These outcries reflect how big Apple is, for good and for bad. And I think it's a bit overblown much like Antennagate.
For example people talking about Amazon or Netflix pulling the app. Why should they? All they need to do is delete any link to outside store or subscription service, then nothing will change. No price change. No need to pull off.
Amazon can delete in-app links to their store. Make it purely a reader app. Have people go to Safari to purchase book. Once it's purchased it'll be on your account. Go back to the app, sign in and read. Apple get nothing.
Netflix? Just don't put any subscription service in the app. Have people subscribe on website then if you want to watch it on your iPad, pick it up, sign in and watch. Apple also get nothing.
If you want the convenience of Apple system then pay. If you don't want to pay, don't use it.
Do I understand something wrong?
A pure reader app violates Apples Terms and Conditions. You have to include in-app purchases/subscriptions if your app can access content purchased elsewhere. Period. No work around. This is why there's the massive outcry.
Apple is foremost in creating and maintaining the iOS ecosystem, but they are not alone. The iOS ecosystem's success is also largely contributed to by the positive feedback cycle between increasing developer/publisher support and increasing customer user base. The question is how long can this be maintained as Apple increasingly takes steps to antagonize developers/publishers? Yes for developers/publishers that are also involved in selling physical media the savings in digital distribution will probably cover Apple's 30% cut. But those digital savings don't apply to developers/publishers which are already digital only and are already pricing their content lower as a selling point. Giving an additional 30% cut to Apple when digital distribution savings have already become incorporated into the business model may be untenable as Rhapsody claims.
Yes, Apple may well be within their rights to say tough-luck, you're living in our house, but is this really conducive to long-term developer/publisher relations? I'd rather developers/publishers who are positive in evangelizing the iOS ecosystem rather than just grudgingly supporting it as long as they still make money. Steve Jobs famously told Motorola that "I can't wait until we don't need you anymore" for CPUs. Does Apple want developers/publishers to have the same attitude towards them?
Oh Yes. Make no mistake Apple *is* in a unique position with their API frameworks and programming tools, Maintenance schedules, Marketing etc..., so yes they are alone.
Most people see that iOS is ahead and think that it is just luck or that Apple started first etc.. No it is not, Symbian, Black Berry and others existed long before iOS. It took years and tremendous efforts to port the Mac OS X APIs to portable devices and before that it took years and a huge effort to develop them for the NeXT OS and the Mac OS X. Maintenance alone takes many PhDs to work on the frameworks. So it's not just by luck that these APIs attract developers, the internals of the iOS API are just as amazing for developers as the devices are for users and no other company can match them at this time. The infrastructure that hosts these applications and purchases also cost a lot of money. So why just let other competitors just use Apple's ecosystem for free? Rhapsody and Kindle and others are direct competitors to Apple they would not be using the iOS ecosystem if they were not making major profit from it.
I can understand the concern. A lot of these publishers have reached maturity and are probably operating on very slim margins. They may not have 30% to give unless they raise the price in all of their other distribution channels. It seems like there needs to be one of two things. Either they are allowed to charge more for App Store distribution and the customer gets something extra for the price (maybe cloud storage of the content) or a different pricing structure is needed. Maybe content is charged by data size or some combination of data size and price.
I am wondering if publishers may try to skirt around this (if Apple will let them) by releasing "enhanced" App Store editions of their content so they can get away with charging more to make up for the reduced margins.
These outcries reflect how big Apple is, for good and for bad. And I think it's a bit overblown much like Antennagate.
For example people talking about Amazon or Netflix pulling the app. Why should they? All they need to do is delete any link to outside store or subscription service, then nothing will change. No price change. No need to pull off.
Amazon can delete in-app links to their store. Make it purely a reader app. Have people go to Safari to purchase book. Once it's purchased it'll be on your account. Go back to the app, sign in and read. Apple get nothing.
Netflix? Just don't put any subscription service in the app. Have people subscribe on website then if you want to watch it on your iPad, pick it up, sign in and watch. Apple also get nothing.
If you want the convenience of Apple system then pay. If you don't want to pay, don't use it.
Do I understand something wrong?
I'm with ya... what is it that we don't understand here?
I seriously doubt that Apple will be blocking access to Amazon from Safari, or any other website for that matter. WHY does there need to be an "App for that"?
The Ami-centric love affair with all things Hulu & Netflix... is myopic, considering that Apple iOS devices are highly and successfully sold world-wide without access to these 2 services.
And again: what is keeping Hulu or Netflix from creating a usable and friendly web-app and/or mobile-optimized website, to be used within Safari...or Firefox, IE, or Chrome?
Technically, a large number of the Apps targeted by this proclamation, SHOULD be web-apps available on ANY device: mobile, desktop, or TV box.
The newspapers and magazines are the biggest idiots: WHY an App in the first place? They SHOULD be updating their websites first, concentrating on user-friendly and mobile-access, with their current ad-structure/financing. There seriously is no market for a dedicated app as I see it.
Naturally when their efforts fail, they'll blame Apple, it's guidelines, and anything else, to escape the fact staring them in the face: their publication isn't worth a dedicated app. It's not "sticky" with the readers, because you have the whole WWW at your fingertips.
