Bullshit is bullshit. There's no point in wasting time replying to long-winded nonsense.
Really? Are you sure it is not because you are incapable of reading a well reasond argument, understanding it, and formulating an intelligent reply?
In my opinion and understanding, common carrier laws don't apply here...YET. This is a new form of commerce and laws can and do evolve. If there is a big enough uproar from consumers and the potent content lobbies, it is certainly possible that either the US or EU will take action including possible legislative action. They could directly outlaw Apple's pricing agreement terms, or the requirement that in app purchases must go through Apple. They could even outlaw the walled garden that allows Apple to limit access to only their own App Store. The US Congress has a ton of power to regulate interstate commerce if they want to act, and historically they tend to act in favor of more competition and access, not less.
Really? Are you sure it is not because you are incapable of reading a well reasond argument, understanding it, and formulating an intelligent reply? ...
Apple is the one trying to choke off the market and elimiate other sales channels. Why not have the FTC, or perhaps an act of Congress, allow fair price competition on different distrubution methods and providers? Why not let Apple charge whatever fees they want for in app purchases, but prohibit apple from requiring the in app price be the same or lower and why not prohibit apple from banning links to other competing purchasing options?
Which market is Apple choking off?
Computers? Nope - you can still buy your choice from any number of suppliers -- and Apple only has a minor market share.
Cell phones? Nope- you can still buy your choice from any number of suppliers -- and Apple only has a minor market share.
Smart phones? Nope- you can still buy your choice from any number of suppliers -- and Apple only has a minor market share.
Music? Nope- you can still buy your choice from any number of suppliers -- and Apple only has a minor market share.
Magazines? Nope- you can still buy your choice from any number of suppliers -- and Apple only has a minor market share.
Books? Nope- you can still buy your choice from any number of suppliers -- and Apple only has a minor market share.
Software? Nope- you can still buy your choice from any number of suppliers -- and Apple only has a minor market share.
Software for smartphones? Nope- you can still buy your choice from any number of suppliers -- and Apple only has a minor market share.
The only thing Apple is doing is choosing which items they will sell in their store and taking a cut. That's no different than Walmart taking a cut (closer to 50% than to Apple's 30%, btw) and choosing what to sell in their store. Is Walmart anticompetitive because they won't sell Playboy?
Or maybe it's like Ford dealers refusing to sell you a new Corvette. Must be anticompetitive, right?
Or maybe it's like Coca Cola not allowing its distributors to sell Pepsi in a Coke can.
All this talk of Apple having a monopoly or restricting competition is total nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict
I have a hard time seeing how anti-competitive behavior that resticts choice is going to promote an exciting new market.
Obviously because you don't have a clue what anticompetitive behavior is.
That's extremely misleading. That's only smartphone sales through dedicated app stores. Software purchased elsewhere is not listed.
Consider that Apple only has 25% of the smartphone market. Is it reasonable to believe that the other 75% of owners are only buying 17% of the software? Obviously not - they're just not getting it through dedicated app stores.
If they wanted to be the best high end option, they wouldn't have priced the ipad at $499.
Simple as that.
They priced the iPad WAY TOO aggressively to defend that assertion.
Yea, and free is better, but I would not hold my breath if I were you. I hear you can get a XOOM for 800$ to 1000$ that matches an iPad.... or pay the same price for a 7" screen.
There are better options everywhere out there...... in another dimension. LOL
Yet your total refusal to put forth an argument suggests that you don't have one.
I'm pretty sure it suggests that bullshit isn't worth replying to. For example, suppose I posted this:
Quote:
In my opinion and understanding, privacy laws don't apply here...YET. This is a new form of cyberstalking and laws can and do evolve. If there is a big enough uproar from consumers it is certainly possible that either the US or EU will take action including possible legislative action. They could directly outlaw Google's data theft, or force all ad services to only collect information from people who opt in. They could even outlaw Internet advertising. The US Congress has a ton of power to regulate interstate commerce if they want to act, and historically they tend to act in favor of consumers. Android would immediately become illegal.
Is there any likelihood that the US Congress is going to do this? No. So, is there any point in responding to it other than to say it's nonsense? No.
That's extremely misleading. That's only smartphone sales through dedicated app stores. Software purchased elsewhere is not listed.
Consider that Apple only has 25% of the smartphone market. Is it reasonable to believe that the other 75% of owners are only buying 17% of the software? Obviously not - they're just not getting it through dedicated app stores.
