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.
How exactly does buying an air conditioner enhance the functionality of an app? It may enhance it's utility to you, but the purchase doesn't change its functionality.
Plenty of apps work along the lines I described where they are essentially empty shells for content you have to pay for. (Have you really never read the reviews for some of these apps?) And, you are correct, "A book reader app has no purpose other to let you buy and read books." Without those "book" purchases it's pretty much useless, which is the entire issue: eBook publishers are acting parasitically and are avoiding the revenue sharing that all developers and app publishers agree to.
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.
Your problem here is you incorrectly insist that they are somehow "cheating" the app store. If that were the case, Apple would have either not allowed the apps in the first place, or removed them a long time ago. No, this is something new. Even though they are saying that nothing has changed in the rules, they are balding lying about that. They have nothing in the rules that says that it can't be done the way it's been done for so long now. They are now adding a new rule, even though they are saying that they are not. They're licking their chops at all the books that are being sold, and have decided to get some of that action.
The problem is that it's their own fault. I tried to buy many more books through the iBookstore, but they don't have most of the books. Who's fault is that? It's theirs. Perhaps if we could buy as many books through Apple as we can through the others, this wouldn't have become much of an issue.
How exactly does buying an air conditioner enhance the functionality of an app? It may enhance it's utility to you, but the purchase doesn't change its functionality.
Plenty of apps work along the lines I described where they are essentially empty shells for content you have to pay for. (Have you really never read the reviews for some of these apps?) And, you are correct, "A book reader app has no purpose other to let you buy and read books." Without those "book" purchases it's pretty much useless, which is the entire issue: eBook publishers are acting parasitically and are avoiding the revenue sharing that all developers and app publishers agree to.
It's what makes the app useful, just as buying a book makes the app useful. It doesn't matter that you're reading the book in the app. I can read that book in my Kindle app on my Mac as well. Maybe I'll never read the book in the iOS app. So what? It doesn't matter.
But I can, and have gotten free books there as well. So the app IS useful even without buying a single thing, and down goes your last argument.
Your problem here is you incorrectly insist that they are somehow "cheating" the app store. If that were the case, Apple would have either not allowed the apps in the first place, or removed them a long time ago. No, this is something new. Even though they are saying that nothing has changed in the rules, they are balding lying about that. They have nothing in the rules that says that it can't be done the way it's been done for so long now. They are now adding a new rule, even though they are saying that they are not. They're licking their chops at all the books that are being sold, and have decided to get some of that action.
The problem is that it's their own fault. I tried to buy many more books through the iBookstore, but they don't have most of the books. Who's fault is that? It's theirs. Perhaps if we could buy as many books through Apple as we can through the others, this wouldn't have become much of an issue.
This is a much bigger issue than just books. Books just happen to be a particularly egregious instance where app publishers are gaming the system to "hide" revenue. Essentially, you are arguing that a loophole can never be closed. I'm arguing that a loophole ought to be closed. (Although, I disagree with your characterization of the closing of this particular loophole, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.)
BTW, to ease back on topic, I browsed through The Daily this afternoon and my iPad did not tilt suddenly to the right.
Still waiting for mine to install, one hour now.
But I did see their editorial statement, and it's got a bit of Fox-ish jingoist crap about freedom, and America being exceptional, etc.
I'm hoping that this is just language for the boss and for the hawks in News Corp. Hoping also that given the iPad demographic they will embrace a global, not-so-America-centric, outlook.
It's what makes the app useful, just as buying a book makes the app useful. It doesn't matter that you're reading the book in the app. I can read that book in my Kindle app on my Mac as well. Maybe I'll never read the book in the iOS app. So what? It doesn't matter.
But I can, and have gotten free books there as well. So the app IS useful even without buying a single thing, and down goes your last argument.
Except that Apple has clearly drawn a line between digital content and tangible goods and the test I presented defines that line precisely. If you download only free books the distributor doesn't profit from them, nor does Apple share in any revenue, which mirrors exactly the example of a truly free, self-contained app where Apple also gets no revenue and has decided they are ok with that, so your hypothetical doesn't change anything in the equation.
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.
Absolutely not!
