Additional revenue might compensate, I just think it's a lot higher than what some of the other posters here are assuming. ATM I think Netflix is pouring too much money into getting new distribution rights to take the hit, so it will be interesting to see if they keep their app active.
I don't think people should sue. Honestly, I'd just like the big companies (primarily amazon) to just pull their app, or make it so it can only view free content. If enough of them do it, hopefully Apple will rethink this policy. And thank you for not just calling me a Fandroid and writing me off because of that. It seems to be the default response here whenever someone questions Cupertino.
The problem with pulling content is you anger the fanbase. If netflix pulls content from ios, i'm less likely to resubscribe than if it was never on ios because i could have had it. Will the companies be able to pull out is the question. Also, the distribution rights increase each year in response to growing interest. I.E. if netflix has more content, more people will be liable to subscribe, causing them to buy more content and so on. I know these are recurring yearly, but netflix estimates how many more subscribers they will have next year. So, correct, if they think more people will subscribe to netflix (even via ios) they will increase content costs. However, in proportion, i'd propose that once since they already have most rights (for past stuff) they will be able to make those costs less in proportion to their subscription income.
The problem with pulling content is you anger the fanbase. If netflix pulls content from ios, i'm less likely to resubscribe than if it was never on ios because i could have had it. Will the companies be able to pull out is the question. Also, the distribution rights increase each year in response to growing interest. I.E. if netflix has more content, more people will be liable to subscribe, causing them to buy more content and so on. I know these are recurring yearly, but netflix estimates how many more subscribers they will have next year. So, correct, if they think more people will subscribe to netflix (even via ios) they will increase content costs. However, in proportion, i'd propose that once since they already have most rights (for past stuff) they will be able to make those costs less in proportion to their subscription income.
But Netflix has at least the hope of getting it's money back through additional subscriptions.
My "companies pull out" comment was directed largely at companies that aren't solely subscription bases, like the Kindle store. In order for them to stay in the iOS marketplace, they would need to increase the cost of books on EVERY platform just so they can make money on iOS because of how Apple set up the pricing rules. But that will just make iBooks more popular, which lessens the reason for Amazon to keep Kindle on iOS.
Yes, the promise of "buy once, read anywhere" is important to them, but the more revenue iOS generates, the more money it will cost them.
Remember, the 30% number wasn't plucked out of the air to suck away profits. 30% is the "rule of thumb" marketing and distribution cost for traditional developers and production costs for content creators....and that's the rub.
Amazon and Sony, at least on the surface, are not content creators (CC's) --they're distributors in the context of books and periodicals. Time, The Economist, The Daily, etc., these are content creators and (by rule of thumb) don't lose by being on IOS. I don't know why the Sony app was rejected --unless it was trying to sell periodicals in-app like Amazon had announced they were going to do with Kindle app.
It sounds to me as though this stops Amazon and Sony from undermining Apple's hopes for deals with CC's.
Exactly, Apple's trying to get paid as a distributor, even when they're not (kindle, netflix, etc)
But Netflix has at least the hope of getting it's money back through additional subscriptions.
My "companies pull out" comment was directed largely at companies that aren't solely subscription bases, like the Kindle store. In order for them to stay in the iOS marketplace, they would need to increase the cost of books on EVERY platform just so they can make money on iOS because of how Apple set up the pricing rules. But that will just make iBooks more popular, which lessens the reason for Amazon to keep Kindle on iOS.
Yes, the promise of "buy once, read anywhere" is important to them, but the more revenue iOS generates, the more money it will cost them.
There was a quote earlier about how Amazon only allows a 30-70 split in cases where the price is between 2 and 10 dollars, and their price cant be more than 80% of the physical book price, and two other things. Otherwise, they have a 70-30 split the other direction. Assuming this is true, though amazon would be hurt by reduced margins, on most books they would likely still make money. Once again, not commenting at all on apple's right to collect this.
I'll be interested in where this thread goes overnight
There was a quote earlier about how Amazon only allows a 30-70 split in cases where the price is between 2 and 10 dollars, and their price cant be more than 80% of the physical book price, and two other things. Otherwise, they have a 70-30 split the other direction. Assuming this is true, though amazon would be hurt by reduced margins, on most books they would likely still make money. Once again, not commenting at all on apple's right to collect this.
