These are Apple's policies. That doesn't make them the Ten Commandments. Apple wrote those policies to benefit Apple. It doesn't always benefit us, their customers.
I have no problem with seeing those policies changed. Books and magazines can be defined by Apple so as to eliminate those who want to work around Apple's policies. Let's remember that Apple charges nothing for free apps. And as free app downloads constitute the majority of all app downloads, than Apple can obviously afford to allow this as well. And as I pointed out, out of app purchases, which as what we do with our Kindle and Nook apps, costs Apple NOTHING, Apple shouldn't be demanding that those companies also institute in app purchases which DO cost Apple something.
So what Apple is doing here is saying to these companies, that if they wish to continue out of app purchasing which costs Apple nothing, they must also have in app purchases which does have a cost to Apple, and then, because of that cost, apple must charge them for that service. This makes no sense at all, as Apple keeps on insisting that they sell entertainment and apps at a just above break even point so as to make their hardware more desirable, which is where they make their money.
As The Kindle and Nook apps, and presumably the new Sony app as well, drive people TO Apple's hardware, Apple benefits plenty from this present model. They would have to carefully explain why anyone other than Apple would benefit from this change, and it IS a change.
Apple does allow free distribution of free apps. However, if the app is truly free, the developer isn't profiting from it either, so there's little point in Apple trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.
"Free" apps that essentially require the user to purchase content aren't really free, and the developer ought not be able to use this mechanism to avoid paying the cost of distribution. Amazon is profiting from it's "free" app by selling content for that app, and there's no reason Apple should have to treat that content any differently than new levels for a game. The reader app is a useless shell without the content, just like a game that comes with zero levels.
Apple may decide it's desirable to carve out a specific category of content, eBooks, that is treated differently than other content. It seems likely that they've done this with subscriptions, but they were only able to achieve this by playing hardball with the publishers, who would have gladly acted parasitically if allowed. Amazon, Sony and other eBook distributors who profit from selling eBooks, not the "free" readers are, or want to be, parasites on the iOS ecosystem. In Apples view, and I think their view is the correct and fair (to all developers) view, these companies ought to have to contribute their fair share to the costs of maintaining that ecosystem.
Yeah, I don't understand why more people don't see that side of it?
Using Kindle as an example...
1. The Kindle app is free, so Apple pays for the costs of delivering the app to iOS users.
2. Apple also pays the cost of developing, maintaining and marketing the platform.
Essentially, Amazon has a free store front in an Apple digital mall. A mall that has a lot of consumer traffic.
According to Apple's statement, they now want to collect a tax from Amazon when a patron of Apple's mall makes a purchase from that Kindle Book Store.
I don't see the problem. This isn't a co-op. Amazon, a direct competitor with Apple, is making money hand over fist from customers using iOS devices. Why shouldn't Apple get a cut of that?
I think this is an extension of what Apple saw happening with mobile ads; Google, another direct competitor, was benefitting from Apple's platform by making a lot of money from ads being placed in iOS apps. Apple was being cut out of that revenue, So they decided to get their own ad network.
The same is happening here. I guess we'll have to wait and see what Apple announces in the future. If history serves, it'll be something that'll shut most of the whiners up and not be as bad as they would like us all to believe.
The 30% is a bit steep, Apple could however institute a much smaller "handlers" or "distribution" fee for content that can be bought elsewhere.
There are many apps available for iOS that are fronts for stores of various kinds. These apps are all free. Should Apple therefor take a cut when you buy an air conditioner through them? You don't really believe that.
I don't know why some people think that just because something can be delivered in digital form it's different, and should be charged differently. It shouldn't. A product is a product. A book is a book. And if you aren't buying that book through Apple's app store, then Apple should have no right to a cut. We're not using Apple's servers. Apple isn't an ISP.
How would you howl if Apple started charging developers for every free app of theirs that gets downloaded, as using your philosophy, they should be doing? Then there would be no free apps. Estimates are that a good two thirds of those 10 billion downloaded apps were free ones. Apple can apparently afford that. So they can afford this as well, particularly as it's one of the reasons for buying an Apple production the first place. If anything, if it's a problem, it should be relegated to advertising and marketing.
Apple does allow free distribution of free apps. However, if the app is truly free, the developer isn't profiting from it either, so there's little point in Apple trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.
Many free apps are free with advertising much of which is not delivered by iAds so Apple is being taken advantage there. The apps are essentially selling whatever is being advertised.
Well, I apologise for being overly flip. Humour doesn't translate well into text and it was a lot funnier in my head than on paper. My apologies to anyone I offended.
That being said, yes, it's true I don't buy publications with advertising in them.
I haven't read or bought a paper magazine since the mid 80's, and haven't even read a paper newspaper since about 1995. I have never read newspapers on a daily basis ever, even when I still bought the occasional sunday edition. I have also never subscribed to a magazine since I was about 16 when I had three subscriptions (Psychology Today, Ms., & Playboy), for about two years each, but that was something north of 30 years ago.