Also, just say there is an app for "image and platform marketing" purposes on the App Store. As far as I understand it, as long as you're not asking for a sub or per issue price, all of the content is streaming from the web servers anyway... including ADS! There's your pay-day.... "same as it ever was"!
The fact of the matter is that traditional publishing is falling on very hard times, as opposed to just hard times. There is no where else to turn at the moment for revenue and sustainability. Apple is the only "possible" hook up. If they think for a minute that Android is going to be their savior... I hope they also realize that Android and darn near everything on it's platform is FREE, and subsidized by advertising only. Once again, no need for an Android app if you can do it yourself from your site. May as well kill 2 birds or more, with one stone (pig?)
I have a question. Does the price matching rule apply to web sites or everywhere? For example, if I have an identical app on iOS and Android but I do not have a proper web site (think The Daily for example), can I offer a promo on Android without doing the same on iOS? What if I have a print edition and an iOS app an want to have a promotion for print readers only? How far does this rule extend?
Why is iTunes music store the #1 music retailer in world when all the music they sell is available for cheaper or free on the internet?
Because Apple provides the easiest 1-click method of delivery on the most popular device for playing that music.
Again with iPad, Apple has produced the most popular device for viewing published material and wishes to continue with the highly successful 1-click purchase model.
The fact of the matter is, Apple actually gets people to pay for media----a lot of people.
Once digital magazines become commonplace, piracy of digital magazines will become commonplace, and every publication will available as pirated torrent just as every single music title.
Publishers are also very aware of their other competition, all the free content on the web itself.
Despite their tough posturing and insinuating greed on Apple's part, they know that, at this point,
Apple's device and purchase model is the salvation of their ever diminishing printed readership.
Lots of posturing going on here, but, to honest, publishers need Apple, and they need Apple badly and will eventually tow the line.
As I've written above, this is not so much of an issue for many publishers, but it is an issue for other retailers/distributors like Amazon. Amazon probably pays the publisher 70% when they make a sale leaving only 30% for Amazon. Now, Apple wants that 30% leaving Amazon with nothing. Amazon will be forced to withdraw from the App Store. Customers will look in the iBookstore and not be able to find the book they want so they will then go to Amazon and Apple will get nothing. Customers will not get the benefit of in-app purchase and, in fact, will have been inconvenienced because he struggled to find the book using an app. In the future, he goes directly to Amazon (or maybe moves to Android) and Apple, again, gets nothing.
Apple could make a tidy sum by asking for just 5-10% from other retailers and could do better by the subscription partners, as well.
Interesting point. Do you think Apple wants the publishers to go direct?
I think there may still be some niche areas were the publishers have less then 30% margin to work with on their existing channels though.
A pure reader app violates Apples Terms and Conditions. You have to include in-app purchases/subscriptions if your app can access content purchased elsewhere. Period. No work around. This is why there's the massive outcry.
Where does it say that please.
As I understand it, "the App may NOT LINK to purchasing of a sub or product elsewhere". It does NOT stop you from reading or viewing what you have previously purchased... anywhere.
Why is iTunes music store the #1 music retailer in world when all the music they sell is available for cheaper or free on the internet? Because they provide the easiest 1-click method of delivery on the most popular device for playing that music. Again with iPad, Apple has produced the most popular device for viewing published material and wishes to continue with the highly successful 1-click purchase model. Once digital magazines become commonplace, piracy of digital magazines will become commonplace, and every publication will available as pirated torrent just as every single music title. The fact of the matter is, Apple actually gets people to pay for media-a lot of people. Publishers are very aware of this and despite their tough posturing and insinuating greed on Apple's part, they know that, at this point, Apple's device and purchase model is the salvation of their ever diminishing printed readership. Lots of posturing going on here, but, to honest, publishers need Apple and they need Apple badly and will eventually tow the line.
Bingo!
Google: torrent Android app ... which is silly since they are all free anyway (???)
developers ought to be able to sell apps AND price them however they like both inside and outside the app store for iOS the same os OS X. I think it just ridiculous for Apple to try to control pricing in either spot. I do however think it's fair for Apple to charge whatever commission they like for sales that occur through the app stores.
Second, publishers ought to be able to sell subscriptions both inside and outside the app at whatever price they see fit. Again, I think it's fair for them to charge whatever commission they like for purchases made through the app store, although I think 30% is excessive for on ongoing model.
I assume you know that Amazon has always had the same requirement for pricing. If you sell items through Amazon, the price you sell it for on Amazon must be at least as low as the price you sell it for anywhere else online.
It is only fair that a shop which adds a new sale through its store receives the benefit of such additional sale. If you found the contend on the net Apple takes no cut, but if the sale is made through iTunes it is only right that Apple gets rewarded for adding a customer.
Further, without Apple, the extra sale would not be made.
The success of the AppStore proves that the 70/30 cut is acceptable to developers so it is silly to whine that Apple?s 30% cut is too much.
On the whole the offer is very reasonable and publishers would be cutting their noses to spite their faces by not taking advantage of the huge new customer base Apple products offer.
These outcries reflect how big Apple is, for good and for bad. And I think it's a bit overblown much like Antennagate.
