this sort of thing happens time and time again, and every time we end up being right and the Apple hating douche bags end up being wrong.
You would think that after being wrong so many times you would start giving Apple the benefit of the doubt now and then. We're talking about Apple here - not Microsoft.
Maybe Microsoft should start blocking applications from Windows. Apple is going to be sorry for this approach some day. People will get tired of this crap.
If you read the NYTimes article it says in app and OUT OF app purchases. Also the screen shot of the app shows what looks to be safari for purchasing.
In your thinking should AT&T get a cut of every purchase? Or if I am on wifi shouldn't comcast get a cut? I mean the data is going over its network, they deserver their share.
Your argument is bull. That would mean Microsoft should get a cut of any software I install on windows.
...and the telephone company should get a cut when you purchase over the telephone line... yeah, yeah, yeah. This could get absurd very quickly, granted.
However, yours are all examples of infrastructure. We are talking about Stores themselves. So don't be obtuse. Does the Windows Desktop Operating System call itself a Store?
Secondly, the NYT can say what it likes -- it hasn't been established that it knows what the heck it's talking about. And Sony is probably stirring things up.
What we do know: Apple is saying that IF you want to offer Out of App purchases, then ALSO INCLUDE In App purchase opportunity. That's the deal for getting access to 160 million paying iTunes customers. I don't think anyone is interpreting the Apple guidelines as Apple expecting to take 30% of the Out of App purchases.
The App can even ask customers to avail themselves of the out of app purchasing method to help it keep some of its profit from big, bad Apple. Personally, I think people will tend to use the in-app purchasing, because Apple has spent time, effort and money to make it a good experience, seamlessly using the credit card already on file with their iTunes account. But this time, effort and money put into superior user experience apparently escape people -- or people expect, nay demand, that Apple give others free-rein to use it as they wish to make money.
These examples are not making sense. Apple doesn't own the store, I own the store, I bought the iPad and it is mine. It now has become my store. I now invite Amazon into my store to sell its books. How does Apple have anything to do with it? Amazon purchased the rights to give away its app in the App Store so Apple got its cut there but after that they should have no say.
What? Whoa, I think you are tripping, dude. I know the iPad is "magical" and all, and I hate to break this to you, but:
Um, how can I put this... the App Store is not actually "in" your iPad. It's somewhere else, like in California or North Carolina maybe; and your iPad is making a connection to it, over the intertubes. And, all those pretty tiles you see in the App Store App "on your iPad"? Well, they are little representations of the real programs. These 64x64 or so pixel images, "icons", get "streamed" over the intertubes; and what they represent are "files" (another metaphor, but please try to stay with me), which are full of code, which doesn't look like much, but in fact itself represents a bunch of ones and zeros. These files, "Apps", actually perform useable functions which you apply to certain needs (hence applications). But you must purchase a license for download and personal use -- at which point a licensed copy gets installed on your iPad through the system designed and maintained by Apple. These Apps know how to "talk" to your iPad and make it do "stuff". I know it's difficult, but that file, that "software" App you are downloading, those ones and zeros? It still doesn't "belong" to you, either. It's the property of the developer. He is granting you the use of his work on your personal devices.
I don't blame you, it really is hard to get your head around virtual space, physical servers, bits and bytes, pipelines, Intellectual Property, license agreements, end-user agreements, and all that crazy stuff. But, bottom line, man: the Store is notyour Store. And it's not even on your iPad.
And you know what else? What you bought, what's yours, is what you can weigh in your hand. All that goodness, all that virtual, "magical" stuff that makes the iPad the iPad that you love; the stuff that brings it alive? That stuff isn't yours, either. That stuff is Apple's.
I don't blame you, it really is hard to get your head around virtual space, physical servers, bits and bytes, pipelines, Intellectual Property, license agreements, end-user agreements, and all that crazy stuff. But, bottom line, man: the Store is not your Store. And it's not even on your iPhone or iPod or iPad.
Its not really that difficult to get the head around virtual space for people of average intelligence.
