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?
I have a hard time seeing how anti-competitive behavior that resticts choice is going to promote an exciting new market.
There are zero entry barriers in this business. Go create your own (and likewise, Google, publishers, et. al) if you want.
They're just a bunch of whiners.
PS: I see that my post might have been wasted. Saw after I posted the above that a bunch of very well-reasoned arguments by others barely made a dent in you lack of ability to grapple with the real world.
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?
If Apple brings one of their customer to the channel via Apple's device, Apple's OS and the app that Apple marketed, promoted and allowed to be installed, then the channel has to pay the going price.
If they don't want any business from Apple's customers, then stay the hell off the iPad!
If Apple brings one of their customer to the channel via Apple's device, Apple's OS and the app that Apple marketed, promoted and allowed to be installed, then the channel has to pay the going price.
If they don't want any business from Apple's customers, then stay the hell off the iPad!
Or "If they don't want any business from Apple's customers, then stay the hell off the Mac!"
Or "If they don't want any business from Microsoft's customers, then stay the hell off the Windows!"
Apple does not own me. I am not their slave. I own my iDevices, not Apple. They have no right to say what apps I can and cannot run on my own device.
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.
Apple will not allow just anything onto its devices as a means to preserve the user experience that Steve worked so hard to perfect.
If people want porno, they ain't the kind of people that buy Apple devices in the first place. If they want some kind of weird death grunge suicide music, well, maybe Android is a better choice.
At first I thought this was a bit outrageous of Apple and to a greater extent I still do. But ultimately its just going to benefit other platforms. Apple think they've been clever by stopping ideas of 2 buy buttons where apples service costs more, and by forcing the price to be the same on the app as on a website. But the simple answer is just have an iPhone subscription seperate from the other devices and charge more for it. Keep all the other devices the same and charge extra for iPhone. Then put in your FAQs that the reason for this is Apple charging 30% for content on your phone.
Apple will not allow just anything onto its devices as a means to preserve the user experience that Steve worked so hard to perfect.
If people want porno, they ain't the kind of people that buy Apple devices in the first place. If they want some kind of weird death grunge suicide music, well, maybe Android is a better choice.
If Apple brings one of their customer to the channel via Apple's device, Apple's OS and the app that Apple marketed, promoted and allowed to be installed, then the channel has to pay the going price.
If they don't want any business from Apple's customers, then stay the hell off the iPad!
What about all the apps in apples adds that make people buy the phone or the 300000 apps in the app store. Apple doesn't give them 30% for helping to sell the phones. If they did then last quarter each app would recieve $9500
Remember being a monopoly is not illegal - it's your behaviour using the power of monopoly.
Conversely even if you don't have a monopoly unethical behaviour should be dealt with.
I own my letter box. People who send me things pay the post office to deliver items to me. People not involved in the delivery don't make money out of it.
Seems that content is delivered to the iPad that I own via the Internet ? no participation by Apple required, yet they want a 30% cut on that. Sounds like highway robbery "Bail up!".
If it is legal it's like a tax - wasn't it "no taxation without representation". Really, no taxation or payment without contractual benefit to the payer. That is the basic ethic of our society.
This is causing content deliverers a lot of angst, as well as customers.
No, the debate is really a public policy issue. Is the public interest best served by putting cell phone companies and those who make digital devices such as Apple's iPad and Amazon's Kindle under the digital equivalent of the common carrier laws that apply to the shipping industry?
I take it you are in favor of Net neutrality
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
No, subject to safety regulations and weight limitations, a common carrier has to transport any package the public brings in and to do so at certain fixed rates. They can't charge one company one rate and another company a different rate.
And so Apple is charging everyone 30%. A fixed rate, and the same for all companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
The same is true for forms of communication that involve data rather than physical objects. Your landline telephone company can't block or impose surcharges on a call you might make to a cellular company under the assumption that you might be transferring your service to them.
