The problem with this argument is the premise that the only value-added provided by apple is the payment processing. The value-added provided by apple is their 100 million+ users. Through the App store, you get access to a vast market that in most cases you didn't have access to before.
If you're like Amazon and already do have access to that market, then you can continue to sell to your users through your own store, so long as you don't undercut the price in the Apple store. I suspect that Amazon might go along with this, because it probably is more convenient for many of their customers to purchase Kindle books through Amazon rather than through in-app purchases (since Kindle books can be used across a variety of devices that someone might own). But for companies that do not already have access to this market, Apple is providing them with that access, and that's valuable.
And I am sick of getting 10k mailings to subscribe or resubscribe. If I choose to do it via iTunes and the new publication is coming from apple why shouldn't they keep 30%? Its more content that comes through apples channel and cant be given away, hosted, payment processed for free!
It doesnt come through Apple's channels. I am banging my head against the wall, here.
Quote:
Otherwise whats to stop someone from putting up a free app and then charging for subscription and not giving apple a dime and getting apple to host and market it.
What would be wrong with that. Its the way iTunes works on Windows.
Quote:
And when you said apple isn't doing anything, thats wrong. They are hosting, marketing (being in the app store is marketing, believe it or not, and processing payment. All that does cost.
They are hosting nothing but the original app - the e-books and other content are not hosted. The cost of the processing payment is 1-2% normally.
Quote:
And yes I do want to get my subscriptions all from iTunes and not have to worry about going to external sites and sharing my data with more companies. I would pay more for it. If they dont like it then they can not be on iTunes and I simply wont have their publication.
Well they wont be on "iTunes" ( or the App store) because no business model can survive this.
When you buy a book from Amazon the book is hosted on Amazon servers. When you buy a book through in app App Store, Apple only processes the payment, the book is also hosted on Amazon. Apple ONLY processes the payment, they don't host the content, they don't distribute the content, they only take the 30% cut.
So processing payment is not worth 30% but hosting plus payment processing is?!
You guys don't understand the whole concept here. Apple and Amazon are not charging 30% for services they provided. They are getting a cut for the exposure they offer. For publishers the work is already done (digital publications) and unlike prints it will not cost them a cent more if they sell it to more people. It is well worth the 30% if they can get another source of distribution.
A newspaper cost you the same everywhere (newsstand, vending machine.. etc) even though the cost associated with each distribution channel is different.
It's refreshing to see that Apple will continue to offer a way to authorize subscriptions purchased outside the iOS ecosystem. I would hate to see prices on sports subscriptions (such as MLB.TV) be raised to compensate for the 30% fees.
Its hardly semantics. Amazon ( or Sony) have the books on their server, they have bought the content rights, they can handle the credit card transaction themselves.
Apple, supplying none of this, is getting in the middle. By forcing the same price ( or better, lol) in the in App purchase the user is going to use the in-app purchase to renew.
BTW Apple could allow that button to be an link to the credit card transactions from Amazon, they already banned that with 11.2, this is new, it means the only button on your app is going to take 30% of your total price, meaning to need to have 43% margins. Nobody really has that.
Your reply makes no sense. Throughout the history of commerce, there have always been middlemen. Apple is no different. They provide the opportunity for you to buy, they get a cut. You don't want to use them, then to go the website. It's as simple as that.
I guess I'm a bit tainted as a shareholder. Anytime I see Apple doing well to make a profit, I'm good, and if they have the market power to outgun Amazon, Sony or whoever, well, then more power to them. They've earned it.
You're wrong if you believe that Apple should be adhering to some sort of social propriety of yours. What? They should make business easy for Amazon or Sony? Because why? No shrewd business would ever do that. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand business.
They're in this business to make money. Get over it.
So processing payment is not worth 30% but hosting plus payment processing is?!
You guys don't understand the whole concept here. Apple and Amazon are not charging 30% for services they provided. They are getting a cut for the exposure they offer. For publishers the work is already done (digital publications) and unlike prints it will not cost them a cent more if they sell it to more people. It is well worth the 30% if they can get another source of distribution.