I'll be interested in where this thread goes overnight
adios
The 70/30 does have stipulations, but if you look at the "Best seller" lists for kindle, most of the apps fall in that range. the split doesn't change to quite 30/70 after that, but it is higher. The problem is that most sales don't have that higher split and publishers are increasingly forcing slimmer margins onto amazon (which I am ok with as long as the author sees a boon). So while a Majority of books might not qualify for that split, a good chunk of the books sold on kindle will.
And again, You're talking theoretical. Look at Netflix's numbers (I've even linked them several times in this thread) they don't have the money to give. 30% would take ALL of their revenue and then some.
The more people who sign up through iOS devices, the larger the chunk of revenue (% wise) netflix will owe apple.
And Netflix can negotiate something with Apple since they have an aTV app that Apple probably wants to keep.
So Apple pays them X which is about what they have to pay Apple for the few folks that actually subscribe via their phone (not bleeding likely) or their iPad (which gets less traffic than the aTV).
The 70/30 does have stipulations, but if you look at the "Best seller" lists for kindle, most of the apps fall in that range. the split doesn't change to quite 30/70 after that, but it is higher. The problem is that most sales don't have that higher split and publishers are increasingly forcing slimmer margins onto amazon (which I am ok with as long as the author sees a boon). So while a Majority of books might not qualify for that split, a good chunk of the books sold on kindle will.
The 70-to-Amazon thing was before booksellers started forcing (with Apple's help, which at the time I thought was a good thing) the "agency model" into the ebook business. Amazon and publishers had a big stand off over this, which Amazon lost. Now publishers have full leeway to set the retail price. Amazon uses variances in the cut it takes to entice them to lower prices (which we, as consumers, should applaud, and also note that Apple hasn't done bupkis to encourage), but at this point, the vast majority of Amazon ebook sales are books that are agency model driven, in the price window that results in a 30% to Amazon, 70% to the publisher cut.
Not that Apple taking 30% of the transaction, that they had nothing to do with and incurred no costs for other than processing the credit card charge, would be reasonable even if Amazon was receiving the 70%.
The 70/30 does have stipulations, but if you look at the "Best seller" lists for kindle, most of the apps fall in that range. the split doesn't change to quite 30/70 after that, but it is higher. The problem is that most sales don't have that higher split and publishers are increasingly forcing slimmer margins onto amazon (which I am ok with as long as the author sees a boon). So while a Majority of books might not qualify for that split, a good chunk of the books sold on kindle will.
Amazon uses best sellers as a loss leader...the publishers really hated that.
Not that Apple taking 30% of the transaction, that they had nothing to do with and incurred no costs for other than processing the credit card charge, would be reasonable even if Amazon was receiving the 70%.
If a large percentage of Kindle books are read on the iPad then Apple certainly incurred costs in developing the ecosystem to promote someone else's bookstore.
It's kinda like building a nice outdoor theater with a restaurant and tables so your customers can eat food while watching a movie. Then having some other restaurant sell food to your customers in competition with your restaurant because their own theater isn't as nice.
Sure, you're still selling movie tickets but you'd sure like to sell some food too.
You might tolerate this a while but eventually you want that other restaurant to stop selling food to your customers and improve their own damn theater or cough up some cash to use yours.
If a large percentage of Kindle books are read on the iPad then Apple certainly incurred costs in developing the ecosystem to promote someone else's bookstore.
It's kinda like building a nice outdoor theater with a restaurant and tables so your customers can eat food while watching a movie. Then having some other restaurant sell food to your customers in competition with your restaurant because their own theater isn't as nice.
Sure, you're still selling movie tickets but you'd sure like to sell some food too.
You might tolerate this a while but eventually you want that other restaurant to stop selling food to your customers and improve their own damn theater or cough up some cash to use yours.
They sold a device not an ecosystem. This is like buying a table from a furniture store and the furniture store charging 30% to every grocery store and food producer for a cut of the revenue on the food you consume at it becuse they managed to create a system where you can't buy food from the grocery store unless you buy it through the furniture store.
You may be thinking "what's the big deal? As a consumer, I don't pay any more for food and it's the grocery store's problem. If they want my business they should be grateful and pay the furniture store for making this great table to get that business." But one day you look up and your choices of food products is a lot less becuse grocery stores can't afford to keep paying the furniture store and the furniture store has decided to not only dictate the prices for the food sold to customers of their tables but to food sold anyone by the grocery store. So to eat what you want you are forced to sneak food on your table when the furniture store is not looking or just change your tastes to only like eating what is sold by grocery stores that are willing to pay the 30%.
