Publishers do, in fact, afford more than 30% when they sell through B&M locations and they can probably afford 30% in digital distribution. The issue here is not the publisher but other retailers selling in the App Store - they cannot afford to hand their full cut to Apple.
You seem to have a hazy crystal ball. First, you say Amazon will pull out and then you go on to state the more likely option: Apple charges a reduced cut for certain types of products. But you knew that and just chose to sensationalize the issue instead.
I am generally dealing with people here who think this is a good thing. The 30%, I mean. I am arguing that Amazon will pull out at that cost.
You are being more level headed. However I just found out, as I posted, that The Daily has a 30% charge.
So Apple should distribute the content for free? Let's examine that shockingly ignorant statement for a moment: newspaper and magazine vendors get a cut of the cover price for stocking the item and selling it through their store. Apple get similar - where's the difference?
Frankly, the inability of people to apply a little critical thinking is depressing. I am also amazed when someone pontificates about what presently amounts to vapourware (Honeycomb/Xoom) and then claims that a paper specification is somehow an indication of a better product. Let's wait until we can put the iPad and Xoom side by side and we'll soon see which is the better product.
Apple is not distributing anything in in-App purchasing. Read the manual.
Money Quote
You may choose one of the following ways to deliver digital item to users:
•\tProvide the content within your app binary and enable it when the user makes a
purchase.
•\tDownload the content from your servers for use by your app when the user makes a
I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.
Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.
Apple needs to tread on this carefully as they could boycot the iPad and have a pretty nasty ad campaign against Apple for their restrictive app policy. In general, I agree with their app policy, but this is one case where I think they have gone too far and are on the verge of making the publishing world very angry with them.
Simple solution: Charge for the digital media and give customer the option to receive from hard copy. Apple's 30% cut is less the nailing costs for a lo of magazines. I have a number of $10 subscriptions (special offers). No way they can mail these $3 per year.
Also the mailing/delivery costs of a daily like WSJ is probably less than the 30% Apple cut.
The money is made off the adverts not the subscription costs.
Is Amazon offering free digital subscription to hard copy subscribers of anything.
Google might as long as it gets to serve up ads within the publication rather than the publisher.
As a shareholder, i want Apple to squeeze as much revenue as possible.
At a meeting this morning with out of town consultants - 4 iPads 3 non-descript laptaps.
One was using a stylus to take notes. Others were typing/accessing corporate site.
I think all this hullabaloo is just the magazine people "not getting it" again. I have a lot of aging aunts, uncles & grandparents who are just happily using their iPad without any need to have the nephews and nieces on call for tech support. It's wonderful.
But I do notice they totally get hung up when it comes to purchasing newspapers and magazines. Then the questions start, and of course each separate magazine/newspaper needs a different set of logins/passwords etc. and now we're dealing with credit cards and a whole lot of other sticky personal issues. Not to mention the awkward waits for downloading wireless content, especially when "sync and go" is "standard operating procedure".
So I have to side on Apple on this one. One of the things that really makes the iPad work is the consistent USER EXPERIENCE of downloading and managing your media through iTunes. As long as Apple is just enforcing the OPTION/CHOICE to use iTunes for purchases and downloads I applaud them. That very nice user experience is a big part of what makes the iPad and Apple successful.
So while I personally am willing to do out-of-app purchases to save money on Amazon, there are a lot of people who are are more than willing to pay the extra money for the "easier" service of using iTunes. I don't see anyone losing in this scenario, it's a pure capitalist system working beautifully.
yeah, God forbid that Sony offer you content on your own machine.
Please shut up, and stop being purposely dense and shrill. And stop the FUD.
Sony is welcome to offer content on my machine, and anywhere else they choose. If they offer it on my iPad or iPhone or iPod Touch via the App Store -- and if I choose to download it that way instead of going somewhere else to do so -- Apple's rules are that they must pay [insert whatever]%.
All that Apple is saying is that Sony must offer that option. Because it's the equivalent of someone putting up a display on my storefront for a product they are selling, and then saying, "go next door to buy it." That's just not cool.
All the venting on both sides is ridiculous. It's surprising very few of the commenters here really understand what this is about. Quoting a couple bright people below.