In terms of digital content, if it has advertisements, it should basically be free IMO and I have a personal rule never, ever to pay for something that has advertisements in it. It's just wrong in my book and shouldn't be tolerated by any right-thinking humans.
It think that's a terrible rule, and thankfully, most people agree with me rather than you. If you saw their presentation today, you would see that Ad revenue is about half of magazine revenue. Having been in the publishing business in various ways, I find that number to be true. You seem to think that somehow, magically, all this information appears. It doesn't. Subs are a way to get people to get the magazine. It often doesn't even pay for the yearly postage to send it, much less for the publication itself. If it weren't for advertising, there would be hardly anything to read anywhere. People such as yourself benefit only because the vast majority of people understand that Ads are a very minor, but necessary, shall we call it for your benefit, "evil"?
There are many apps available for iOS that are fronts for stores of various kinds. These apps are all free. Should Apple therefor take a cut when you buy an air conditioner through them? You don't really believe that.
I don't know why some people think that just because something can be delivered in digital form it's different, and should be charged differently. It shouldn't. A product is a product. A book is a book. And if you aren't buying that book through Apple's app store, then Apple should have no right to a cut. We're not using Apple's servers. Apple isn't an ISP. ...
I think there's a fairly straightforward test to determining which sorts of purchases should be part of the cost sharing and which ought to be exempt:
Does the purchase enhance the functionality of the app?
Case A: Purchasing an air conditioner, or a physical book, does not enhance the functionality of the app. The app does what it does and the purchase has no effect on it.
Case B: Purchasing an eBook, or game levels, clearly adds functionality to the app itself: the making available to the user, within the app, content the user can interact with.
I think today marks the day that a content company made a significant change to embrace truly new ways to deliver the news. Happily, it is Apple that is at the epicenter of this change. The Daily is a shot fired across the bow of the other big media companies, who will be watching this experiment closely. If the result is better news at a sustainable cost, then we all benefit.
Many free apps are free with advertising much of which is not delivered by iAds so Apple is being taken advantage there. The apps are essentially selling whatever is being advertised.
I agree, "free" apps that generate revenue entirely through advertising not served by iAds are essentially gaming the system and the developers are acting parasitically. Obviously, this is one of the reasons Apple created iAds: to recover some of this lost cost sharing. Ideally, there ought to be a way to recover these costs from developers not using iAds, but the genie is out of the bottle and it would be very difficult to put it back in.
Not that hard and note the search did not include Fox but that appears in every result.
Before you say, I agree the google is not the ultimate test of impartiality but it supports the OP point. It is indeed difficult to find "News" in the US, rather it is a commentary on events, opinions. That is not news (Originally from the UK where the BBC does a fine job of balance and impartiality).
Let's see if I have this straight...
I should search the web to see what "misinformed" means?
And allowing exclusively out-of-app purchases allows others to use the App Store parasitically and leave Apple with the full burden of the cost. They shouldn't have to tolerate that, but, if allowed to, many App publishers will try to cheat the system and avoid paying their share of the costs, which is exactly what Sony and Amazon are trying to do.
Who's fault is it that the only way to install applications on iOS devices is through the App Store? Who's is the one who set the terms and conditions of publishing on the App Store? Who set the annual developer's fee in order to post and maintain your own application on the App Store? I'll give you a hint .
Yes, Apple maintains the platform. They're also the ones who set the terms, and up until now, everyone's been playing fine by those terms. You seem to think Apple is being exploited in some way. They're not. The ones being exploited are the developers, of whom, have been largely responsible for Apple's iOS success. And now, in return, Apple wants to take a cut from everyone that's doing business on their platform. Do they have the right to? That's a separate question. Should they do it? I don't believe its in the best interest of consumers or developers to have Apple start taking such a large percentage of their business for the privilege of running on iOS, especially when Apple was content with them just doing their thing in the past.
Apple does allow free distribution of free apps. However, if the app is truly free, the developer isn't profiting from it either, so there's little point in Apple trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.
"Free" apps that essentially require the user to purchase content aren't really free, and the developer ought not be able to use this mechanism to avoid paying the cost of distribution. Amazon is profiting from it's "free" app by selling content for that app, and there's no reason Apple should have to treat that content any differently than new levels for a game. The reader app is a useless shell without the content, just like a game that comes with zero levels.
Apple may decide it's desirable to carve out a specific category of content, eBooks, that is treated differently than other content. It seems likely that they've done this with subscriptions, but they were only able to achieve this by playing hardball with the publishers, who would have gladly acted parasitically if allowed. Amazon, Sony and other eBook distributors who profit from selling eBooks, not the "free" readers are, or want to be, parasites on the iOS ecosystem. In Apples view, and I think their view is the correct and fair (to all developers) view, these companies ought to have to contribute their fair share to the costs of maintaining that ecosystem.