But they can invoke "traffic shaping" routines on your data-flow, if they feel like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
[B]What the Kindle does and what Apple wants the iPad to begin to do...
Not just the iPad, every iOS device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
... Apple isn't refusing to permit ebook data to be transported to Amazon and Sony apps. It is simply demanding a hefty surcharge, one that is identical to the entire income that Amazon earns from those books. That's an obvious and deliberate anti-competitive activity that's not in the public interest, whatever Apple's market share.
Can you show where it is documented that this "hefty" surcharge is identical to the entire income that Amazon earns from its e-books?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
When it promotes all the apps created by others that run on iPhones and iPads, it is strongly implying that any of those apps can access any data the user wants without unfair restrictions.
Those apps can continue to access any data the user wants. But if they try to purchase an item or subscription, Apple gets 30% of the price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
Because of that advertising, Apple can't change, years after the iPhone came out, and suddenly transform itself into something much more restrictive. It can't sell tens of millions of devices under one claim and suddenly abandon that claim. Apple has made itself a de facto common carrier.
Suddenly? They announce in February that the change will take place in June, and that's suddenly?
And in-app subscriptions weren't available before now, so how is this a "sudden" change?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
I'm not a lawyer, although I did represent myself in a complex legal dispute that I won handily.
Grats on the win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
First, is it in the public interest to insist that all those who make devices like iPhones and iPads behave as common carriers unless they clearly market themselves as contract carriers. That would mean an end to many of the restrictions that both Apple and cell phone companies apply to their products, as well as all the niggling charges.
Second, has Apple by its actions transformed itself into a de facto common carrier? If the latter is true, then Apple's behavior is clearly illegal.
--Michael W. Perry, Seattle
Back to the Net Neutrality argument, I see.
What with the GOP in washington trying to gut the FCC, I don't see anyone there too interested in any more restrictions on Comcast, Verizon, Apple, Google, et al.
None of these vendors work on a margin that would allow them to give-up 30% of their revenue. I would argue their apps have spurred many iPads sales. Maybe they should get a cut of that revenue from Apple?
Great idea.
Its a free market, and a free country, so they are free to inform Apple that they want 30% of the price of every iOS device sold - if- the owner of that device uses it to buy anything from Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, etc.
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.
Your kidding right? I would be shocked to learn that those 75% were buying that much. Apple's app store sells more software in an hour, than the Android store does in a day. (I am being extremely generous to the Android store btw).
Android users don't buy Apps from anywhere in any meaningful numbers and neither do BlackBerry owners. The confusing thing about that survey was how high the blackberry numbers were.
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?
I think that with actual content producers (apps, movies, songs, etc) 30% isn't excessive and in some cases lower than what they have to pay using legacy channels.
For retail sellers this is a killer since Apple is asking for their slice of the pie.
Who is screwed?
Book publishers? No. Amazon? Yes.
Movie companies? No. Netflix? Maybe.
TV studios? No. Hulu? Maybe.
Newspapers? No. Amazon? Yes.
I think that Apple will backpedal in a couple months just like they did with Adobe. But notice that those couple months were probably important in terms of protecting a dev ecosphere from poorly ported flash apps.
I think that Apple will backpedal in a couple months just like they did with the restrictions on mobile ads and analytics. But those couple months gave iAds and perhaps other admob competitors a little boost.
You can argue that Apple was forced to pull back or you can argue that Apple deliberately drew a line in the sand for a certain effect and did a planned pull back.
This move seems far too bald not to see the same pull back in a month or two but I suspect that Apple will have inched their position forward quite a few yards in the process. Oh, okay, we won't do 30%. Google's 10% seems fine...
And folks will gloat that Apple had to pull back and forget that Apple used to get 0% and also not realize that if Apple asked for 10% people would be bitching and moaning just as loudly today anyway.
Instead Google has set the standard at 10% and helped monetized what hadn't been monetized before. I'd almost claim collusion if I were the cynical type.