If we wanted to bypass the non-physical Apple Store and the associated stuff you mentioned which your barely warmed up IQ has apparently just managed to grasp then we can do that using the Kindle Store.
Thats the subject of this thread. To put it in your unweidly prose. When we buy something in the Kindle store ( in Safari) as it now stands they handle the virtual space, physical servers, bits and bytes, pipelines, Intellectual Property, license agreements, end-user agreements, and all that crazy stuff and Apple are taking, if this IAP is applied to Kindle, 30%.
Well done on understanding downloads and what content providers have to do. Thats fairly kindergarten level. What you should now concentrate on is the subject of this thread - whether Apple has a right to the 30% for doing none of the stuff you list.
Its not as if the fact that the App Store has nothing to do with eBook downloads has not been pointed out in every page on this damned thread.
Well done on understanding downloads and what content providers have to do. Thats fairly kindergarten level. What you should now concentrate on is the subject of this thread - whether Apple has a right to the 30% for doing none of the stuff you list.
Its not as if the fact that the App Store has nothing to do with eBook downloads has not been pointed out in every page on this damned thread.
30%? Maybe, maybe not. Bottom line is that neither the Kindle nor the Nook allows competitor ebook stores at all. The iPad is the dominant ebook reader in terms of numbers sold. If Amazon, B&N or Sony want a slice of that pie then they should pony up given their devices are locked down. Or leave the platform.
Unless they'd all like to get together and define a common DRM scheme that is interoperable across all devices and bookstores.
Its not really that difficult to get the head around virtual space for people of average intelligence.
If we wanted to bypass the non-physical Apple Store and the associated stuff you mentioned which your barely warmed up IQ has apparently just managed to grasp then we can do that using the Kindle Store.
Thats the subject of this thread. To put it in your unweidly prose. When we buy something in the Kindle store ( in Safari) as it now stands they handle the virtual space, physical servers, bits and bytes, pipelines, Intellectual Property, license agreements, end-user agreements, and all that crazy stuff and Apple are taking, if this IAP is applied to Kindle, 30%.
Well done on understanding downloads and what content providers have to do. Thats fairly kindergarten level. What you should now concentrate on is the subject of this thread - whether Apple has a right to the 30% for doing none of the stuff you list.
Its not as if the fact that the App Store has nothing to do with eBook downloads has not been pointed out in every page on this damned thread.
Do irony much? I thought there were a few clues in my unwieldy, tongue-in-cheek prose, which was for the benefit of someone who apparently thought (and I still find this unbelievable) that the App Store was his -- but mostly it was for everyone else's entertainment. Although my effort might have been in vain, I do try to vary my style on occasion, or from page to page, or even between one post and the next. From the sum of your copious output on this thread, I am rather receiving an incessant droning, like perhaps a needle is stuck somewhere. Perhaps this is why I now begin to sound like a pompous pedant. Forgive me that my forbearance for you is so short-lived. But now that we have established who has the barely warmed up IQ (both the one with the Store in his pocket and the one whom irony escapes), I'll address your point:
I know what you guys have said on every page of this thread. We have yet to see any proof that Apple was/is/shall ever try to take 30% of out -of-app purchases. It's not even clear that they will ask for 30% of everything sold through in-app purchases, other than the music, movies, books and other media that is actually stored on their servers. What has also been reiterated page after page on this thread is this:
Apple is asking developers who use its platform, Store, SDK, IP, business model and everything else, to include in-app purchasing along side out-of-app purchasing in their native, iOS apps which would not exist as a potential source of revenue for the developer without Apple. In-App purchasing provides the consumer (Apple's customer after all) a streamlined, consistent user experience, particularly appreciated by those who do indeed like using their iTunes Store account and getting one bill on one card. It also happens to help Apple maintain and develop the platform and store for all those who create apps, free and paid alike. And it's Apple's prerogative.