For example people talking about Amazon or Netflix pulling the app. Why should they? All they need to do is delete any link to outside store or subscription service, then nothing will change. No price change. No need to pull off.
Amazon can delete in-app links to their store. Make it purely a reader app. Have people go to Safari to purchase book. Once it's purchased it'll be on your account. Go back to the app, sign in and read. Apple get nothing.
Netflix? Just don't put any subscription service in the app. Have people subscribe on website then if you want to watch it on your iPad, pick it up, sign in and watch. Apple also get nothing.
If you want the convenience of Apple system then pay. If you don't want to pay, don't use it.
Do I understand something wrong?
This exactly. This is exactly what any content distrubitor can do if they have any problems with any new policy. Offer all of your content to your current subscribers, and don't use your app to directly sign up new users. Don't include direct links to your subscribers or content page. Has anything changed? Not much.
Worried about Netflix and Hulu? Don't. Very little will change. You will download a Netflix App, login using your netflix id, and be able to watch everythign for the same price as always. Period. Same with Hulu.
Worried about your Kindle App? Not really much to worry about here. Buy your books the same way you usually do (on your kindle, on the web, etc), login and have your books all right there. Yes, there is an issue of "shopping" through the kindle store app, but this isn't that big of a deal. Amazon could easily make a web app for making all purchases online. You can still access your content in your native app for free, but just do the 'shopping' or 'subscribing' through a web app. (these are things you need the internet for anyways, so this just makes sense).
As I understand it, "the App may NOT LINK to purchasing of a sub or product elsewhere". It does NOT stop you from reading or viewing what you have previously purchased... anywhere.
AppStore guidelines:
11.13 Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions.
If the app doesn't offer IAP then Apple does stop you from reading or viewing what you have previously purchased... anywhere. ie Unless Amazon etc rewrite their existing apps to add in-app purchases they will be in violation of appstore guidelines and Apple could remove them.
11.13 Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions.
If the app doesn't offer IAP then Apple does stop you from reading or viewing what you have previously purchased... anywhere. ie Unless Amazon etc rewrite their existing apps to add in-app purchases they will be in violation of appstore guidelines and Apple could remove them.
How could this be applied to things which you didn't sell in the first place? For example, a 3rd party app that let me view my Google books (which i purchased through Google)?
Developers forget to mention that although they pay a hefty 30%, they have no advertising costs, no distribution costs and their app can potentially be purchased worldwide. That's also worth a lot of money...
11.13 Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions.
If the app doesn't offer IAP then Apple does stop you from reading or viewing what you have previously purchased... anywhere. ie Unless Amazon etc rewrite their existing apps to add in-app purchases they will be in violation of appstore guidelines and Apple could remove them.
Thanks. I also just got back from looking it up myself.
Hmm. It does add a certain "wrinkle" now doesn't it. "Resellers" are going to be hit mostly. App-developers and real content providers and creators not so much, and it looks to be fair and the same as it was before.
Devs don't have much of a choice but like it. 70% of something is better than 100% of nothing. They need Apple to get them customers. Publishers on the other hand already have customers. Would you want to give up 30% revenue on customers you already have?
These losers called publishers are on the ropes already, admitting that their business model needs updating and especially needs access to the 140 million plus credit card accounts the iTunes Store can provide, accounts that have proven to have an excellent track record in purchases and which can give their subscription based model the badly-needed "shot in the arm".
So they reckon they are just going to walk in and walk away with that many users' money, account and location details (information which they are notoriously known for selling on to third parties at a profit) without paying a price?
They're barking mad. You expect a trader to set up a stall in my shop, and start talking to my customers to step across the street with them to a kiosk where they sell them goods that they claim have nothing to do with my shop? And furthermore to take their personal details which they then proceed to sell to other 3rd parties?
People need to recognize that there are three different constituencies: developers, publishers and distributors. It is important that these groups not be conflated since their interests are different with the exception that they would all, of course, like to take 100% of their products' selling price.
Most developers have little problem with the current 30% revenue share given to Apple. Apple has delivered more customers and in many cases (e.g., Pixelmator) eliminated the need for them to maintain a e-commerce site.
Publishers will have a range of reactions. The truth is that many publishers can afford the 30% revenue share if their selling price has not been lowered to reflect the elimination of all physical distribution cost. However, I am still not convinced that Apple deserves a 30% share, even allowing for the platform argument. IMO, Apple should lower their share to reflect that their primary service is providing payment processing plus some remuneration for "merchandising" (basically hosting the app). Again, IMO, 5-10 percent is more than generous and Apple would be generating a steady on-going revenue stream. I doubt most publishers would have a problem with paying this amount. Apple could offer other merchandising programs to highlight content from specific publishers and be paid accordingly for that service.
The final group is distributors like Amazon, Hulu Plus, Netflix, B&N, Rhapsody and others. Many of these will only be receiving a 30% (maybe less) revenue share from the publishers they represent. That means that they would be handing Apple their full profit (or maybe generating a loss). Significantly, these are the very same companies that are in direct competition with Apple's services (iTunes Store, iBookstore). I really have no suggestion of how to fairly address these other then allowing them to operate exclusively outside the App Store but that may not be good for the iOS platform (especially as these products are made available on competing platforms.).