From what I keep reading in various places, Google is very worried about how poorly Android (the only serious smartphone competitor to the iPhone right now) Apps are selling. I've also been reading that part of the reason is that hardware specific dependencies as well as significant version fragmentation in Android make developing a single app for all Android devices essentially impossible, which doesn't give developers much encouragement to develop for Android.
Also, remember that the iOS ecosystem also includes iPod Touches (no serious competition to speak of) and iPads (where competitors are just beginning to get serious).
So yes, while I'm sure that 75% of smartphone owners buying only 17% of the handheld software is not dead nuts accurate, related information suggests that it's not that far off the mark either.
You can't be that stupid. Anonymouse yes, but I doubt you are. Apple is trying to choke off the the ability to sell content to owners of its hardware. They want your music to come from iTunes and your books to come from iBooks and your news and magazines to go through their billing system. They already force you to get your apps from their app store on iOS devices and they are trying to use that power to eliminate customer choice for the other content and video content for iOS and apple TV as well. Apple is trying to keep iOS customers from buying add on content from anyone but Apple, or an Apple partner who is giving 30% to Apple.
Quote:
Obviously because you don't have a clue what anticompetitive behavior is.
No, I have more than just a clue. I understand exactly what Apple is trying to do and what it will do to consumers and competitors.
I'm pretty sure it suggests that bullshit isn't worth replying to.
Fascinating. You did all that work to argue why you don't want to do any work to make an argument.
BTW, noting that two different issues can use the same form of argument, then claiming one is nonsense, therefore the other is nonsense is? well? nonsense!
Please, either put forth your argument or go do something which is actually productive.
You can't be that stupid. Anonymouse yes, but I doubt you are. Apple is trying to choke off the the ability to sell content to owners of its hardware. They want your music to come from iTunes and your books to come from iBooks and your news and magazines to go through their billing system. They already force you to get your apps from their app store on iOS devices and they are trying to use that power to eliminate customer choice for the other content and video content for iOS and apple TV as well. Apple is trying to keep iOS customers from buying add on content from anyone but Apple, or an Apple partner who is giving 30% to Apple.
No, I have more than just a clue. I understand exactly what Apple is trying to do and what it will do to consumers and competitors.
More nonsense. And frankly, I think you do understand what Apple is trying to do, and that you're being entirely disingenuous in your posts. (That means I think you're just making bullshit up, by the way.)
Apple's trying to do two things, period.
1. Maintain a consistent user experience for iOS users so that using an iOS device is a better user experience than using a web browser.
2. Stop "developers" who are cheating on their developer agreement to avoid the revenue sharing aspects of that agreement from doing so.
That's it, period, and there is exactly no evidence to support any of these fictional "evil plot" theories that you and the other astroturfers, fandroids, etc. are here trying to pass off as "the real story".
You're like the Glenn Beck of the AppleInsider forums.
1. Maintain a consistent user experience for iOS users so that using an iOS device is a better user experience than using a web browser.
2. Stop "developers" who are cheating on their developer agreement to avoid the revenue sharing aspects of that agreement from doing so.
1. Agree.
2. I do agree that Apple has a right to collect revenue from those selling through apps right now. But you don't think Apple insisting that pricing being the same across all distribution channels is a bit of an over-reach? I don't know if that's there in the developer agreement right now. Whether it is or is not, I do believe many developers will find that a bit too much. In any event, we'll see in due course, whether this flies with developers. I trust if Apple reverses its policies, you'll be back here acknowledging that you were wrong?
1. Maintain a consistent user experience for iOS users so that using an iOS device is a better user experience than using a web browser.
Occam's Razor: Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. When you start trampling business relationships where you're not invited in, it doesn't matter how "user friendly" your design is, you've crossed the line into "too simple".
Quote:
2. Stop "developers" who are cheating on their developer agreement to avoid the revenue sharing aspects of that agreement from doing so.
There's another way to do it with destroying your partners' profits*: Require such "content" apps to provide a certain fixed minimum of income to Apple, even if that minimum is 100% of the selling price. For example, $4.99 of income for Apple would probably make such an app one of the better "per unit" apps on the App Store. I'm sure most content app developers would be willing to list their apps at that price since they're not actually looking to get any profit out of the app itself now. It's also not crazy expensive for the end user and Apple gets paid for the services they're actually providing. So why couldn't Apple do something like this instead of creating such an uproar?