I know the stuff bought through the in-app purchase may or may not be on Apple's server. If Amazon and Sony want access to 160 million paying customers, this is simply what they are asked to do. If they go, they go. That is not my preference. I would miss them (but, believe it not, I wouldn't throw my iPad away; because unbelievable as it may be, I didn't buy it primarily for books). If Sony and Amazon do leave, Apple may make adjustments. On the other hand, Sony may simply be posturing and the NYT may be blowing it out of proportion. Who knows, Sony and Apple may be working it out as we speak.
(look asdasd, no caps! aren't you proud of me? See how compliant and amenable I am?) [Don't answer, that was rhetorical and ironic. In fact, please just don't answer.]
E-book really help ful when ever you are facing any problem. Last day i have invested in a Penny Stocks investment company and for 5month i did not get any payment. After that i follow and e-book on it and then make payment.
Comments
Except that Apple has not made any such demand. You can buy software via the Mac store or anywhere else. On the Mac store, 30% of the cost is known to be for the store cut. Anywhere else, the cut is whatever it is--traditionally more than 30%.
On iOS the user is not constrained at all. He can buy books from a web site. He can buy them from the iBookstore. He can buy them as an in-app purchase.
But an app developer cannot link to them ONLY at his for-pay web site. If he expects Apple to host the data, he must also, as one option, provide them directly in the app.
I'm not aware of anyone buying groceries or eBay office supplies for iPad streaming.
What Amazon data is hosting Apple?
Either block them completely or let them develop an app how they want. Don't start dictating their prices.
Explain your view on my post above.
If Apple wanted to... they could ask for 100% markup. And yes, at their very whim or flight of fancy, or if SJ is having just a bad day, he can pull an App... for whatever reason.
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS! It's Apple's store. Their platform. They do and can DICTATE their terms, whether you, a small dev, or a conglomerate wants to play in THEIR sandbox.
The only "monopoly" that Apple has is making devices that people want and choose to buy... and that work out of the gate, rather than in version 3+ and calling it a dessert.
When Google/Microsoft and their OEMS get "their" S*** together... and it works... you will have more choices.
Until then... give it up. Sell your i-Stuff on Ebay... and be patient.
PS. reminds me of the famous line, "How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?". That's how old "I" am!
And why Apple/Sony/put the name you want can have the privilege of getting 30% from something they don't store, don't distribute and don't sell.
Amazon charges sellers in its store 6-25% of the purchase price. So why do they have the privilege of getting that cut from something they don't store, don't distribute and don't sell?
Amazon charges sellers in its store 6-25% of the purchase price. So why do they have the privilege of getting that cut from something they don't store, don't distribute and don't sell?
Oh, no, Amazon backs the finnncial transactions, covers the client, etc.
Oh, no, Amazon backs the finnncial transactions, covers the client, etc.
And Apple don't?
The only excuse I think they have is that - maybe - tomorrow there will be a new model announced with the Daily and they are rejecting apps for now, so they can re-tool. As usual Apple is being secretive.
There is something to this insight. Hopefully your on the right track.
"official comment from Apple spokesperson Trudy Miller, who said the company has not "changed our developer terms or guidelines," while noting that "we are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase."
In other words, this is the exact opposite of the situation reported by the Times.
Now will you Apple bashers kindly STFU for a while? (I'm talking to you, Gwydion, asdasd, iLiver, etc.)
The screaming is from the Apple defenders.
Nothing in this thread proves the opposite despite the over-eager defence of Apple.
to believe the opposite we would need to believe that Sony doesnt understand in-app purchasing, and cant redirect a link to an external website.
We defend Apple because their record speaks for itself. And this is yet another example, as it has now surfaced that the Times completely misconstrued Apple's position. We defend Apple because this sort of thing happens time and time again, and every time we end up being right and the Apple hating douche bags end up being wrong.
You would think that after being wrong so many times you would start giving Apple the benefit of the doubt now and then. We're talking about Apple here - not Microsoft.
iOS is Job's speak for - I Own your Sh*t
Maybe Microsoft should start blocking applications from Windows. Apple is going to be sorry for this approach some day. People will get tired of this crap.
If you read the NYTimes article it says in app and OUT OF app purchases. Also the screen shot of the app shows what looks to be safari for purchasing.