This is mainly about digital content being purchased from and delivered to an iOS device. Apple doesn't sell air conditioners. Why would Apple be worried about users buying air conditioners? Apple does sell digital books. They should worry about their competition getting a free ride on their own platform. They are essentially giving their competition an advantage. Does Amazon allow other book stores on the Kindle device? Nope. So maybe Apple should just completely ban other book stores. Wouldn't that be more fair? Or maybe Apple should make an iBook "e-book" device, that's the EXACT same thing, but not allow other book stores? There are other platforms that are more closed than Apple's, but for some reason only Apple is evil and controlling!?
Quote:
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.
Hmm... not sure if referring to physical vs. digital in this argument? With physical media there are materials, manufacturing, printing, and shipping. That's overhead that doesn't exist with digital. So there is a huge cost difference.
While you may be using your own store to sell items through, you're still using Apple's massive distribution channel (i.e. platform) to sell through.
Quote:
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.
Hmmm... apparently you missed something in my post, because that was not my philosophy. My thinking leans more towards others making a profit at Apple's expense and then, only when they are a direct competitor to what Apple offers. See, for every Kindle book sold through the Kindle iOS app is a sales lost for the same book in the iBook Store. Free apps only make money through advertising (which Apple has the ability to extract revenue through iAd).
Personally, I don't agree with what Apple is doing, but I do understand why they feel the need to. Just a reminder, this in no way affects the user, except forces these other companies to offer the user direct sales and downloads in the app. What they've been doing before is pushing the user to a web site from within the app to make the purchase, then syncing with the server to gain access to the content. That is a loop hole to get around Apple's In-App-Purchasing rule.
Furthermore, these companies should be able to create a free "reader" that doesn't give access or link to the store from within the app. It would only allow you to access/sync and then view that content. Apple can't do anything about that.
As for all of you extremely predictable, knee jerk nutjobs chiming in about evil old Rupert Murdoch, with your juvenile, close minded, hyperbolic statements about how you're not 'touching this' for the sake of your cultish leftist groupthink, please STFU.
edit: and FYI, everytime they poll the media about political leanings 90% vote democrat! so why do you think (the sometimes obnoxious) fox news is so popular? because they're the only ones saying something different from all the others! but I've never known a left leaning person to respond to logic so I'll stop here, it's alway emotion-based, backed up by rationalization, intellectualization, and NO INSIGHT!
1) Maybe some of the most informed, up-to-date people (journalists) lean towards the Democratic party? (I'm party-less BTW)
2) In some ways I feel sorry for Fox News. They're certainly popular, but in my opinion that's because they've abandoned any pretense of impartiality or journalistic integrity and have gone full-on to the right, while the rest of the crowd tries to be centrist or center-left. OK, MSNBC has gone pretty far left in the past 2-3 years.
3) Things I've learned from Fox News:
-Obama was not born in the US
-Obama is a socialist
-Obama is a closet Muslim (Muslim=bad)
-Climate change is not real
-Capping our carbon output will destroy our economy
-Obamacare (a term used by anchors) is bad
-"Democrat" is an adjective
-San Francisco = bad (seriously, they did a whole piece on why SF sucks)
-It's alright for an ANCHOR to lead a question with "Aren't Americans tired of Obama's ____?" Not a guest, an anchor.
4) I'm sorry, right or wrong, conservatives (as epitomized by Fox News) are the most emotional and irrational of all. Climate change is not real because one lab fudged their numbers. Glen Beck is right because he gets teary and calls on God a lot. O'Reilly must be smart, cuz he shouts over his opponents and calls them blowhards...Forget that Sarah Palin can't name a single source of news she reads, she's a mama grizzly!!
This is mainly about digital content being purchased from and delivered to an iOS device. Apple doesn't sell air conditioners. Why would Apple be worried about users buying air conditioners?
As they shouldn't but nevertheless, they do not permit in-app sales of real world goods, however, it appears that many apps do exactly that and Apple has not enforced the rule equally across the board.
This is a much bigger issue than just books. Books just happen to be a particularly egregious instance where app publishers are gaming the system to "hide" revenue. Essentially, you are arguing that a loophole can never be closed. I'm arguing that a loophole ought to be closed. (Although, I disagree with your characterization of the closing of this particular loophole, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.)
You keep expanding the argument. Let's keep it to the point.
It's not a loophole. If Apple thought it was, they wouldn't have allowed it in the first place, as i've already noted.
What likely happened is that, as I also already noted, their book sales are dismal, due to their own fault, and they want to make it up from others' sales, that are out of their system, something the rules allow.