Yes, Apple wants to be compensated for setting things up and facilitating the virtually frictionless ecosystem that the app store has become. We can all argue about an appropriate rate for that privilege, but there is something else you guys seem to be missing. APPLE IS STICKING TO THEIR GUNS AND NOT ALLOWING PUBLISHERS TO FORCIBLY EXTRACT APPLE'S CUSTOMERS' PERSONAL INFORMATION.
The publishers have been pressing to get that data for a long time, and Apple (thankfully) is not allowing them to require users to give up that info. Good for them.
if some of you (cough *asdasd*) were even half rational you would take note that Apple is NOT, REPEAT NOT requiring publishers to take down their out-of-app store. They are only requiring that there is a way to also purchase in-iTunes. Why? In addition to the scenarios quoted below, consider this situation:
Publisher wants customer demographics and personal information (because it's valuable). Apple says "no" (good for them, that's my data to divulge or not). Publisher is clever and figures out that they can give away a minimal "reader app" on the iTunes store, taking advantage of the full iTunes/iPhone/iTouch ecosystem -- but the app has no content. To get the content, the customer must sign up directly with the publisher, giving them exactly what they wanted in the first place, higher margins and personal data.
Not only does this destroy the simplicity of a single account, it potentially forces users to give up their personal information to every single publisher of merit that wants to sell their content on iOS devices. I think this has as much to do with Apple's policy as lost revenue. If lost revenue were the only concern, they could push for only in-app purchasing, rather than allowing both.
Think carefully about this before replying with some knee-jerk response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted
This sums up why, for many, people would rather pay through iTunes rather than than handing their credit card information to each individual publisher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeysbistro
I have a lot of aging aunts, uncles & grandparents who are just happily using their iPad without any need to have the nephews and nieces on call for tech support. It's wonderful.
But I do notice they totally get hung up when it comes to purchasing newspapers and magazines. Then the questions start, and of course each separate magazine/newspaper needs a different set of logins/passwords etc. and now we're dealing with credit cards and a whole lot of other sticky personal issues. Not to mention the awkward waits for downloading wireless content, when the "sync and go" method has become a "standard operating procedure".
So I have to side on Apple on this one. One of the things that really makes the iPad work is the consistent USER EXPERIENCE of downloading and managing your media through iTunes. As long as Apple is just enforcing the OPTION/CHOICE to use iTunes for purchases and downloads I applaud them. That very nice user experience is a big part of what makes the iPad and Apple successful.
So while I personally am willing to do out-of-app purchases to save money on Amazon, there are a lot of people who are are more than willing to pay the extra money for the "easier" service of using iTunes. I don't see anyone losing in this scenario, it's a pure capitalist system working beautifully.
Luckily with honeycomb getting rave reviews from today's preview there is going to be another viable option very soon.
Why is it that as android is getting better and better, apple is getting more and more draconian?
If you watch any of the reviewers using the device, Honeycomb is a long way from ready to go, unless the Motorola hardware is just that terrible, I could go either way. It looks a little more responsive than the tab though, so that is good
In what way is Android getting better? Fragmentation increases by the day. Google should have sued Samsung for releasing the Galaxy with 2.2. Fortunately it will not get anywhere in the market, but it is a very bad sign for the state of Androidland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Seriously, any developer developing for iOS publishing, hoping to use their own mechanism has now stopped and will turn to Android.
And rightly and understandably so.
No they won't.. There is no (as in none) marketplace for Apps of any kind on Android. Until the disaster that is Android as an App platform is straightened out, no one is leaving iOS. The Sony story has been blown way out of proportion and this is just more of the same.
All the venting on both sides is ridiculous. It's surprising very few of the commenters here really understand what this is about. Quoting a couple bright people below.
Yes, Apple wants to be compensated for setting things up and facilitating the virtually frictionless ecosystem that the app store has become. We can all argue about an appropriate rate for that privilege, but there is something else you guys seem to be missing. APPLE IS STICKING TO THEIR GUNS AND NOT ALLOWING PUBLISHERS TO FORCIBLY EXTRACT APPLE'S CUSTOMERS' PERSONAL INFORMATION.
