I see that EWTHeckman and Aladdict have been carrying on their deceitful misrepresentations in this thread as well. They aren't stupid, so we can only assume that their intent is to mislead.
Let's review the facts.
1. The App Store is not a fee for service system, so any argument based on the premise that Apple isn't "entitled" to a certain percentage because all they are doing is credit card processing is simply wrong. The App Store is based on revenue sharing, so those attempting to hide revenue by distributing "shell apps" and selling content "out the back door" are cheating the system and violating their contracts.
2. Even with in-app purchasing, it's ludicrous to assume that all sales of content will take place through this mechanism, especially since there are any number of other avenues and platforms through which users may purchase content. This, however, is an assumption that all their arguments and "math" hinge on. But, since the assumption isn't valid, their arguments based on it become entirely invalid.
3. The purpose of Apple's enforcement of this restriction is twofold: to ensure that the iOS user experience doesn't devolve into a lowest common denominator "web browser experience" where users are also subject to things like credit card fraud, and to stop the sort of cheating described above. Any implication that there are other motives at play is disingenuous, at best.
So, while we can only speculate as to their motivations, we can certainly infer that they aren't honestly represented here. Clearly, these and other posters are here to mislead and misrepresent with the hope that, if they repeat their lies often enough and strongly enough, people will start to believe them. It's an old technique that never goes out of style, but it's just that, a technique designed to convince people that something which is not true is.
I think Apple fans would be more keen on government intervention if Windows were doing something like this.
Yeah, but it is known fact around here that Microsoft is the evil one, even after being tamed and castrated more than once by various regulators in the past
Do you think Steve just woke up one day and thought to himself, "Man, I was being really stupid. I guess I'll undo most of what I blabbed about in that 'Thoughts' piece and pull a one-eighty on the whole thing."
Yeah, no doubt that's exactly what happened.
It went down that way more than you ever realized, read on...
They backpedaled because they realized that the most profitable portion of the App Store content -- gaming -- was based on compiled-script code generating development environments like Unity and Carmack's upcoming RAGE engine. The gaming platforms weren't going to compete with the iOS UI nor have any of the feature lags that Apple was using as justification for limiting development environments. It really looks like Apple made a poorly vetted decision up front, and once they started looking at how to accommodate Unity/Rage as good citizens they realized the Obj-C compiled Flash content couldn't get filtered out in any adjustment that allowed Unity/RAGE.
Did Apple eat a little crow, yes. Was it the Feds, maybe a little but not much, it really was Unity/Carmack and the future gaming $$ associated with those platforms that made the business case for Apple to make the quick switch.
So in this case, how many publishers will have to wake up and realize they don't need to make platform-specific apps for services which can be delivered for all web-enabled devices using the web before Apple will do a similar about-face?
Web apps are especially not ideal for this application, or any application where one may wish to view content in situations where being online may not be possible: on a plane, the subway, etc.
So in this case, how many publishers will have to wake up and realize they don't need to make platform-specific apps for services which can be delivered for all web-enabled devices using the web before Apple will do a similar about-face?
The content resellers will just have to realize the storefront and the reader don't have to be in the same app if they don't want to play in Apples Store and pay the 30%.
It is a choice of do they give the customer extra convenience and reap higher volume, or sell completely externally only and sideload content into their reader?
The smaller publishers have a clear motivation to deal directly with Apple because Amazon is still gouging them for well more than 30%, Apple may actually help those small publishers by prompting Amazon to offer more competitive rates (which I'm sure Amazon doesn't like either). The big publishers get the 30% Amazon rate and Amazon as the reseller will need to study their long-term options for delivery of that content. They are pretty damn good at their business and will make whatever choice is best for their bottom line.
But I thought savior-of-the-world HTML5 offers offline local storage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Good luck with that for the content of entire magazines on mobile devices.
The amount is pretty small and user controlled. Personally I don't allow any HTML5 storage locally at all, most of the time I get 5MB requests when the request does come up.
The amount is pretty small and user controlled. Personally I don't allow any HTML5 storage locally at all, most of the time I get 5MB requests when the request does come up.
Yeah, a lot of people have inflated expectations regarding what local storage is going to enable. It's good for saving complex state information when a cookie won't do the job (JSON data) but it's not a virtual hard drive.
Comments
Let's review the facts.