Except that Apple has clearly drawn a line between digital content and tangible goods and the test I presented defines that line precisely. If you download only free books the distributor doesn't profit from them, nor does Apple share in any revenue, which mirrors exactly the example of a truly free, self-contained app where Apple also gets no revenue and has decided they are ok with that, so your hypothetical doesn't change anything in the equation.
I don't see Apple drawing any line. All I see is them ALLOWING in app purchases. Not requiring them. Until now.
Your original statement isn't what you're saying now. Your test was for usefulness of the free app without having to buy something to make it so. You keep moving the goalposts further away.
As they shouldn't but nevertheless, they do not permit in-app sales of real world goods, however, it appears that many apps do exactly that and Apple has not enforced the rule equally across the board.
Apple explicitly tells developers not to use Store Kit for "real world goods". Are you aware of any apps using Store Kit to sell "real world goods"?
They've also said that you have to make "content" you are selling for your app available through Store Kit.
1) Maybe some of the most informed, up-to-date people (journalists) lean towards the Democratic party? (I'm party-less BTW)
2) In some ways I feel sorry for Fox News. They're certainly popular, but in my opinion that's because they've abandoned any pretense of impartiality or journalistic integrity and have gone full-on to the right, while the rest of the crowd tries to be centrist or center-left. OK, MSNBC has gone pretty far left in the past 2-3 years.
3) Things I've learned from Fox News:
-Obama was not born in the US
-Obama is a socialist
-Obama is a closet Muslim (Muslim=bad)
-Climate change is not real
-Capping our carbon output will destroy our economy
-Obamacare (a term used by anchors) is bad
-"Democrat" is an adjective
-San Francisco = bad (seriously, they did a whole piece on why SF sucks)
-It's alright for an ANCHOR to lead a question with "Aren't Americans tired of Obama's ____?" Not a guest, an anchor.
4) I'm sorry, right or wrong, conservatives (as epitomized by Fox News) are the most emotional and irrational of all. Climate change is not real because one lab fudged their numbers. Glen Beck is right because he gets teary and calls on God a lot. O'Reilly must be smart, cuz he shouts over his opponents and calls them blowhards...Forget that Sarah Palin can't name a single source of news she reads, she's a mama grizzly!!
Very well put. If people on the right want to be taken seriously, they have to comprehend why what you said makes them clowns.
They really are like babies, and "conservatives" these days tend to be anything but, with fear funneling them into the mindset that the military can't have ENOUGH money, because after all, we're fighting an advanced breed of terrorists who "hate our freedoms."
... It's not a loophole. If Apple thought it was, they wouldn't have allowed it in the first place, as i've already noted. ...
By definition, a loophole is a way to exploit something through a condition that wasn't taken into account. So, the argument that, if it were a loophole, they wouldn't have allowed it, doesn't really make sense.
Apple explicitly tells developers not to use Store Kit for "real world goods". Are you aware of any apps using Store Kit to sell "real world goods"?
They've also said that you have to make "content" you are selling for your app available through Store Kit.
There isn't any inconsistency in that.
I don't know about Store Kit specifically, only Apple's document about in-app sales which says not to sell real world goods. I did link to one example yesterday Freshdirect grocery store in NYC. I can probably find more if that is not enough proof that apps are selling real world goods.
I don't see Apple drawing any line. All I see is them ALLOWING in app purchases. Not requiring them. Until now.
Your original statement isn't what you're saying now. Your test was for usefulness of the free app without having to buy something to make it so. You keep moving the goalposts further away.
Nothing whatsoever has changed in what I'm saying. Perhaps your understanding of it has changed, but the goalposts remain firmly in the same place they originally occupied.
However, I have no idea what you are trying to say in this sentence: "Your test was for usefulness of the free app without having to buy something to make it so."
My argument is that the App Store is built on a revenue sharing model. For truly free apps, there is no revenue, therefore, nothing to share. For "free" shell apps downloading free content, there is also no revenue, therefore, nothing to share. For "free" shell apps, like eBook readers, downloading paid content, there is revenue, and that revenue ought to be part of the revenue sharing model, not "hidden" through some means that allows the app publisher to profit from it but not fairly shoulder the cost burden of the App Store.