The cynical side of me thinks that Apple is trying to force these apps out of its ecosystem. I bet Apple would love to go to Random House and say "your products are not available to the huge number of iOS users because no one is selling them in the App Store. Why don't we talk some more about the iBookstore." This upsets me becauseI am not, by nature, a cynical person yet here I am contemplating this possibility.
I really think that the subscription model and dealing with other distributors/retailers has not been thought out well. I think Apple needs to be more reasonable - willing to take a small portion of a much larger number of transactions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted
As I've written above, this is not so much of an issue for many publishers, but it is an issue for other retailers/distributors like Amazon. Amazon probably pays the publisher 70% when they make a sale leaving only 30% for Amazon. Now, Apple wants that 30% leaving Amazon with nothing. Amazon will be forced to withdraw from the App Store. Customers will look in the iBookstore and not be able to find the book they want so they will then go to Amazon and Apple will get nothing. Customers will not get the benefit of in-app purchase and, in fact, will have been inconvenienced because he struggled to find the book using an app. In the future, he goes directly to Amazon (or maybe moves to Android) and Apple, again, gets nothing.
Apple could make a tidy sum by asking for just 5-10% from other retailers and could do better by the subscription partners, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted
To use your example of a mall, having the Kindle, Hulu and Netflix apps in the store is like having anchor stores in a mall. Yes, they pay rent but they get better deals because of their ability to draw customers to the mall.
I've read all the posts, so far, and @penchanted seems to make the most sense.
Here's the way I see the big picture:
The Apple Stores ecosystem:
1) enhance Apple's ability to sell its own hardware and software products at a good profit
2) allow small developers to profit from selling apps and content
3) provide convenience to Apple's customers (shop/purchase/distribute/manage)
4) Apple deserves to make money on this -- 30% seems fair for Apple's share
The above works fine for apps or content that is sold or upgraded on a per/item basis -- a song, an app, an app upgrade, etc.
The system does not appear to work well for certain types of special sellers and for Apple;
-- some publishers
-- some distributors
-- some aggregators
-- some resellers
In some cases the Amazon Netflix, Rhapsody, etc. are getting a free ride to offer competitive product with no remuneration to Apple. Often, these companies sell their product at a low margin that would be, largely, consumed by a 30% cut to Apple.
Here's what seems reasonable to me:
1) treat the mainstream providers as they do now
2) for the special sellers charge as follows
-- a) 5-10% of initial sub fee
-- b) 2-2.5% transaction fee (pass thru)
-- c) 2-5% hosting/distribution fee
-- d) 2-5% resub fee
-- e) keep other T/C & rules as recently updated
The percentages are negotiable for "anchor" clients on an annual basis.
Typical special sellers would likely pay 7-10% to Apple
1) considering that as I understand it, Netflix isn't even available on any other mobile platform, what do they really have to lose by tapping into Apple's eco-system?
2) I still think the Kindle App will be just fine, because you can't search or buy books from within the app anyway. Amazon only needs to kill the "Kindle Store" button. Not a biggy, since most people have it as a bookmark anyway.
Apple is NOT forcing Amazon to sell books through their app, even if it does sound like it. What if Amazon's developers don't even know how to program it? Others have mentioned the limitations of the database framework, which wouldn't/couldn't contain the entire Kindle Books catalog any way (810,000+ titles).
3) I really don't think that Apple is after these few big name content resellers on the App Store. They ARE trying to limit future ones, and also the "Slim Shady Apps and Sites", and trying to create a safe-haven for their customers. Something that as the other platform(s) grow, will be a definite advantage security-wise for Apple's customer-base... AND for it's devs.
4) 120 MILLION!+ iOS devices is a pretty incredible market to advertise to with an App of any kind. If certain devs/companies are ONLY using the App store for advert. purposes, and pushing people to their websites or outside sources for purchases, well I for one would do the same as Apple. Let the serious devs/companies get a little bit more exposure. The App Store is already overloaded with enough nonsense.
I've read all the posts, so far, and @penchanted seems to make the most sense.
Here's the way I see the big picture:
The Apple Stores ecosystem:
1) enhance Apple's ability to sell its own hardware and software products at a good profit
2) allow small developers to profit from selling apps and content
3) provide convenience to Apple's customers (shop/purchase/distribute/manage)
4) Apple deserves to make money on this -- 30% seems fair for Apple's share
The above works fine for apps or content that is sold or upgraded on a per/item basis -- a song, an app, an app upgrade, etc.
The system does not appear to work well for certain types of special sellers and for Apple;
-- some publishers
-- some distributors
-- some aggregators
-- some resellers
In some cases the Amazon Netflix, Rhapsody, etc. are getting a free ride to offer competitive product with no remuneration to Apple. Often, these companies sell their product at a low margin that would be, largely, consumed by a 30% cut to Apple.
Here's what seems reasonable to me:
1) treat the mainstream providers as they do now
2) for the special sellers charge as follows
-- a) 5-10% of initial sub fee
-- b) 2-2.5% transaction fee (pass thru)
-- c) 2-5% hosting/distribution fee
-- d) 2-5% resub fee
-- e) keep other T/C & rules as recently updated
The percentages are negotiable for "anchor" clients on an annual basis.
