I think that Apple is being 100% fair to everybody here. If the customer is using Apple's stuff, then the seller gives Apple their due.
Does this include iMac, & mac books? I mean the companies that sell content for those devices are FREE LOADERSS.. The movie companies with there DVDs that people play on their MACs', apple should get a cut of that sale. Why should users get to play dvd's if apple isn't making money off it.
So far, it's hard to even count Google in the race, but one could say that Apple and Amazon, and Apple and Google, are both dueling for attention from different audiences.
Does this include iMac, & mac books? I mean the companies that sell content for those devices are FREE LOADERSS.. The movie companies with there DVDs that people play on their MACs', apple should get a cut of that sale. Why should users get to play dvd's if apple isn't making money off it.
Because Apple isn't adding any real unique value when you play a DVD in a Mac. It isn't creating a new market that doesn't exist anywhere and that its rivals can't figure out how to copy.
All you Apple haters are focusing on 30%, outraged for the first time in your lives about the terms of a business deal that if Apple hadn't made transparently open (in an effort to point out that it is the papers who need to fall in line and quick begging for full access to personal data), you wouldn't even have known about.
What you're missing is why Apple can charge 30%. iTunes is an incredible draw, an audience of people who pay for content, as long as its reasonable. Given that Apple entered a market where the leader was charging 70% (which you never went into hysterics about), it's clear you don't have the slightest inclination of what you're talking about.
Listening to Apple-haters and Android supporters is like watching the Tea Party crowds angrily waving signs that call Obama both a socialist and a nazi, completely ignorant of what either is, while they demand that the "government get out of my medicare!!"
If they didn't have corporations telling them what to be upset about, they could only really say that they don't like Obama because he's black and lowered their taxes and asked for greater protections in the market.
Android Party members are as blindly idealistic about matters they don't care to discuss factually, they just want to spew vitriol and hate because they're so riled up by a big company telling them that one is open and one is not, when there's nothing really open about any component of value in Android, from the phone sets to Google apps.
If I walk into a newsagents and buy a magazine a percentage of the cover price goes to the newsagent/retailer selling the magazine. In the same way if I buy a magazine through iTunes (as an app or in-app purchase) then Apple/iTunes is acting as the retailer and are entitled to their commission. I don't know how much commission retailers take on magazine sales but my guess would be that it's not far short of Apple's 30%. There really is no difference that I can see.
If publishers want people to supply their details then offer an incentive for users to register their subscription once they have purchased it. A prize draw or money off vouchers or something. They could easily stick an email reply form in the digital edition. If you just go into a newsagent a buy the magazine they have no idea who are.
I've been in the position as a Product/Marketing Manager where I had newspapers and magazines sending me their media packs with all the demogarphics. It was all very good but to be honest most of the time I didn't need to read it. Most of the time it's obvious who a magazine is aimed at and if that's your target audience you go with the advert, if it's not then you don't.
How long would your theoretical newsstand stay open if publishers released free magazines for you to distribute for free, all chucked full of subscription cards you got no piece of the action on.
Why would you carry such inventory and manage millions of free transactions at your own expense? What other retailers carry free inventory that generates subsequent sales for third parties that do not also benefit the retailer?
Seriously, have you not even stepped back to consider the absurdity of what you're saying?
Would be fun if Microsoft suddenly required a 30% cut on any iTunes purchase made "thanks to its Windows system". I can envision DED explaining just how this "has already happened once" and "is fundamentally different from Apple's methods". Oh, the LOLZ. DED made my day again
Well one difference is that Microsoft's Windows exerts a monopoly over the PC market. There are plenty of iOS competitors, and Android is said to be even bigger. So if its really some onerous terms that the industry isn't going to put up with, they don't have to. No so with Microsoft's illegally created monopoly, which was founded on criminal conduct, not just sales popularity.
Also, if Microsoft had overtly asked for money from developers, Windows would never have taken off because it didn't add that much value.
Microsoft has since tried to ask developers for a cut from WiMob and then WP7, but both efforts failed to result in real markets. Google is trying to take a cut of both Android and Chrome Web apps, but does such bad job all it has is a bunch of garbage. One can say the same thing about Palm, Symbian, and BBery.
How long would your theoretical newsstand stay open if publishers released free magazines for you to distribute for free, all chucked full of subscription cards you got no piece of the action on.
Why would you carry such inventory and manage millions of free transactions at your own expense? What other retailers carry free inventory that generates subsequent sales for third parties that do not also benefit the retailer?
Seriously, have you not even stepped back to consider the absurdity of what you're saying?
The newsstand would last VERY long if the charged for a key to enter the newstand like apple charges for the iPad/iPhone devices, the thing apple really makes money on. Don't you remember jobs saying they really do not make any profit off of iTunes. Apple seems to be doing pretty well with that model right now.
Have you not even stepped back to consider the absurdity of what you're saying?
You saying apple should get a cut of any content you view on your iPhone/iPad this is CRAZY!
[QUOTE=Alonso Perez;1811001]I think what you are missing is that an iPad or an iPhone is a general-purpose device, a computer, that you buy and own.
[
Apple wants to take a 30% cut on any purchases you make with your device, even if you make those purchases through a third-party application.