10% screws Amazon even worse than 30% if content producers moved the agent cut from 30% to 10%. For both Google and Apple this is secondary income. For Amazon that's their primary income. 10% still screws resellers as content direct from producers (via Google eBookstore and Apple iBookstore) is still less. It's a slow death as opposed to instant death.
This is causing content deliverers a lot of angst, as well as customers.
Is that a reasonable assessment of the situation?
Nope. It's a highly biased assessment of the situation and assumes that the value of the iPad and iOS ecosystem is zero. Great if you can get folks to buy a flawed premise but hardly reasonable.
As a customer I have no angst.
Why? First, from a selfish point of view, I have the Kindle and Netflix app. It strikes me as unlikely that Apple will nuke these off my iDevices. It also strikes me as unlikely that either Amazon nor Netflix will do something to disable these apps. So for the short term I'm losing no functionality and for the lifecycle of the actual device I own the short term is the most relevant.
So no angst required.
Second, from a global point of view, these sorts of things work out. And if they don't, the iPad is a consumable device...a little less consumable than a phone but more so than a PC. I'll replace it, if not this cycle, then the next. Apple will make it work out or I'll get something else.
As much as I despise parts of the newly enforced app store rules, I oppose government intervention. The Market will sort this out via their wallet.
With that said, the app store rules for content providers such as Hulu, Netflix, Amazon (Kindle app), Barnes and Noble etc. are truly over the top. None of these vendors work on a margin that would allow them to give-up 30% of their revenue. I would argue their apps have spurred many iPads sales. Maybe they should get a cut of that revenue from Apple?
The biggest whiner thus far is The Wall Street Journal and they have an affiliate program that pays a commission of 35% on subscription sales... Of course with those, the WSJ still has to process the payment. Online subscriptions pay the same commission as print. When a user buys through the App Store instead of an affiliate link, WSJ is making more money, not less. Good luck convincing the courts Apple is behaving in an anti-competitive way when they are providing more service for less money than you pay other people.
WSJ argument seems to be that should be able to use the App store to bring in new customers and paying nothing at all for doing so.
Amazon is only paying about 8% for high volume associates on the Kindle, but they are not paying anyone (other than Apple now) for in app purchases.
Add in Apple hosting the App itself and all of the updates.
It is remarkable how little people understand about the world around them..
Apple does not own me. I am not their slave. I own my iDevices, not Apple. They have no right to say what apps I can and cannot run on my own device.
Hyperbole much?
So jailbreak your iDevice and go your merry way. How hard was that?
Ever notice that Apple doesn't REALLY mess with hackintosh folks except when some idiot tries to make a business out of it? Then only long enough to stomp the idiot into the ground and not lock OSX up and start some bizarro war of escalation with crackers.
Ever notice that Apple doesn't REALLY break jailbreaks even though they could do a lot more to make it annoying?
Do you really think they want to make YOU their slave?
Or do you think that maybe Apple giving Amazon, Adobe and Google the occasional wedgie is a good thing to try to make the user experience a little better. Do you really LIKE getting junk mail?
Giving Apple my contact & demo info is bad enough but at least they seem to understand that sort of thing annoys most users...so they push opt in vs opt out. I dunno if opt in really works but opt out simply doesn't work.
I think that with actual content producers (apps, movies, songs, etc) 30% isn't excessive and in some cases lower than what they have to pay using legacy channels.
For retail sellers this is a killer since Apple is asking for their slice of the pie.
Who is screwed?
Book publishers? No. Amazon? Yes.
Movie companies? No. Netflix? Maybe.
TV studios? No. Hulu? Maybe.
Newspapers? No. Amazon? Yes.
I think that Apple will backpedal in a couple months just like they did with Adobe. But notice that those couple months were probably important in terms of protecting a dev ecosphere from poorly ported flash apps.
I think that Apple will backpedal in a couple months just like they did with the restrictions on mobile ads and analytics. But those couple months gave iAds and perhaps other admob competitors a little boost.
