For an ebook, Amazon's cut is 30%, the publisher receives 70%
You do realize that this is a recent change, right? Amazon only changed their pricing structure because of Apple. They only changed this in 2010 in response to iBooks. Also realize that Amazon gives you different royalties depending on your "territory", whereas Apple does not.
While I feel bad for this App maker, and I do think some other "reseller" arrangement/compromise should be made, Apple is ultimately benefitting the consumer.
I can't believe I'm saying this....but I agree with you. The fundamental problem here is that a lot of developers didn't understand that model under which Apple was operating under. The App Store isn't just a portal to iOS customers. When you sell in the App Store, you in effect, become a junior partner in the iOS ecosystem, and that means Apple will gets its pound of flesh from you.
Developers who were naive enough to believe that Apple wouldn't get around to enforcing the developer agreement and naive enough to believe that Apple actually cares about them, deserve the treatment they are getting now.
Actually, it's more like, developers who were naive enough to agree to the App Store's revenue sharing and thought Apple would be fine with them giving away shell apps and then generating large amounts of revenue by selling the app content out the back door are getting exactly what should be expected. Maybe they thought Apple wasn't serious about the 30%? Maybe they thought no one would realize that they were stealing large amounts of cash out of the revenue streams that fund the App Store? Maybe they thought the small honest developers wouldn't mind subsidizing Amazon's eBook sales?
It is a partnership, and one in which many honest developers have done, and will continue to do, very well out of. But one of the important aspects of a partnership is that you not try to steal money from your partners.
The guys we're talking about here have developed an entire business model built on stealing from anyone they can. They were certainly naive to think that Apple would not only be a party to the theft, but that they'd be happy to have the Readability crew steal from them as well.
It will be interesting to see if netflix, Hulu, rhapsody, pandora, etc... Pull out of the market or are forced to add a premium to use their product on apple hardware.
I wonder how people would feel if Netflix charged 30% more on say an iPad as they do on an xbox.... I can easily see that happening.....
Right or wrong, this makes Apple look very greedy in my opinion.....
It will be interesting to see if netflix, Hulu, rhapsody, pandora, etc... Pull out of the market or are forced to add a premium to use their product on apple hardware.
I wonder how people would feel if Netflix charged 30% more on say an iPad as they do on an xbox.... I can easily see that happening.....
They can't. Same price on iPad as is available elsewhere or u get rejected.
"One key difference is that Amazon subsidizes Kindle users' 3G connectivity (referred to as Whispernet), an expense it passes on to content publishers. While Amazon has revised its policies to now take a 30 percent cut just like Apple (at least for select publishers; for others, including bloggers, Amazon takes a 70 percent cut), it also charges publishers a delivery fee before taking its cut. Amazon charges 15 cents per megabyte in the US and UK, and 99 cents per megabyte in other countries.
This means that a newspaper that delivered 9MB of data to subscribers per month would be changed $1.35 fee in the US or UK and $8.91 elsewhere. For a newspaper priced at $9.99 per month, the publisher would net either $6.05 (domestic) or just 64 cents (foreign) per subscriber. This compares to a $7 net for publishers from iTunes. These delivery fees are only incurred on Kindle 3G distribution; content delivered via WiFi or through mobile apps do not incur extra fees, because Amazon does not pay anything for delivery. "
To all posters who assert that Apple is dictating prices of subscriptions outside of App Store - Apple is not! If you're currently selling a subscription for $14 outside then by Apple's rules you can only offer it at $14 max through IAP as well.
If you're trying to be sneaky and mark up the App Store subscription by Apple's 30% then a) you do the same to your outside subscription, or b)Apple will not allow you to SELL in-app in the App Store.
Feel free to up subscription prices outside the iOS ecosystem to astronomical prices as long as inside the iOS ecosystem you set it at or below the outside prices. In short, YOU the seller set the price but must match or better it in the App Store.
Feel free to create reader apps that does not try to sell to iOS customers, no button to redirect to outside purchases, etc.
If YOU the publisher/marketer/etc feel this is not right then you can stick with Amazon which in most cases still take 70% of subscriptions, develop for Android/webOS/wp7/etc, or create your own ecosystem, hardware and all, and then charge less. Beat Apple at it's own game.
Google is at least doing this rather than mouthing off and not doing anything about it.