As they shouldn't but nevertheless, they do not permit in-app sales of real world goods, however, it appears that many apps do exactly that and Apple has not enforced the rule equally across the board.
Apple is only interested in making sure that apps (and enhancements to those apps) go through their AppStore.
App developers wanted a method for charging extra to extend those apps, whether it be additional features or additional content rather than making the user constantly download newer or different versions for new features or content (which would eventually have to go through the AppStore anyway). That is what In-App-Purchasing was created for.
As an example, if you'll remember when the AppStore first opened, there were tons of "points" apps for certain games. Which you bought, downloaded and launched to activate those "points" within the game. That was a cumbersome work-around for developers to charge users for additional features.
If you're selling something through an app that in no way adds to that app, then there's no problem. I can't open up the Amazon app, buy a toaster, and have that toaster in anyway affect the app on my iOS device. It adds nothing to the app, no new content, no new feature.
If Amazon sold those books as individual apps through the AppStore, Apple would get their cut. Seems like a silly notion, except go look at the AppStore and all books available as a stand alone app.
I don't know about Store Kit specifically, only Apple's document about in-app sales which says not to sell real world goods. I did link to one example yesterday Freshdirect grocery store in NYC. I can probably find more if that is not enough proof that apps are selling real world goods.
They don't use Store Kit, and "real world goods" are specifically excluded -- prohibited, in fact -- from the App Store's revenue sharing model so there's nothing that I'm aware of that's wrong with what Fresh Direct's app does.
Again, does the purchase of groceries enhance the functionality (as opposed to the utility) of the App? No. Does the purchase of an eBook enhance the functionality of a reader app? Yes.
I personally never buy ANYTHING that I have to manually stop, but otherwise will automatically renew a charge!!! If you lose your IOS device you get billed for content that you don't get or that is now old. Option should be offered rather that automatically accessing my account or card. I'll pass.... The info is available free anyway.
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.
Hear! Hear! The best deal is where each party feels they have gained the advantage -- the best negotiator is the one that can frame and consummate that kind of deal
Quote:
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.
I think that that Apple trait is a kind of Steve Jobs paranoia -- Take advantage of me once... twice... thrice...
Edit:
You and I., being right > 90% of the time, are aware of the difficulty that others have to tell/convince us that we are wrong on any given issue...
... now, how do you like my fine new suit of clothes?
Comments
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.
How exactly does buying an air conditioner enhance the functionality of an app? It may enhance it's utility to you, but the purchase doesn't change its functionality.
Plenty of apps work along the lines I described where they are essentially empty shells for content you have to pay for. (Have you really never read the reviews for some of these apps?) And, you are correct, "A book reader app has no purpose other to let you buy and read books." Without those "book" purchases it's pretty much useless, which is the entire issue: eBook publishers are acting parasitically and are avoiding the revenue sharing that all developers and app publishers agree to.
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.
Your problem here is you incorrectly insist that they are somehow "cheating" the app store. If that were the case, Apple would have either not allowed the apps in the first place, or removed them a long time ago. No, this is something new. Even though they are saying that nothing has changed in the rules, they are balding lying about that. They have nothing in the rules that says that it can't be done the way it's been done for so long now. They are now adding a new rule, even though they are saying that they are not. They're licking their chops at all the books that are being sold, and have decided to get some of that action.
The problem is that it's their own fault. I tried to buy many more books through the iBookstore, but they don't have most of the books. Who's fault is that? It's theirs. Perhaps if we could buy as many books through Apple as we can through the others, this wouldn't have become much of an issue.
How exactly does buying an air conditioner enhance the functionality of an app? It may enhance it's utility to you, but the purchase doesn't change its functionality.
Plenty of apps work along the lines I described where they are essentially empty shells for content you have to pay for. (Have you really never read the reviews for some of these apps?) And, you are correct, "A book reader app has no purpose other to let you buy and read books." Without those "book" purchases it's pretty much useless, which is the entire issue: eBook publishers are acting parasitically and are avoiding the revenue sharing that all developers and app publishers agree to.
It's what makes the app useful, just as buying a book makes the app useful. It doesn't matter that you're reading the book in the app. I can read that book in my Kindle app on my Mac as well. Maybe I'll never read the book in the iOS app. So what? It doesn't matter.
But I can, and have gotten free books there as well. So the app IS useful even without buying a single thing, and down goes your last argument.