You're missing the entire point because you seem to have some bit of philosophy you're trying to get across.
The only thing that matters in business is the practical nature of what's being done. If you don't cheat your suppliers and customers, you've done your job as far philosophy goes.
The practical matter here is not what you say. It's that Apple isn't paying for a single book we buy from our apps. It costs Apple almost nothing to host a handful of apps that allow this. The apps are small, and take up almost no bandwidth to download, a few seconds. A few updates during the year, and that's all. If it costs Apple more than a few thousand a year, I'd be very surprised. For Apple to demand 30% is outrageous. There is no way that any of these other companies can stay in the business after giving Apple a cut like that.
If Apple wasn't so stubborn, we would have a selection in iBooks that equals that of the Kindle and Nook apps, but we don't. There is hardly any books in Apple's store, and that's Apple's fault as well. Therefor, to attempt to cause problems for the other companies who are helping Apple to sell their products is nuts!
My partner in my last company had this philosophy about doing business with other companies which seems to be matched by Apple lately. He felt that he should never leave anything on the table for any other company we did business with. He believed that if they walked away happy, he didn't take enough from them. I used to have to restrain him from doing that. In business, everyone needs to walk away thinking that they got something out of it.
Apple is working too hard to squeeze every penny out of others. This isn't good. It's why there aren't a lot of media deals. It's why we don't have Blu-Ray, it's why we don't have a lot of things Jobs said we would have by now.
The Daily has more video (including ads) than other options, including the more refined and impressive WSJ. Lots of spinning sprockets as these sudden video ads load.
Not sure if it's worth about half what the WSJ is getting as it covers a lot of topics that aren't appealing to me, but that's personal taste.
I was excited to try it and will give it a whirl every day for 2 weeks, but my initial reaction is ho hum. This thing was hyped pretty aggressively.
I think I prefer the newspaper-y layout of the NYT or WSJ, with iPad features thrown in. And a really basic, functional interface. The front page of The Daily is clumsy. They really should have looked around at how others have done it and refined it from there.
But hey, at least now I know Natalie Portman is pregno.
If it weren't for advertising, there would be hardly anything to read anywhere. People such as yourself benefit only because the vast majority of people understand that Ads are a very minor, but necessary, shall we call it for your benefit, "evil"?
Totally agree.
Depending on the magazine, the ads can even be a major attraction. Artistic, informative, inspiring or motivational. Ads can also be boring and obnoxious, no doubt. There are good ads and bad ones. The higher quality the magazine, the higher quality the ads are. For some people, ads can be a license to dream as well. They imagine themselves in that luxury hotel wearing that designer outfit and driving that sports car. That is part of the formula for successful advertising. You may not like ads, but most people appreciate them in magazines, maybe not so much on TV or the web.
Who's fault is it that the only way to install applications on iOS devices is through the App Store? Who's is the one who set the terms and conditions of publishing on the App Store? Who set the annual developer's fee in order to post and maintain your own application on the App Store? I'll give you a hint .
Yes, Apple maintains the platform. They're also the ones who set the terms, and up until now, everyone's been playing fine by those terms. You seem to think Apple is being exploited in some way. They're not. The ones being exploited are the developers, of whom, have been largely responsible for Apple's iOS success. And now, in return, Apple wants to take a cut from everyone that's doing business on their platform. Do they have the right to? That's a separate question. Should they do it? I don't believe its in the best interest of consumers or developers to have Apple start taking such a large percentage of their business for the privilege of running on iOS, especially when Apple was content with them just doing their thing in the past.
The iOS platform owes its success in good part to the curated nature of the App Store and the freedom from malware that comes with that. Developers are directly and indirectly benefiting from the ecosystem Apple has created, so, yes, they ought to help shoulder the costs, which in many cases are almost certainly less than they would, in reality, incur operating without the framework of the App Store. (That's why so many Mac developers are moving exclusively to the Mac App Store.) The share of revenue Apple takes from App Store sales is entirely fair and reasonable.
I think there's a fairly straightforward test to determining which sorts of purchases should be part of the cost sharing and which ought to be exempt:
Does the purchase enhance the functionality of the app?
Case A: Purchasing an air conditioner, or a physical book, does not enhance the functionality of the app. The app does what it does and the purchase has no effect on it.
Case B: Purchasing an eBook, or game levels, clearly adds functionality to the app itself: the making available to the user, within the app, content the user can interact with.
Case A should be exempt. Case B ought not be.
That's nonsense. A book reader app has no purpose other to let you buy and read books. It's not like a game that you can play, and then buy new levels. No app works the way you say it does. If it did, then any store app is enhanced by your making purchases. After all, most allow you to preview products, and manage your accounts, write reviews, etc. If that's not "enhancing" the functionality of the app, I don't know what is.