A newspaper cost you the same everywhere (newsstand, vending machine.. etc) even though the cost associated with each distribution channel is different.
Agreed.
But I look at it as a three-fold service: Hosting, Users and Marketing in a Global uniform Store gives you equal footing against all your competitors. That's well worth the 30%.
So, the price has to be the same or lower through the App Store.
Yes, very fair, a 30% cut for prividing only the payment method.
Ups, I forgot this:
You can't click on Kindle app to go to Amazon and purchase the book, the only way is through in app.
Update: Oops. NasserAE said it much more eloquently than me already.
Developers are not just paying 30% for processing the payment. They are paying for access to millions of users they would not be able to reach any other way. 3 or 4 years ago this market never existed an it was the innovation that Apple brought that allows them to male money this way at all. There us always the other more traditional ways to reach these users if they can - print their magazine or book and sell it at BN or Amazon, self publish from their website or use some other online distribution or sell via android, blackberry or windows mobile app stores. The competition is getting a headstart from Apple here - does Kindle allow you to access Apple's bookstore at all? How about Nook? Can I buy DS or Sony games for iPhone at all?
This will kill Kindle, Skype, Audible, a bunch of other premium services that we bought our iPads and iPhones for.
Any online service that sells services outside the AppStore must now allow iOS users to buy those services inside the app and thus be subject to a 30% fee. If this is enforced as stated in the article, it could have huge consequences for the content available on the iTunes store.
I just want to know what this means for the Kindle App.
I think that this means they can give users access to their existing Kindle subscriptions for free, but need to offer the same subscriptions in-app. I think this also means that books purchased on the Web or on other devices are available for free, but Apple takes 30% of books purchased on iOS.
It seems to me that the idea is okay but 30% is way too much. At the least this should go down with volume to something approaching a credit card fee, since high volume apps are bringing lots of value added to the Apple devices. At something close to a credit card fee Apple could take a cut of *all* purchases of merchandise, which is probably worth more than a too-large cut of just media anyways.
I disagree. 30% for nothing more than processing the payment and passing the data? If the person purchased within the app, the iTunes UI/browser wasn't used. Apple didn't perform any marketing to get the attention of the subscriber since they purchased it in, not via the iTunes UI.
I was hoping an iPad could replace the stack of magazines on my table, but I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon. Since Apple won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site, all subscription prices are going to be pushed higher due to Apple's policies. Online subscriptions, if available at all, will probably cost more than the print copy mailed to my door.
I think you are looking at it only from one angle here though. For instance it would all work out fine with *lower* prices for consumers if the magazines split up their business and put *all* the digital content through the app store and only did the paper subscriptions themselves as they have always done. Arguably, this is what Apple is pushing them to do.
I also don't see how Apple could do it any other way. To do it your way (or let's call it the way the magazine publishers want), Apple would be providing a premium experience of reading digital subscriptions on iOS, yet allow all the publishers to undercut them on the web. It's not a viable business model to spend all the money on hosting and infrastructure, and then let the publishers sell subscriptions for cheap without paying Apple anything at all. For that to work, the publishers would have to give Apple a slice of it's physical subscription money as well.
Another aspect is that Apple, through the iTunes store, has it's own customer base and it's one of the best on the planet. To do it the publishers way, they would get the advantages of marketing to this new, exclusive group of folks (many who have never subscribed to a paper magazine and are therefore absolute "gold" as subscribers), yet pay Apple essentially nothing.
I don't believe that any of this will put pressure on prices either because if the publishers are smart it would only put pressure on paper subscription prices, and those are already so high it's pretty ridiculous. Overall, I would expect that it will work just like software in that the pressure on prices would be downward, and would be made up for by a huge increase in volume.
But I look at it as a three-fold service: Hosting, Users and Marketing in a Global uniform Store gives you equal footing against all your competitors. That's well worth the 30%.