Well... that is some what true. The missing link is that an app, today, can get your attention, drive you to another web site and sell you things after using Apple to deliver the "sales pitch" for them, e.g. the app. Apple is saying, use my service and I get a cut from your customer purchases. Alright... how many customers would you have if your app was not in the App Store? We see this sort of thing in retail all the time. Set up shop in a mall.. you get customers that come to the location for other things from other vendors, and buy from you as well. You give a cut to the mall operator as a % of sales... that wrong too? Also we have a convenience factor. We can buy from the app (call it a convenience store) or we see a web page listed, we log in to that directly from Safari; then enter in all our information, and use PayPal or some thing to buy what you want (call it a grocery store). So the choice is - go into your choice of a convenience store and buy a soft drink that is cold... or go to the grocery store, buy a twelve pack, take it home, put in the fridge, wait until it is cold. 100% of thirsty people make a choice... you can too on your purchases. Apple is saying, you want to sell something, allow us to help you and there is a cost. You can go on your own, or go with us and make it up in volume. Choice... all about choice. As a consumer I want that choice available as I would think app owners would want that too.
Because Apple isn't adding any real unique value when you play a DVD in a Mac. It isn't creating a new market that doesn't exist anywhere and that its rivals can't figure out how to copy.
So if i just want to read eBook i bought on amazon, which apple adds no unique value to other than I can read it on my ipod/ipad or mac. amazon must now sell that same book in their app store READER app at the same price and give apple 30% of it? WTF
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archos
All you Apple haters are focusing on 30%, outraged for the first time in your lives about the terms of a business deal that if Apple hadn't made transparently open (in an effort to point out that it is the papers who need to fall in line and quick begging for full access to personal data), you wouldn't even have known about.
Umm yeah if the kindel app all of sudden was removed from the app store, i think i would have noticed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archos
What you're missing is why Apple can charge 30%. iTunes is an incredible draw, an audience of people who pay for content, as long as its reasonable. Given that Apple entered a market where the leader was charging 70% (which you never went into hysterics about), it's clear you don't have the slightest inclination of what you're talking about.
Yeah you know I'm not dumb. I see what apple is doing an I do not like it, I can see allot of my apps that I like (kindel, mog, zinio etc..) going away since 30% is a ripp off. oh yeah and the 70% that kindel was charging (for the kindel device content) That was a rip off to, thats one of the reasons i dont have one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archos
Listening to Apple-haters and Android supporters is like watching the Tea Party crowds angrily waving signs that call Obama both a socialist and a nazi, completely ignorant of what either is, while they demand that the "government get out of my medicare!!"
If they didn't have corporations telling them what to be upset about, they could only really say that they don't like Obama because he's black and lowered their taxes and asked for greater protections in the market.
Hmm not sure why this is here because this is not a political issue. But any ways last I looked apple was a corporation and I do not like what its saying about this right now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archos
Android Party members are as blindly idealistic about matters they don't care to discuss factually, they just want to spew vitriol and hate because they're so riled up by a big company telling them that one is open and one is not, when there's nothing really open about any component of value in Android, from the phone sets to Google apps.
Haha, wow yeah. There are some issues on androids side. But it is way more open then apple. I mean you can grab the android source and compile if you want and you can side load apps, or hell even make your own store!. So while i think iOS interface is superior and love my iPhone and iPad, android compared to apple is WAY MORE OPEN.
I think what you are missing is that an iPad or an iPhone is a general-purpose device, a computer, that you buy and own.
[
Apple wants to take a 30% cut on any purchases you make with your device, even if you make those purchases through a third-party application.
Well... that is some what true. The missing link is that an app, today, can get your attention, drive you to another web site and sell you things after using Apple to deliver the "sales pitch" for them, e.g. the app. Apple is saying, use my service and I get a cut from your customer purchases. Alright... how many customers would you have if your app was not in the App Store? We see this sort of thing in retail all the time. Set up shop in a mall.. you get customers that come to the location for other things from other vendors, and buy from you as well. You give a cut to the mall operator as a % of sales... that wrong too? Also we have a convenience factor. We can buy from the app (call it a convenience store) or we see a web page listed, we log in to that directly from Safari; then enter in all our information, and use PayPal or some thing to buy what you want (call it a grocery store). So the choice is - go into your choice of a convenience store and buy a soft drink that is cold... or go to the grocery store, buy a twelve pack, take it home, put in the fridge, wait until it is cold. 100% of thirsty people make a choice... you can too on your purchases. Apple is saying, you want to sell something, allow us to help you and there is a cost. You can go on your own, or go with us and make it up in volume. Choice... all about choice. As a consumer I want that choice available as I would think app owners would want that too.
Wow this is about choice? Really? what choice is apple giving. They are forcing companies that do not want to sell their content through the app store (because 30% is to much or censorship or any other host of reasons ) to sell their content through the app store or you will be baned. thats not much of a choice.
Again if all i want to do is read my kindle book on my iPad why should the company be FORCED to sell the book in the app store for the same price and give 30% to apple. I do not understand this. If amazon wants tell sell in the app store because they believe they will benefit from the "Incredible, mind bending app store" then great they can, but do not FORCE THEM TO.
Nice piece. I love how thorough it was, though I have two questions for clarification:
- There seems to be no mention of what Amazon's data sharing policy is. Does it just not share? Or does it share, and there is just no option to opt out?
- Google's One Pass is declared to not work on iPad. But if it's a Web-based service, with content authentication presumably tied to one's Google account, doesn't that mean it'll work on just about any reasonbly modern device with a competent browser, be it Mac, Windows, Linux, iPhone, or iPad?