Typical special sellers would likely pay 7-10% to Apple
+1 -As always, gotta agree with DA: "The Senior Think Different" guy here at AI
LOVE this line: The percentages are negotiable for "anchor" clients on an annual basis.
PS: I sure wish there was rating or at least a "thumbs-up" button here at AI (...come on guys!)
Comments
These outcries reflect how big Apple is, for good and for bad. And I think it's a bit overblown much like Antennagate.
For example people talking about Amazon or Netflix pulling the app. Why should they? All they need to do is delete any link to outside store or subscription service, then nothing will change. No price change. No need to pull off.
Amazon can delete in-app links to their store. Make it purely a reader app. Have people go to Safari to purchase book. Once it's purchased it'll be on your account. Go back to the app, sign in and read. Apple get nothing.
Netflix? Just don't put any subscription service in the app. Have people subscribe on website then if you want to watch it on your iPad, pick it up, sign in and watch. Apple also get nothing.
If you want the convenience of Apple system then pay. If you don't want to pay, don't use it.
Do I understand something wrong?
A pure reader app violates Apples Terms and Conditions. You have to include in-app purchases/subscriptions if your app can access content purchased elsewhere. Period. No work around. This is why there's the massive outcry.
Apple is foremost in creating and maintaining the iOS ecosystem, but they are not alone. The iOS ecosystem's success is also largely contributed to by the positive feedback cycle between increasing developer/publisher support and increasing customer user base. The question is how long can this be maintained as Apple increasingly takes steps to antagonize developers/publishers? Yes for developers/publishers that are also involved in selling physical media the savings in digital distribution will probably cover Apple's 30% cut. But those digital savings don't apply to developers/publishers which are already digital only and are already pricing their content lower as a selling point. Giving an additional 30% cut to Apple when digital distribution savings have already become incorporated into the business model may be untenable as Rhapsody claims.
Yes, Apple may well be within their rights to say tough-luck, you're living in our house, but is this really conducive to long-term developer/publisher relations? I'd rather developers/publishers who are positive in evangelizing the iOS ecosystem rather than just grudgingly supporting it as long as they still make money. Steve Jobs famously told Motorola that "I can't wait until we don't need you anymore" for CPUs. Does Apple want developers/publishers to have the same attitude towards them?
Oh Yes. Make no mistake Apple *is* in a unique position with their API frameworks and programming tools, Maintenance schedules, Marketing etc..., so yes they are alone.
Most people see that iOS is ahead and think that it is just luck or that Apple started first etc.. No it is not, Symbian, Black Berry and others existed long before iOS. It took years and tremendous efforts to port the Mac OS X APIs to portable devices and before that it took years and a huge effort to develop them for the NeXT OS and the Mac OS X. Maintenance alone takes many PhDs to work on the frameworks. So it's not just by luck that these APIs attract developers, the internals of the iOS API are just as amazing for developers as the devices are for users and no other company can match them at this time. The infrastructure that hosts these applications and purchases also cost a lot of money. So why just let other competitors just use Apple's ecosystem for free? Rhapsody and Kindle and others are direct competitors to Apple they would not be using the iOS ecosystem if they were not making major profit from it.
Time will tell.
I am wondering if publishers may try to skirt around this (if Apple will let them) by releasing "enhanced" App Store editions of their content so they can get away with charging more to make up for the reduced margins.
These outcries reflect how big Apple is, for good and for bad. And I think it's a bit overblown much like Antennagate.
For example people talking about Amazon or Netflix pulling the app. Why should they? All they need to do is delete any link to outside store or subscription service, then nothing will change. No price change. No need to pull off.
Amazon can delete in-app links to their store. Make it purely a reader app. Have people go to Safari to purchase book. Once it's purchased it'll be on your account. Go back to the app, sign in and read. Apple get nothing.
Netflix? Just don't put any subscription service in the app. Have people subscribe on website then if you want to watch it on your iPad, pick it up, sign in and watch. Apple also get nothing.
If you want the convenience of Apple system then pay. If you don't want to pay, don't use it.
Do I understand something wrong?
I'm with ya... what is it that we don't understand here?
I seriously doubt that Apple will be blocking access to Amazon from Safari, or any other website for that matter. WHY does there need to be an "App for that"?
The Ami-centric love affair with all things Hulu & Netflix... is myopic, considering that Apple iOS devices are highly and successfully sold world-wide without access to these 2 services.
And again: what is keeping Hulu or Netflix from creating a usable and friendly web-app and/or mobile-optimized website, to be used within Safari...or Firefox, IE, or Chrome?
Technically, a large number of the Apps targeted by this proclamation, SHOULD be web-apps available on ANY device: mobile, desktop, or TV box.
The newspapers and magazines are the biggest idiots: WHY an App in the first place? They SHOULD be updating their websites first, concentrating on user-friendly and mobile-access, with their current ad-structure/financing. There seriously is no market for a dedicated app as I see it.