You can argue that Apple was forced to pull back or you can argue that Apple deliberately drew a line in the sand for a certain effect and did a planned pull back.
This move seems far too bald not to see the same pull back in a month or two but I suspect that Apple will have inched their position forward quite a few yards in the process. Oh, okay, we won't do 30%. Google's 10% seems fine...
And folks will gloat that Apple had to pull back and forget that Apple used to get 0% and also not realize that if Apple asked for 10% people would be bitching and moaning just as loudly today anyway.
Instead Google has set the standard at 10% and helped monetized what hadn't been monetized before. I'd almost claim collusion if I were the cynical type.
10% screws Amazon even worse than 30% if content producers moved the agent cut from 30% to 10%. For both Google and Apple this is secondary income. For Amazon that's their primary income. 10% still screws resellers as content direct from producers (via Google eBookstore and Apple iBookstore) is still less. It's a slow death as opposed to instant death.
It is challenging for a reseller to pile on another reseller. I am sure Apple would prefer only to work with content producers directly.
They could work out an alternate system for some of these resellers that are hosting the content themselves. 15% is probably reasonable if you consider the 8%+ Amazon is paying to high volume Associates on Kindle books. Apple is handling the payment and doing a little marketing. Amazon is handling the distribution.
That was the fundamental assumption underlying his argument, that Apple somehow controls all my purchases simply because I made a single purchase from Apple. I am perfectly willing to pay Apple for products and services which I have decided are valuable to me. I find it abhorrent for Apple to assume that they have some sort of God given right to insert themselves between me and the reseller I have chosen to do business with simply because I was impressed enough to buy a product which was designed by Apple. They've already earned my money. I resent having pay them again, and again, and again for the "privilege" of having purchased one of their products.
Non-Apple customers should resent Apple even more for attempting to force content resellers to raise prices on their products just because someone, somewhere is experiencing the "privilege" of using some content from that reseller on an iDevice, in effect charging them for the "privilege" of someone else using one of their products.
That was the fundamental assumption underlying his argument, that Apple somehow controls all my purchases simply because I made a single purchase from Apple.
Too bad that isn't actually the scenario. You have to deliberately make an in app purchase for them to get a cut. Did Apple somehow deprive you of free will? Orbital mind control lasers I suppose?
Quote:
I am perfectly willing to pay Apple for products and services which I have decided are valuable to me. I find it abhorrent for Apple to assume that they have some sort of God given right to insert themselves between me and the reseller I have chosen to do business with simply because I was impressed enough to buy a product which was designed by Apple.
Then simply don't purchase from within the app. OMG! What a concept. Apple may not have a god given right to insert themselves between you and a reseller (eeww) but they do have the right to decide how their app store works. You then have the right to buy something else if it pisses you off so much.
Quote:
They've already earned my money. I resent having pay them again, and again, and again for the "privilege" of having purchased one of their products.
eBay has an easy tech item buying program for your iDevices. If you resent it that much voice your resentment in the best way a consumer can. By voting with your wallet.
However, based on the interesting ways you describe Apple's actions (resent, abhorrent, privilege, slave, yada yada yada) I'm guessing you're more troll than indignant. It's a freaking tech toy. M'kay? Abhorrent? Rly?
Quote:
Non-Apple customers should resent Apple even more for attempting to force content resellers to raise prices on their products just because someone, somewhere is experiencing the "privilege" of using some content from that reseller on an iDevice, in effect charging them for the "privilege" of someone else using one of their products.
Maybe if that was vaguely in the realm of reality they might resent that. More likely nobody but geeks and trolls have noticed and the impact outside a couple apps get pulled is zero.
Apple will not allow just anything onto its devices as a means to preserve the user experience that Steve worked so hard to perfect.
If people want porno, they ain't the kind of people that buy Apple devices in the first place. If they want some kind of weird death grunge suicide music, well, maybe Android is a better choice.