No one is talking about it so maybe i'm wrong, but I don't see anything in the way of publishers essentially making electronic HTML versions of their magazines and distributing them on both the web and any mobile devices. iOS allows "side-loading" of any web app as does Android, WebOS and any other platform I've ever heard of. I have several web apps. They have buttons on the home screen and generally behave identically to other apps.
The iOS market is a like huge golden plum for magazine producers, and 30% is a better deal than they currently get with print distribution. If I was a small magazine publisher I would leap at this deal and my only concern would be how fast can I get into the store.
If I was a larger publisher that was trying to resist loosing all that nefarious control that I have now, I would be setting up an entirely web-based operation and distribute the magazines myself. The problem is that the HTML distribute it yourself option has been available for many years and no large publisher has yet figured it out or really wants to do it that way. As it says in this article, the reason is that they don't really care about the magazine, it's all about the advertising.
More and more I don't think it's really sensible to even talk about this topic without separating out the small (actual) magazine producers that actually serve unique content, from the bulk of the market which is just about churning out this months version of the exact same crap magazine full of advertisements.
I really think this is the "real" truth here. Probably in the 50s & 60s magazines still were "content" driven, but since the rise of all these junk-mail factories with their mailing lists, all these subscription devices were really about the ads that could be sold and the marks who could be fleeced (I mean us, the "customers"). The complaints that have arisen and the hew and cry about evil Apple really are just the screams of data thieves and scammers wanting their access back. Well, I for one would rather be able to opt out of their harvesting operations and I thank Apple for giving me the choice not them.
To me the significant point of differentiation is that Apple is actually making it better for their customers while risking alienating publishers. They appear to banking on the entrenched market for iOS to force the publishers hand.
Google, OTOH, true to character, is happy to oblige their corporate partners by handing over user data.
Oh please. You think Apple is doing it for the good of its customers? Yeah right. They will leverage the data themselves and offer up iAds as an advertising platform for the content providers. At the end of the day Apple is no less interested in money than Google. They just go about getting it a different way.
And I'd say the demographics data is probably worth more to publishers (and is a bigger hit) than that 30% cut. Right now, they get that when you sign up, you give that information to the publisher anyway (so this argument that Google is doing something nefarious or giving up new information is bogus). They won't have that information from iOS customers. Yet, that information is the lifeblood of their advertising income (which is often more significant than their subscriber income).
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
I think it's undeniably true that a simple one click subscribe unsubscribe system using my iTunes account, and which doesn't send along my info to various entities for use in targeted marketing, is a better experience for me than what Google is offering. Naturally, Apple will be pilloried for being control freaks, but I'm not sure why I should be siding with content providers over my interests.
The problem isn't the delivery system. Or even the size of Apple's cut. DED missed the point. The problem is the demand that prices be the same across all of the publisher's distribution channels. This means they can't make up for Apple's cut by raising prices on iOS users. Thats' the issue. And to top it off, Apple imposes restrictions which essentially work to redirect business from other distribution channels to the App Store.
I am curious to see how all this plays out. It's quite a hit to lose 30% of revenue AND lose subscriber data AND have your entire pricing model constricted by Apple. That's quite an advantage that the App Store must deliver to overcome all that.
id be curous to see how much iOS use of these products is an adjunct or a primary use. Perhaps these content distributors might not lose so many eyeballs by walking away?
Oh please. You think Apple is doing it for the good of its customers? Yeah right. They will leverage the data themselves and offer up iAds as an advertising platform for the content providers. At the end of the day Apple is no less interested in money than Google. They just go about getting it a different way.
Did I say that Apple wasn't interested in making money? The "going about it in a different way" just happens to mean making the most appealing customer experience possible, so you'll buy more Apple product. The Google way happens to be to sell your information to advertisers, being Google's actual customers. I know which one works better for me.
When you say "they're both in it for money" as if that levels every aspect of the business into indistinguishable sameness, it suggests to me you either don't care about or don't understand that "going about it different ways" can have enormous repercussions for the user.
Quote:
And I'd say the demographics data is probably worth more to publishers (and is a bigger hit) than that 30% cut. Right now, they get that when you sign up, you give that information to the publisher anyway (so this argument that Google is doing something nefarious or giving up new information is bogus). They won't have that information from iOS customers. Yet, that information is the lifeblood of their advertising income (which is often more significant than their subscriber income).
I think it's touching that your'e such a powerful advocate for the business interests of a moribund publishing industry that is clearly facing huge challenges to change their ways or perish. Damn you Apple, with your lack of sensitivity as to how these enormous corporations desire to keep making money the way they always have! Do as they say, or risk my scorn! How can I use your devices and sleep at night, knowing that your cut of some elaborate pie exceeds what by my reckoning is reasonable and just?!
It reminds me of the folks that railed against the greedy music industry, bragging about their preference for simply stealing over that industry's onerous terms, right up until the point Apple became a big player in the market-- at which point those same people become the music industry's biggest supporters, weeping tears of betrayal over how Apple was ruining their beloved media conglomerates.
Quote:
The problem isn't the delivery system. Or even the size of Apple's cut. DED missed the point. The problem is the demand that prices be the same across all of the publisher's distribution channels. This means they can't make up for Apple's cut by raising prices on iOS users. Thats' the issue. And to top it off, Apple imposes restrictions which essentially work to redirect business from other distribution channels to the App Store.