All Apple is really asking is that the choice is offered to it's iOS users to be able to purchase it in-app using iTunes rather than being always funneled off to an outside website and having to enter all sorts of info to complete it.
Sure Apple takes 30% and does not divulge user information unless the user opts in but Popular Science among others is ready to show that does not matter. If we compare it to a normal paper subscription then PopSci saves on printing, storage, distribution, headhunter fees. Website pay walls cannot even compare.
On another note, can anyone offer info on whether the subscriptions are being hosted on Apple's servers or not? AFAIK Apple does not have an API where it goes to the publisher's servers and downloads it to the iOS devices. Someone corroborate me on this.
They can't. Same price on iPad as is available elsewhere or u get rejected.
I disagree, I do not think Apple would be able to legally dictate the price of a service on another platform..... I am pretty sure the fed would have to put a stop to that....
Of course, it may just force content providers like Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, etc to simply abandon the iOS platforms....
No one is arguing that Apple deserves a cut but 30% is just flat out ridiculous. Like the music industry, Apple is supposed to save the publishing industry not help destroy it.
Your allegation is baseless. Self-publishing through Amazon used to cost 70%, until they dropped their part to 30%... when Apple opened the App Store.
70% is more than the producers of almost any kind of content, product or service keep for themselves when dealing with an asymmetric relationship. That Apple offers this to all comers-- doesn't charge more to little guys, doesn't charge less to industry giants-- is hardly evidence of greed.
Apple is not supposed to save publishing. Publishing is supposed to figure out how to save itself, and if Apple can be a part of that at a price point they are willing to agree to, they will. If the publishing industry can't figure out how to adapt its business model to current market conditions, then it will fail and it won't be Apple's fault.
The disruption to publishing of all kinds has been a long time coming, but it was visible and widely known of more than 15 years ago. These industries have delayed, resisted, complained and litigated, but taken only baby steps towards adapting, and for some players, it may well be too late.
I don't see what all the hub-ub is about. This is THEIR phone, using THEIR App Store. They should reserve the right for business to be run on their terms. Why shouldn't they get a cut of developer's who make money off of the software they put on their device? It's the same way when royalites are paid to creators of films or television shows that are later remade, or when actors are paid for DVDs and such that are sold of their films.
You mean, rolyalties out of which 30% are taken by Apple?
They can't. Same price on iPad as is available elsewhere or u get rejected.
I'm pretty sure if XBox user get a 30% increase on the grounds iPad gets a 30% increase, there will be trouble.
In some countries (France) it's simply not possible to do this legally.
1- You can't sell at a loss (FORBIDDEN with a big F)
2- you can change your contract but then people can pull out if they decide so which might actually come back to case 1 in certain provider cases (say, one that supplies technology, like some companies that offers a bundle with a TV, internet and content)
Apple is going to run into special cases with that, and it might make their life interesting...
Would you apply that logic also to flight tickets sold via iOS apps? 30% of the ticket price for Apple?
And theater tickets? Many businesses relied on the ecosystem Apple ahd created, and that rule is simply unfair. It will probably by striked down by either european or US regulators, if Apple doesn't clarify the situation. Just making it a 30% of the benefits instead of the price would make a solution...
"One key difference is that Amazon subsidizes Kindle users' 3G connectivity (referred to as Whispernet), an expense it passes on to content publishers. While Amazon has revised its policies to now take a 30 percent cut just like Apple (at least for select publishers; for others, including bloggers, Amazon takes a 70 percent cut), it also charges publishers a delivery fee before taking its cut. Amazon charges 15 cents per megabyte in the US and UK, and 99 cents per megabyte in other countries.
"
Oh, ye wise man, explain to me. Suppose I'm a blogger, how much do I get if Amazon takes 70% and Apple 30%? What's my slice of the 0% of the pie please?
Apple requires that your price is the same as your price PLUS Apple tax.
In my book, that is dictating. And a nasty one.
Not dictating would be, Apple looks at Amazon price AND adds their margin on top of it. Product is more expensive but here you pay for more streamlined experience. It is like flying economy and business class - you spend same time in the air, but quality of service makes difference in price.
And illegal in some countries. I'm interested to see Apple explain to lawmakers why exactly they should change law...