(*Yes, partner. While Amazon competes with Apple's iBooks, they're also a partner in that their software and services help drive sales of iDevices.)
... 2. I do agree that Apple has a right to collect revenue from those selling through apps right now. But you don't think Apple insisting that pricing being the same across all distribution channels is a bit of an over-reach? I don't know if that's there in the developer agreement right now. Whether it is or is not, I do believe many developers will find that a bit too much. In any event, we'll see in due course, whether this flies with developers. I trust if Apple reverses its policies, you'll be back here acknowledging that you were wrong?
Right now you have a situation where "developers" are essentially hiding most or all revenue by selling out the back door. A "developer" releases a shell app that has no content or functionality at all, and then doesn't offer in-app purchasing, but sells everything outside the App Store. (Making for a "web browser" user experience.) Some of these apps pull in quite a bit of revenue. Revenue that the developer agreed to share with Apple when they signed the developer agreement.
I think it's entirely correct for Apple to rein in the cheaters and not allow this to continue. The cheaters are essentially shifting the burden of supporting App Store costs onto honest developers. But, unless Apple plays hardball with them, they have no incentive to negotiate a lower percentage, because right now they are, in violation of the agreement, sharing zero percent. My guess is that Apple may eventually set different percentages for different kinds of content, but maybe not.
For subscriptions, the 30% is neither here nor there, despite all the noise from publishers. Most of their revenue is coming from advertising anyway, so the little bit of subscription revenue they lose is insignificant. For games selling, for example, additional levels, it probably will, and ought to, remain a straight 30%, otherwise, game developers will cheat the revenue sharing system by including a couple of levels in the downloaded app, and making users buy the rest after the fact.
The "developers" for whom this means the most are those like Amazon and Sony who are hiding all their revenue from Apple. Their free reader apps don't do anything (revenue generating) unless you buy content. If they can avoid selling any content through the App Store, they can effectively hide all their revenue. But, the argument is that 30% is too much for them to have to pay.
There are a couple of reasons I think it may not be. First of all, even if they do have to enable in-app purchases, it's unlikely that all their sales will be made through the App Store. Amazon, at least, is on multiple platforms and there are a number of ways users can buy books that they may be reading on iOS devices. So, it's a certainty that Amazon won't be paying 30% of it's total eBook sales to Apple. The actual percentage of total sales might be quite small. And the same argument applies to Netflix.
But, if they were to negotiate a lower percentage because 30% did turn out to be too onerous, it would need to be done by very carefully defining specific categories of content to which it applies, otherwise, it just creates another loophole for developers who want to cheat on their agreement to share revenue. But, before any of that happens, the cheaters have to be forced to the negotiating table, and to do that, they have to have some reason to want to negotiate.
Occam's Razor: Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. When you start trampling business relationships where you're not invited in, it doesn't matter how "user friendly" your design is, you've crossed the line into "too simple".
Since that's not what Occam's Razor is about, it doesn't really apply. Amazon "invited Apple in" when they signed the developer agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman
There's another way to do it with destroying your partners' profits*: Require such "content" apps to provide a certain fixed minimum of income to Apple, even if that minimum is 100% of the selling price. For example, $4.99 of income for Apple would probably make such an app one of the better "per unit" apps on the App Store. I'm sure most content app developers would be willing to list their apps at that price since they're not actually looking to get any profit out of the app itself now. It's also not crazy expensive for the end user and Apple gets paid for the services they're actually providing. So why couldn't Apple do something like this instead of creating such an uproar?
(*Yes, partner. While Amazon competes with Apple's iBooks, they're also a partner in that their software and services help drive sales of iDevices.)
Dumb idea. Sucks for consumers. Impossible to determine a "fair" price. And most app developers would probably scream even louder about such a scheme just to satisfy a few corporate giants like Sony and Amazon, although, I don't think they would like it very much either.
Comments
I would argue their apps have spurred many iPads sales. Maybe they should get a cut of that revenue from Apple?
Good point, I think Apple owes Amazon 30% of the purchase price of my iDevices because Kindle was a big part of the motivation to purchase them.
Good point, I think Apple owes Amazon 30% of the purchase price of my iDevices because Kindle was a big part of the motivation to purchase them.
... or short-winded nonsense, either, for that matter.
Bullshit is bullshit. There's no point in wasting time replying to long-winded nonsense.