Yep. But what your'e not mentioning is that for a lot of vendors the App Store is a godsend. It provides visibility and ease of use that drive adoption beyond what they've seen when relying on their own store front. It's not as if digital subscriptions are a particularly lucrative market, at the moment. What happens if some early adopters (and they exist, doom sayers notwithstanding) see big wins? Think the industry is going to be unduly concerned that they use the App Store as their primary outlet? And if they use the App Store as their primary outlet, what do they care what they do or do not charge elsewhere? If Apple required music to be priced no higher than when sold at individual label sites, do you think that would drive music off iTunes? Of course not, because iTunes is the store. It's what made digital music legitimate and work economically. And it did that buy making discovery and purchase dead simple. Do not disregard the possibility that the App Store will do the same for digital subscription services.
Quote:
I am curious to see how all this plays out. It's quite a hit to lose 30% of revenue AND lose subscriber data AND have your entire pricing model constricted by Apple. That's quite an advantage that the App Store must deliver to overcome all that.
Yep. We'll see. The only other game in town is Android, and Android users are famous for not really liking to pay for things. Perhaps they enjoy ad laden subscriptions. At any rate, if it seems to be hurting the platform, I imagine Apple will reconsider. On the other hand, there were plenty of people who were glad to bray about how Apple's 30% cut in the original App Store was going to doom that to irrelevancy as well.
What you do not understand is if you offer a subscription/content outside of the app store you MUST offer it within the app. This is the Whole issue. So any company that sells any content outside the app store and wants the user to be able to use that content on iOS they MUST also sell the same content in the app store.
I.E. Buy a book for iReader from my computer (they dont make hardware) . iReader wants to come to the iSO so their customers can read on any device. Apple blocks iReader because it does not sell the content through their iOS app (even though its just a reader). So the user couldn't not even side load it through iTunes because the app will never get approved.
I really cant see just because I want to read something on my iPad, apple should get a cut.
Should apple get a cut of ad sales for web pages I go to in safari?
I do understand, I just disagree and I don't see where having the in-App Store-second-option is a problem. While the subscription cannot be offered for less outside, the typical retail manner to sidestep the nearly identical problem of Minimum Advertised Price is to bundle something trivial & non-subscription in the publishers site that won't be available in the in App Purchase. While that cannot be linked to in-App, I don't see why it couldn't be passed through a live web interface similar to how ads are served, but not an ad.
That extra non-subscription content would be the motivation to bring the customer directly to the publisher for the full sale. Magazine servicing bureaus also already do essentially the same thing to get you to renew through them rather than do it directly through the publisher.
HAHAHAHAHA iTunes software best in class??? its a joke, the dam thing crashes all the time and is full of so much bloat it barely even runs. Im not the only one who to think the iTunes software is a price of sh*t
OK, there you went from a valid debater to just a another worthless troll. iTunes may not be a favorite for everyone, but it definitely isn't what you claim.
Lost your patience, lost the war, all in one itty-bitty little post. You do follow it up nicely though, continuing to espouse propaganda in your continuing posts regardless of the illogic of a good chunk of it.
OK, there you went from a valid debater to just a another worthless troll. iTunes may not be a favorite for everyone, but it definitely isn't what you claim.
Lost your patience, lost the war, all in one itty-bitty little post. You do follow it up nicely though, continuing to espouse propaganda in your continuing posts regardless of the illogic of a good chunk of it.
Illogic can barely describe this:
Quote:
They are forcing companies that do not want to sell their content through the app store (because 30% is to much or censorship or any other host of reasons ) to sell their content through the app store or you will be baned. thats not much of a choice.
which is some kind of black hole of circular belligerence. Also, I've heard that if you don't want to go to the brick and mortar Apple Store because you hate Apple or any other of a host of reasons you will be nevertheless forced to go to the Apple Store or you won't be allowed in. I knew it was a mistake for Apple to hire Kafka as head of guest relations.......
I think what you are missing is that an iPad or an iPhone is a general-purpose device, a computer, that you buy and own.
Apple wants to take a 30% cut on any purchases you make with your device, even if you make those purchases through a third-party application.
If Microsoft or Dell did this, then Apple would need to cough up 30% of everything they sold through the version of iTunes running on Windows, which is an OS, just like iOS. iTunes is a third party app running on Windows. Windows is not curated, so Microsoft does not get a dime.
Put another way, Apple by this move is declaring iOS is not to be a curated OS. Rather, they are saying that each iOS device is a Point of Sale that belongs to Apple.
For those saying that there is no possibility of side-loading content, this is incorrect. It was made clear in the announcement that publishers can provide their own authentication in their app to allow access to content purchased elsewhere:
Quote:
Apple also revealed that publishers who use its subscription service in their app can also leverage other methods for acquiring digital subscribers outside of the app. For example, publishers can sell digital subscriptions on their websites, or can choose to provide free access to existing subscribers.
Since Apple is not involved in those transactions, there is no revenue sharing or exchange of customer information with Apple. Publishers must provide their own authentication process inside the app for subscribers that have signed up outside of the app.
A lot more volume for Google, a lot better quality for Kindle and iTunes. While google is making great strides in the cloud space and making everything into a web browser with ads, iTunes is still the easiest and most intuitive way to get content. Download it once and you can sync it with all your mobile devices, and in case of music and movies can play on your computer and TV.