The app is free and is for people who already have a subscription to a service. IF the app doesnt link to the website to subscribe I dont see why it must sell the in-app subscription...
The app rely on ITS OWN subscribers that it got by ITSELF on there website. This is suppose to be allowed.
SJ should may be a genius regarding hardware, but I think he should let someone else handle anything regarding itunes and content providers negociations.
Or maybe he actually should not let them handle that. This decision really sucks, it makes Apple look bad, it overlooks many legal issues in many countries, even the US. It's a move that really seems like ti wasn't thought out enough. Doesn't seems Jobs-esque. And Jobs happens to be tired and kinda ill, remember? Maybe he just let others do the work and things are running wild?
What are you talking about, this appears nonsensical as are your fears.
I'm no genius and I completely understand his point.
I'll spell it out for you:
A) iOS is a secure platform, which is part of the reasons why people buy it
this means you need to go through Apple to sell an iOS native App
C) Apple introduced the Mac App Store
D) Apple is GOOD at pitching salespoints
E) Apple could easily make only codesigned applications run on OS X, with the same technology it currently allows (if your firewall is set for that option) all codesigned applications to go through the firewall
F) D & E: Apple could pitch that feature as a very important improvement to user security (and be damn right about it, indeed, except it would threaten open source developpement on OS X)
G) then Apple can TAX 30% of any content displayed on a Mac with the SAME pitch as it currently does on iOS
Let's elaborate on G: if you use a Mac/iPhone, Apple brought you as a customer to the content provider that delivers content to the Mac/iPhone, hence Apple deserves a 30% cut.
Your argument seems to show some tendencies for failure.
What happens if you have an agreement where you pay 80% of the price to someone? Are you supposed to poney up the 10 missing % from your investors' pocket?
Comments
For an ebook, Amazon's cut is 30%, the publisher receives 70%
You do realize that this is a recent change, right? Amazon only changed their pricing structure because of Apple. They only changed this in 2010 in response to iBooks. Also realize that Amazon gives you different royalties depending on your "territory", whereas Apple does not.
While I feel bad for this App maker, and I do think some other "reseller" arrangement/compromise should be made, Apple is ultimately benefitting the consumer.
I can't believe I'm saying this....but I agree with you. The fundamental problem here is that a lot of developers didn't understand that model under which Apple was operating under. The App Store isn't just a portal to iOS customers. When you sell in the App Store, you in effect, become a junior partner in the iOS ecosystem, and that means Apple will gets its pound of flesh from you.
Developers who were naive enough to believe that Apple wouldn't get around to enforcing the developer agreement and naive enough to believe that Apple actually cares about them, deserve the treatment they are getting now.
Actually, it's more like, developers who were naive enough to agree to the App Store's revenue sharing and thought Apple would be fine with them giving away shell apps and then generating large amounts of revenue by selling the app content out the back door are getting exactly what should be expected. Maybe they thought Apple wasn't serious about the 30%? Maybe they thought no one would realize that they were stealing large amounts of cash out of the revenue streams that fund the App Store? Maybe they thought the small honest developers wouldn't mind subsidizing Amazon's eBook sales?
It is a partnership, and one in which many honest developers have done, and will continue to do, very well out of. But one of the important aspects of a partnership is that you not try to steal money from your partners.
The guys we're talking about here have developed an entire business model built on stealing from anyone they can. They were certainly naive to think that Apple would not only be a party to the theft, but that they'd be happy to have the Readability crew steal from them as well.
I wonder how people would feel if Netflix charged 30% more on say an iPad as they do on an xbox.... I can easily see that happening.....
Right or wrong, this makes Apple look very greedy in my opinion.....
It will be interesting to see if netflix, Hulu, rhapsody, pandora, etc... Pull out of the market or are forced to add a premium to use their product on apple hardware.
I wonder how people would feel if Netflix charged 30% more on say an iPad as they do on an xbox.... I can easily see that happening.....
They can't. Same price on iPad as is available elsewhere or u get rejected.
Wrong! The Agency Model splits books sales 70% publisher 30% Amazon.
Sometimes...