Your problem here is you incorrectly insist that they are somehow "cheating" the app store. If that were the case, Apple would have either not allowed the apps in the first place, or removed them a long time ago. No, this is something new. Even though they are saying that nothing has changed in the rules, they are balding lying about that. They have nothing in the rules that says that it can't be done the way it's been done for so long now. They are now adding a new rule, even though they are saying that they are not. They're licking their chops at all the books that are being sold, and have decided to get some of that action.
The problem is that it's their own fault. I tried to buy many more books through the iBookstore, but they don't have most of the books. Who's fault is that? It's theirs. Perhaps if we could buy as many books through Apple as we can through the others, this wouldn't have become much of an issue.
This is a much bigger issue than just books. Books just happen to be a particularly egregious instance where app publishers are gaming the system to "hide" revenue. Essentially, you are arguing that a loophole can never be closed. I'm arguing that a loophole ought to be closed. (Although, I disagree with your characterization of the closing of this particular loophole, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.)
BTW, to ease back on topic, I browsed through The Daily this afternoon and my iPad did not tilt suddenly to the right.
Still waiting for mine to install, one hour now.
But I did see their editorial statement, and it's got a bit of Fox-ish jingoist crap about freedom, and America being exceptional, etc.
I'm hoping that this is just language for the boss and for the hawks in News Corp. Hoping also that given the iPad demographic they will embrace a global, not-so-America-centric, outlook.
Just hoping, that's all . . .
It's what makes the app useful, just as buying a book makes the app useful. It doesn't matter that you're reading the book in the app. I can read that book in my Kindle app on my Mac as well. Maybe I'll never read the book in the iOS app. So what? It doesn't matter.
But I can, and have gotten free books there as well. So the app IS useful even without buying a single thing, and down goes your last argument.
Except that Apple has clearly drawn a line between digital content and tangible goods and the test I presented defines that line precisely. If you download only free books the distributor doesn't profit from them, nor does Apple share in any revenue, which mirrors exactly the example of a truly free, self-contained app where Apple also gets no revenue and has decided they are ok with that, so your hypothetical doesn't change anything in the equation.
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.
Absolutely not!
This is mainly about digital content being purchased from and delivered to an iOS device. Apple doesn't sell air conditioners. Why would Apple be worried about users buying air conditioners? Apple does sell digital books. They should worry about their competition getting a free ride on their own platform. They are essentially giving their competition an advantage. Does Amazon allow other book stores on the Kindle device? Nope. So maybe Apple should just completely ban other book stores. Wouldn't that be more fair? Or maybe Apple should make an iBook "e-book" device, that's the EXACT same thing, but not allow other book stores? There are other platforms that are more closed than Apple's, but for some reason only Apple is evil and controlling!?
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.
Hmm... not sure if referring to physical vs. digital in this argument? With physical media there are materials, manufacturing, printing, and shipping. That's overhead that doesn't exist with digital. So there is a huge cost difference.
While you may be using your own store to sell items through, you're still using Apple's massive distribution channel (i.e. platform) to sell through.
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.
Hmmm... apparently you missed something in my post, because that was not my philosophy. My thinking leans more towards others making a profit at Apple's expense and then, only when they are a direct competitor to what Apple offers. See, for every Kindle book sold through the Kindle iOS app is a sales lost for the same book in the iBook Store. Free apps only make money through advertising (which Apple has the ability to extract revenue through iAd).
Personally, I don't agree with what Apple is doing, but I do understand why they feel the need to. Just a reminder, this in no way affects the user, except forces these other companies to offer the user direct sales and downloads in the app. What they've been doing before is pushing the user to a web site from within the app to make the purchase, then syncing with the server to gain access to the content. That is a loop hole to get around Apple's In-App-Purchasing rule.
Furthermore, these companies should be able to create a free "reader" that doesn't give access or link to the store from within the app. It would only allow you to access/sync and then view that content. Apple can't do anything about that.
As for all of you extremely predictable, knee jerk nutjobs chiming in about evil old Rupert Murdoch, with your juvenile, close minded, hyperbolic statements about how you're not 'touching this' for the sake of your cultish leftist groupthink, please STFU.
edit: and FYI, everytime they poll the media about political leanings 90% vote democrat! so why do you think (the sometimes obnoxious) fox news is so popular? because they're the only ones saying something different from all the others! but I've never known a left leaning person to respond to logic so I'll stop here, it's alway emotion-based, backed up by rationalization, intellectualization, and NO INSIGHT!