The publishers have been pressing to get that data for a long time, and Apple (thankfully) is not allowing them to require users to give up that info. Good for them.
if some of you (cough *asdasd*) were even half rational you would take note that Apple is NOT, REPEAT NOT requiring publishers to take down their out-of-app store. They are only requiring that there is a way to also purchase in-iTunes. Why? In addition to the scenarios quoted below, consider this situation:
Publisher wants customer demographics and personal information (because it's valuable). Apple says "no" (good for them, that's my data to divulge or not). Publisher is clever and figures out that they can give away a minimal "reader app" on the iTunes store, taking advantage of the full iTunes/iPhone/iTouch ecosystem -- but the app has no content. To get the content, the customer must sign up directly with the publisher, giving them exactly what they wanted in the first place, higher margins and personal data.
Not only does this destroy the simplicity of a single account, it potentially forces users to give up their personal information to every single publisher of merit that wants to sell their content on iOS devices. I think this has as much to do with Apple's policy as lost revenue. If lost revenue were the only concern, they could push for only in-app purchasing, rather than allowing both.
Think carefully about this before replying with some knee-jerk response.
Most of your post is condescending blather, and brings up a complete side issue.
Consumers are not stupid. They are not forced to do anything. If they choose to buy a book via Sony's website (because it is not available via the App Store), they are willingly giving up their personal data. If they don't wish to divulge their personal data, they won't buy it that way, and it simply means that neither Sony nor Apple will get that dollar. Apple does not need to big brother them into protecting them from themselves.
It is simply an option that Apple wants to necessarily offer to its customers within its ecosystem, and for the benefit that they are providing Sony for using their storefront to gain visibility, they are requiring Sony to pay a fee. (I agree with you that we can argue about what the appropriate fee should be -- maybe it's 15% or it's 30% or it's 45%, but we really have no way to judge).
Someone needs to take Apple to task about this, as it's simply theft and a blatant abuse of a near monopoly. Why the heck should apple get 30% from someone else's content? When you go and fill up your car with fuel the service station doesn't have to pay Toyota a penny.
Frankly it's absurd and Apple have stepped way, way over the line here. This is the type of behaviour which can turn consumers very quickly indeed, and from looking at the reports and videos of Honeycomb, that Xoom tablet is looking very nice indeed.
So you think that they dont pay to distributors, and newsstands and stores sell magazines and papers for free. Think again.
Even if they're not technically forced, many consumers feel constantly pushed and badgered to go in directions they would prefer not to go. Keeping purchases simple and with one single account/merchant/store is desirable to many. Otherwise, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see an ugly situation manifesting itself over time. Don't think of yourself, but think of the non-techy or older generation (that's why I quoted mikeysbistro above). Hell, I don't consider myself part of that generation, but I guarantee that if publishers all fracture off behind their own paywalls, I will not be buying anything from any of them. Ever.
About the personal data aspect. I'm surprised you're poo-pooing it. This has been a huge, huge blocking issue between Apple and the publishers. From what I understand behind the scenes, it's perhaps been the biggest thing holding up negotiations for some time. Allowing publishers to force users to go behind separate paywalls is really against what Apple has been standing up for. It's not just that, but the sum of several pieces. Lost revenue, added consumer complexity, pushing to get personal data, it all adds up to a situation that I'm not surprised Apple will try to contain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
If they choose to buy a book via Sony's website (because it is not available via the App Store), they are willingly giving up their personal data. If they don't wish to divulge their personal data, they won't buy it that way, and it simply means that neither Sony nor Apple will get that dollar. Apple does not need to big brother them into protecting them from themselves.
It's not that simple, although I think part of it may actually be helping to protect other adjacent industries from shooting themselves in the foot. But it's also harming Apple and the ecosystem at large. Look at how Apple stood fast against the music publishers' demands. It was for the consumer benefit, and as such, it was ultimately beneficial to the publishers as well. They just didn't know it at the time.
Keeping things clean and simple is far more powerful than most people think.
A subscriber can't purchase digital content through a paper publication, because there would be no way of verifying that customer if they don't actually have an iTunes account. What's the paper going to do, give out coupons?
No, you get a password -- Hey, that's kind of like an iTunes account password. Huh. -- which is valid so long as you're paying for your subscription. I would be quite irritated at Apple if reading my local paper's reportage in whichever form I choose on a given day requires not just a call to the paper, but a second, online payment just so that Apple can get a cut of my newspaper subscription. That will register to users as simply greedy (because it is), not fair. Apparently, content providers may just have to create tablet-specific Web site designs and bypass the app process entirely.