1. The App Store is not a fee for service system, so any argument based on the premise that Apple isn't "entitled" to a certain percentage because all they are doing is credit card processing is simply wrong. The App Store is based on revenue sharing, so those attempting to hide revenue by distributing "shell apps" and selling content "out the back door" are cheating the system and violating their contracts.
2. Even with in-app purchasing, it's ludicrous to assume that all sales of content will take place through this mechanism, especially since there are any number of other avenues and platforms through which users may purchase content. This, however, is an assumption that all their arguments and "math" hinge on. But, since the assumption isn't valid, their arguments based on it become entirely invalid.
3. The purpose of Apple's enforcement of this restriction is twofold: to ensure that the iOS user experience doesn't devolve into a lowest common denominator "web browser experience" where users are also subject to things like credit card fraud, and to stop the sort of cheating described above. Any implication that there are other motives at play is disingenuous, at best.
So, while we can only speculate as to their motivations, we can certainly infer that they aren't honestly represented here. Clearly, these and other posters are here to mislead and misrepresent with the hope that, if they repeat their lies often enough and strongly enough, people will start to believe them. It's an old technique that never goes out of style, but it's just that, a technique designed to convince people that something which is not true is.
I think Apple fans would be more keen on government intervention if Windows were doing something like this.
Yeah, but it is known fact around here that Microsoft is the evil one, even after being tamed and castrated more than once by various regulators in the past
Oh?
What do you suppose brought on this 180-backpedal?:
http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/201...w-allowed.html
Do you think Steve just woke up one day and thought to himself, "Man, I was being really stupid. I guess I'll undo most of what I blabbed about in that 'Thoughts' piece and pull a one-eighty on the whole thing."
Yeah, no doubt that's exactly what happened.
It went down that way more than you ever realized, read on...
They backpedaled because they realized that the most profitable portion of the App Store content -- gaming -- was based on compiled-script code generating development environments like Unity and Carmack's upcoming RAGE engine. The gaming platforms weren't going to compete with the iOS UI nor have any of the feature lags that Apple was using as justification for limiting development environments. It really looks like Apple made a poorly vetted decision up front, and once they started looking at how to accommodate Unity/Rage as good citizens they realized the Obj-C compiled Flash content couldn't get filtered out in any adjustment that allowed Unity/RAGE.
Did Apple eat a little crow, yes. Was it the Feds, maybe a little but not much, it really was Unity/Carmack and the future gaming $$ associated with those platforms that made the business case for Apple to make the quick switch.
Excellent post.
So in this case, how many publishers will have to wake up and realize they don't need to make platform-specific apps for services which can be delivered for all web-enabled devices using the web before Apple will do a similar about-face?
Web apps are especially not ideal for this application, or any application where one may wish to view content in situations where being online may not be possible: on a plane, the subway, etc.
But I thought savior-of-the-world HTML5 offers offline local storage?
Good luck with that for the content of entire magazines on mobile devices.
Excellent post.
So in this case, how many publishers will have to wake up and realize they don't need to make platform-specific apps for services which can be delivered for all web-enabled devices using the web before Apple will do a similar about-face?
The content resellers will just have to realize the storefront and the reader don't have to be in the same app if they don't want to play in Apples Store and pay the 30%.
It is a choice of do they give the customer extra convenience and reap higher volume, or sell completely externally only and sideload content into their reader?
The smaller publishers have a clear motivation to deal directly with Apple because Amazon is still gouging them for well more than 30%, Apple may actually help those small publishers by prompting Amazon to offer more competitive rates (which I'm sure Amazon doesn't like either). The big publishers get the 30% Amazon rate and Amazon as the reseller will need to study their long-term options for delivery of that content. They are pretty damn good at their business and will make whatever choice is best for their bottom line.
But I thought savior-of-the-world HTML5 offers offline local storage?
Good luck with that for the content of entire magazines on mobile devices.
The amount is pretty small and user controlled. Personally I don't allow any HTML5 storage locally at all, most of the time I get 5MB requests when the request does come up.
The amount is pretty small and user controlled. Personally I don't allow any HTML5 storage locally at all, most of the time I get 5MB requests when the request does come up.
Yeah, a lot of people have inflated expectations regarding what local storage is going to enable. It's good for saving complex state information when a cookie won't do the job (JSON data) but it's not a virtual hard drive.