Content can be shared with up to five devices in a presumably family setting. Plus there are backups every time you sync (charge) your device. This is the reason content providers would prefer to stay on iTunes no matter what. That said, apple does not have the market share to totally set the terms of the market, and we may see exclusive content for each platform, just like xbox/ps3/wii console wars.
Comments
I think that Apple is being 100% fair to everybody here. If the customer is using Apple's stuff, then the seller gives Apple their due.
Does this include iMac, & mac books? I mean the companies that sell content for those devices are FREE LOADERSS.. The movie companies with there DVDs that people play on their MACs', apple should get a cut of that sale. Why should users get to play dvd's if apple isn't making money off it.
Duel = contest between two, in order to settle a point of honor.
This is maybe a battle, but it is certainly not a duel.
"Dueling" means "to fight a duel or duels"
So far, it's hard to even count Google in the race, but one could say that Apple and Amazon, and Apple and Google, are both dueling for attention from different audiences.
Does this include iMac, & mac books? I mean the companies that sell content for those devices are FREE LOADERSS.. The movie companies with there DVDs that people play on their MACs', apple should get a cut of that sale. Why should users get to play dvd's if apple isn't making money off it.
Because Apple isn't adding any real unique value when you play a DVD in a Mac. It isn't creating a new market that doesn't exist anywhere and that its rivals can't figure out how to copy.
All you Apple haters are focusing on 30%, outraged for the first time in your lives about the terms of a business deal that if Apple hadn't made transparently open (in an effort to point out that it is the papers who need to fall in line and quick begging for full access to personal data), you wouldn't even have known about.
What you're missing is why Apple can charge 30%. iTunes is an incredible draw, an audience of people who pay for content, as long as its reasonable. Given that Apple entered a market where the leader was charging 70% (which you never went into hysterics about), it's clear you don't have the slightest inclination of what you're talking about.
Listening to Apple-haters and Android supporters is like watching the Tea Party crowds angrily waving signs that call Obama both a socialist and a nazi, completely ignorant of what either is, while they demand that the "government get out of my medicare!!"
If they didn't have corporations telling them what to be upset about, they could only really say that they don't like Obama because he's black and lowered their taxes and asked for greater protections in the market.
Android Party members are as blindly idealistic about matters they don't care to discuss factually, they just want to spew vitriol and hate because they're so riled up by a big company telling them that one is open and one is not, when there's nothing really open about any component of value in Android, from the phone sets to Google apps.
If I walk into a newsagents and buy a magazine a percentage of the cover price goes to the newsagent/retailer selling the magazine. In the same way if I buy a magazine through iTunes (as an app or in-app purchase) then Apple/iTunes is acting as the retailer and are entitled to their commission. I don't know how much commission retailers take on magazine sales but my guess would be that it's not far short of Apple's 30%. There really is no difference that I can see.
If publishers want people to supply their details then offer an incentive for users to register their subscription once they have purchased it. A prize draw or money off vouchers or something. They could easily stick an email reply form in the digital edition. If you just go into a newsagent a buy the magazine they have no idea who are.
I've been in the position as a Product/Marketing Manager where I had newspapers and magazines sending me their media packs with all the demogarphics. It was all very good but to be honest most of the time I didn't need to read it. Most of the time it's obvious who a magazine is aimed at and if that's your target audience you go with the advert, if it's not then you don't.
How long would your theoretical newsstand stay open if publishers released free magazines for you to distribute for free, all chucked full of subscription cards you got no piece of the action on.
Why would you carry such inventory and manage millions of free transactions at your own expense? What other retailers carry free inventory that generates subsequent sales for third parties that do not also benefit the retailer?
Seriously, have you not even stepped back to consider the absurdity of what you're saying?
Would be fun if Microsoft suddenly required a 30% cut on any iTunes purchase made "thanks to its Windows system". I can envision DED explaining just how this "has already happened once" and "is fundamentally different from Apple's methods". Oh, the LOLZ. DED made my day again
Well one difference is that Microsoft's Windows exerts a monopoly over the PC market. There are plenty of iOS competitors, and Android is said to be even bigger. So if its really some onerous terms that the industry isn't going to put up with, they don't have to. No so with Microsoft's illegally created monopoly, which was founded on criminal conduct, not just sales popularity.
Also, if Microsoft had overtly asked for money from developers, Windows would never have taken off because it didn't add that much value.
Microsoft has since tried to ask developers for a cut from WiMob and then WP7, but both efforts failed to result in real markets. Google is trying to take a cut of both Android and Chrome Web apps, but does such bad job all it has is a bunch of garbage. One can say the same thing about Palm, Symbian, and BBery.
How long would your theoretical newsstand stay open if publishers released free magazines for you to distribute for free, all chucked full of subscription cards you got no piece of the action on.
Why would you carry such inventory and manage millions of free transactions at your own expense? What other retailers carry free inventory that generates subsequent sales for third parties that do not also benefit the retailer?
Seriously, have you not even stepped back to consider the absurdity of what you're saying?
The newsstand would last VERY long if the charged for a key to enter the newstand like apple charges for the iPad/iPhone devices, the thing apple really makes money on. Don't you remember jobs saying they really do not make any profit off of iTunes. Apple seems to be doing pretty well with that model right now.
Have you not even stepped back to consider the absurdity of what you're saying?
You saying apple should get a cut of any content you view on your iPhone/iPad this is CRAZY!