I should search the web to see what "misinformed" means?
With Google?
Then, form an opinion?
Based on the number of hits?
You're Schmidting me... Right.
Thank you for the laughter! :-) I was thinking the same thing. People like studies that show how smart we are vs. others. Or how other people who have a different point of view are less successful or less informed. I liked the study that showed Apple owners were better lovers.
It's easy to poke at both sides. Jon Stewart had a great interview with Maddow of MSNBC and he rocked her pretty good by debating her issues from viewpoint of the right. He took jabs at both sides, pointing out hypocrisy with ease while injecting his usual humorous sarcasm.
Google it..it's a great moment for Stewart fans.
BTW, to ease back on topic, I browsed through The Daily this afternoon and my iPad did not tilt suddenly to the right.
Following up on the raging eBook controversy of yesterday...
It seems very likely that Apple and News Corp have negotiated terms other than the standard 30% for in-app purchases. And, most likely, these will become the standard terms for periodical publishers who wish to distribute content to iOS device apps.
It's also obvious that Apple can't allow app publishers to distribute content exclusively outside the app store since this would basically allow them to do an end run around the 30/70 revenue sharing plan they agreed to. (The old, distribute a free app and sell content from your website so you don't have to share any of the revenue ploy.) So, they need to a) crack down on the violators to put an end to this and b) force eBook distributors to negotiate acceptable terms.
In other words, they can't allow business as usual to continue or Sony, Amazon, et al. have no incentive to actually agree to reasonable terms. But, they also can't afford to not be available on iOS devices. So Apple needed to strictly enforce the terms of the developer agreement to bring them to the table. After all, it's not really reasonable that they get a free ride on downloadable content when other developers don't. I expect that it won't be long before there are new terms of service and a new developer agreement that carves out different revenue sharing plans for different kinds of in-app purchased content: periodical subscriptions, books, perhaps some other categories, and everything else which will remain at 30/70.
Yep. Pretty much what I said yesterday. There is clearly no way that Apple is taking a 30% cut of The Daily. I'm guessing that they are working to get the payment processing percentage cut with a bit more on top for profit.
You're missing the entire point because you seem to have some bit of philosophy you're trying to get across.
The only thing that matters in business is the practical nature of what's being done. If you don't cheat your suppliers and customers, you've done your job as far philosophy goes.
The practical matter here is not what you say. It's that Apple isn't paying for a single book we buy from our apps. It costs Apple almost nothing to host a handful of apps that allow this. The apps are small, and take up almost no bandwidth to download, a few seconds. A few updates during the year, and that's all. If it costs Apple more than a few thousand a year, I'd be very surprised. For Apple to demand 30% is outrageous. There is no way that any of these other companies can stay in the business after giving Apple a cut like that.
The "philosophy" I'm trying to get across is that the App Store is built on a revenue sharing model. Apple's share of the revenue largely goes to paying the costs or operating the App Store. What you are essentially arguing is that some app publishers ought to be exempt from the revenue sharing. I'm arguing that they ought not be exempt, but that it wouldn't be unreasonable for Apple to define different revenue sharing formulas for different types of content, as they have very likely done with subscriptions.
The problem is, if one is successfully cheating the revenue sharing model of the App Store then there's no motivation to stop cheating. Apple is applying that motivation, and that's fair to all developers.
Depending on the magazine, the ads can even be a major attraction. Artistic, informative, inspiring or motivational. Ads can also be boring and obnoxious, no doubt. There are good ads and bad ones. The higher quality the magazine, the higher quality the ads are. For some people, ads can be a license to dream as well. They imagine themselves in that luxury hotel wearing that designer outfit and driving that sports car. That is part of the formula for successful advertising. You may not like ads, but most people appreciate them in magazines, maybe not so much on TV or the web.
Ads pay for almost everything, but not everything. But Murdock made a good point when asked why this wasn't free, and just Ad supported. It was the same thing the Village Voice found out here in NYc a number of years ago when they decided to go free.
People put more value on things they pay for. We all know the old expression of; "You get what you pay for." the Voice found that when they stopped charging, Ad revenue went way down. This is always the case. Murdock made that point, and he's right. By charging a little, he can charge advertisers more. It works out very well.
The problem is, if one is successfully cheating the revenue sharing model of the App Store then there's no motivation to stop cheating. Apple is applying that motivation, and that's fair to all developers.
Apple just needs better category definitions of free apps. The App Store is just the installer/firewall for a free app that is a storefront for an e-commerce. That is a one time service for the iPad owner. After that, the app owner and the iPad owner should be free to conduct business between themselves without any interference or assistance from Apple.
Comments
These are Apple's policies. That doesn't make them the Ten Commandments. Apple wrote those policies to benefit Apple. It doesn't always benefit us, their customers.