That's an interesting migration from the 1st sentence to the last sentence.
But the answer is yes because right now it looks like the only grocery store that this is going to seriously impact is the one that is trying to corner the market on food.
The iPad it is an active and appears to be a necessary part of the ebook reading experience. So it's more than a passive table and a lot more like the delivery service that delivers the food from the grocer. That delivery service was built by the Apple grocer. If you want food from the Amazon grocer then you shouldn't expect the iPad delivery service to bring it to you but expect to use the Kindle delivery service.
They sold a device not an ecosystem. This is like buying a table from a furniture store and the furniture store charging 30% to every grocery store and food producer for a cut of the revenue on the food you consume at it becuse they managed to create a system where you can't buy food from the grocery store unless you buy it through the furniture store.
You may be thinking "what's the big deal? As a consumer, I don't pay any more for food and it's the grocery store's problem. If they want my business they should be grateful and pay the furniture store for making this great table to get that business." But one day you look up and your choices of food products is a lot less becuse grocery stores can't afford to keep paying the furniture store and the furniture store has decided to not only dictate the prices for the food sold to customers of their tables but to food sold anyone by the grocery store. So to eat what you want you are forced to sneak food on your table when the furniture store is not looking or just change your tastes to only like eating what is sold by grocery stores that are willing to pay the 30%.
Is that an ecosystem you want to live with?
Or like Sony charging to watch a movie on their tv because it's the most popular and best-est tv. Hmmm Samsung is good enough for me and they don't charge a fee. ( just anology). Watch it Apple, don't get too greedy. Unfortunately I can understand why Apple is doing this, there's only so far you can take these platforms before they are just commodities(all basically the same), thus all the content plays.
That's an interesting migration from the 1st sentence to the last sentence.
But the answer is yes because right now it looks like the only grocery store that this is going to seriously impact is the one that is trying to corner the market on food.
The iPad it is an active and appears to be a necessary part of the ebook reading experience. So it's more than a passive table and a lot more like the delivery service that delivers the food from the grocer. That delivery service was built by the Apple grocer. If you want food from the Amazon grocer then you shouldn't expect the iPad delivery service to bring it to you but expect to use the Kindle delivery service.
Apple did not build the delivery service. ALL delivery costs but the credit card payment are still handled by Amazon. Amazon would STILL offer that if they were allowed to.
What apple is doing here is akin to renting a property to a store owner and then demanding a cut of EVERY sale that store owner makes.
Yes, Apple developed a consumption platform and they're offering a way to accept payments, and YES they should be compensated in some way for this. But they SHOULD NOT make 30% of everything the store processes as this is oftentimes equal to or higher than the TOTAL Gross profit those sales generate.
The ipad is a device with multiple delivery options. It is NOT a delivery service. Apple is not hosting the books on their server, they are not paying publishers ANY royalties. They're not handling the DRM or the cost investment of developing an application to read the book on. ALL of that is being handled by amazon.
The ONLY thing they are providing is the device (which the consumer ALL READY PAID FOR) and processing the customers payment (2.8% charge, round it to 5%).
Maybe my question is asked and asnwered...I don't know and I am too lazy to read six pages of posts to find out.
I pay $10 a month for Netflix service via the Netflix website. If I am reading Apple's new policy correctly, Netflix may offer the same subsciption through the Netflix app. The price cannot be more than what customers pay outside the app, and Apple takes a 30% cut. Netflix gets $7 and Apple gets $3. What is Netflix's incentive to offer their service in an app and take 30% less?
Maybe my question is asked and asnwered...I don't know and I am too lazy to read six pages of posts to find out.
I pay $10 a month for Netflix service via the Netflix website. If I am reading Apple's new policy correctly, Netflix may offer the same subsciption through the Netflix app. The price cannot be more than what customers pay outside the app, and Apple takes a 30% cut. Netflix gets $7 and Apple gets $3. What is Netflix's incentive to offer their service in an app and take 30% less?
Netflix' incentive is access to a hundred plus million customers willing to spend money?
It's very true. The iphone was a very successful product when it was launched in 2007 but it became even more successful after the launch of the app store. Everyone seems to think that Apple just opened up this exposure to untold millions of devices for app developers to make millions off of. The inverse is more the case. The app store and all those free fart apps and cheesy games at first helped sell millions of phones. First it was 10K apps then 50K apps the 100K, 200K, 300K etc.. The app store is being touted as a feature of the phone. It helps sell the phone experience.