Really? Are you sure it is not because you are incapable of reading a well reasond argument, understanding it, and formulating an intelligent reply?
In my opinion and understanding, common carrier laws don't apply here...YET. This is a new form of commerce and laws can and do evolve. If there is a big enough uproar from consumers and the potent content lobbies, it is certainly possible that either the US or EU will take action including possible legislative action. They could directly outlaw Apple's pricing agreement terms, or the requirement that in app purchases must go through Apple. They could even outlaw the walled garden that allows Apple to limit access to only their own App Store. The US Congress has a ton of power to regulate interstate commerce if they want to act, and historically they tend to act in favor of more competition and access, not less.
Really? Are you sure it is not because you are incapable of reading a well reasond argument, understanding it, and formulating an intelligent reply? ...
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's not it.
Apple is the one trying to choke off the market and elimiate other sales channels. Why not have the FTC, or perhaps an act of Congress, allow fair price competition on different distrubution methods and providers? Why not let Apple charge whatever fees they want for in app purchases, but prohibit apple from requiring the in app price be the same or lower and why not prohibit apple from banning links to other competing purchasing options?
Which market is Apple choking off?
Computers? Nope - you can still buy your choice from any number of suppliers -- and Apple only has a minor market share.
Cell phones? Nope- you can still buy your choice from any number of suppliers -- and Apple only has a minor market share.
Smart phones? Nope- you can still buy your choice from any number of suppliers -- and Apple only has a minor market share.
Music? Nope- you can still buy your choice from any number of suppliers -- and Apple only has a minor market share.
Magazines? Nope- you can still buy your choice from any number of suppliers -- and Apple only has a minor market share.
Books? Nope- you can still buy your choice from any number of suppliers -- and Apple only has a minor market share.
Software? Nope- you can still buy your choice from any number of suppliers -- and Apple only has a minor market share.
Software for smartphones? Nope- you can still buy your choice from any number of suppliers -- and Apple only has a minor market share.
The only thing Apple is doing is choosing which items they will sell in their store and taking a cut. That's no different than Walmart taking a cut (closer to 50% than to Apple's 30%, btw) and choosing what to sell in their store. Is Walmart anticompetitive because they won't sell Playboy?
Or maybe it's like Ford dealers refusing to sell you a new Corvette. Must be anticompetitive, right?
Or maybe it's like Coca Cola not allowing its distributors to sell Pepsi in a Coke can.
All this talk of Apple having a monopoly or restricting competition is total nonsense.
I have a hard time seeing how anti-competitive behavior that resticts choice is going to promote an exciting new market.
Obviously because you don't have a clue what anticompetitive behavior is.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's not it.
Yet your total refusal to put forth an argument suggests that you don't have one.
Software for smartphones? Nope- you can still buy your choice from any number of suppliers -- and Apple only has a minor market share.
According to this chart posted over at Engadget, this assertion is false. 82.7% is not a minor share by any meaningful measurement.
Nonsense.
Such a well thought out argument. Lot of thought went into that. Stop thinking before you hurt yourself.
According to this chart posted over at Engadget, this assertion is false. 82.7% is not a minor share by any meaningful measurement.
That's extremely misleading. That's only smartphone sales through dedicated app stores. Software purchased elsewhere is not listed.
Consider that Apple only has 25% of the smartphone market. Is it reasonable to believe that the other 75% of owners are only buying 17% of the software? Obviously not - they're just not getting it through dedicated app stores.
If they wanted to be the best high end option, they wouldn't have priced the ipad at $499.
Simple as that.
They priced the iPad WAY TOO aggressively to defend that assertion.
Yea, and free is better, but I would not hold my breath if I were you. I hear you can get a XOOM for 800$ to 1000$ that matches an iPad.... or pay the same price for a 7" screen.
There are better options everywhere out there...... in another dimension. LOL
Just a thought,
en
Yet your total refusal to put forth an argument suggests that you don't have one.
I'm pretty sure it suggests that bullshit isn't worth replying to. For example, suppose I posted this:
In my opinion and understanding, privacy laws don't apply here...YET. This is a new form of cyberstalking and laws can and do evolve. If there is a big enough uproar from consumers it is certainly possible that either the US or EU will take action including possible legislative action. They could directly outlaw Google's data theft, or force all ad services to only collect information from people who opt in. They could even outlaw Internet advertising. The US Congress has a ton of power to regulate interstate commerce if they want to act, and historically they tend to act in favor of consumers. Android would immediately become illegal.