I have no problem with seeing those policies changed. Books and magazines can be defined by Apple so as to eliminate those who want to work around Apple's policies. Let's remember that Apple charges nothing for free apps. And as free app downloads constitute the majority of all app downloads, than Apple can obviously afford to allow this as well. And as I pointed out, out of app purchases, which as what we do with our Kindle and Nook apps, costs Apple NOTHING, Apple shouldn't be demanding that those companies also institute in app purchases which DO cost Apple something.
So what Apple is doing here is saying to these companies, that if they wish to continue out of app purchasing which costs Apple nothing, they must also have in app purchases which does have a cost to Apple, and then, because of that cost, apple must charge them for that service. This makes no sense at all, as Apple keeps on insisting that they sell entertainment and apps at a just above break even point so as to make their hardware more desirable, which is where they make their money.
As The Kindle and Nook apps, and presumably the new Sony app as well, drive people TO Apple's hardware, Apple benefits plenty from this present model. They would have to carefully explain why anyone other than Apple would benefit from this change, and it IS a change.
Apple does allow free distribution of free apps. However, if the app is truly free, the developer isn't profiting from it either, so there's little point in Apple trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.
"Free" apps that essentially require the user to purchase content aren't really free, and the developer ought not be able to use this mechanism to avoid paying the cost of distribution. Amazon is profiting from it's "free" app by selling content for that app, and there's no reason Apple should have to treat that content any differently than new levels for a game. The reader app is a useless shell without the content, just like a game that comes with zero levels.
Apple may decide it's desirable to carve out a specific category of content, eBooks, that is treated differently than other content. It seems likely that they've done this with subscriptions, but they were only able to achieve this by playing hardball with the publishers, who would have gladly acted parasitically if allowed. Amazon, Sony and other eBook distributors who profit from selling eBooks, not the "free" readers are, or want to be, parasites on the iOS ecosystem. In Apples view, and I think their view is the correct and fair (to all developers) view, these companies ought to have to contribute their fair share to the costs of maintaining that ecosystem.
Not to get off subject...
Yeah, I don't understand why more people don't see that side of it?
Using Kindle as an example...
1. The Kindle app is free, so Apple pays for the costs of delivering the app to iOS users.
2. Apple also pays the cost of developing, maintaining and marketing the platform.
Essentially, Amazon has a free store front in an Apple digital mall. A mall that has a lot of consumer traffic.
According to Apple's statement, they now want to collect a tax from Amazon when a patron of Apple's mall makes a purchase from that Kindle Book Store.
I don't see the problem. This isn't a co-op. Amazon, a direct competitor with Apple, is making money hand over fist from customers using iOS devices. Why shouldn't Apple get a cut of that?
I think this is an extension of what Apple saw happening with mobile ads; Google, another direct competitor, was benefitting from Apple's platform by making a lot of money from ads being placed in iOS apps. Apple was being cut out of that revenue, So they decided to get their own ad network.
The same is happening here. I guess we'll have to wait and see what Apple announces in the future. If history serves, it'll be something that'll shut most of the whiners up and not be as bad as they would like us all to believe.
The 30% is a bit steep, Apple could however institute a much smaller "handlers" or "distribution" fee for content that can be bought elsewhere.
There are many apps available for iOS that are fronts for stores of various kinds. These apps are all free. Should Apple therefor take a cut when you buy an air conditioner through them? You don't really believe that.
I don't know why some people think that just because something can be delivered in digital form it's different, and should be charged differently. It shouldn't. A product is a product. A book is a book. And if you aren't buying that book through Apple's app store, then Apple should have no right to a cut. We're not using Apple's servers. Apple isn't an ISP.
How would you howl if Apple started charging developers for every free app of theirs that gets downloaded, as using your philosophy, they should be doing? Then there would be no free apps. Estimates are that a good two thirds of those 10 billion downloaded apps were free ones. Apple can apparently afford that. So they can afford this as well, particularly as it's one of the reasons for buying an Apple production the first place. If anything, if it's a problem, it should be relegated to advertising and marketing.
Apple does allow free distribution of free apps. However, if the app is truly free, the developer isn't profiting from it either, so there's little point in Apple trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.
Many free apps are free with advertising much of which is not delivered by iAds so Apple is being taken advantage there. The apps are essentially selling whatever is being advertised.
Well, I apologise for being overly flip. Humour doesn't translate well into text and it was a lot funnier in my head than on paper. My apologies to anyone I offended.
That being said, yes, it's true I don't buy publications with advertising in them.
I haven't read or bought a paper magazine since the mid 80's, and haven't even read a paper newspaper since about 1995. I have never read newspapers on a daily basis ever, even when I still bought the occasional sunday edition. I have also never subscribed to a magazine since I was about 16 when I had three subscriptions (Psychology Today, Ms., & Playboy), for about two years each, but that was something north of 30 years ago.