A lot of people buy iPhones so they can use the "free" facebook app. The "free" skype app. The fractions of cents it cost apple to host those apps and fulfill those downloads netted them hundreds of dollars in iPhone profits per instance. These companies have spent millions (if not billions) building their names, images and reputations. The app store did not make Netflix successful or Make Hulu an over night success. These services were established and popular long before they had apps in the app store.
If you believe apple actively markets your apps and subscription services and that you have exposure to millions of potential customers try launching "john smith's no name steaming media app" in the app store and see if you make any money. Netflix on the other hand has name recognition (that they earned) and its availability on the iPad lends value to the iPad. It becomes a selling feature of the iPad and in some cases a reason why people buy the device at all.
If you see a mass exodus of high profile apps I don't believe there are enough free fart apps, flash lights and occasional angry bird successes to make the phone a viable platform. Once the word gets out and people start making comments like "I'm not buying an iPhone because I can't read my kindle books on it or I won't buy it becuse they blocked hulu and netflix" sales will decline.
The other thing is nobody knows what the next killer app or service will be. An iPhone exclusion due to unfair revenue sharing may hurt Apple's bottom line- after all everybody keep saying if you don't like the terms nobody is forcing you to sell it in the app store." Jobs should be very aware that the number #1 thing that prevented the NeXT OS from becoming commercially viable despite its superiority in almost every area was the fact that MS refused to develop Office (at the time Word and Excel) for it.
I have nothing against apple charging for its services but 30% is abusive and will only lead to a revolt and will definitely tarnish an otherwise good experience for Apple, App and Content Publishers and Consumers.
I suspect at some point this issue ends up before a judge somewhere and some boundaries are drawn to make things a little more fair.
That's an interesting migration from the 1st sentence to the last sentence.
But the answer is yes because right now it looks like the only grocery store that this is going to seriously impact is the one that is trying to corner the market on food.
The iPad it is an active and appears to be a necessary part of the ebook reading experience. So it's more than a passive table and a lot more like the delivery service that delivers the food from the grocer. That delivery service was built by the Apple grocer. If you want food from the Amazon grocer then you shouldn't expect the iPad delivery service to bring it to you but expect to use the Kindle delivery service.
Apple is not acting as a delivery service in this case they are acting as a gatekeeper and assessing import duties to allow another company to deliver to a device you already paid for. Even if they were a delivery service, a delivery service does not charge a percentage of the cost of the good being shipped but rather a fixed fee based on units or weight. (insurance aside - which is not 30% either)
This is really just a 30% tax because apple could not get publishers to agree to be apart of an "iNewsStand" service that would allow apple to sell subscriptions through iTunes that could be consumed in iBooks or some other "iMagazine" app. Publishers wanted to build their own apps and manage their own subscriptions. Rather than carve out exceptions and make loopholes Apple just applied it to all in-app reoccurring charges and purchases. Sure this 30% is not something I have to pay directly but in the end just like all surcharges it will get passed on to the consumer in some form. Maybe in the form of one less issue a year, or less features in my iPad version of the publication. In some way that 30% will come out of my pocket.
In essence Apple has decided to sit outside of my house and dictate terms that affect what content will or won't be allowed inside to use on a device I purchased. People have said that if you don't like apple's terms don't buy their phone/pad but people seem to forget that the terms of use have evolved and drastically changed over the durration of my ownership of the phone. Very few of those changes have done much to enhance my user experience of the iphone or ipad though many have gone to great lengths to maintain apple's control of their revenue streams. In the end limiting my uses and enjoyment of the devices and in some cases increasing my cost of ownership.
Read the condition I posted at the top of the previous page. If Netflix offers any kind of purchasing or subscription to content, even if it's only through their website, they're also required to offer it through Apple's in-app purchasing method and at the same price.
Put it in perspective: Amazon pays $0.00 to distribute their apps to millions of iOS customers, because the apps are marked as "free" in the App Store, per Apple's rules, which was originally to avoid penalizing companies which didn't make money off their apps. That's Apple being fair. But Amazon does make money off their app, just not directly. Apple is basically saying, you guys are taking advantage of us, and we get it. So it stops now.
If I'm not mistaken, Amazon paid $99 to get their app in the store. So stop with this free app distribution BS. App distribution on iOS is not free.
Comments
Additional revenue might compensate, I just think it's a lot higher than what some of the other posters here are assuming. ATM I think Netflix is pouring too much money into getting new distribution rights to take the hit, so it will be interesting to see if they keep their app active.