Naturally when their efforts fail, they'll blame Apple, it's guidelines, and anything else, to escape the fact staring them in the face: their publication isn't worth a dedicated app. It's not "sticky" with the readers, because you have the whole WWW at your fingertips.
Also, just say there is an app for "image and platform marketing" purposes on the App Store. As far as I understand it, as long as you're not asking for a sub or per issue price, all of the content is streaming from the web servers anyway... including ADS! There's your pay-day.... "same as it ever was"!
The fact of the matter is that traditional publishing is falling on very hard times, as opposed to just hard times. There is no where else to turn at the moment for revenue and sustainability. Apple is the only "possible" hook up. If they think for a minute that Android is going to be their savior... I hope they also realize that Android and darn near everything on it's platform is FREE, and subsidized by advertising only. Once again, no need for an Android app if you can do it yourself from your site. May as well kill 2 birds or more, with one stone (pig?)
Because Apple provides the easiest 1-click method of delivery on the most popular device for playing that music.
Again with iPad, Apple has produced the most popular device for viewing published material and wishes to continue with the highly successful 1-click purchase model.
The fact of the matter is, Apple actually gets people to pay for media----a lot of people.
Once digital magazines become commonplace, piracy of digital magazines will become commonplace, and every publication will available as pirated torrent just as every single music title.
Publishers are also very aware of their other competition, all the free content on the web itself.
Despite their tough posturing and insinuating greed on Apple's part, they know that, at this point,
Apple's device and purchase model is the salvation of their ever diminishing printed readership.
Lots of posturing going on here, but, to honest, publishers need Apple, and they need Apple badly and will eventually tow the line.
As I've written above, this is not so much of an issue for many publishers, but it is an issue for other retailers/distributors like Amazon. Amazon probably pays the publisher 70% when they make a sale leaving only 30% for Amazon. Now, Apple wants that 30% leaving Amazon with nothing. Amazon will be forced to withdraw from the App Store. Customers will look in the iBookstore and not be able to find the book they want so they will then go to Amazon and Apple will get nothing. Customers will not get the benefit of in-app purchase and, in fact, will have been inconvenienced because he struggled to find the book using an app. In the future, he goes directly to Amazon (or maybe moves to Android) and Apple, again, gets nothing.
Apple could make a tidy sum by asking for just 5-10% from other retailers and could do better by the subscription partners, as well.
Interesting point. Do you think Apple wants the publishers to go direct?
I think there may still be some niche areas were the publishers have less then 30% margin to work with on their existing channels though.
A pure reader app violates Apples Terms and Conditions. You have to include in-app purchases/subscriptions if your app can access content purchased elsewhere. Period. No work around. This is why there's the massive outcry.
Where does it say that please.
As I understand it, "the App may NOT LINK to purchasing of a sub or product elsewhere". It does NOT stop you from reading or viewing what you have previously purchased... anywhere.
Why is iTunes music store the #1 music retailer in world when all the music they sell is available for cheaper or free on the internet? Because they provide the easiest 1-click method of delivery on the most popular device for playing that music. Again with iPad, Apple has produced the most popular device for viewing published material and wishes to continue with the highly successful 1-click purchase model. Once digital magazines become commonplace, piracy of digital magazines will become commonplace, and every publication will available as pirated torrent just as every single music title. The fact of the matter is, Apple actually gets people to pay for media-a lot of people. Publishers are very aware of this and despite their tough posturing and insinuating greed on Apple's part, they know that, at this point, Apple's device and purchase model is the salvation of their ever diminishing printed readership. Lots of posturing going on here, but, to honest, publishers need Apple and they need Apple badly and will eventually tow the line.
Bingo!
Google: torrent Android app ... which is silly since they are all free anyway (???)
developers ought to be able to sell apps AND price them however they like both inside and outside the app store for iOS the same os OS X. I think it just ridiculous for Apple to try to control pricing in either spot. I do however think it's fair for Apple to charge whatever commission they like for sales that occur through the app stores.
Second, publishers ought to be able to sell subscriptions both inside and outside the app at whatever price they see fit. Again, I think it's fair for them to charge whatever commission they like for purchases made through the app store, although I think 30% is excessive for on ongoing model.
I assume you know that Amazon has always had the same requirement for pricing. If you sell items through Amazon, the price you sell it for on Amazon must be at least as low as the price you sell it for anywhere else online.
It is only fair that a shop which adds a new sale through its store receives the benefit of such additional sale. If you found the contend on the net Apple takes no cut, but if the sale is made through iTunes it is only right that Apple gets rewarded for adding a customer.
Further, without Apple, the extra sale would not be made.
The success of the AppStore proves that the 70/30 cut is acceptable to developers so it is silly to whine that Apple?s 30% cut is too much.
On the whole the offer is very reasonable and publishers would be cutting their noses to spite their faces by not taking advantage of the huge new customer base Apple products offer.
Take it or leave it.
These outcries reflect how big Apple is, for good and for bad. And I think it's a bit overblown much like Antennagate.
For example people talking about Amazon or Netflix pulling the app. Why should they? All they need to do is delete any link to outside store or subscription service, then nothing will change. No price change. No need to pull off.