They don't get 30% as some kind of "tribute," they get 30% because that's pretty much the cost of them hosting your app on their servers and them paying all the credit card fees, etc. etc.
This is where irresponsible "blog" journalism falls down. Fools read stupid comments in Engadget stories (or anywhere else), about Apple "taking their cut," and they just believe it.
How hard is this to understand? If you sell something in someones else's brick and mortar store you get the benefit of them managing the money, counting the sales, dealing with the credit card people etc. and save yourself the cost of renting your own store, paying for the heat and lights, etc. etc. It's only fair that the store should get paid for these things, and it's the same everywhere, no matter whether it's a virtual store or a regular old-fashioned one.
Business has operated this way since forever, why do all these fools think it's something new that only Apple is doing?
30% IS THE SAME COST OF DOING BUSINESS THAT ALMOST EVERY OTHER ORGANISATION WOULD TAKE FROM YOU.
So, hosting the few MB of Kindle app costs 30% of ALL books sold?
Comments
The "new rules" only insist on an in-app option if your app already has an out-of-app option. You make it sound like the latter option is removed.
What is unknown yet is whether the latter option is removed or not.
The fact that this is unknown is itself an example of Apple's arrogance. Most peple dont know. The App Store testers are not responding.
The cost for using Apple's credit card facilities is 30%. Can an app
1) have two buttons with differential pricing. With Apple in-app being higher.
2) have two buttons with the same pricing ( one to launch the external website).
3) Have one button with Apple's tax added. The user can find his own way to the website.
1) Makes no sense for Apple.
2) Is bad UI, and people would use the one which stayed in the App.
3) Will make the iPad uneconomic for most publishers.
Publishers do, in fact, afford more than 30% when they sell through B&M locations and they can probably afford 30% in digital distribution. The issue here is not the publisher but other retailers selling in the App Store - they cannot afford to hand their full cut to Apple.
You seem to have a hazy crystal ball. First, you say Amazon will pull out and then you go on to state the more likely option: Apple charges a reduced cut for certain types of products. But you knew that and just chose to sensationalize the issue instead.
I am generally dealing with people here who think this is a good thing. The 30%, I mean. I am arguing that Amazon will pull out at that cost.
You are being more level headed. However I just found out, as I posted, that The Daily has a 30% charge.
while your hitchhiking on the road, don't expect me to stop and pick you up and also give you a free ride.
yeah, God forbid that Sony offer you content on your own machine.
So Apple should distribute the content for free? Let's examine that shockingly ignorant statement for a moment: newspaper and magazine vendors get a cut of the cover price for stocking the item and selling it through their store. Apple get similar - where's the difference?
Frankly, the inability of people to apply a little critical thinking is depressing. I am also amazed when someone pontificates about what presently amounts to vapourware (Honeycomb/Xoom) and then claims that a paper specification is somehow an indication of a better product. Let's wait until we can put the iPad and Xoom side by side and we'll soon see which is the better product.
Apple is not distributing anything in in-App purchasing. Read the manual.
Money Quote
You may choose one of the following ways to deliver digital item to users:
•\tProvide the content within your app binary and enable it when the user makes a
purchase.
•\tDownload the content from your servers for use by your app when the user makes a
purchase.
I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.
Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.
Apple needs to tread on this carefully as they could boycot the iPad and have a pretty nasty ad campaign against Apple for their restrictive app policy. In general, I agree with their app policy, but this is one case where I think they have gone too far and are on the verge of making the publishing world very angry with them.
Simple solution: Charge for the digital media and give customer the option to receive from hard copy. Apple's 30% cut is less the nailing costs for a lo of magazines. I have a number of $10 subscriptions (special offers). No way they can mail these $3 per year.
Also the mailing/delivery costs of a daily like WSJ is probably less than the 30% Apple cut.
The money is made off the adverts not the subscription costs.
Is Amazon offering free digital subscription to hard copy subscribers of anything.
Google might as long as it gets to serve up ads within the publication rather than the publisher.
As a shareholder, i want Apple to squeeze as much revenue as possible.