I don't think people should sue. Honestly, I'd just like the big companies (primarily amazon) to just pull their app, or make it so it can only view free content. If enough of them do it, hopefully Apple will rethink this policy. And thank you for not just calling me a Fandroid and writing me off because of that. It seems to be the default response here whenever someone questions Cupertino.
The problem with pulling content is you anger the fanbase. If netflix pulls content from ios, i'm less likely to resubscribe than if it was never on ios because i could have had it. Will the companies be able to pull out is the question. Also, the distribution rights increase each year in response to growing interest. I.E. if netflix has more content, more people will be liable to subscribe, causing them to buy more content and so on. I know these are recurring yearly, but netflix estimates how many more subscribers they will have next year. So, correct, if they think more people will subscribe to netflix (even via ios) they will increase content costs. However, in proportion, i'd propose that once since they already have most rights (for past stuff) they will be able to make those costs less in proportion to their subscription income.
The problem with pulling content is you anger the fanbase. If netflix pulls content from ios, i'm less likely to resubscribe than if it was never on ios because i could have had it. Will the companies be able to pull out is the question. Also, the distribution rights increase each year in response to growing interest. I.E. if netflix has more content, more people will be liable to subscribe, causing them to buy more content and so on. I know these are recurring yearly, but netflix estimates how many more subscribers they will have next year. So, correct, if they think more people will subscribe to netflix (even via ios) they will increase content costs. However, in proportion, i'd propose that once since they already have most rights (for past stuff) they will be able to make those costs less in proportion to their subscription income.
But Netflix has at least the hope of getting it's money back through additional subscriptions.
My "companies pull out" comment was directed largely at companies that aren't solely subscription bases, like the Kindle store. In order for them to stay in the iOS marketplace, they would need to increase the cost of books on EVERY platform just so they can make money on iOS because of how Apple set up the pricing rules. But that will just make iBooks more popular, which lessens the reason for Amazon to keep Kindle on iOS.
Yes, the promise of "buy once, read anywhere" is important to them, but the more revenue iOS generates, the more money it will cost them.
Remember, the 30% number wasn't plucked out of the air to suck away profits. 30% is the "rule of thumb" marketing and distribution cost for traditional developers and production costs for content creators....and that's the rub.
Amazon and Sony, at least on the surface, are not content creators (CC's) --they're distributors in the context of books and periodicals. Time, The Economist, The Daily, etc., these are content creators and (by rule of thumb) don't lose by being on IOS. I don't know why the Sony app was rejected --unless it was trying to sell periodicals in-app like Amazon had announced they were going to do with Kindle app.
It sounds to me as though this stops Amazon and Sony from undermining Apple's hopes for deals with CC's.
Exactly, Apple's trying to get paid as a distributor, even when they're not (kindle, netflix, etc)
But Netflix has at least the hope of getting it's money back through additional subscriptions.
My "companies pull out" comment was directed largely at companies that aren't solely subscription bases, like the Kindle store. In order for them to stay in the iOS marketplace, they would need to increase the cost of books on EVERY platform just so they can make money on iOS because of how Apple set up the pricing rules. But that will just make iBooks more popular, which lessens the reason for Amazon to keep Kindle on iOS.
Yes, the promise of "buy once, read anywhere" is important to them, but the more revenue iOS generates, the more money it will cost them.
There was a quote earlier about how Amazon only allows a 30-70 split in cases where the price is between 2 and 10 dollars, and their price cant be more than 80% of the physical book price, and two other things. Otherwise, they have a 70-30 split the other direction. Assuming this is true, though amazon would be hurt by reduced margins, on most books they would likely still make money. Once again, not commenting at all on apple's right to collect this.
I'll be interested in where this thread goes overnight
adios
There was a quote earlier about how Amazon only allows a 30-70 split in cases where the price is between 2 and 10 dollars, and their price cant be more than 80% of the physical book price, and two other things. Otherwise, they have a 70-30 split the other direction. Assuming this is true, though amazon would be hurt by reduced margins, on most books they would likely still make money. Once again, not commenting at all on apple's right to collect this.
I'll be interested in where this thread goes overnight
adios
The 70/30 does have stipulations, but if you look at the "Best seller" lists for kindle, most of the apps fall in that range. the split doesn't change to quite 30/70 after that, but it is higher. The problem is that most sales don't have that higher split and publishers are increasingly forcing slimmer margins onto amazon (which I am ok with as long as the author sees a boon). So while a Majority of books might not qualify for that split, a good chunk of the books sold on kindle will.