-> Inside subscription content: Apple iPad vs Google One Pass vs Amazon Kindle [Page 3
"One key difference is that Amazon subsidizes Kindle users' 3G connectivity (referred to as Whispernet), an expense it passes on to content publishers. While Amazon has revised its policies to now take a 30 percent cut just like Apple (at least for select publishers; for others, including bloggers, Amazon takes a 70 percent cut), it also charges publishers a delivery fee before taking its cut. Amazon charges 15 cents per megabyte in the US and UK, and 99 cents per megabyte in other countries.
This means that a newspaper that delivered 9MB of data to subscribers per month would be changed $1.35 fee in the US or UK and $8.91 elsewhere. For a newspaper priced at $9.99 per month, the publisher would net either $6.05 (domestic) or just 64 cents (foreign) per subscriber. This compares to a $7 net for publishers from iTunes. These delivery fees are only incurred on Kindle 3G distribution; content delivered via WiFi or through mobile apps do not incur extra fees, because Amazon does not pay anything for delivery. "
If you're trying to be sneaky and mark up the App Store subscription by Apple's 30% then a) you do the same to your outside subscription, or b)Apple will not allow you to SELL in-app in the App Store.
Feel free to up subscription prices outside the iOS ecosystem to astronomical prices as long as inside the iOS ecosystem you set it at or below the outside prices. In short, YOU the seller set the price but must match or better it in the App Store.
Feel free to create reader apps that does not try to sell to iOS customers, no button to redirect to outside purchases, etc.
If YOU the publisher/marketer/etc feel this is not right then you can stick with Amazon which in most cases still take 70% of subscriptions, develop for Android/webOS/wp7/etc, or create your own ecosystem, hardware and all, and then charge less. Beat Apple at it's own game.
Google is at least doing this rather than mouthing off and not doing anything about it.
All Apple is really asking is that the choice is offered to it's iOS users to be able to purchase it in-app using iTunes rather than being always funneled off to an outside website and having to enter all sorts of info to complete it.
Sure Apple takes 30% and does not divulge user information unless the user opts in but Popular Science among others is ready to show that does not matter. If we compare it to a normal paper subscription then PopSci saves on printing, storage, distribution, headhunter fees. Website pay walls cannot even compare.
On another note, can anyone offer info on whether the subscriptions are being hosted on Apple's servers or not? AFAIK Apple does not have an API where it goes to the publisher's servers and downloads it to the iOS devices. Someone corroborate me on this.
They can't. Same price on iPad as is available elsewhere or u get rejected.
I disagree, I do not think Apple would be able to legally dictate the price of a service on another platform..... I am pretty sure the fed would have to put a stop to that....
Of course, it may just force content providers like Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, etc to simply abandon the iOS platforms....
No one is arguing that Apple deserves a cut but 30% is just flat out ridiculous. Like the music industry, Apple is supposed to save the publishing industry not help destroy it.
Your allegation is baseless. Self-publishing through Amazon used to cost 70%, until they dropped their part to 30%... when Apple opened the App Store.
70% is more than the producers of almost any kind of content, product or service keep for themselves when dealing with an asymmetric relationship. That Apple offers this to all comers-- doesn't charge more to little guys, doesn't charge less to industry giants-- is hardly evidence of greed.
Apple is not supposed to save publishing. Publishing is supposed to figure out how to save itself, and if Apple can be a part of that at a price point they are willing to agree to, they will. If the publishing industry can't figure out how to adapt its business model to current market conditions, then it will fail and it won't be Apple's fault.
The disruption to publishing of all kinds has been a long time coming, but it was visible and widely known of more than 15 years ago. These industries have delayed, resisted, complained and litigated, but taken only baby steps towards adapting, and for some players, it may well be too late.
I disagree, I do not think Apple would be able to legally dictate the price of a service on another platform.....
Correct and they don't. They are telling publishers that they must charge the same price or less with the in app purchase as they do elsewhere.
I don't see what all the hub-ub is about. This is THEIR phone, using THEIR App Store.
No, sorry. It is actually OUR phones.
I don't see what all the hub-ub is about. This is THEIR phone, using THEIR App Store. They should reserve the right for business to be run on their terms. Why shouldn't they get a cut of developer's who make money off of the software they put on their device? It's the same way when royalites are paid to creators of films or television shows that are later remade, or when actors are paid for DVDs and such that are sold of their films.
You mean, rolyalties out of which 30% are taken by Apple?