In your thinking should AT&T get a cut of every purchase? Or if I am on wifi shouldn't comcast get a cut? I mean the data is going over its network, they deserver their share.
Your argument is bull. That would mean Microsoft should get a cut of any software I install on windows.
...and the telephone company should get a cut when you purchase over the telephone line... yeah, yeah, yeah. This could get absurd very quickly, granted.
However, yours are all examples of infrastructure. We are talking about Stores themselves. So don't be obtuse. Does the Windows Desktop Operating System call itself a Store?
Secondly, the NYT can say what it likes -- it hasn't been established that it knows what the heck it's talking about. And Sony is probably stirring things up.
What we do know: Apple is saying that IF you want to offer Out of App purchases, then ALSO INCLUDE In App purchase opportunity. That's the deal for getting access to 160 million paying iTunes customers. I don't think anyone is interpreting the Apple guidelines as Apple expecting to take 30% of the Out of App purchases.
The App can even ask customers to avail themselves of the out of app purchasing method to help it keep some of its profit from big, bad Apple. Personally, I think people will tend to use the in-app purchasing, because Apple has spent time, effort and money to make it a good experience, seamlessly using the credit card already on file with their iTunes account. But this time, effort and money put into superior user experience apparently escape people -- or people expect, nay demand, that Apple give others free-rein to use it as they wish to make money.
These examples are not making sense. Apple doesn't own the store, I own the store, I bought the iPad and it is mine. It now has become my store. I now invite Amazon into my store to sell its books. How does Apple have anything to do with it? Amazon purchased the rights to give away its app in the App Store so Apple got its cut there but after that they should have no say.
What? Whoa, I think you are tripping, dude. I know the iPad is "magical" and all, and I hate to break this to you, but:
Um, how can I put this... the App Store is not actually "in" your iPad. It's somewhere else, like in California or North Carolina maybe; and your iPad is making a connection to it, over the intertubes. And, all those pretty tiles you see in the App Store App "on your iPad"? Well, they are little representations of the real programs. These 64x64 or so pixel images, "icons", get "streamed" over the intertubes; and what they represent are "files" (another metaphor, but please try to stay with me), which are full of code, which doesn't look like much, but in fact itself represents a bunch of ones and zeros. These files, "Apps", actually perform useable functions which you apply to certain needs (hence applications). But you must purchase a license for download and personal use -- at which point a licensed copy gets installed on your iPad through the system designed and maintained by Apple. These Apps know how to "talk" to your iPad and make it do "stuff". I know it's difficult, but that file, that "software" App you are downloading, those ones and zeros? It still doesn't "belong" to you, either. It's the property of the developer. He is granting you the use of his work on your personal devices.
I don't blame you, it really is hard to get your head around virtual space, physical servers, bits and bytes, pipelines, Intellectual Property, license agreements, end-user agreements, and all that crazy stuff. But, bottom line, man: the Store is not your Store. And it's not even on your iPad.
And you know what else? What you bought, what's yours, is what you can weigh in your hand. All that goodness, all that virtual, "magical" stuff that makes the iPad the iPad that you love; the stuff that brings it alive? That stuff isn't yours, either. That stuff is Apple's.
What?
I don't blame you, it really is hard to get your head around virtual space, physical servers, bits and bytes, pipelines, Intellectual Property, license agreements, end-user agreements, and all that crazy stuff. But, bottom line, man: the Store is not your Store. And it's not even on your iPhone or iPod or iPad.
Its not really that difficult to get the head around virtual space for people of average intelligence.
If we wanted to bypass the non-physical Apple Store and the associated stuff you mentioned which your barely warmed up IQ has apparently just managed to grasp then we can do that using the Kindle Store.
Thats the subject of this thread. To put it in your unweidly prose. When we buy something in the Kindle store ( in Safari) as it now stands they handle the virtual space, physical servers, bits and bytes, pipelines, Intellectual Property, license agreements, end-user agreements, and all that crazy stuff and Apple are taking, if this IAP is applied to Kindle, 30%.