At a meeting this morning with out of town consultants - 4 iPads 3 non-descript laptaps.
One was using a stylus to take notes. Others were typing/accessing corporate site.
But I do notice they totally get hung up when it comes to purchasing newspapers and magazines. Then the questions start, and of course each separate magazine/newspaper needs a different set of logins/passwords etc. and now we're dealing with credit cards and a whole lot of other sticky personal issues. Not to mention the awkward waits for downloading wireless content, especially when "sync and go" is "standard operating procedure".
So I have to side on Apple on this one. One of the things that really makes the iPad work is the consistent USER EXPERIENCE of downloading and managing your media through iTunes. As long as Apple is just enforcing the OPTION/CHOICE to use iTunes for purchases and downloads I applaud them. That very nice user experience is a big part of what makes the iPad and Apple successful.
So while I personally am willing to do out-of-app purchases to save money on Amazon, there are a lot of people who are are more than willing to pay the extra money for the "easier" service of using iTunes. I don't see anyone losing in this scenario, it's a pure capitalist system working beautifully.
yeah, God forbid that Sony offer you content on your own machine.
Please shut up, and stop being purposely dense and shrill. And stop the FUD.
Sony is welcome to offer content on my machine, and anywhere else they choose. If they offer it on my iPad or iPhone or iPod Touch via the App Store -- and if I choose to download it that way instead of going somewhere else to do so -- Apple's rules are that they must pay [insert whatever]%.
All that Apple is saying is that Sony must offer that option. Because it's the equivalent of someone putting up a display on my storefront for a product they are selling, and then saying, "go next door to buy it." That's just not cool.
Yes, Apple wants to be compensated for setting things up and facilitating the virtually frictionless ecosystem that the app store has become. We can all argue about an appropriate rate for that privilege, but there is something else you guys seem to be missing. APPLE IS STICKING TO THEIR GUNS AND NOT ALLOWING PUBLISHERS TO FORCIBLY EXTRACT APPLE'S CUSTOMERS' PERSONAL INFORMATION.
The publishers have been pressing to get that data for a long time, and Apple (thankfully) is not allowing them to require users to give up that info. Good for them.
if some of you (cough *asdasd*) were even half rational you would take note that Apple is NOT, REPEAT NOT requiring publishers to take down their out-of-app store. They are only requiring that there is a way to also purchase in-iTunes. Why? In addition to the scenarios quoted below, consider this situation:
Publisher wants customer demographics and personal information (because it's valuable). Apple says "no" (good for them, that's my data to divulge or not). Publisher is clever and figures out that they can give away a minimal "reader app" on the iTunes store, taking advantage of the full iTunes/iPhone/iTouch ecosystem -- but the app has no content. To get the content, the customer must sign up directly with the publisher, giving them exactly what they wanted in the first place, higher margins and personal data.
Not only does this destroy the simplicity of a single account, it potentially forces users to give up their personal information to every single publisher of merit that wants to sell their content on iOS devices. I think this has as much to do with Apple's policy as lost revenue. If lost revenue were the only concern, they could push for only in-app purchasing, rather than allowing both.
Think carefully about this before replying with some knee-jerk response.
This sums up why, for many, people would rather pay through iTunes rather than than handing their credit card information to each individual publisher.
I have a lot of aging aunts, uncles & grandparents who are just happily using their iPad without any need to have the nephews and nieces on call for tech support. It's wonderful.
But I do notice they totally get hung up when it comes to purchasing newspapers and magazines. Then the questions start, and of course each separate magazine/newspaper needs a different set of logins/passwords etc. and now we're dealing with credit cards and a whole lot of other sticky personal issues. Not to mention the awkward waits for downloading wireless content, when the "sync and go" method has become a "standard operating procedure".
So I have to side on Apple on this one. One of the things that really makes the iPad work is the consistent USER EXPERIENCE of downloading and managing your media through iTunes. As long as Apple is just enforcing the OPTION/CHOICE to use iTunes for purchases and downloads I applaud them. That very nice user experience is a big part of what makes the iPad and Apple successful.
So while I personally am willing to do out-of-app purchases to save money on Amazon, there are a lot of people who are are more than willing to pay the extra money for the "easier" service of using iTunes. I don't see anyone losing in this scenario, it's a pure capitalist system working beautifully.