Of course, it may just force content providers like Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, etc to simply abandon the iOS platforms....
Well, then Apple will have amazing apps that nobody is good enough to compete with
They can't. Same price on iPad as is available elsewhere or u get rejected.
I'm pretty sure if XBox user get a 30% increase on the grounds iPad gets a 30% increase, there will be trouble.
In some countries (France) it's simply not possible to do this legally.
1- You can't sell at a loss (FORBIDDEN with a big F)
2- you can change your contract but then people can pull out if they decide so which might actually come back to case 1 in certain provider cases (say, one that supplies technology, like some companies that offers a bundle with a TV, internet and content)
Apple is going to run into special cases with that, and it might make their life interesting...
Would you apply that logic also to flight tickets sold via iOS apps? 30% of the ticket price for Apple?
And theater tickets? Many businesses relied on the ecosystem Apple ahd created, and that rule is simply unfair. It will probably by striked down by either european or US regulators, if Apple doesn't clarify the situation. Just making it a 30% of the benefits instead of the price would make a solution...
Sometimes...
-> Inside subscription content: Apple iPad vs Google One Pass vs Amazon Kindle [Page 3
"One key difference is that Amazon subsidizes Kindle users' 3G connectivity (referred to as Whispernet), an expense it passes on to content publishers. While Amazon has revised its policies to now take a 30 percent cut just like Apple (at least for select publishers; for others, including bloggers, Amazon takes a 70 percent cut), it also charges publishers a delivery fee before taking its cut. Amazon charges 15 cents per megabyte in the US and UK, and 99 cents per megabyte in other countries.
"
Oh, ye wise man, explain to me. Suppose I'm a blogger, how much do I get if Amazon takes 70% and Apple 30%? What's my slice of the 0% of the pie please?
Apple requires that your price is the same as your price PLUS Apple tax.
In my book, that is dictating. And a nasty one.
Not dictating would be, Apple looks at Amazon price AND adds their margin on top of it. Product is more expensive but here you pay for more streamlined experience. It is like flying economy and business class - you spend same time in the air, but quality of service makes difference in price.
And illegal in some countries. I'm interested to see Apple explain to lawmakers why exactly they should change law...
Apple is wrong with this.
The app is free and is for people who already have a subscription to a service. IF the app doesnt link to the website to subscribe I dont see why it must sell the in-app subscription...
The app rely on ITS OWN subscribers that it got by ITSELF on there website. This is suppose to be allowed.
SJ should may be a genius regarding hardware, but I think he should let someone else handle anything regarding itunes and content providers negociations.
Or maybe he actually should not let them handle that. This decision really sucks, it makes Apple look bad, it overlooks many legal issues in many countries, even the US. It's a move that really seems like ti wasn't thought out enough. Doesn't seems Jobs-esque. And Jobs happens to be tired and kinda ill, remember? Maybe he just let others do the work and things are running wild?
'Restricting access to OX X as well ...' ?
What are you talking about, this appears nonsensical as are your fears.
I'm no genius and I completely understand his point.
I'll spell it out for you:
A) iOS is a secure platform, which is part of the reasons why people buy it
C) Apple introduced the Mac App Store
D) Apple is GOOD at pitching salespoints
E) Apple could easily make only codesigned applications run on OS X, with the same technology it currently allows (if your firewall is set for that option) all codesigned applications to go through the firewall
F) D & E: Apple could pitch that feature as a very important improvement to user security (and be damn right about it, indeed, except it would threaten open source developpement on OS X)
G) then Apple can TAX 30% of any content displayed on a Mac with the SAME pitch as it currently does on iOS
Let's elaborate on G: if you use a Mac/iPhone, Apple brought you as a customer to the content provider that delivers content to the Mac/iPhone, hence Apple deserves a 30% cut.
Your argument seems to show some tendencies for failure.
What makes you think others aren't doing the same thing - including Amazon! It's standard business practice!
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Most_favored_nation_clause
What happens if you have an agreement where you pay 80% of the price to someone? Are you supposed to poney up the 10 missing % from your investors' pocket?
Apple is usually right. In fact, chances are, they've already perceived the long-term outcome.
I'm content to simply let the numbers speak.
Yes Quadra, of course. By the way, remember: Apple did NOT give out free protections for iPhone 4. And the cake is a lie, too.