Well done on understanding downloads and what content providers have to do. Thats fairly kindergarten level. What you should now concentrate on is the subject of this thread - whether Apple has a right to the 30% for doing none of the stuff you list.
Its not as if the fact that the App Store has nothing to do with eBook downloads has not been pointed out in every page on this damned thread.
Well done on understanding downloads and what content providers have to do. Thats fairly kindergarten level. What you should now concentrate on is the subject of this thread - whether Apple has a right to the 30% for doing none of the stuff you list.
Its not as if the fact that the App Store has nothing to do with eBook downloads has not been pointed out in every page on this damned thread.
30%? Maybe, maybe not. Bottom line is that neither the Kindle nor the Nook allows competitor ebook stores at all. The iPad is the dominant ebook reader in terms of numbers sold. If Amazon, B&N or Sony want a slice of that pie then they should pony up given their devices are locked down. Or leave the platform.
Unless they'd all like to get together and define a common DRM scheme that is interoperable across all devices and bookstores.
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Its not really that difficult to get the head around virtual space for people of average intelligence.
If we wanted to bypass the non-physical Apple Store and the associated stuff you mentioned which your barely warmed up IQ has apparently just managed to grasp then we can do that using the Kindle Store.
Thats the subject of this thread. To put it in your unweidly prose. When we buy something in the Kindle store ( in Safari) as it now stands they handle the virtual space, physical servers, bits and bytes, pipelines, Intellectual Property, license agreements, end-user agreements, and all that crazy stuff and Apple are taking, if this IAP is applied to Kindle, 30%.
Well done on understanding downloads and what content providers have to do. Thats fairly kindergarten level. What you should now concentrate on is the subject of this thread - whether Apple has a right to the 30% for doing none of the stuff you list.
Its not as if the fact that the App Store has nothing to do with eBook downloads has not been pointed out in every page on this damned thread.
Do irony much? I thought there were a few clues in my unwieldy, tongue-in-cheek prose, which was for the benefit of someone who apparently thought (and I still find this unbelievable) that the App Store was his -- but mostly it was for everyone else's entertainment. Although my effort might have been in vain, I do try to vary my style on occasion, or from page to page, or even between one post and the next. From the sum of your copious output on this thread, I am rather receiving an incessant droning, like perhaps a needle is stuck somewhere. Perhaps this is why I now begin to sound like a pompous pedant. Forgive me that my forbearance for you is so short-lived. But now that we have established who has the barely warmed up IQ (both the one with the Store in his pocket and the one whom irony escapes), I'll address your point:
I know what you guys have said on every page of this thread. We have yet to see any proof that Apple was/is/shall ever try to take 30% of out -of-app purchases. It's not even clear that they will ask for 30% of everything sold through in-app purchases, other than the music, movies, books and other media that is actually stored on their servers. What has also been reiterated page after page on this thread is this:
Apple is asking developers who use its platform, Store, SDK, IP, business model and everything else, to include in-app purchasing along side out-of-app purchasing in their native, iOS apps which would not exist as a potential source of revenue for the developer without Apple. In-App purchasing provides the consumer (Apple's customer after all) a streamlined, consistent user experience, particularly appreciated by those who do indeed like using their iTunes Store account and getting one bill on one card. It also happens to help Apple maintain and develop the platform and store for all those who create apps, free and paid alike. And it's Apple's prerogative.
I know the stuff bought through the in-app purchase may or may not be on Apple's server. If Amazon and Sony want access to 160 million paying customers, this is simply what they are asked to do. If they go, they go. That is not my preference. I would miss them (but, believe it not, I wouldn't throw my iPad away; because unbelievable as it may be, I didn't buy it primarily for books). If Sony and Amazon do leave, Apple may make adjustments. On the other hand, Sony may simply be posturing and the NYT may be blowing it out of proportion. Who knows, Sony and Apple may be working it out as we speak.
(look asdasd, no caps! aren't you proud of me? See how compliant and amenable I am?) [Don't answer, that was rhetorical and ironic. In fact, please just don't answer.]