Amazon can delete in-app links to their store. Make it purely a reader app. Have people go to Safari to purchase book. Once it's purchased it'll be on your account. Go back to the app, sign in and read. Apple get nothing.
Netflix? Just don't put any subscription service in the app. Have people subscribe on website then if you want to watch it on your iPad, pick it up, sign in and watch. Apple also get nothing.
If you want the convenience of Apple system then pay. If you don't want to pay, don't use it.
Do I understand something wrong?
This exactly. This is exactly what any content distrubitor can do if they have any problems with any new policy. Offer all of your content to your current subscribers, and don't use your app to directly sign up new users. Don't include direct links to your subscribers or content page. Has anything changed? Not much.
Worried about Netflix and Hulu? Don't. Very little will change. You will download a Netflix App, login using your netflix id, and be able to watch everythign for the same price as always. Period. Same with Hulu.
Worried about your Kindle App? Not really much to worry about here. Buy your books the same way you usually do (on your kindle, on the web, etc), login and have your books all right there. Yes, there is an issue of "shopping" through the kindle store app, but this isn't that big of a deal. Amazon could easily make a web app for making all purchases online. You can still access your content in your native app for free, but just do the 'shopping' or 'subscribing' through a web app. (these are things you need the internet for anyways, so this just makes sense).
Where does it say that please.
As I understand it, "the App may NOT LINK to purchasing of a sub or product elsewhere". It does NOT stop you from reading or viewing what you have previously purchased... anywhere.
AppStore guidelines:If the app doesn't offer IAP then Apple does stop you from reading or viewing what you have previously purchased... anywhere. ie Unless Amazon etc rewrite their existing apps to add in-app purchases they will be in violation of appstore guidelines and Apple could remove them.
AppStore guidelines:If the app doesn't offer IAP then Apple does stop you from reading or viewing what you have previously purchased... anywhere. ie Unless Amazon etc rewrite their existing apps to add in-app purchases they will be in violation of appstore guidelines and Apple could remove them.
How could this be applied to things which you didn't sell in the first place? For example, a 3rd party app that let me view my Google books (which i purchased through Google)?
AppStore guidelines:If the app doesn't offer IAP then Apple does stop you from reading or viewing what you have previously purchased... anywhere. ie Unless Amazon etc rewrite their existing apps to add in-app purchases they will be in violation of appstore guidelines and Apple could remove them.
Thanks. I also just got back from looking it up myself.
Hmm. It does add a certain "wrinkle" now doesn't it. "Resellers" are going to be hit mostly. App-developers and real content providers and creators not so much, and it looks to be fair and the same as it was before.
Devs don't have much of a choice but like it. 70% of something is better than 100% of nothing. They need Apple to get them customers. Publishers on the other hand already have customers. Would you want to give up 30% revenue on customers you already have?
These losers called publishers are on the ropes already, admitting that their business model needs updating and especially needs access to the 140 million plus credit card accounts the iTunes Store can provide, accounts that have proven to have an excellent track record in purchases and which can give their subscription based model the badly-needed "shot in the arm".
So they reckon they are just going to walk in and walk away with that many users' money, account and location details (information which they are notoriously known for selling on to third parties at a profit) without paying a price?
They're barking mad. You expect a trader to set up a stall in my shop, and start talking to my customers to step across the street with them to a kiosk where they sell them goods that they claim have nothing to do with my shop? And furthermore to take their personal details which they then proceed to sell to other 3rd parties?
In your dreams, pal...
People need to recognize that there are three different constituencies: developers, publishers and distributors. It is important that these groups not be conflated since their interests are different with the exception that they would all, of course, like to take 100% of their products' selling price.
Most developers have little problem with the current 30% revenue share given to Apple. Apple has delivered more customers and in many cases (e.g., Pixelmator) eliminated the need for them to maintain a e-commerce site.
Publishers will have a range of reactions. The truth is that many publishers can afford the 30% revenue share if their selling price has not been lowered to reflect the elimination of all physical distribution cost. However, I am still not convinced that Apple deserves a 30% share, even allowing for the platform argument. IMO, Apple should lower their share to reflect that their primary service is providing payment processing plus some remuneration for "merchandising" (basically hosting the app). Again, IMO, 5-10 percent is more than generous and Apple would be generating a steady on-going revenue stream. I doubt most publishers would have a problem with paying this amount. Apple could offer other merchandising programs to highlight content from specific publishers and be paid accordingly for that service.
The final group is distributors like Amazon, Hulu Plus, Netflix, B&N, Rhapsody and others. Many of these will only be receiving a 30% (maybe less) revenue share from the publishers they represent. That means that they would be handing Apple their full profit (or maybe generating a loss). Significantly, these are the very same companies that are in direct competition with Apple's services (iTunes Store, iBookstore). I really have no suggestion of how to fairly address these other then allowing them to operate exclusively outside the App Store but that may not be good for the iOS platform (especially as these products are made available on competing platforms.).
The cynical side of me thinks that Apple is trying to force these apps out of its ecosystem. I bet Apple would love to go to Random House and say "your products are not available to the huge number of iOS users because no one is selling them in the App Store. Why don't we talk some more about the iBookstore." This upsets me becauseI am not, by nature, a cynical person yet here I am contemplating this possibility.