1) Maybe some of the most informed, up-to-date people (journalists) lean towards the Democratic party? (I'm party-less BTW)
2) In some ways I feel sorry for Fox News. They're certainly popular, but in my opinion that's because they've abandoned any pretense of impartiality or journalistic integrity and have gone full-on to the right, while the rest of the crowd tries to be centrist or center-left. OK, MSNBC has gone pretty far left in the past 2-3 years.
3) Things I've learned from Fox News:
-Obama was not born in the US
-Obama is a socialist
-Obama is a closet Muslim (Muslim=bad)
-Climate change is not real
-Capping our carbon output will destroy our economy
-Obamacare (a term used by anchors) is bad
-"Democrat" is an adjective
-San Francisco = bad (seriously, they did a whole piece on why SF sucks)
-It's alright for an ANCHOR to lead a question with "Aren't Americans tired of Obama's ____?" Not a guest, an anchor.
4) I'm sorry, right or wrong, conservatives (as epitomized by Fox News) are the most emotional and irrational of all. Climate change is not real because one lab fudged their numbers. Glen Beck is right because he gets teary and calls on God a lot. O'Reilly must be smart, cuz he shouts over his opponents and calls them blowhards...Forget that Sarah Palin can't name a single source of news she reads, she's a mama grizzly!!
This is mainly about digital content being purchased from and delivered to an iOS device. Apple doesn't sell air conditioners. Why would Apple be worried about users buying air conditioners?
As they shouldn't but nevertheless, they do not permit in-app sales of real world goods, however, it appears that many apps do exactly that and Apple has not enforced the rule equally across the board.
This is a much bigger issue than just books. Books just happen to be a particularly egregious instance where app publishers are gaming the system to "hide" revenue. Essentially, you are arguing that a loophole can never be closed. I'm arguing that a loophole ought to be closed. (Although, I disagree with your characterization of the closing of this particular loophole, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.)
You keep expanding the argument. Let's keep it to the point.
It's not a loophole. If Apple thought it was, they wouldn't have allowed it in the first place, as i've already noted.
What likely happened is that, as I also already noted, their book sales are dismal, due to their own fault, and they want to make it up from others' sales, that are out of their system, something the rules allow.
Except that Apple has clearly drawn a line between digital content and tangible goods and the test I presented defines that line precisely. If you download only free books the distributor doesn't profit from them, nor does Apple share in any revenue, which mirrors exactly the example of a truly free, self-contained app where Apple also gets no revenue and has decided they are ok with that, so your hypothetical doesn't change anything in the equation.
I don't see Apple drawing any line. All I see is them ALLOWING in app purchases. Not requiring them. Until now.
Your original statement isn't what you're saying now. Your test was for usefulness of the free app without having to buy something to make it so. You keep moving the goalposts further away.
As they shouldn't but nevertheless, they do not permit in-app sales of real world goods, however, it appears that many apps do exactly that and Apple has not enforced the rule equally across the board.
Apple explicitly tells developers not to use Store Kit for "real world goods". Are you aware of any apps using Store Kit to sell "real world goods"?
They've also said that you have to make "content" you are selling for your app available through Store Kit.
There isn't any inconsistency in that.
1) Maybe some of the most informed, up-to-date people (journalists) lean towards the Democratic party? (I'm party-less BTW)
2) In some ways I feel sorry for Fox News. They're certainly popular, but in my opinion that's because they've abandoned any pretense of impartiality or journalistic integrity and have gone full-on to the right, while the rest of the crowd tries to be centrist or center-left. OK, MSNBC has gone pretty far left in the past 2-3 years.
3) Things I've learned from Fox News:
-Obama was not born in the US
-Obama is a socialist
-Obama is a closet Muslim (Muslim=bad)
-Climate change is not real
-Capping our carbon output will destroy our economy
-Obamacare (a term used by anchors) is bad
-"Democrat" is an adjective
-San Francisco = bad (seriously, they did a whole piece on why SF sucks)
-It's alright for an ANCHOR to lead a question with "Aren't Americans tired of Obama's ____?" Not a guest, an anchor.