And again, You're talking theoretical. Look at Netflix's numbers (I've even linked them several times in this thread) they don't have the money to give. 30% would take ALL of their revenue and then some.
The more people who sign up through iOS devices, the larger the chunk of revenue (% wise) netflix will owe apple.
And Netflix can negotiate something with Apple since they have an aTV app that Apple probably wants to keep.
So Apple pays them X which is about what they have to pay Apple for the few folks that actually subscribe via their phone (not bleeding likely) or their iPad (which gets less traffic than the aTV).
The 70/30 does have stipulations, but if you look at the "Best seller" lists for kindle, most of the apps fall in that range. the split doesn't change to quite 30/70 after that, but it is higher. The problem is that most sales don't have that higher split and publishers are increasingly forcing slimmer margins onto amazon (which I am ok with as long as the author sees a boon). So while a Majority of books might not qualify for that split, a good chunk of the books sold on kindle will.
The 70-to-Amazon thing was before booksellers started forcing (with Apple's help, which at the time I thought was a good thing) the "agency model" into the ebook business. Amazon and publishers had a big stand off over this, which Amazon lost. Now publishers have full leeway to set the retail price. Amazon uses variances in the cut it takes to entice them to lower prices (which we, as consumers, should applaud, and also note that Apple hasn't done bupkis to encourage), but at this point, the vast majority of Amazon ebook sales are books that are agency model driven, in the price window that results in a 30% to Amazon, 70% to the publisher cut.
Not that Apple taking 30% of the transaction, that they had nothing to do with and incurred no costs for other than processing the credit card charge, would be reasonable even if Amazon was receiving the 70%.
The 70/30 does have stipulations, but if you look at the "Best seller" lists for kindle, most of the apps fall in that range. the split doesn't change to quite 30/70 after that, but it is higher. The problem is that most sales don't have that higher split and publishers are increasingly forcing slimmer margins onto amazon (which I am ok with as long as the author sees a boon). So while a Majority of books might not qualify for that split, a good chunk of the books sold on kindle will.
Amazon uses best sellers as a loss leader...the publishers really hated that.
Not that Apple taking 30% of the transaction, that they had nothing to do with and incurred no costs for other than processing the credit card charge, would be reasonable even if Amazon was receiving the 70%.
If a large percentage of Kindle books are read on the iPad then Apple certainly incurred costs in developing the ecosystem to promote someone else's bookstore.
It's kinda like building a nice outdoor theater with a restaurant and tables so your customers can eat food while watching a movie. Then having some other restaurant sell food to your customers in competition with your restaurant because their own theater isn't as nice.
Sure, you're still selling movie tickets but you'd sure like to sell some food too.
You might tolerate this a while but eventually you want that other restaurant to stop selling food to your customers and improve their own damn theater or cough up some cash to use yours.
If a large percentage of Kindle books are read on the iPad then Apple certainly incurred costs in developing the ecosystem to promote someone else's bookstore.
It's kinda like building a nice outdoor theater with a restaurant and tables so your customers can eat food while watching a movie. Then having some other restaurant sell food to your customers in competition with your restaurant because their own theater isn't as nice.
Sure, you're still selling movie tickets but you'd sure like to sell some food too.
You might tolerate this a while but eventually you want that other restaurant to stop selling food to your customers and improve their own damn theater or cough up some cash to use yours.
They sold a device not an ecosystem. This is like buying a table from a furniture store and the furniture store charging 30% to every grocery store and food producer for a cut of the revenue on the food you consume at it becuse they managed to create a system where you can't buy food from the grocery store unless you buy it through the furniture store.
You may be thinking "what's the big deal? As a consumer, I don't pay any more for food and it's the grocery store's problem. If they want my business they should be grateful and pay the furniture store for making this great table to get that business." But one day you look up and your choices of food products is a lot less becuse grocery stores can't afford to keep paying the furniture store and the furniture store has decided to not only dictate the prices for the food sold to customers of their tables but to food sold anyone by the grocery store. So to eat what you want you are forced to sneak food on your table when the furniture store is not looking or just change your tastes to only like eating what is sold by grocery stores that are willing to pay the 30%.
Is that an ecosystem you want to live with?
They sold a device not an ecosystem.
<ecosystem discussion deleted>
Is that an ecosystem you want to live with?