Is there any likelihood that the US Congress is going to do this? No. So, is there any point in responding to it other than to say it's nonsense? No.
That's extremely misleading. That's only smartphone sales through dedicated app stores. Software purchased elsewhere is not listed.
Consider that Apple only has 25% of the smartphone market. Is it reasonable to believe that the other 75% of owners are only buying 17% of the software? Obviously not - they're just not getting it through dedicated app stores.
From what I keep reading in various places, Google is very worried about how poorly Android (the only serious smartphone competitor to the iPhone right now) Apps are selling. I've also been reading that part of the reason is that hardware specific dependencies as well as significant version fragmentation in Android make developing a single app for all Android devices essentially impossible, which doesn't give developers much encouragement to develop for Android.
Also, remember that the iOS ecosystem also includes iPod Touches (no serious competition to speak of) and iPads (where competitors are just beginning to get serious).
So yes, while I'm sure that 75% of smartphone owners buying only 17% of the handheld software is not dead nuts accurate, related information suggests that it's not that far off the mark either.
Which market is Apple choking off?
You can't be that stupid. Anonymouse yes, but I doubt you are. Apple is trying to choke off the the ability to sell content to owners of its hardware. They want your music to come from iTunes and your books to come from iBooks and your news and magazines to go through their billing system. They already force you to get your apps from their app store on iOS devices and they are trying to use that power to eliminate customer choice for the other content and video content for iOS and apple TV as well. Apple is trying to keep iOS customers from buying add on content from anyone but Apple, or an Apple partner who is giving 30% to Apple.
Obviously because you don't have a clue what anticompetitive behavior is.
No, I have more than just a clue. I understand exactly what Apple is trying to do and what it will do to consumers and competitors.
I'm pretty sure it suggests that bullshit isn't worth replying to.
Fascinating. You did all that work to argue why you don't want to do any work to make an argument.
BTW, noting that two different issues can use the same form of argument, then claiming one is nonsense, therefore the other is nonsense is? well? nonsense!
Please, either put forth your argument or go do something which is actually productive.
You can't be that stupid. Anonymouse yes, but I doubt you are. Apple is trying to choke off the the ability to sell content to owners of its hardware. They want your music to come from iTunes and your books to come from iBooks and your news and magazines to go through their billing system. They already force you to get your apps from their app store on iOS devices and they are trying to use that power to eliminate customer choice for the other content and video content for iOS and apple TV as well. Apple is trying to keep iOS customers from buying add on content from anyone but Apple, or an Apple partner who is giving 30% to Apple.
No, I have more than just a clue. I understand exactly what Apple is trying to do and what it will do to consumers and competitors.
More nonsense. And frankly, I think you do understand what Apple is trying to do, and that you're being entirely disingenuous in your posts. (That means I think you're just making bullshit up, by the way.)
Apple's trying to do two things, period.
1. Maintain a consistent user experience for iOS users so that using an iOS device is a better user experience than using a web browser.
2. Stop "developers" who are cheating on their developer agreement to avoid the revenue sharing aspects of that agreement from doing so.
That's it, period, and there is exactly no evidence to support any of these fictional "evil plot" theories that you and the other astroturfers, fandroids, etc. are here trying to pass off as "the real story".
You're like the Glenn Beck of the AppleInsider forums.
1. Maintain a consistent user experience for iOS users so that using an iOS device is a better user experience than using a web browser.
2. Stop "developers" who are cheating on their developer agreement to avoid the revenue sharing aspects of that agreement from doing so.
1. Agree.
2. I do agree that Apple has a right to collect revenue from those selling through apps right now. But you don't think Apple insisting that pricing being the same across all distribution channels is a bit of an over-reach? I don't know if that's there in the developer agreement right now. Whether it is or is not, I do believe many developers will find that a bit too much. In any event, we'll see in due course, whether this flies with developers. I trust if Apple reverses its policies, you'll be back here acknowledging that you were wrong?
1. Maintain a consistent user experience for iOS users so that using an iOS device is a better user experience than using a web browser.
Occam's Razor: Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. When you start trampling business relationships where you're not invited in, it doesn't matter how "user friendly" your design is, you've crossed the line into "too simple".
2. Stop "developers" who are cheating on their developer agreement to avoid the revenue sharing aspects of that agreement from doing so.