4) I'm sorry, right or wrong, conservatives (as epitomized by Fox News) are the most emotional and irrational of all. Climate change is not real because one lab fudged their numbers. Glen Beck is right because he gets teary and calls on God a lot. O'Reilly must be smart, cuz he shouts over his opponents and calls them blowhards...Forget that Sarah Palin can't name a single source of news she reads, she's a mama grizzly!!
Very well put. If people on the right want to be taken seriously, they have to comprehend why what you said makes them clowns.
They really are like babies, and "conservatives" these days tend to be anything but, with fear funneling them into the mindset that the military can't have ENOUGH money, because after all, we're fighting an advanced breed of terrorists who "hate our freedoms."
... It's not a loophole. If Apple thought it was, they wouldn't have allowed it in the first place, as i've already noted. ...
By definition, a loophole is a way to exploit something through a condition that wasn't taken into account. So, the argument that, if it were a loophole, they wouldn't have allowed it, doesn't really make sense.
Apple explicitly tells developers not to use Store Kit for "real world goods". Are you aware of any apps using Store Kit to sell "real world goods"?
They've also said that you have to make "content" you are selling for your app available through Store Kit.
There isn't any inconsistency in that.
I don't know about Store Kit specifically, only Apple's document about in-app sales which says not to sell real world goods. I did link to one example yesterday Freshdirect grocery store in NYC. I can probably find more if that is not enough proof that apps are selling real world goods.
I don't see Apple drawing any line. All I see is them ALLOWING in app purchases. Not requiring them. Until now.
Your original statement isn't what you're saying now. Your test was for usefulness of the free app without having to buy something to make it so. You keep moving the goalposts further away.
Nothing whatsoever has changed in what I'm saying. Perhaps your understanding of it has changed, but the goalposts remain firmly in the same place they originally occupied.
However, I have no idea what you are trying to say in this sentence: "Your test was for usefulness of the free app without having to buy something to make it so."
My argument is that the App Store is built on a revenue sharing model. For truly free apps, there is no revenue, therefore, nothing to share. For "free" shell apps downloading free content, there is also no revenue, therefore, nothing to share. For "free" shell apps, like eBook readers, downloading paid content, there is revenue, and that revenue ought to be part of the revenue sharing model, not "hidden" through some means that allows the app publisher to profit from it but not fairly shoulder the cost burden of the App Store.
As they shouldn't but nevertheless, they do not permit in-app sales of real world goods, however, it appears that many apps do exactly that and Apple has not enforced the rule equally across the board.
Apple is only interested in making sure that apps (and enhancements to those apps) go through their AppStore.
App developers wanted a method for charging extra to extend those apps, whether it be additional features or additional content rather than making the user constantly download newer or different versions for new features or content (which would eventually have to go through the AppStore anyway). That is what In-App-Purchasing was created for.
As an example, if you'll remember when the AppStore first opened, there were tons of "points" apps for certain games. Which you bought, downloaded and launched to activate those "points" within the game. That was a cumbersome work-around for developers to charge users for additional features.
If you're selling something through an app that in no way adds to that app, then there's no problem. I can't open up the Amazon app, buy a toaster, and have that toaster in anyway affect the app on my iOS device. It adds nothing to the app, no new content, no new feature.
If Amazon sold those books as individual apps through the AppStore, Apple would get their cut. Seems like a silly notion, except go look at the AppStore and all books available as a stand alone app.
I don't know about Store Kit specifically, only Apple's document about in-app sales which says not to sell real world goods. I did link to one example yesterday Freshdirect grocery store in NYC. I can probably find more if that is not enough proof that apps are selling real world goods.
They don't use Store Kit, and "real world goods" are specifically excluded -- prohibited, in fact -- from the App Store's revenue sharing model so there's nothing that I'm aware of that's wrong with what Fresh Direct's app does.
Again, does the purchase of groceries enhance the functionality (as opposed to the utility) of the App? No. Does the purchase of an eBook enhance the functionality of a reader app? Yes.
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.
Hear! Hear! The best deal is where each party feels they have gained the advantage -- the best negotiator is the one that can frame and consummate that kind of deal
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.
I think that that Apple trait is a kind of Steve Jobs paranoia -- Take advantage of me once... twice... thrice...
Edit:
You and I., being right > 90% of the time, are aware of the difficulty that others have to tell/convince us that we are wrong on any given issue...
... now, how do you like my fine new suit of clothes?