[
Apple wants to take a 30% cut on any purchases you make with your device, even if you make those purchases through a third-party application.
Well... that is some what true. The missing link is that an app, today, can get your attention, drive you to another web site and sell you things after using Apple to deliver the "sales pitch" for them, e.g. the app. Apple is saying, use my service and I get a cut from your customer purchases. Alright... how many customers would you have if your app was not in the App Store? We see this sort of thing in retail all the time. Set up shop in a mall.. you get customers that come to the location for other things from other vendors, and buy from you as well. You give a cut to the mall operator as a % of sales... that wrong too? Also we have a convenience factor. We can buy from the app (call it a convenience store) or we see a web page listed, we log in to that directly from Safari; then enter in all our information, and use PayPal or some thing to buy what you want (call it a grocery store). So the choice is - go into your choice of a convenience store and buy a soft drink that is cold... or go to the grocery store, buy a twelve pack, take it home, put in the fridge, wait until it is cold. 100% of thirsty people make a choice... you can too on your purchases. Apple is saying, you want to sell something, allow us to help you and there is a cost. You can go on your own, or go with us and make it up in volume. Choice... all about choice. As a consumer I want that choice available as I would think app owners would want that too.
Because Apple isn't adding any real unique value when you play a DVD in a Mac. It isn't creating a new market that doesn't exist anywhere and that its rivals can't figure out how to copy.
So if i just want to read eBook i bought on amazon, which apple adds no unique value to other than I can read it on my ipod/ipad or mac. amazon must now sell that same book in their app store READER app at the same price and give apple 30% of it? WTF
All you Apple haters are focusing on 30%, outraged for the first time in your lives about the terms of a business deal that if Apple hadn't made transparently open (in an effort to point out that it is the papers who need to fall in line and quick begging for full access to personal data), you wouldn't even have known about.
Umm yeah if the kindel app all of sudden was removed from the app store, i think i would have noticed.
What you're missing is why Apple can charge 30%. iTunes is an incredible draw, an audience of people who pay for content, as long as its reasonable. Given that Apple entered a market where the leader was charging 70% (which you never went into hysterics about), it's clear you don't have the slightest inclination of what you're talking about.
Yeah you know I'm not dumb. I see what apple is doing an I do not like it, I can see allot of my apps that I like (kindel, mog, zinio etc..) going away since 30% is a ripp off. oh yeah and the 70% that kindel was charging (for the kindel device content) That was a rip off to, thats one of the reasons i dont have one.
Listening to Apple-haters and Android supporters is like watching the Tea Party crowds angrily waving signs that call Obama both a socialist and a nazi, completely ignorant of what either is, while they demand that the "government get out of my medicare!!"
If they didn't have corporations telling them what to be upset about, they could only really say that they don't like Obama because he's black and lowered their taxes and asked for greater protections in the market.
Hmm not sure why this is here because this is not a political issue. But any ways last I looked apple was a corporation and I do not like what its saying about this right now
Android Party members are as blindly idealistic about matters they don't care to discuss factually, they just want to spew vitriol and hate because they're so riled up by a big company telling them that one is open and one is not, when there's nothing really open about any component of value in Android, from the phone sets to Google apps.
Haha, wow yeah. There are some issues on androids side. But it is way more open then apple. I mean you can grab the android source and compile if you want and you can side load apps, or hell even make your own store!. So while i think iOS interface is superior and love my iPhone and iPad, android compared to apple is WAY MORE OPEN.
I think what you are missing is that an iPad or an iPhone is a general-purpose device, a computer, that you buy and own.
[
Apple wants to take a 30% cut on any purchases you make with your device, even if you make those purchases through a third-party application.
Well... that is some what true. The missing link is that an app, today, can get your attention, drive you to another web site and sell you things after using Apple to deliver the "sales pitch" for them, e.g. the app. Apple is saying, use my service and I get a cut from your customer purchases. Alright... how many customers would you have if your app was not in the App Store? We see this sort of thing in retail all the time. Set up shop in a mall.. you get customers that come to the location for other things from other vendors, and buy from you as well. You give a cut to the mall operator as a % of sales... that wrong too? Also we have a convenience factor. We can buy from the app (call it a convenience store) or we see a web page listed, we log in to that directly from Safari; then enter in all our information, and use PayPal or some thing to buy what you want (call it a grocery store). So the choice is - go into your choice of a convenience store and buy a soft drink that is cold... or go to the grocery store, buy a twelve pack, take it home, put in the fridge, wait until it is cold. 100% of thirsty people make a choice... you can too on your purchases. Apple is saying, you want to sell something, allow us to help you and there is a cost. You can go on your own, or go with us and make it up in volume. Choice... all about choice. As a consumer I want that choice available as I would think app owners would want that too.
Wow this is about choice? Really? what choice is apple giving. They are forcing companies that do not want to sell their content through the app store (because 30% is to much or censorship or any other host of reasons ) to sell their content through the app store or you will be baned. thats not much of a choice.
Again if all i want to do is read my kindle book on my iPad why should the company be FORCED to sell the book in the app store for the same price and give 30% to apple. I do not understand this. If amazon wants tell sell in the app store because they believe they will benefit from the "Incredible, mind bending app store" then great they can, but do not FORCE THEM TO.
- There seems to be no mention of what Amazon's data sharing policy is. Does it just not share? Or does it share, and there is just no option to opt out?