Luckily with honeycomb getting rave reviews from today's preview there is going to be another viable option very soon.
Why is it that as android is getting better and better, apple is getting more and more draconian?
If you watch any of the reviewers using the device, Honeycomb is a long way from ready to go, unless the Motorola hardware is just that terrible, I could go either way. It looks a little more responsive than the tab though, so that is good
In what way is Android getting better? Fragmentation increases by the day. Google should have sued Samsung for releasing the Galaxy with 2.2. Fortunately it will not get anywhere in the market, but it is a very bad sign for the state of Androidland.
Seriously, any developer developing for iOS publishing, hoping to use their own mechanism has now stopped and will turn to Android.
And rightly and understandably so.
No they won't.. There is no (as in none) marketplace for Apps of any kind on Android. Until the disaster that is Android as an App platform is straightened out, no one is leaving iOS. The Sony story has been blown way out of proportion and this is just more of the same.
BTW: who the hell is ben and who do we care if you've had him for 25 yrs.?
Maybe his real name is Willard.
All the venting on both sides is ridiculous. It's surprising very few of the commenters here really understand what this is about. Quoting a couple bright people below.
Yes, Apple wants to be compensated for setting things up and facilitating the virtually frictionless ecosystem that the app store has become. We can all argue about an appropriate rate for that privilege, but there is something else you guys seem to be missing. APPLE IS STICKING TO THEIR GUNS AND NOT ALLOWING PUBLISHERS TO FORCIBLY EXTRACT APPLE'S CUSTOMERS' PERSONAL INFORMATION.
The publishers have been pressing to get that data for a long time, and Apple (thankfully) is not allowing them to require users to give up that info. Good for them.
if some of you (cough *asdasd*) were even half rational you would take note that Apple is NOT, REPEAT NOT requiring publishers to take down their out-of-app store. They are only requiring that there is a way to also purchase in-iTunes. Why? In addition to the scenarios quoted below, consider this situation:
Publisher wants customer demographics and personal information (because it's valuable). Apple says "no" (good for them, that's my data to divulge or not). Publisher is clever and figures out that they can give away a minimal "reader app" on the iTunes store, taking advantage of the full iTunes/iPhone/iTouch ecosystem -- but the app has no content. To get the content, the customer must sign up directly with the publisher, giving them exactly what they wanted in the first place, higher margins and personal data.
Not only does this destroy the simplicity of a single account, it potentially forces users to give up their personal information to every single publisher of merit that wants to sell their content on iOS devices. I think this has as much to do with Apple's policy as lost revenue. If lost revenue were the only concern, they could push for only in-app purchasing, rather than allowing both.
Think carefully about this before replying with some knee-jerk response.
Most of your post is condescending blather, and brings up a complete side issue.
Consumers are not stupid. They are not forced to do anything. If they choose to buy a book via Sony's website (because it is not available via the App Store), they are willingly giving up their personal data. If they don't wish to divulge their personal data, they won't buy it that way, and it simply means that neither Sony nor Apple will get that dollar. Apple does not need to big brother them into protecting them from themselves.
It is simply an option that Apple wants to necessarily offer to its customers within its ecosystem, and for the benefit that they are providing Sony for using their storefront to gain visibility, they are requiring Sony to pay a fee. (I agree with you that we can argue about what the appropriate fee should be -- maybe it's 15% or it's 30% or it's 45%, but we really have no way to judge).
I am generally dealing with people here who think this is a good thing. The 30%, I mean. I am arguing that Amazon will pull out at that cost.
You are being more level headed. However I just found out, as I posted, that The Daily has a 30% charge.
Can you provide a citation to this 30% charge? I have not seen it published anywhere yet.
What is unknown yet is whether the latter option is removed or not.
The fact that this is unknown is itself an example of Apple's arrogance. Most peple dont know. The App Store testers are not responding.
Apple has been very explicit that they will allow out-of-app payments as long as there is also an in-app option.
The cost for using Apple's credit card facilities is 30%. Can an app
1) have two buttons with differential pricing. With Apple in-app being higher.
2) have two buttons with the same pricing ( one to launch the external website).