That's why a ton of porn websites created mobile specific versions of their website soon after the iphone was launched with such creative names as iPorn, right?
Comments
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?
I have a hard time seeing how anti-competitive behavior that resticts choice is going to promote an exciting new market.
There are zero entry barriers in this business. Go create your own (and likewise, Google, publishers, et. al) if you want.
They're just a bunch of whiners.
PS: I see that my post might have been wasted. Saw after I posted the above that a bunch of very well-reasoned arguments by others barely made a dent in you lack of ability to grapple with the real world.
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?
If Apple brings one of their customer to the channel via Apple's device, Apple's OS and the app that Apple marketed, promoted and allowed to be installed, then the channel has to pay the going price.
If they don't want any business from Apple's customers, then stay the hell off the iPad!
If Apple brings one of their customer to the channel via Apple's device, Apple's OS and the app that Apple marketed, promoted and allowed to be installed, then the channel has to pay the going price.
If they don't want any business from Apple's customers, then stay the hell off the iPad!
Or "If they don't want any business from Apple's customers, then stay the hell off the Mac!"
Or "If they don't want any business from Microsoft's customers, then stay the hell off the Windows!"
Apple does not own me. I am not their slave. I own my iDevices, not Apple. They have no right to say what apps I can and cannot run on my own device.
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.
Apple will not allow just anything onto its devices as a means to preserve the user experience that Steve worked so hard to perfect.
If people want porno, they ain't the kind of people that buy Apple devices in the first place. If they want some kind of weird death grunge suicide music, well, maybe Android is a better choice.
Apple will not allow just anything onto its devices as a means to preserve the user experience that Steve worked so hard to perfect.
If people want porno, they ain't the kind of people that buy Apple devices in the first place. If they want some kind of weird death grunge suicide music, well, maybe Android is a better choice.
I like history books. Is that equivalent?
Nonsense.
Inkling 106 posts - I don't know if as detailed and thought out as this one. Anonymouse 3,838 posts - I suspect drivel just like this.
Give the counter argument why you think it's nonsense or get off the net.
If Apple brings one of their customer to the channel via Apple's device, Apple's OS and the app that Apple marketed, promoted and allowed to be installed, then the channel has to pay the going price.
If they don't want any business from Apple's customers, then stay the hell off the iPad!
What about all the apps in apples adds that make people buy the phone or the 300000 apps in the app store. Apple doesn't give them 30% for helping to sell the phones. If they did then last quarter each app would recieve $9500
Conversely even if you don't have a monopoly unethical behaviour should be dealt with.
I own my letter box. People who send me things pay the post office to deliver items to me. People not involved in the delivery don't make money out of it.
Seems that content is delivered to the iPad that I own via the Internet ? no participation by Apple required, yet they want a 30% cut on that. Sounds like highway robbery "Bail up!".
If it is legal it's like a tax - wasn't it "no taxation without representation". Really, no taxation or payment without contractual benefit to the payer. That is the basic ethic of our society.
This is causing content deliverers a lot of angst, as well as customers.
Is that a reasonable assessment of the situation?
No, the debate is really a public policy issue. Is the public interest best served by putting cell phone companies and those who make digital devices such as Apple's iPad and Amazon's Kindle under the digital equivalent of the common carrier laws that apply to the shipping industry?
I take it you are in favor of Net neutrality
No, subject to safety regulations and weight limitations, a common carrier has to transport any package the public brings in and to do so at certain fixed rates. They can't charge one company one rate and another company a different rate.
And so Apple is charging everyone 30%. A fixed rate, and the same for all companies.
The same is true for forms of communication that involve data rather than physical objects. Your landline telephone company can't block or impose surcharges on a call you might make to a cellular company under the assumption that you might be transferring your service to them.
But they can invoke "traffic shaping" routines on your data-flow, if they feel like it.
[B]What the Kindle does and what Apple wants the iPad to begin to do...
Not just the iPad, every iOS device.