In terms of digital content, if it has advertisements, it should basically be free IMO and I have a personal rule never, ever to pay for something that has advertisements in it. It's just wrong in my book and shouldn't be tolerated by any right-thinking humans.
It think that's a terrible rule, and thankfully, most people agree with me rather than you. If you saw their presentation today, you would see that Ad revenue is about half of magazine revenue. Having been in the publishing business in various ways, I find that number to be true. You seem to think that somehow, magically, all this information appears. It doesn't. Subs are a way to get people to get the magazine. It often doesn't even pay for the yearly postage to send it, much less for the publication itself. If it weren't for advertising, there would be hardly anything to read anywhere. People such as yourself benefit only because the vast majority of people understand that Ads are a very minor, but necessary, shall we call it for your benefit, "evil"?
There are many apps available for iOS that are fronts for stores of various kinds. These apps are all free. Should Apple therefor take a cut when you buy an air conditioner through them? You don't really believe that.
I don't know why some people think that just because something can be delivered in digital form it's different, and should be charged differently. It shouldn't. A product is a product. A book is a book. And if you aren't buying that book through Apple's app store, then Apple should have no right to a cut. We're not using Apple's servers. Apple isn't an ISP. ...
I think there's a fairly straightforward test to determining which sorts of purchases should be part of the cost sharing and which ought to be exempt:
Does the purchase enhance the functionality of the app?
Case A: Purchasing an air conditioner, or a physical book, does not enhance the functionality of the app. The app does what it does and the purchase has no effect on it.
Case B: Purchasing an eBook, or game levels, clearly adds functionality to the app itself: the making available to the user, within the app, content the user can interact with.
Case A should be exempt. Case B ought not be.
I think today marks the day that a content company made a significant change to embrace truly new ways to deliver the news. Happily, it is Apple that is at the epicenter of this change. The Daily is a shot fired across the bow of the other big media companies, who will be watching this experiment closely. If the result is better news at a sustainable cost, then we all benefit.
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/02/02/mel-m...ist/#continued
Many free apps are free with advertising much of which is not delivered by iAds so Apple is being taken advantage there. The apps are essentially selling whatever is being advertised.
I agree, "free" apps that generate revenue entirely through advertising not served by iAds are essentially gaming the system and the developers are acting parasitically. Obviously, this is one of the reasons Apple created iAds: to recover some of this lost cost sharing. Ideally, there ought to be a way to recover these costs from developers not using iAds, but the genie is out of the bottle and it would be very difficult to put it back in.
Google "misinformed news viewers", top hit.
http://www.newser.com/story/107827/f...udy-finds.html
Not that hard and note the search did not include Fox but that appears in every result.
Before you say, I agree the google is not the ultimate test of impartiality but it supports the OP point. It is indeed difficult to find "News" in the US, rather it is a commentary on events, opinions. That is not news (Originally from the UK where the BBC does a fine job of balance and impartiality).
Let's see if I have this straight...
I should search the web to see what "misinformed" means?
With Google?
Then, form an opinion?
Based on the number of hits?
You're Schmidting me... Right.
And allowing exclusively out-of-app purchases allows others to use the App Store parasitically and leave Apple with the full burden of the cost. They shouldn't have to tolerate that, but, if allowed to, many App publishers will try to cheat the system and avoid paying their share of the costs, which is exactly what Sony and Amazon are trying to do.
Who's fault is it that the only way to install applications on iOS devices is through the App Store? Who's is the one who set the terms and conditions of publishing on the App Store? Who set the annual developer's fee in order to post and maintain your own application on the App Store? I'll give you a hint
Yes, Apple maintains the platform. They're also the ones who set the terms, and up until now, everyone's been playing fine by those terms. You seem to think Apple is being exploited in some way. They're not. The ones being exploited are the developers, of whom, have been largely responsible for Apple's iOS success. And now, in return, Apple wants to take a cut from everyone that's doing business on their platform. Do they have the right to? That's a separate question. Should they do it? I don't believe its in the best interest of consumers or developers to have Apple start taking such a large percentage of their business for the privilege of running on iOS, especially when Apple was content with them just doing their thing in the past.
Apple does allow free distribution of free apps. However, if the app is truly free, the developer isn't profiting from it either, so there's little point in Apple trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.
"Free" apps that essentially require the user to purchase content aren't really free, and the developer ought not be able to use this mechanism to avoid paying the cost of distribution. Amazon is profiting from it's "free" app by selling content for that app, and there's no reason Apple should have to treat that content any differently than new levels for a game. The reader app is a useless shell without the content, just like a game that comes with zero levels.