That's an interesting migration from the 1st sentence to the last sentence.
But the answer is yes because right now it looks like the only grocery store that this is going to seriously impact is the one that is trying to corner the market on food.
The iPad it is an active and appears to be a necessary part of the ebook reading experience. So it's more than a passive table and a lot more like the delivery service that delivers the food from the grocer. That delivery service was built by the Apple grocer. If you want food from the Amazon grocer then you shouldn't expect the iPad delivery service to bring it to you but expect to use the Kindle delivery service.
They sold a device not an ecosystem. This is like buying a table from a furniture store and the furniture store charging 30% to every grocery store and food producer for a cut of the revenue on the food you consume at it becuse they managed to create a system where you can't buy food from the grocery store unless you buy it through the furniture store.
You may be thinking "what's the big deal? As a consumer, I don't pay any more for food and it's the grocery store's problem. If they want my business they should be grateful and pay the furniture store for making this great table to get that business." But one day you look up and your choices of food products is a lot less becuse grocery stores can't afford to keep paying the furniture store and the furniture store has decided to not only dictate the prices for the food sold to customers of their tables but to food sold anyone by the grocery store. So to eat what you want you are forced to sneak food on your table when the furniture store is not looking or just change your tastes to only like eating what is sold by grocery stores that are willing to pay the 30%.
Is that an ecosystem you want to live with?
Or like Sony charging to watch a movie on their tv because it's the most popular and best-est tv. Hmmm Samsung is good enough for me and they don't charge a fee. ( just anology). Watch it Apple, don't get too greedy. Unfortunately I can understand why Apple is doing this, there's only so far you can take these platforms before they are just commodities(all basically the same), thus all the content plays.
That's an interesting migration from the 1st sentence to the last sentence.
But the answer is yes because right now it looks like the only grocery store that this is going to seriously impact is the one that is trying to corner the market on food.
The iPad it is an active and appears to be a necessary part of the ebook reading experience. So it's more than a passive table and a lot more like the delivery service that delivers the food from the grocer. That delivery service was built by the Apple grocer. If you want food from the Amazon grocer then you shouldn't expect the iPad delivery service to bring it to you but expect to use the Kindle delivery service.
Apple did not build the delivery service. ALL delivery costs but the credit card payment are still handled by Amazon. Amazon would STILL offer that if they were allowed to.
What apple is doing here is akin to renting a property to a store owner and then demanding a cut of EVERY sale that store owner makes.
Yes, Apple developed a consumption platform and they're offering a way to accept payments, and YES they should be compensated in some way for this. But they SHOULD NOT make 30% of everything the store processes as this is oftentimes equal to or higher than the TOTAL Gross profit those sales generate.
The ipad is a device with multiple delivery options. It is NOT a delivery service. Apple is not hosting the books on their server, they are not paying publishers ANY royalties. They're not handling the DRM or the cost investment of developing an application to read the book on. ALL of that is being handled by amazon.
The ONLY thing they are providing is the device (which the consumer ALL READY PAID FOR) and processing the customers payment (2.8% charge, round it to 5%).
I pay $10 a month for Netflix service via the Netflix website. If I am reading Apple's new policy correctly, Netflix may offer the same subsciption through the Netflix app. The price cannot be more than what customers pay outside the app, and Apple takes a 30% cut. Netflix gets $7 and Apple gets $3. What is Netflix's incentive to offer their service in an app and take 30% less?
Maybe my question is asked and asnwered...I don't know and I am too lazy to read six pages of posts to find out.
I pay $10 a month for Netflix service via the Netflix website. If I am reading Apple's new policy correctly, Netflix may offer the same subsciption through the Netflix app. The price cannot be more than what customers pay outside the app, and Apple takes a 30% cut. Netflix gets $7 and Apple gets $3. What is Netflix's incentive to offer their service in an app and take 30% less?
Netflix' incentive is access to a hundred plus million customers willing to spend money?
Apple has backpedaled before.
I suspect they'll do it again.
Hubris eventually demonstrates its bounds.
It's very true. The iphone was a very successful product when it was launched in 2007 but it became even more successful after the launch of the app store. Everyone seems to think that Apple just opened up this exposure to untold millions of devices for app developers to make millions off of. The inverse is more the case. The app store and all those free fart apps and cheesy games at first helped sell millions of phones. First it was 10K apps then 50K apps the 100K, 200K, 300K etc.. The app store is being touted as a feature of the phone. It helps sell the phone experience.