... Apple isn't refusing to permit ebook data to be transported to Amazon and Sony apps. It is simply demanding a hefty surcharge, one that is identical to the entire income that Amazon earns from those books. That's an obvious and deliberate anti-competitive activity that's not in the public interest, whatever Apple's market share.
Can you show where it is documented that this "hefty" surcharge is identical to the entire income that Amazon earns from its e-books?
When it promotes all the apps created by others that run on iPhones and iPads, it is strongly implying that any of those apps can access any data the user wants without unfair restrictions.
Those apps can continue to access any data the user wants. But if they try to purchase an item or subscription, Apple gets 30% of the price.
Because of that advertising, Apple can't change, years after the iPhone came out, and suddenly transform itself into something much more restrictive. It can't sell tens of millions of devices under one claim and suddenly abandon that claim. Apple has made itself a de facto common carrier.
Suddenly? They announce in February that the change will take place in June, and that's suddenly?
And in-app subscriptions weren't available before now, so how is this a "sudden" change?
I'm not a lawyer, although I did represent myself in a complex legal dispute that I won handily.
Grats on the win.
First, is it in the public interest to insist that all those who make devices like iPhones and iPads behave as common carriers unless they clearly market themselves as contract carriers. That would mean an end to many of the restrictions that both Apple and cell phone companies apply to their products, as well as all the niggling charges.
Second, has Apple by its actions transformed itself into a de facto common carrier? If the latter is true, then Apple's behavior is clearly illegal.
--Michael W. Perry, Seattle
Back to the Net Neutrality argument, I see.
What with the GOP in washington trying to gut the FCC, I don't see anyone there too interested in any more restrictions on Comcast, Verizon, Apple, Google, et al.
None of these vendors work on a margin that would allow them to give-up 30% of their revenue. I would argue their apps have spurred many iPads sales. Maybe they should get a cut of that revenue from Apple?
Great idea.
Its a free market, and a free country, so they are free to inform Apple that they want 30% of the price of every iOS device sold - if- the owner of that device uses it to buy anything from Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, etc.
I hope they have fun with that.
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.
Your kidding right? I would be shocked to learn that those 75% were buying that much. Apple's app store sells more software in an hour, than the Android store does in a day. (I am being extremely generous to the Android store btw).
Android users don't buy Apps from anywhere in any meaningful numbers and neither do BlackBerry owners. The confusing thing about that survey was how high the blackberry numbers were.
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?
I think that with actual content producers (apps, movies, songs, etc) 30% isn't excessive and in some cases lower than what they have to pay using legacy channels.
For retail sellers this is a killer since Apple is asking for their slice of the pie.
Who is screwed?
Book publishers? No. Amazon? Yes.
Movie companies? No. Netflix? Maybe.
TV studios? No. Hulu? Maybe.
Newspapers? No. Amazon? Yes.
I think that Apple will backpedal in a couple months just like they did with Adobe. But notice that those couple months were probably important in terms of protecting a dev ecosphere from poorly ported flash apps.
I think that Apple will backpedal in a couple months just like they did with the restrictions on mobile ads and analytics. But those couple months gave iAds and perhaps other admob competitors a little boost.
You can argue that Apple was forced to pull back or you can argue that Apple deliberately drew a line in the sand for a certain effect and did a planned pull back.
This move seems far too bald not to see the same pull back in a month or two but I suspect that Apple will have inched their position forward quite a few yards in the process. Oh, okay, we won't do 30%. Google's 10% seems fine...
And folks will gloat that Apple had to pull back and forget that Apple used to get 0% and also not realize that if Apple asked for 10% people would be bitching and moaning just as loudly today anyway.
Instead Google has set the standard at 10% and helped monetized what hadn't been monetized before. I'd almost claim collusion if I were the cynical type.