Not to forget that Apple is also in the advertisement business now. Right now Amazon and others are only paying Apple $99/year and giving away their apps for free. Right now these apps are working like ads forwarding people to the developer website for purchases. It is like a free advertisement for them.
It is like Amazon placing a book dispensing machine inside B&N stores without paying B&N rent or royalties.
so major credit cards charge 1.5 - 2.7% for a transaction fee, processing all of the data.
...Apple has decided that they want 30%, AND won't allow publishers to offer a lower price anywhere outside of their store? ridiculous
i should be able to subscribe to a publishers content through the convenience of the app store for a slight upcharge, and still be able to get that subscription directly from the publisher for slightly less.
Major credit cards don't provide the visibility - which is marketing. Real big difference here. There is nothing stopping you from providing content that Kindle (or for another eReader) can read and selling it on your web site. I think Apple's bottom line is if you want to advertise it through an App (especially one that you give away for free - and generates no direct revenue for Apple) then it is fair to pay a toll. The other way you could approach this is with an iAd for advertising on the device itself or some other print or digital media outlet if you really want to avoid paying Apple all together . If you think 30% is a lot wait till you see how much it is going to cost by marketing your goods in one of these alternative ways!
Update: Oops. NasserAE said it much more eloquently than me already.
Developers are not just paying 30% for processing the payment. They are paying for access to millions of users they would not be able to reach any other way. 3 or 4 years ago this market never existed an it was the innovation that Apple brought that allows them to male money this way at all. There us always the other more traditional ways to reach these users if they can - print their magazine or book and sell it at BN or Amazon, self publish from their website or use some other online distribution or sell via android, blackberry or windows mobile app stores. The competition is getting a headstart from Apple here - does Kindle allow you to access Apple's bookstore at all? How about Nook? Can I buy DS or Sony games for iPhone at all?
The problem is most people have no idea what it takes to run a business, all of the costs behind just starting a business is high. They are also neglecting the fact a publisher is using a product to publish their magazine. Apple spent money to design and produce that product and is spending money to maintain and upgrade that product as well. As well as many other points that have been made by other posters here the biggest one being the user base apple can provide. The point being that business is complex and involves many variables and one cannot just look at a single factor and make an informed judgment.
Its hardly semantics. Amazon ( or Sony) have the books on their server, they have bought the content rights, they can handle the credit card transaction themselves.
Apple, supplying none of this, is getting in the middle. By forcing the same price ( or better, lol) in the in App purchase the user is going to use the in-app purchase to renew.
BTW Apple could allow that button to be an link to the credit card transactions from Amazon, they already banned that with 11.2, this is new, it means the only button on your app is going to take 30% of your total price, meaning to need to have 43% margins. Nobody really has that.
They aren't "forcing" their way between the customer and the content supplier. They didn't 'force' everyone to buy their products. Nor do they 'force' content suppliers to offer stuff on the app store, and then offer stuff in-app. A content provider could choose not to create an app in the first place. They could easily just create an html5 app. Or provide content over the internet, that could then be synced to ibooks. If it's like you say than we'll see companies do this because 1)they have to and 2)because they wouldn't have to pay 30%. However, if we see companies NOT doing this, then we can agree that companies are doing it because it's the most profitable course of action. (atleast over time)
I really don't get people posting today. People have cried and cried for a subscription service from Apple and the second it comes out you hate on it.
Did you really think Apple was going to release a subscription service without their usual 30%??? I really don't get what you thought exactly.
The only question left on the table was how are they going to handle the users personal info. And even that was pretty much answered with how The Daily handled it.
This is Apples model, you should expect it by now. Get over it.
I'm really concerned about how they'll handle my Audible account. I'm just glad this change happened before iPad 2 came out because I was planning to buy one. Now I'll wait to see what transpires here first. It looks like I'll be keeping my Android phone for awhile longer too. I was waiting for Apple to unshackle themselves from AT&T, but I really don't like these policies.