Apple may decide it's desirable to carve out a specific category of content, eBooks, that is treated differently than other content. It seems likely that they've done this with subscriptions, but they were only able to achieve this by playing hardball with the publishers, who would have gladly acted parasitically if allowed. Amazon, Sony and other eBook distributors who profit from selling eBooks, not the "free" readers are, or want to be, parasites on the iOS ecosystem. In Apples view, and I think their view is the correct and fair (to all developers) view, these companies ought to have to contribute their fair share to the costs of maintaining that ecosystem.
You're missing the entire point because you seem to have some bit of philosophy you're trying to get across.
The only thing that matters in business is the practical nature of what's being done. If you don't cheat your suppliers and customers, you've done your job as far philosophy goes.
The practical matter here is not what you say. It's that Apple isn't paying for a single book we buy from our apps. It costs Apple almost nothing to host a handful of apps that allow this. The apps are small, and take up almost no bandwidth to download, a few seconds. A few updates during the year, and that's all. If it costs Apple more than a few thousand a year, I'd be very surprised. For Apple to demand 30% is outrageous. There is no way that any of these other companies can stay in the business after giving Apple a cut like that.
If Apple wasn't so stubborn, we would have a selection in iBooks that equals that of the Kindle and Nook apps, but we don't. There is hardly any books in Apple's store, and that's Apple's fault as well. Therefor, to attempt to cause problems for the other companies who are helping Apple to sell their products is nuts!
My partner in my last company had this philosophy about doing business with other companies which seems to be matched by Apple lately. He felt that he should never leave anything on the table for any other company we did business with. He believed that if they walked away happy, he didn't take enough from them. I used to have to restrain him from doing that. In business, everyone needs to walk away thinking that they got something out of it.
Apple is working too hard to squeeze every penny out of others. This isn't good. It's why there aren't a lot of media deals. It's why we don't have Blu-Ray, it's why we don't have a lot of things Jobs said we would have by now.
Not sure if it's worth about half what the WSJ is getting as it covers a lot of topics that aren't appealing to me, but that's personal taste.
I was excited to try it and will give it a whirl every day for 2 weeks, but my initial reaction is ho hum. This thing was hyped pretty aggressively.
I think I prefer the newspaper-y layout of the NYT or WSJ, with iPad features thrown in. And a really basic, functional interface. The front page of The Daily is clumsy. They really should have looked around at how others have done it and refined it from there.
But hey, at least now I know Natalie Portman is pregno.
If it weren't for advertising, there would be hardly anything to read anywhere. People such as yourself benefit only because the vast majority of people understand that Ads are a very minor, but necessary, shall we call it for your benefit, "evil"?
Totally agree.
Depending on the magazine, the ads can even be a major attraction. Artistic, informative, inspiring or motivational. Ads can also be boring and obnoxious, no doubt. There are good ads and bad ones. The higher quality the magazine, the higher quality the ads are. For some people, ads can be a license to dream as well. They imagine themselves in that luxury hotel wearing that designer outfit and driving that sports car. That is part of the formula for successful advertising. You may not like ads, but most people appreciate them in magazines, maybe not so much on TV or the web.
Who's fault is it that the only way to install applications on iOS devices is through the App Store? Who's is the one who set the terms and conditions of publishing on the App Store? Who set the annual developer's fee in order to post and maintain your own application on the App Store? I'll give you a hint
Yes, Apple maintains the platform. They're also the ones who set the terms, and up until now, everyone's been playing fine by those terms. You seem to think Apple is being exploited in some way. They're not. The ones being exploited are the developers, of whom, have been largely responsible for Apple's iOS success. And now, in return, Apple wants to take a cut from everyone that's doing business on their platform. Do they have the right to? That's a separate question. Should they do it? I don't believe its in the best interest of consumers or developers to have Apple start taking such a large percentage of their business for the privilege of running on iOS, especially when Apple was content with them just doing their thing in the past.
The iOS platform owes its success in good part to the curated nature of the App Store and the freedom from malware that comes with that. Developers are directly and indirectly benefiting from the ecosystem Apple has created, so, yes, they ought to help shoulder the costs, which in many cases are almost certainly less than they would, in reality, incur operating without the framework of the App Store. (That's why so many Mac developers are moving exclusively to the Mac App Store.) The share of revenue Apple takes from App Store sales is entirely fair and reasonable.
I think there's a fairly straightforward test to determining which sorts of purchases should be part of the cost sharing and which ought to be exempt:
Does the purchase enhance the functionality of the app?
Case A: Purchasing an air conditioner, or a physical book, does not enhance the functionality of the app. The app does what it does and the purchase has no effect on it.
Case B: Purchasing an eBook, or game levels, clearly adds functionality to the app itself: the making available to the user, within the app, content the user can interact with.
Case A should be exempt. Case B ought not be.
That's nonsense. A book reader app has no purpose other to let you buy and read books. It's not like a game that you can play, and then buy new levels. No app works the way you say it does. If it did, then any store app is enhanced by your making purchases. After all, most allow you to preview products, and manage your accounts, write reviews, etc. If that's not "enhancing" the functionality of the app, I don't know what is.
