If I decide to subscribe through Apple, perhaps I'll do so because I don't like my data being sold to any taker by some pimp publisher who doesn't see my privacy rights as any kind of concern.
Eeesh.
Apple doesn't see your privacy rights as a concern either, or did you miss the part where they were pimping how much more profitable their targeted iAds were?
Exactly, Apple changed the way publishers got paid. Which is why the 30% is DEVASTATING for companies like Amazon. It means that they essentially CAN'T reduce the cut given to publishers to compensate for the loss thanks to IAP because publishers know they can reach those consumers through another source (iBooks).
THIS IS NOT COMPETITION. This is a monopolistic practice, where Apple is using their marketshare (100% of iOS users) to jack up the rates of their competitors knowing that that there is NO way for them to come up on top.
Under these new rules, with the restrictions of commissions Apple helped to create, iOS is NO LONGER a "Draw" for companies like Amazon, no matter how much they spend, or how many customers there are.
Apple's not a "Partner" in this analogy. They're doing NOTHING for Amazon but creating a media consumption platform, a platform the customers ALREADY PAID FOR. Apple will assume NONE of the costs associated with getting content to a customer past the credit processing fee, and they're doing that at gunpoint. Amazon PAYS THEM $100 a year to host their app, and features iOS devices in their own ads (largely in a positive light until the iPad came about).
What Apples doing here is akin to a mob boss inviting a small pizza chain into the neighborhood. They'll allow the chain access to all the residents in the area, but in order to be there, the Mob boss gets 30% of EVERY sale (delivered to his "family" run pizza place across the street) or he shuts the chainstore down. Apple's not a partner. They're an extortion racket here.
Yes, the App store helps sell apps, this is true, but does it help amazon sell kindle books? not really beyond the point of allowing an app to exist on the platform. Big names like Netflix, Amazon, etc helped spur app store development when it first launched. Does apple give them a kickback for every device sale? Sure, they have the promise of making a profit off of the content sold, but when apple is taking the ENTIRE cut that Amazon used to get, there's no longer a profit.
Cry me a RIVER, for Pete's sake! Those poor downtrodden LEECHES! They won't be able to suck the customer's blood anymore!
Get real, dude. This is great for the content makers (who get 70% of the profit, for cripe's sake!), and it is good for the consumer. Nothing else matters.
Or maybe you think we should have stayed with horses and buggies rather thqn put the buggy whip manufacturers out of business....
That's a much truer picture of what, in reality, this actually means to Amazon's bottom line. Your numbers falsely assume that every eBook Amazon sells will be sold through IAP, which is patently absurd, given the number of avenues customers have to purchase Kindle books. Frankly, I think that $0.50 as Apple's cut of the $10, spread over all of Amazon's eBook sales is probably significantly higher than it is likely to be, so the above is pretty much a worst case scenario for Amazon.
No I don't assume that. if you read my post, you'd see I said the exact opposite.
I was giving numbers for the books sold THROUGH IAP of which a MAJORITY of books purchased for iOS devices would be because Apple won't let publishers provide an INCENTIVE or a CONVENIENT way to have the books purchased elseware save relying on customers to purchase elseware of their own free will.
It doesn't matter what "Apple's Cut" will be compared to Amazon's total revenue. What matters is that for EVERY SINGLE BOOK sold on an iOS device (unless, for whatever reason, the customer has the amazon app and only buys books in safari) will COST amazon money. If it's .01 or 1 it doesn't matter. You don't open a store in a market where it's IMPOSSIBLE to turn a profit on.
Amazon's not going to lose money on iOS customers just because they feel like it. Please tell me how offering an iOS app will MAKE them money because of that app. It won't. The only customers they'll "lose" by pulling their app are those customers who EXCLUSIVELY consume kindle books on their iOS devices and EVERY SINGLE ONE of those customers would become a net loss under IAP.
This argument assumes that the majority of people subscribing to these services will subscribe to them through their iOS app. Which isn't very likely to be the case.
The far majority of people who use these services will subscribe to them through the provider. I'm sure Apple knows that very few people will subscribe through the iOS app itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
Exactly, Apple changed the way publishers got paid. Which is why the 30% is DEVASTATING for companies like Amazon. It means that they essentially CAN'T reduce the cut given to publishers to compensate for the loss thanks to IAP because publishers know they can reach those consumers through another source (iBooks).
You are going quite overboard on this argument. The few people who will use in app purchasing will not destroy Amazon or Kindle's bottom line.