10% screws Amazon even worse than 30% if content producers moved the agent cut from 30% to 10%. For both Google and Apple this is secondary income. For Amazon that's their primary income. 10% still screws resellers as content direct from producers (via Google eBookstore and Apple iBookstore) is still less. It's a slow death as opposed to instant death.
This is causing content deliverers a lot of angst, as well as customers.
Is that a reasonable assessment of the situation?
Nope. It's a highly biased assessment of the situation and assumes that the value of the iPad and iOS ecosystem is zero. Great if you can get folks to buy a flawed premise but hardly reasonable.
As a customer I have no angst.
Why? First, from a selfish point of view, I have the Kindle and Netflix app. It strikes me as unlikely that Apple will nuke these off my iDevices. It also strikes me as unlikely that either Amazon nor Netflix will do something to disable these apps. So for the short term I'm losing no functionality and for the lifecycle of the actual device I own the short term is the most relevant.
So no angst required.
Second, from a global point of view, these sorts of things work out. And if they don't, the iPad is a consumable device...a little less consumable than a phone but more so than a PC. I'll replace it, if not this cycle, then the next. Apple will make it work out or I'll get something else.
So no angst required.
As much as I despise parts of the newly enforced app store rules, I oppose government intervention. The Market will sort this out via their wallet.
With that said, the app store rules for content providers such as Hulu, Netflix, Amazon (Kindle app), Barnes and Noble etc. are truly over the top. None of these vendors work on a margin that would allow them to give-up 30% of their revenue. I would argue their apps have spurred many iPads sales. Maybe they should get a cut of that revenue from Apple?
The biggest whiner thus far is The Wall Street Journal and they have an affiliate program that pays a commission of 35% on subscription sales... Of course with those, the WSJ still has to process the payment. Online subscriptions pay the same commission as print. When a user buys through the App Store instead of an affiliate link, WSJ is making more money, not less. Good luck convincing the courts Apple is behaving in an anti-competitive way when they are providing more service for less money than you pay other people.
WSJ argument seems to be that should be able to use the App store to bring in new customers and paying nothing at all for doing so.
Amazon is only paying about 8% for high volume associates on the Kindle, but they are not paying anyone (other than Apple now) for in app purchases.
Add in Apple hosting the App itself and all of the updates.
It is remarkable how little people understand about the world around them..
Apple does not own me. I am not their slave. I own my iDevices, not Apple. They have no right to say what apps I can and cannot run on my own device.
Hyperbole much?
So jailbreak your iDevice and go your merry way. How hard was that?
Ever notice that Apple doesn't REALLY mess with hackintosh folks except when some idiot tries to make a business out of it? Then only long enough to stomp the idiot into the ground and not lock OSX up and start some bizarro war of escalation with crackers.
Ever notice that Apple doesn't REALLY break jailbreaks even though they could do a lot more to make it annoying?
Do you really think they want to make YOU their slave?
Or do you think that maybe Apple giving Amazon, Adobe and Google the occasional wedgie is a good thing to try to make the user experience a little better. Do you really LIKE getting junk mail?
Giving Apple my contact & demo info is bad enough but at least they seem to understand that sort of thing annoys most users...so they push opt in vs opt out. I dunno if opt in really works but opt out simply doesn't work.
I think that with actual content producers (apps, movies, songs, etc) 30% isn't excessive and in some cases lower than what they have to pay using legacy channels.
For retail sellers this is a killer since Apple is asking for their slice of the pie.
Who is screwed?
Book publishers? No. Amazon? Yes.
Movie companies? No. Netflix? Maybe.
TV studios? No. Hulu? Maybe.
Newspapers? No. Amazon? Yes.
I think that Apple will backpedal in a couple months just like they did with Adobe. But notice that those couple months were probably important in terms of protecting a dev ecosphere from poorly ported flash apps.
I think that Apple will backpedal in a couple months just like they did with the restrictions on mobile ads and analytics. But those couple months gave iAds and perhaps other admob competitors a little boost.