YOU'RE diluted! Do I sound more intelligent now? xD
Let's see if I have this straight...
I should search the web to see what "misinformed" means?
With Google?
Then, form an opinion?
Based on the number of hits?
You're Schmidting me... Right.
Thank you for the laughter! :-) I was thinking the same thing. People like studies that show how smart we are vs. others. Or how other people who have a different point of view are less successful or less informed. I liked the study that showed Apple owners were better lovers.
It's easy to poke at both sides. Jon Stewart had a great interview with Maddow of MSNBC and he rocked her pretty good by debating her issues from viewpoint of the right. He took jabs at both sides, pointing out hypocrisy with ease while injecting his usual humorous sarcasm.
Google it..it's a great moment for Stewart fans.
BTW, to ease back on topic, I browsed through The Daily this afternoon and my iPad did not tilt suddenly to the right.
Following up on the raging eBook controversy of yesterday...
It seems very likely that Apple and News Corp have negotiated terms other than the standard 30% for in-app purchases. And, most likely, these will become the standard terms for periodical publishers who wish to distribute content to iOS device apps.
It's also obvious that Apple can't allow app publishers to distribute content exclusively outside the app store since this would basically allow them to do an end run around the 30/70 revenue sharing plan they agreed to. (The old, distribute a free app and sell content from your website so you don't have to share any of the revenue ploy.) So, they need to a) crack down on the violators to put an end to this and b) force eBook distributors to negotiate acceptable terms.
In other words, they can't allow business as usual to continue or Sony, Amazon, et al. have no incentive to actually agree to reasonable terms. But, they also can't afford to not be available on iOS devices. So Apple needed to strictly enforce the terms of the developer agreement to bring them to the table. After all, it's not really reasonable that they get a free ride on downloadable content when other developers don't. I expect that it won't be long before there are new terms of service and a new developer agreement that carves out different revenue sharing plans for different kinds of in-app purchased content: periodical subscriptions, books, perhaps some other categories, and everything else which will remain at 30/70.
Yep. Pretty much what I said yesterday. There is clearly no way that Apple is taking a 30% cut of The Daily. I'm guessing that they are working to get the payment processing percentage cut with a bit more on top for profit.
You're missing the entire point because you seem to have some bit of philosophy you're trying to get across.
The only thing that matters in business is the practical nature of what's being done. If you don't cheat your suppliers and customers, you've done your job as far philosophy goes.
The practical matter here is not what you say. It's that Apple isn't paying for a single book we buy from our apps. It costs Apple almost nothing to host a handful of apps that allow this. The apps are small, and take up almost no bandwidth to download, a few seconds. A few updates during the year, and that's all. If it costs Apple more than a few thousand a year, I'd be very surprised. For Apple to demand 30% is outrageous. There is no way that any of these other companies can stay in the business after giving Apple a cut like that.
The "philosophy" I'm trying to get across is that the App Store is built on a revenue sharing model. Apple's share of the revenue largely goes to paying the costs or operating the App Store. What you are essentially arguing is that some app publishers ought to be exempt from the revenue sharing. I'm arguing that they ought not be exempt, but that it wouldn't be unreasonable for Apple to define different revenue sharing formulas for different types of content, as they have very likely done with subscriptions.
The problem is, if one is successfully cheating the revenue sharing model of the App Store then there's no motivation to stop cheating. Apple is applying that motivation, and that's fair to all developers.
Totally agree.
Depending on the magazine, the ads can even be a major attraction. Artistic, informative, inspiring or motivational. Ads can also be boring and obnoxious, no doubt. There are good ads and bad ones. The higher quality the magazine, the higher quality the ads are. For some people, ads can be a license to dream as well. They imagine themselves in that luxury hotel wearing that designer outfit and driving that sports car. That is part of the formula for successful advertising. You may not like ads, but most people appreciate them in magazines, maybe not so much on TV or the web.
Ads pay for almost everything, but not everything. But Murdock made a good point when asked why this wasn't free, and just Ad supported. It was the same thing the Village Voice found out here in NYc a number of years ago when they decided to go free.
People put more value on things they pay for. We all know the old expression of; "You get what you pay for." the Voice found that when they stopped charging, Ad revenue went way down. This is always the case. Murdock made that point, and he's right. By charging a little, he can charge advertisers more. It works out very well.
The problem is, if one is successfully cheating the revenue sharing model of the App Store then there's no motivation to stop cheating. Apple is applying that motivation, and that's fair to all developers.
Apple just needs better category definitions of free apps. The App Store is just the installer/firewall for a free app that is a storefront for an e-commerce. That is a one time service for the iPad owner. After that, the app owner and the iPad owner should be free to conduct business between themselves without any interference or assistance from Apple.