There's another way to do it with destroying your partners' profits*: Require such "content" apps to provide a certain fixed minimum of income to Apple, even if that minimum is 100% of the selling price. For example, $4.99 of income for Apple would probably make such an app one of the better "per unit" apps on the App Store. I'm sure most content app developers would be willing to list their apps at that price since they're not actually looking to get any profit out of the app itself now. It's also not crazy expensive for the end user and Apple gets paid for the services they're actually providing. So why couldn't Apple do something like this instead of creating such an uproar?
(*Yes, partner. While Amazon competes with Apple's iBooks, they're also a partner in that their software and services help drive sales of iDevices.)
... 2. I do agree that Apple has a right to collect revenue from those selling through apps right now. But you don't think Apple insisting that pricing being the same across all distribution channels is a bit of an over-reach? I don't know if that's there in the developer agreement right now. Whether it is or is not, I do believe many developers will find that a bit too much. In any event, we'll see in due course, whether this flies with developers. I trust if Apple reverses its policies, you'll be back here acknowledging that you were wrong?
Right now you have a situation where "developers" are essentially hiding most or all revenue by selling out the back door. A "developer" releases a shell app that has no content or functionality at all, and then doesn't offer in-app purchasing, but sells everything outside the App Store. (Making for a "web browser" user experience.) Some of these apps pull in quite a bit of revenue. Revenue that the developer agreed to share with Apple when they signed the developer agreement.
I think it's entirely correct for Apple to rein in the cheaters and not allow this to continue. The cheaters are essentially shifting the burden of supporting App Store costs onto honest developers. But, unless Apple plays hardball with them, they have no incentive to negotiate a lower percentage, because right now they are, in violation of the agreement, sharing zero percent. My guess is that Apple may eventually set different percentages for different kinds of content, but maybe not.
For subscriptions, the 30% is neither here nor there, despite all the noise from publishers. Most of their revenue is coming from advertising anyway, so the little bit of subscription revenue they lose is insignificant. For games selling, for example, additional levels, it probably will, and ought to, remain a straight 30%, otherwise, game developers will cheat the revenue sharing system by including a couple of levels in the downloaded app, and making users buy the rest after the fact.
The "developers" for whom this means the most are those like Amazon and Sony who are hiding all their revenue from Apple. Their free reader apps don't do anything (revenue generating) unless you buy content. If they can avoid selling any content through the App Store, they can effectively hide all their revenue. But, the argument is that 30% is too much for them to have to pay.
There are a couple of reasons I think it may not be. First of all, even if they do have to enable in-app purchases, it's unlikely that all their sales will be made through the App Store. Amazon, at least, is on multiple platforms and there are a number of ways users can buy books that they may be reading on iOS devices. So, it's a certainty that Amazon won't be paying 30% of it's total eBook sales to Apple. The actual percentage of total sales might be quite small. And the same argument applies to Netflix.
But, if they were to negotiate a lower percentage because 30% did turn out to be too onerous, it would need to be done by very carefully defining specific categories of content to which it applies, otherwise, it just creates another loophole for developers who want to cheat on their agreement to share revenue. But, before any of that happens, the cheaters have to be forced to the negotiating table, and to do that, they have to have some reason to want to negotiate.
Occam's Razor: Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. When you start trampling business relationships where you're not invited in, it doesn't matter how "user friendly" your design is, you've crossed the line into "too simple".
Since that's not what Occam's Razor is about, it doesn't really apply. Amazon "invited Apple in" when they signed the developer agreement.
There's another way to do it with destroying your partners' profits*: Require such "content" apps to provide a certain fixed minimum of income to Apple, even if that minimum is 100% of the selling price. For example, $4.99 of income for Apple would probably make such an app one of the better "per unit" apps on the App Store. I'm sure most content app developers would be willing to list their apps at that price since they're not actually looking to get any profit out of the app itself now. It's also not crazy expensive for the end user and Apple gets paid for the services they're actually providing. So why couldn't Apple do something like this instead of creating such an uproar?
(*Yes, partner. While Amazon competes with Apple's iBooks, they're also a partner in that their software and services help drive sales of iDevices.)
Dumb idea. Sucks for consumers. Impossible to determine a "fair" price. And most app developers would probably scream even louder about such a scheme just to satisfy a few corporate giants like Sony and Amazon, although, I don't think they would like it very much either.