- Google's One Pass is declared to not work on iPad. But if it's a Web-based service, with content authentication presumably tied to one's Google account, doesn't that mean it'll work on just about any reasonbly modern device with a competent browser, be it Mac, Windows, Linux, iPhone, or iPad?
I'm not so sure this is true.
No one is talking about it so maybe i'm wrong, but I don't see anything in the way of publishers essentially making electronic HTML versions of their magazines and distributing them on both the web and any mobile devices. iOS allows "side-loading" of any web app as does Android, WebOS and any other platform I've ever heard of. I have several web apps. They have buttons on the home screen and generally behave identically to other apps.
The iOS market is a like huge golden plum for magazine producers, and 30% is a better deal than they currently get with print distribution. If I was a small magazine publisher I would leap at this deal and my only concern would be how fast can I get into the store.
If I was a larger publisher that was trying to resist loosing all that nefarious control that I have now, I would be setting up an entirely web-based operation and distribute the magazines myself. The problem is that the HTML distribute it yourself option has been available for many years and no large publisher has yet figured it out or really wants to do it that way. As it says in this article, the reason is that they don't really care about the magazine, it's all about the advertising.
More and more I don't think it's really sensible to even talk about this topic without separating out the small (actual) magazine producers that actually serve unique content, from the bulk of the market which is just about churning out this months version of the exact same crap magazine full of advertisements.
I really think this is the "real" truth here. Probably in the 50s & 60s magazines still were "content" driven, but since the rise of all these junk-mail factories with their mailing lists, all these subscription devices were really about the ads that could be sold and the marks who could be fleeced (I mean us, the "customers"). The complaints that have arisen and the hew and cry about evil Apple really are just the screams of data thieves and scammers wanting their access back. Well, I for one would rather be able to opt out of their harvesting operations and I thank Apple for giving me the choice not them.
To me the significant point of differentiation is that Apple is actually making it better for their customers while risking alienating publishers. They appear to banking on the entrenched market for iOS to force the publishers hand.
Google, OTOH, true to character, is happy to oblige their corporate partners by handing over user data.
Oh please. You think Apple is doing it for the good of its customers? Yeah right. They will leverage the data themselves and offer up iAds as an advertising platform for the content providers. At the end of the day Apple is no less interested in money than Google. They just go about getting it a different way.
And I'd say the demographics data is probably worth more to publishers (and is a bigger hit) than that 30% cut. Right now, they get that when you sign up, you give that information to the publisher anyway (so this argument that Google is doing something nefarious or giving up new information is bogus). They won't have that information from iOS customers. Yet, that information is the lifeblood of their advertising income (which is often more significant than their subscriber income).
I think it's undeniably true that a simple one click subscribe unsubscribe system using my iTunes account, and which doesn't send along my info to various entities for use in targeted marketing, is a better experience for me than what Google is offering. Naturally, Apple will be pilloried for being control freaks, but I'm not sure why I should be siding with content providers over my interests.
The problem isn't the delivery system. Or even the size of Apple's cut. DED missed the point. The problem is the demand that prices be the same across all of the publisher's distribution channels. This means they can't make up for Apple's cut by raising prices on iOS users. Thats' the issue. And to top it off, Apple imposes restrictions which essentially work to redirect business from other distribution channels to the App Store.
I am curious to see how all this plays out. It's quite a hit to lose 30% of revenue AND lose subscriber data AND have your entire pricing model constricted by Apple. That's quite an advantage that the App Store must deliver to overcome all that.
Oh please. You think Apple is doing it for the good of its customers? Yeah right. They will leverage the data themselves and offer up iAds as an advertising platform for the content providers. At the end of the day Apple is no less interested in money than Google. They just go about getting it a different way.
Did I say that Apple wasn't interested in making money? The "going about it in a different way" just happens to mean making the most appealing customer experience possible, so you'll buy more Apple product. The Google way happens to be to sell your information to advertisers, being Google's actual customers. I know which one works better for me.
When you say "they're both in it for money" as if that levels every aspect of the business into indistinguishable sameness, it suggests to me you either don't care about or don't understand that "going about it different ways" can have enormous repercussions for the user.
And I'd say the demographics data is probably worth more to publishers (and is a bigger hit) than that 30% cut. Right now, they get that when you sign up, you give that information to the publisher anyway (so this argument that Google is doing something nefarious or giving up new information is bogus). They won't have that information from iOS customers. Yet, that information is the lifeblood of their advertising income (which is often more significant than their subscriber income).
I think it's touching that your'e such a powerful advocate for the business interests of a moribund publishing industry that is clearly facing huge challenges to change their ways or perish. Damn you Apple, with your lack of sensitivity as to how these enormous corporations desire to keep making money the way they always have! Do as they say, or risk my scorn! How can I use your devices and sleep at night, knowing that your cut of some elaborate pie exceeds what by my reckoning is reasonable and just?!
It reminds me of the folks that railed against the greedy music industry, bragging about their preference for simply stealing over that industry's onerous terms, right up until the point Apple became a big player in the market-- at which point those same people become the music industry's biggest supporters, weeping tears of betrayal over how Apple was ruining their beloved media conglomerates.
The problem isn't the delivery system. Or even the size of Apple's cut. DED missed the point. The problem is the demand that prices be the same across all of the publisher's distribution channels. This means they can't make up for Apple's cut by raising prices on iOS users. Thats' the issue. And to top it off, Apple imposes restrictions which essentially work to redirect business from other distribution channels to the App Store.