Apple is not providing a service to most of these publishers. Apple did not "find" me for them, Audible did. Amazon (Kindle) did. Popular Mechanics did. What service is Apple providing these people that justifies a 30% cut? I sincerely hope that Audible and Amazon cut ties with Apple over this. I'll keep my seamless experience on non-Apple devices, and if I do choose to get an iPad/iPhone, I'll just have to use iTunes to sync them and lose the great Audible App experience over the mediocre iPod player (mediocre for audiobook listening, that is). Hopefully Apple is mere weeks away from unveiling wireless iTunes syncing because that will somewhat blunt the effects of this decision, though it still won't be as seamless as the current Audible app is.
Not to forget that Apple is also in the advertisement business now. Right now Amazon and others are only paying Apple $99/year and giving away their apps for free. Right now these apps are working like ads forwarding people to the developer website for purchases. It is like a free advertisement for them.
It is like Amazon placing a book dispensing machine inside B&N stores without paying B&N rent or royalties.
I agree 100%. (Was writing a similar post apparently at the same time as yours).
Your reply makes no sense. Throughout the history of commerce, there have always been middlemen. Apple is no different. They provide the opportunity for you to buy, they get a cut. You don't want to use them, then to go the website. It's as simple as that.
I guess I'm a bit tainted as a shareholder. Anytime I see Apple doing well to make a profit, I'm good, and if they have the market power to outgun Amazon, Sony or whoever, well, then more power to them. They've earned it.
You're wrong if you believe that Apple should be adhering to some sort of social propriety of yours. What? They should make business easy for Amazon or Sony? Because why? No shrewd business would ever do that. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand business.
They're in this business to make money. Get over it.
As a shareholder you should be more concerned with hardware . Apple isn't a middleman which provides any value to the apps on the iPad. Now, of course, the cult is going to respond with the claim that the iPad - it's very existence - is a platform, a store. If so, why cant windows charge for all iTunes transactions?
Believe it or not Amazon not only do their own hosting, they could, if allowed do their own IAP. Apple is demanding rent for being on the iPad. It's also a monopolistic ploy, no way would they even contemplate this were they at 5% of the tablet market.
Comments
The problem with this argument is the premise that the only value-added provided by apple is the payment processing. The value-added provided by apple is their 100 million+ users. Through the App store, you get access to a vast market that in most cases you didn't have access to before.
If you're like Amazon and already do have access to that market, then you can continue to sell to your users through your own store, so long as you don't undercut the price in the Apple store. I suspect that Amazon might go along with this, because it probably is more convenient for many of their customers to purchase Kindle books through Amazon rather than through in-app purchases (since Kindle books can be used across a variety of devices that someone might own). But for companies that do not already have access to this market, Apple is providing them with that access, and that's valuable.
Exactly.
So, the price has to be the same or lower through the App Store.
Yes, very fair, a 30% cut for prividing only the payment method.
Ups, I forgot this:
You can't click on Kindle app to go to Amazon and purchase the book, the only way is through in app.
But you can go to Amazon in your browser, buy your book and download it on the iDevice of your choice or all of them.
What is that? Like 30 seconds more?
And I am sick of getting 10k mailings to subscribe or resubscribe. If I choose to do it via iTunes and the new publication is coming from apple why shouldn't they keep 30%? Its more content that comes through apples channel and cant be given away, hosted, payment processed for free!
It doesnt come through Apple's channels. I am banging my head against the wall, here.
Otherwise whats to stop someone from putting up a free app and then charging for subscription and not giving apple a dime and getting apple to host and market it.
What would be wrong with that. Its the way iTunes works on Windows.
And when you said apple isn't doing anything, thats wrong. They are hosting, marketing (being in the app store is marketing, believe it or not, and processing payment. All that does cost.
They are hosting nothing but the original app - the e-books and other content are not hosted. The cost of the processing payment is 1-2% normally.
And yes I do want to get my subscriptions all from iTunes and not have to worry about going to external sites and sharing my data with more companies. I would pay more for it. If they dont like it then they can not be on iTunes and I simply wont have their publication.
Well they wont be on "iTunes" ( or the App store) because no business model can survive this.