You can argue that Apple was forced to pull back or you can argue that Apple deliberately drew a line in the sand for a certain effect and did a planned pull back.
This move seems far too bald not to see the same pull back in a month or two but I suspect that Apple will have inched their position forward quite a few yards in the process. Oh, okay, we won't do 30%. Google's 10% seems fine...
And folks will gloat that Apple had to pull back and forget that Apple used to get 0% and also not realize that if Apple asked for 10% people would be bitching and moaning just as loudly today anyway.
Instead Google has set the standard at 10% and helped monetized what hadn't been monetized before. I'd almost claim collusion if I were the cynical type.
10% screws Amazon even worse than 30% if content producers moved the agent cut from 30% to 10%. For both Google and Apple this is secondary income. For Amazon that's their primary income. 10% still screws resellers as content direct from producers (via Google eBookstore and Apple iBookstore) is still less. It's a slow death as opposed to instant death.
It is challenging for a reseller to pile on another reseller. I am sure Apple would prefer only to work with content producers directly.
They could work out an alternate system for some of these resellers that are hosting the content themselves. 15% is probably reasonable if you consider the 8%+ Amazon is paying to high volume Associates on Kindle books. Apple is handling the payment and doing a little marketing. Amazon is handling the distribution.
Hyperbole much?
That was the fundamental assumption underlying his argument, that Apple somehow controls all my purchases simply because I made a single purchase from Apple. I am perfectly willing to pay Apple for products and services which I have decided are valuable to me. I find it abhorrent for Apple to assume that they have some sort of God given right to insert themselves between me and the reseller I have chosen to do business with simply because I was impressed enough to buy a product which was designed by Apple. They've already earned my money. I resent having pay them again, and again, and again for the "privilege" of having purchased one of their products.
Non-Apple customers should resent Apple even more for attempting to force content resellers to raise prices on their products just because someone, somewhere is experiencing the "privilege" of using some content from that reseller on an iDevice, in effect charging them for the "privilege" of someone else using one of their products.
That was the fundamental assumption underlying his argument, that Apple somehow controls all my purchases simply because I made a single purchase from Apple.
Too bad that isn't actually the scenario. You have to deliberately make an in app purchase for them to get a cut. Did Apple somehow deprive you of free will? Orbital mind control lasers I suppose?
I am perfectly willing to pay Apple for products and services which I have decided are valuable to me. I find it abhorrent for Apple to assume that they have some sort of God given right to insert themselves between me and the reseller I have chosen to do business with simply because I was impressed enough to buy a product which was designed by Apple.
Then simply don't purchase from within the app. OMG! What a concept. Apple may not have a god given right to insert themselves between you and a reseller (eeww) but they do have the right to decide how their app store works. You then have the right to buy something else if it pisses you off so much.
They've already earned my money. I resent having pay them again, and again, and again for the "privilege" of having purchased one of their products.
eBay has an easy tech item buying program for your iDevices. If you resent it that much voice your resentment in the best way a consumer can. By voting with your wallet.
However, based on the interesting ways you describe Apple's actions (resent, abhorrent, privilege, slave, yada yada yada) I'm guessing you're more troll than indignant. It's a freaking tech toy. M'kay? Abhorrent? Rly?
Non-Apple customers should resent Apple even more for attempting to force content resellers to raise prices on their products just because someone, somewhere is experiencing the "privilege" of using some content from that reseller on an iDevice, in effect charging them for the "privilege" of someone else using one of their products.
Maybe if that was vaguely in the realm of reality they might resent that. More likely nobody but geeks and trolls have noticed and the impact outside a couple apps get pulled is zero.
Apple will not allow just anything onto its devices as a means to preserve the user experience that Steve worked so hard to perfect.
If people want porno, they ain't the kind of people that buy Apple devices in the first place. If they want some kind of weird death grunge suicide music, well, maybe Android is a better choice.
That's why a ton of porn websites created mobile specific versions of their website soon after the iphone was launched with such creative names as iPorn, right?