A lot of people buy iPhones so they can use the "free" facebook app. The "free" skype app. The fractions of cents it cost apple to host those apps and fulfill those downloads netted them hundreds of dollars in iPhone profits per instance. These companies have spent millions (if not billions) building their names, images and reputations. The app store did not make Netflix successful or Make Hulu an over night success. These services were established and popular long before they had apps in the app store.
If you believe apple actively markets your apps and subscription services and that you have exposure to millions of potential customers try launching "john smith's no name steaming media app" in the app store and see if you make any money. Netflix on the other hand has name recognition (that they earned) and its availability on the iPad lends value to the iPad. It becomes a selling feature of the iPad and in some cases a reason why people buy the device at all.
If you see a mass exodus of high profile apps I don't believe there are enough free fart apps, flash lights and occasional angry bird successes to make the phone a viable platform. Once the word gets out and people start making comments like "I'm not buying an iPhone because I can't read my kindle books on it or I won't buy it becuse they blocked hulu and netflix" sales will decline.
The other thing is nobody knows what the next killer app or service will be. An iPhone exclusion due to unfair revenue sharing may hurt Apple's bottom line- after all everybody keep saying if you don't like the terms nobody is forcing you to sell it in the app store." Jobs should be very aware that the number #1 thing that prevented the NeXT OS from becoming commercially viable despite its superiority in almost every area was the fact that MS refused to develop Office (at the time Word and Excel) for it.
I have nothing against apple charging for its services but 30% is abusive and will only lead to a revolt and will definitely tarnish an otherwise good experience for Apple, App and Content Publishers and Consumers.
I suspect at some point this issue ends up before a judge somewhere and some boundaries are drawn to make things a little more fair.
That's an interesting migration from the 1st sentence to the last sentence.
But the answer is yes because right now it looks like the only grocery store that this is going to seriously impact is the one that is trying to corner the market on food.
The iPad it is an active and appears to be a necessary part of the ebook reading experience. So it's more than a passive table and a lot more like the delivery service that delivers the food from the grocer. That delivery service was built by the Apple grocer. If you want food from the Amazon grocer then you shouldn't expect the iPad delivery service to bring it to you but expect to use the Kindle delivery service.
Apple is not acting as a delivery service in this case they are acting as a gatekeeper and assessing import duties to allow another company to deliver to a device you already paid for. Even if they were a delivery service, a delivery service does not charge a percentage of the cost of the good being shipped but rather a fixed fee based on units or weight. (insurance aside - which is not 30% either)
This is really just a 30% tax because apple could not get publishers to agree to be apart of an "iNewsStand" service that would allow apple to sell subscriptions through iTunes that could be consumed in iBooks or some other "iMagazine" app. Publishers wanted to build their own apps and manage their own subscriptions. Rather than carve out exceptions and make loopholes Apple just applied it to all in-app reoccurring charges and purchases. Sure this 30% is not something I have to pay directly but in the end just like all surcharges it will get passed on to the consumer in some form. Maybe in the form of one less issue a year, or less features in my iPad version of the publication. In some way that 30% will come out of my pocket.
In essence Apple has decided to sit outside of my house and dictate terms that affect what content will or won't be allowed inside to use on a device I purchased. People have said that if you don't like apple's terms don't buy their phone/pad but people seem to forget that the terms of use have evolved and drastically changed over the durration of my ownership of the phone. Very few of those changes have done much to enhance my user experience of the iphone or ipad though many have gone to great lengths to maintain apple's control of their revenue streams. In the end limiting my uses and enjoyment of the devices and in some cases increasing my cost of ownership.
Netflix' incentive is access to a hundred plus million customers willing to spend money?
Netflix has that through its website right now.
Netflix has that through its website right now.
Read the condition I posted at the top of the previous page. If Netflix offers any kind of purchasing or subscription to content, even if it's only through their website, they're also required to offer it through Apple's in-app purchasing method and at the same price.
Put it in perspective: Amazon pays $0.00 to distribute their apps to millions of iOS customers, because the apps are marked as "free" in the App Store, per Apple's rules, which was originally to avoid penalizing companies which didn't make money off their apps. That's Apple being fair. But Amazon does make money off their app, just not directly. Apple is basically saying, you guys are taking advantage of us, and we get it. So it stops now.
If I'm not mistaken, Amazon paid $99 to get their app in the store. So stop with this free app distribution BS. App distribution on iOS is not free.