3) Have one button with Apple's tax added. The user can find his own way to the website.
1) Makes no sense for Apple.
2) Is bad UI, and people would use the one which stayed in the App.
3) Will make the iPad uneconomic for most publishers.
Until I see the 30% corroborated, I am unable to comment on these various options.
Someone needs to take Apple to task about this, as it's simply theft and a blatant abuse of a near monopoly. Why the heck should apple get 30% from someone else's content? When you go and fill up your car with fuel the service station doesn't have to pay Toyota a penny.
Frankly it's absurd and Apple have stepped way, way over the line here. This is the type of behaviour which can turn consumers very quickly indeed, and from looking at the reports and videos of Honeycomb, that Xoom tablet is looking very nice indeed.
So you think that they dont pay to distributors, and newsstands and stores sell magazines and papers for free. Think again.
And why does the rate have to be fixed at 30% for such services?
Who says it's 30%?
Consumers are not stupid.
This one we'll have to just disagree on.
They are not forced to do anything.
Even if they're not technically forced, many consumers feel constantly pushed and badgered to go in directions they would prefer not to go. Keeping purchases simple and with one single account/merchant/store is desirable to many. Otherwise, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see an ugly situation manifesting itself over time. Don't think of yourself, but think of the non-techy or older generation (that's why I quoted mikeysbistro above). Hell, I don't consider myself part of that generation, but I guarantee that if publishers all fracture off behind their own paywalls, I will not be buying anything from any of them. Ever.
About the personal data aspect. I'm surprised you're poo-pooing it. This has been a huge, huge blocking issue between Apple and the publishers. From what I understand behind the scenes, it's perhaps been the biggest thing holding up negotiations for some time. Allowing publishers to force users to go behind separate paywalls is really against what Apple has been standing up for. It's not just that, but the sum of several pieces. Lost revenue, added consumer complexity, pushing to get personal data, it all adds up to a situation that I'm not surprised Apple will try to contain.
If they choose to buy a book via Sony's website (because it is not available via the App Store), they are willingly giving up their personal data. If they don't wish to divulge their personal data, they won't buy it that way, and it simply means that neither Sony nor Apple will get that dollar. Apple does not need to big brother them into protecting them from themselves.
It's not that simple, although I think part of it may actually be helping to protect other adjacent industries from shooting themselves in the foot. But it's also harming Apple and the ecosystem at large. Look at how Apple stood fast against the music publishers' demands. It was for the consumer benefit, and as such, it was ultimately beneficial to the publishers as well. They just didn't know it at the time.
Keeping things clean and simple is far more powerful than most people think.
A subscriber can't purchase digital content through a paper publication, because there would be no way of verifying that customer if they don't actually have an iTunes account. What's the paper going to do, give out coupons?
No, you get a password -- Hey, that's kind of like an iTunes account password. Huh. -- which is valid so long as you're paying for your subscription. I would be quite irritated at Apple if reading my local paper's reportage in whichever form I choose on a given day requires not just a call to the paper, but a second, online payment just so that Apple can get a cut of my newspaper subscription. That will register to users as simply greedy (because it is), not fair. Apparently, content providers may just have to create tablet-specific Web site designs and bypass the app process entirely.
They don't get 30% as some kind of "tribute," they get 30% because that's pretty much the cost of them hosting your app on their servers and them paying all the credit card fees, etc. etc.
This is where irresponsible "blog" journalism falls down. Fools read stupid comments in Engadget stories (or anywhere else), about Apple "taking their cut," and they just believe it.
How hard is this to understand? If you sell something in someones else's brick and mortar store you get the benefit of them managing the money, counting the sales, dealing with the credit card people etc. and save yourself the cost of renting your own store, paying for the heat and lights, etc. etc. It's only fair that the store should get paid for these things, and it's the same everywhere, no matter whether it's a virtual store or a regular old-fashioned one.
Business has operated this way since forever, why do all these fools think it's something new that only Apple is doing?
30% IS THE SAME COST OF DOING BUSINESS THAT ALMOST EVERY OTHER ORGANISATION WOULD TAKE FROM YOU.
So, hosting the few MB of Kindle app costs 30% of ALL books sold?
And do you call others irresponsible?
All that Apple is saying is that Sony must offer that option.
So, big change.