When you buy a book from Amazon the book is hosted on Amazon servers. When you buy a book through in app App Store, Apple only processes the payment, the book is also hosted on Amazon. Apple ONLY processes the payment, they don't host the content, they don't distribute the content, they only take the 30% cut.
So processing payment is not worth 30% but hosting plus payment processing is?!
You guys don't understand the whole concept here. Apple and Amazon are not charging 30% for services they provided. They are getting a cut for the exposure they offer. For publishers the work is already done (digital publications) and unlike prints it will not cost them a cent more if they sell it to more people. It is well worth the 30% if they can get another source of distribution.
A newspaper cost you the same everywhere (newsstand, vending machine.. etc) even though the cost associated with each distribution channel is different.
Its hardly semantics. Amazon ( or Sony) have the books on their server, they have bought the content rights, they can handle the credit card transaction themselves.
Apple, supplying none of this, is getting in the middle. By forcing the same price ( or better, lol) in the in App purchase the user is going to use the in-app purchase to renew.
BTW Apple could allow that button to be an link to the credit card transactions from Amazon, they already banned that with 11.2, this is new, it means the only button on your app is going to take 30% of your total price, meaning to need to have 43% margins. Nobody really has that.
Your reply makes no sense. Throughout the history of commerce, there have always been middlemen. Apple is no different. They provide the opportunity for you to buy, they get a cut. You don't want to use them, then to go the website. It's as simple as that.
I guess I'm a bit tainted as a shareholder. Anytime I see Apple doing well to make a profit, I'm good, and if they have the market power to outgun Amazon, Sony or whoever, well, then more power to them. They've earned it.
You're wrong if you believe that Apple should be adhering to some sort of social propriety of yours. What? They should make business easy for Amazon or Sony? Because why? No shrewd business would ever do that. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand business.
They're in this business to make money. Get over it.
So processing payment is not worth 30% but hosting plus payment processing is?!
You guys don't understand the whole concept here. Apple and Amazon are not charging 30% for services they provided. They are getting a cut for the exposure they offer. For publishers the work is already done (digital publications) and unlike prints it will not cost them a cent more if they sell it to more people. It is well worth the 30% if they can get another source of distribution.
A newspaper cost you the same everywhere (newsstand, vending machine.. etc) even though the cost associated with each distribution channel is different.
Agreed.
But I look at it as a three-fold service: Hosting, Users and Marketing in a Global uniform Store gives you equal footing against all your competitors. That's well worth the 30%.
So, the price has to be the same or lower through the App Store.
Yes, very fair, a 30% cut for prividing only the payment method.
Ups, I forgot this:
You can't click on Kindle app to go to Amazon and purchase the book, the only way is through in app.
Update: Oops. NasserAE said it much more eloquently than me already.
Developers are not just paying 30% for processing the payment. They are paying for access to millions of users they would not be able to reach any other way. 3 or 4 years ago this market never existed an it was the innovation that Apple brought that allows them to male money this way at all. There us always the other more traditional ways to reach these users if they can - print their magazine or book and sell it at BN or Amazon, self publish from their website or use some other online distribution or sell via android, blackberry or windows mobile app stores. The competition is getting a headstart from Apple here - does Kindle allow you to access Apple's bookstore at all? How about Nook? Can I buy DS or Sony games for iPhone at all?
It seems very fair.
Are you out of your mind. Should Microsoft charge any app 30% for making money on Windows???
This will kill Kindle, Skype, Audible, a bunch of other premium services that we bought our iPads and iPhones for.
Any online service that sells services outside the AppStore must now allow iOS users to buy those services inside the app and thus be subject to a 30% fee. If this is enforced as stated in the article, it could have huge consequences for the content available on the iTunes store.
I just want to know what this means for the Kindle App.
I think that this means they can give users access to their existing Kindle subscriptions for free, but need to offer the same subscriptions in-app. I think this also means that books purchased on the Web or on other devices are available for free, but Apple takes 30% of books purchased on iOS.