Yep. But what your'e not mentioning is that for a lot of vendors the App Store is a godsend. It provides visibility and ease of use that drive adoption beyond what they've seen when relying on their own store front. It's not as if digital subscriptions are a particularly lucrative market, at the moment. What happens if some early adopters (and they exist, doom sayers notwithstanding) see big wins? Think the industry is going to be unduly concerned that they use the App Store as their primary outlet? And if they use the App Store as their primary outlet, what do they care what they do or do not charge elsewhere? If Apple required music to be priced no higher than when sold at individual label sites, do you think that would drive music off iTunes? Of course not, because iTunes is the store. It's what made digital music legitimate and work economically. And it did that buy making discovery and purchase dead simple. Do not disregard the possibility that the App Store will do the same for digital subscription services.
I am curious to see how all this plays out. It's quite a hit to lose 30% of revenue AND lose subscriber data AND have your entire pricing model constricted by Apple. That's quite an advantage that the App Store must deliver to overcome all that.
Yep. We'll see. The only other game in town is Android, and Android users are famous for not really liking to pay for things. Perhaps they enjoy ad laden subscriptions. At any rate, if it seems to be hurting the platform, I imagine Apple will reconsider. On the other hand, there were plenty of people who were glad to bray about how Apple's 30% cut in the original App Store was going to doom that to irrelevancy as well.
What you do not understand is if you offer a subscription/content outside of the app store you MUST offer it within the app. This is the Whole issue. So any company that sells any content outside the app store and wants the user to be able to use that content on iOS they MUST also sell the same content in the app store.
I.E. Buy a book for iReader from my computer (they dont make hardware) . iReader wants to come to the iSO so their customers can read on any device. Apple blocks iReader because it does not sell the content through their iOS app (even though its just a reader). So the user couldn't not even side load it through iTunes because the app will never get approved.
I really cant see just because I want to read something on my iPad, apple should get a cut.
Should apple get a cut of ad sales for web pages I go to in safari?
I do understand, I just disagree and I don't see where having the in-App Store-second-option is a problem. While the subscription cannot be offered for less outside, the typical retail manner to sidestep the nearly identical problem of Minimum Advertised Price is to bundle something trivial & non-subscription in the publishers site that won't be available in the in App Purchase. While that cannot be linked to in-App, I don't see why it couldn't be passed through a live web interface similar to how ads are served, but not an ad.
That extra non-subscription content would be the motivation to bring the customer directly to the publisher for the full sale. Magazine servicing bureaus also already do essentially the same thing to get you to renew through them rather than do it directly through the publisher.
HAHAHAHAHA iTunes software best in class??? its a joke, the dam thing crashes all the time and is full of so much bloat it barely even runs. Im not the only one who to think the iTunes software is a price of sh*t
OK, there you went from a valid debater to just a another worthless troll. iTunes may not be a favorite for everyone, but it definitely isn't what you claim.
Lost your patience, lost the war, all in one itty-bitty little post. You do follow it up nicely though, continuing to espouse propaganda in your continuing posts regardless of the illogic of a good chunk of it.
OK, there you went from a valid debater to just a another worthless troll. iTunes may not be a favorite for everyone, but it definitely isn't what you claim.
Lost your patience, lost the war, all in one itty-bitty little post. You do follow it up nicely though, continuing to espouse propaganda in your continuing posts regardless of the illogic of a good chunk of it.
Illogic can barely describe this:
They are forcing companies that do not want to sell their content through the app store (because 30% is to much or censorship or any other host of reasons ) to sell their content through the app store or you will be baned. thats not much of a choice.
which is some kind of black hole of circular belligerence. Also, I've heard that if you don't want to go to the brick and mortar Apple Store because you hate Apple or any other of a host of reasons you will be nevertheless forced to go to the Apple Store or you won't be allowed in. I knew it was a mistake for Apple to hire Kafka as head of guest relations.......
I think what you are missing is that an iPad or an iPhone is a general-purpose device, a computer, that you buy and own.
Apple wants to take a 30% cut on any purchases you make with your device, even if you make those purchases through a third-party application.
If Microsoft or Dell did this, then Apple would need to cough up 30% of everything they sold through the version of iTunes running on Windows, which is an OS, just like iOS. iTunes is a third party app running on Windows. Windows is not curated, so Microsoft does not get a dime.
Put another way, Apple by this move is declaring iOS is not to be a curated OS. Rather, they are saying that each iOS device is a Point of Sale that belongs to Apple.
Safari says hi.
Now take your blathering elsewhere.
Thanks!
Apple also revealed that publishers who use its subscription service in their app can also leverage other methods for acquiring digital subscribers outside of the app. For example, publishers can sell digital subscriptions on their websites, or can choose to provide free access to existing subscribers.
Since Apple is not involved in those transactions, there is no revenue sharing or exchange of customer information with Apple. Publishers must provide their own authentication process inside the app for subscribers that have signed up outside of the app.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...app_store.html
The publisher would also need to include and in-app purchase button but the option to deliver content purchased elsewhere does exist.
Content can be shared with up to five devices in a presumably family setting. Plus there are backups every time you sync (charge) your device. This is the reason content providers would prefer to stay on iTunes no matter what. That said, apple does not have the market share to totally set the terms of the market, and we may see exclusive content for each platform, just like xbox/ps3/wii console wars.