I really think that the subscription model and dealing with other distributors/retailers has not been thought out well. I think Apple needs to be more reasonable - willing to take a small portion of a much larger number of transactions.
As I've written above, this is not so much of an issue for many publishers, but it is an issue for other retailers/distributors like Amazon. Amazon probably pays the publisher 70% when they make a sale leaving only 30% for Amazon. Now, Apple wants that 30% leaving Amazon with nothing. Amazon will be forced to withdraw from the App Store. Customers will look in the iBookstore and not be able to find the book they want so they will then go to Amazon and Apple will get nothing. Customers will not get the benefit of in-app purchase and, in fact, will have been inconvenienced because he struggled to find the book using an app. In the future, he goes directly to Amazon (or maybe moves to Android) and Apple, again, gets nothing.
Apple could make a tidy sum by asking for just 5-10% from other retailers and could do better by the subscription partners, as well.
To use your example of a mall, having the Kindle, Hulu and Netflix apps in the store is like having anchor stores in a mall. Yes, they pay rent but they get better deals because of their ability to draw customers to the mall.
I've read all the posts, so far, and @penchanted seems to make the most sense.
Here's the way I see the big picture:
The Apple Stores ecosystem:
1) enhance Apple's ability to sell its own hardware and software products at a good profit
2) allow small developers to profit from selling apps and content
3) provide convenience to Apple's customers (shop/purchase/distribute/manage)
4) Apple deserves to make money on this -- 30% seems fair for Apple's share
The above works fine for apps or content that is sold or upgraded on a per/item basis -- a song, an app, an app upgrade, etc.
The system does not appear to work well for certain types of special sellers and for Apple;
-- some publishers
-- some distributors
-- some aggregators
-- some resellers
In some cases the Amazon Netflix, Rhapsody, etc. are getting a free ride to offer competitive product with no remuneration to Apple. Often, these companies sell their product at a low margin that would be, largely, consumed by a 30% cut to Apple.
Here's what seems reasonable to me:
1) treat the mainstream providers as they do now
2) for the special sellers charge as follows
-- a) 5-10% of initial sub fee
-- b) 2-2.5% transaction fee (pass thru)
-- c) 2-5% hosting/distribution fee
-- d) 2-5% resub fee
-- e) keep other T/C & rules as recently updated
The percentages are negotiable for "anchor" clients on an annual basis.
Typical special sellers would likely pay 7-10% to Apple
2) I still think the Kindle App will be just fine, because you can't search or buy books from within the app anyway. Amazon only needs to kill the "Kindle Store" button. Not a biggy, since most people have it as a bookmark anyway.
Apple is NOT forcing Amazon to sell books through their app, even if it does sound like it. What if Amazon's developers don't even know how to program it? Others have mentioned the limitations of the database framework, which wouldn't/couldn't contain the entire Kindle Books catalog any way (810,000+ titles).
3) I really don't think that Apple is after these few big name content resellers on the App Store. They ARE trying to limit future ones, and also the "Slim Shady Apps and Sites", and trying to create a safe-haven for their customers. Something that as the other platform(s) grow, will be a definite advantage security-wise for Apple's customer-base... AND for it's devs.
4) 120 MILLION!+ iOS devices is a pretty incredible market to advertise to with an App of any kind. If certain devs/companies are ONLY using the App store for advert. purposes, and pushing people to their websites or outside sources for purchases, well I for one would do the same as Apple. Let the serious devs/companies get a little bit more exposure. The App Store is already overloaded with enough nonsense.
I've read all the posts, so far, and @penchanted seems to make the most sense.
Here's the way I see the big picture:
The Apple Stores ecosystem:
1) enhance Apple's ability to sell its own hardware and software products at a good profit
2) allow small developers to profit from selling apps and content
3) provide convenience to Apple's customers (shop/purchase/distribute/manage)
4) Apple deserves to make money on this -- 30% seems fair for Apple's share
The above works fine for apps or content that is sold or upgraded on a per/item basis -- a song, an app, an app upgrade, etc.
The system does not appear to work well for certain types of special sellers and for Apple;
-- some publishers
-- some distributors
-- some aggregators
-- some resellers
In some cases the Amazon Netflix, Rhapsody, etc. are getting a free ride to offer competitive product with no remuneration to Apple. Often, these companies sell their product at a low margin that would be, largely, consumed by a 30% cut to Apple.
Here's what seems reasonable to me:
1) treat the mainstream providers as they do now
2) for the special sellers charge as follows
-- a) 5-10% of initial sub fee
-- b) 2-2.5% transaction fee (pass thru)
-- c) 2-5% hosting/distribution fee
-- d) 2-5% resub fee
-- e) keep other T/C & rules as recently updated
The percentages are negotiable for "anchor" clients on an annual basis.
Typical special sellers would likely pay 7-10% to Apple
+1 -As always, gotta agree with DA: "The Senior Think Different" guy here at AI
LOVE this line: The percentages are negotiable for "anchor" clients on an annual basis.
PS: I sure wish there was rating or at least a "thumbs-up" button here at AI (...come on guys!)