It seems to me that the idea is okay but 30% is way too much. At the least this should go down with volume to something approaching a credit card fee, since high volume apps are bringing lots of value added to the Apple devices. At something close to a credit card fee Apple could take a cut of *all* purchases of merchandise, which is probably worth more than a too-large cut of just media anyways.
I disagree. 30% for nothing more than processing the payment and passing the data? If the person purchased within the app, the iTunes UI/browser wasn't used. Apple didn't perform any marketing to get the attention of the subscriber since they purchased it in, not via the iTunes UI.
I was hoping an iPad could replace the stack of magazines on my table, but I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon. Since Apple won't let the publisher charge less on their own web site, all subscription prices are going to be pushed higher due to Apple's policies. Online subscriptions, if available at all, will probably cost more than the print copy mailed to my door.
I think you are looking at it only from one angle here though. For instance it would all work out fine with *lower* prices for consumers if the magazines split up their business and put *all* the digital content through the app store and only did the paper subscriptions themselves as they have always done. Arguably, this is what Apple is pushing them to do.
I also don't see how Apple could do it any other way. To do it your way (or let's call it the way the magazine publishers want), Apple would be providing a premium experience of reading digital subscriptions on iOS, yet allow all the publishers to undercut them on the web. It's not a viable business model to spend all the money on hosting and infrastructure, and then let the publishers sell subscriptions for cheap without paying Apple anything at all. For that to work, the publishers would have to give Apple a slice of it's physical subscription money as well.
Another aspect is that Apple, through the iTunes store, has it's own customer base and it's one of the best on the planet. To do it the publishers way, they would get the advantages of marketing to this new, exclusive group of folks (many who have never subscribed to a paper magazine and are therefore absolute "gold" as subscribers), yet pay Apple essentially nothing.
I don't believe that any of this will put pressure on prices either because if the publishers are smart it would only put pressure on paper subscription prices, and those are already so high it's pretty ridiculous. Overall, I would expect that it will work just like software in that the pressure on prices would be downward, and would be made up for by a huge increase in volume.
Agreed.
But I look at it as a three-fold service: Hosting, Users and Marketing in a Global uniform Store gives you equal footing against all your competitors. That's well worth the 30%.
Not to forget that Apple is also in the advertisement business now. Right now Amazon and others are only paying Apple $99/year and giving away their apps for free. Right now these apps are working like ads forwarding people to the developer website for purchases. It is like a free advertisement for them.
It is like Amazon placing a book dispensing machine inside B&N stores without paying B&N rent or royalties.
so major credit cards charge 1.5 - 2.7% for a transaction fee, processing all of the data.
...Apple has decided that they want 30%, AND won't allow publishers to offer a lower price anywhere outside of their store? ridiculous
i should be able to subscribe to a publishers content through the convenience of the app store for a slight upcharge, and still be able to get that subscription directly from the publisher for slightly less.
Major credit cards don't provide the visibility - which is marketing. Real big difference here. There is nothing stopping you from providing content that Kindle (or for another eReader) can read and selling it on your web site. I think Apple's bottom line is if you want to advertise it through an App (especially one that you give away for free - and generates no direct revenue for Apple) then it is fair to pay a toll. The other way you could approach this is with an iAd for advertising on the device itself or some other print or digital media outlet if you really want to avoid paying Apple all together
Update: Oops. NasserAE said it much more eloquently than me already.
Developers are not just paying 30% for processing the payment. They are paying for access to millions of users they would not be able to reach any other way. 3 or 4 years ago this market never existed an it was the innovation that Apple brought that allows them to male money this way at all. There us always the other more traditional ways to reach these users if they can - print their magazine or book and sell it at BN or Amazon, self publish from their website or use some other online distribution or sell via android, blackberry or windows mobile app stores. The competition is getting a headstart from Apple here - does Kindle allow you to access Apple's bookstore at all? How about Nook? Can I buy DS or Sony games for iPhone at all?
The problem is most people have no idea what it takes to run a business, all of the costs behind just starting a business is high. They are also neglecting the fact a publisher is using a product to publish their magazine. Apple spent money to design and produce that product and is spending money to maintain and upgrade that product as well. As well as many other points that have been made by other posters here the biggest one being the user base apple can provide. The point being that business is complex and involves many variables and one cannot just look at a single factor and make an informed judgment.
Its hardly semantics. Amazon ( or Sony) have the books on their server, they have bought the content rights, they can handle the credit card transaction themselves.
Apple, supplying none of this, is getting in the middle. By forcing the same price ( or better, lol) in the in App purchase the user is going to use the in-app purchase to renew.
BTW Apple could allow that button to be an link to the credit card transactions from Amazon, they already banned that with 11.2, this is new, it means the only button on your app is going to take 30% of your total price, meaning to need to have 43% margins. Nobody really has that.
They aren't "forcing" their way between the customer and the content supplier. They didn't 'force' everyone to buy their products. Nor do they 'force' content suppliers to offer stuff on the app store, and then offer stuff in-app. A content provider could choose not to create an app in the first place. They could easily just create an html5 app. Or provide content over the internet, that could then be synced to ibooks. If it's like you say than we'll see companies do this because 1)they have to and 2)because they wouldn't have to pay 30%. However, if we see companies NOT doing this, then we can agree that companies are doing it because it's the most profitable course of action. (atleast over time)
Did you really think Apple was going to release a subscription service without their usual 30%??? I really don't get what you thought exactly.
The only question left on the table was how are they going to handle the users personal info. And even that was pretty much answered with how The Daily handled it.
This is Apples model, you should expect it by now. Get over it.
And Audible content.
I'm really concerned about how they'll handle my Audible account. I'm just glad this change happened before iPad 2 came out because I was planning to buy one. Now I'll wait to see what transpires here first. It looks like I'll be keeping my Android phone for awhile longer too. I was waiting for Apple to unshackle themselves from AT&T, but I really don't like these policies.
Apple is not providing a service to most of these publishers. Apple did not "find" me for them, Audible did. Amazon (Kindle) did. Popular Mechanics did. What service is Apple providing these people that justifies a 30% cut? I sincerely hope that Audible and Amazon cut ties with Apple over this. I'll keep my seamless experience on non-Apple devices, and if I do choose to get an iPad/iPhone, I'll just have to use iTunes to sync them and lose the great Audible App experience over the mediocre iPod player (mediocre for audiobook listening, that is). Hopefully Apple is mere weeks away from unveiling wireless iTunes syncing because that will somewhat blunt the effects of this decision, though it still won't be as seamless as the current Audible app is.
Not to forget that Apple is also in the advertisement business now. Right now Amazon and others are only paying Apple $99/year and giving away their apps for free. Right now these apps are working like ads forwarding people to the developer website for purchases. It is like a free advertisement for them.
It is like Amazon placing a book dispensing machine inside B&N stores without paying B&N rent or royalties.
I agree 100%. (Was writing a similar post apparently at the same time as yours).
Well said.
Your reply makes no sense. Throughout the history of commerce, there have always been middlemen. Apple is no different. They provide the opportunity for you to buy, they get a cut. You don't want to use them, then to go the website. It's as simple as that.
I guess I'm a bit tainted as a shareholder. Anytime I see Apple doing well to make a profit, I'm good, and if they have the market power to outgun Amazon, Sony or whoever, well, then more power to them. They've earned it.
You're wrong if you believe that Apple should be adhering to some sort of social propriety of yours. What? They should make business easy for Amazon or Sony? Because why? No shrewd business would ever do that. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand business.
They're in this business to make money. Get over it.
As a shareholder you should be more concerned with hardware . Apple isn't a middleman which provides any value to the apps on the iPad. Now, of course, the cult is going to respond with the claim that the iPad - it's very existence - is a platform, a store. If so, why cant windows charge for all iTunes transactions?
Believe it or not Amazon not only do their own hosting, they could, if allowed do their own IAP. Apple is demanding rent for being on the iPad. It's also a monopolistic ploy, no way would they even contemplate this were they at 5% of the tablet market.