Amazon will make more money because Apple is bringing them millions of more Kindle users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
Amazon's not going to lose money on iOS customers just because they feel like it. Please tell me how offering an iOS app will MAKE them money because of that app. It won't. The only customers they'll "lose" by pulling their app are those customers who EXCLUSIVELY consume kindle books on their iOS devices and EVERY SINGLE ONE of those customers would become a net loss under IAP.
Cry me a RIVER, for Pete's sake! Those poor downtrodden LEECHES! They won't be able to suck the customer's blood anymore!
Get real, dude. This is great for the content makers (who get 70% of the profit, for cripe's sake!), and it is good for the consumer. Nothing else matters.
Or maybe you think we should have stayed with horses and buggies rather thqn put the buggy whip manufacturers out of business....
How is this good for the consumers? Being FORCED to have the only way to buy content is through a highly proprietary app store (iBooks) so that if you want to leave iOS in the future you also have to leave your ENTIRE library because Apple will NEVER make an iBooks client for other platforms.
How is that good for consumers? Please, tell me.
While you're at it, please tell me how Amazon is a "leech". They provide content, they are one of dozens of content providers competing in an open marketplace. They don't hold a gun to your head and say "because you have a PC, you MUST buy through us" no, I can get a book from sony, or Barnes and Noble, or ibooks, the Gutenberg project, or even a traditional brick and mortar store.
They're the ones who pay the content creators (so I don't need to make an account with all of them) they handle my licenses so I can log into a kindle app on practically ANY platform and access my content. Please, tell me how is this leeching?
The Leech is Apple who's basically telling other content distributors to f**k off, holding their customers hostage so that the ONLY way publishers can get content to an iOS user is by dealing directly with Apple.
... Amazon's not going to lose money on iOS customers just because they feel like it. Please tell me how offering an iOS app will MAKE them money because of that app. ...
You're right, they aren't going to lose money on IOS customers; they're going to make a lot of money from them. And offering an iOS app will make them money because what Amazon offers with Kindle, and what makes it attractive to readers, is the apparent ubiquity of the platform, which is why they won't pull the Kindle reader for iOS and they will do just fine financially.
Actually, yes, that's the only thing that matters to this discussion.
No it doesn't.
Please tell me how it makes sense for Amazon to offer an app on iOS if they lose money on EVERY SINGLE BOOK purchased through the app. It doesn't matter the overall % because there is NO WAY that those customers will be profitable. This means that at 1% or 5% cost, it makes sense to just cut the losses.
In what world would offering an iOS app that loses money with EVERY sale ever mean a financial gain for Amazon?
When you are buying from iOS application, you are still buying from Amazon. You are not replacing Amazon with Apple and buying directly of publishers. Apple does not have contract with publishers - Amazon is. Apple is just another middle man.
Thinking of it, it would be really mad if Amazon offer Kindle app that would let you buy from Apple and completely avoid Amazon. Who on Earth would agree to make such app?!?
So basically what happens - much as I have understood it - is, if Amazon sells ebook of their web site, they charge, say, $10 for it and split that money with publisher, authors... but. If Amazon sells same book through their iOS app, Apple takes $3 and gives Amazon $7 to share with their contractors. From Amazon point of view, they are being forced to give Apple 30% better price than they are giving end users who buy directly off Amazon's web site. If it is true that Amazon is making roughly 30% themselves, this is basically taking all their profit away, or forcing them to re-negotiate with publishers for a different split. Eventually, like many people noticed, this would likely end up for amazon and publishers agreeing to pump book's price to $13.333 so that, when Apple takes their tax, they can still make sustainable profits.
This is nonsense. Try publishing a book. It is ALL about sales. The iOS customer brings in a sale that might never have come to Amazon. The zero-effort opportunity value of that sale will put a smile on the faces of Amazon and the publisher since it is a windfall opportunity won with zero effort. It is the sale that matters. He who delivers the sale takes the major cut. Ask any retailer.
Your argument is shallow and shows a naive lack understanding of the value of a windfall sale. Any money coming in under such circs is very welcome.
How is this good for the consumers? Being FORCED to have the only way to buy content is through a highly proprietary app store (iBooks) so that if you want to leave iOS in the future you also have to leave your ENTIRE library because Apple will NEVER make an iBooks client for other platforms. ...
More BS. None of your doomsday predictions will come to pass. No one is being, or will be, "forced" into anything. And, if you mean that iBooks won't be available on Kindle, you are probably correct. If you mean that iBooks will never be available for any other platform, I suspect you are wrong.
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.
Naive enough also to be mostly unsuccessful and minus any kind of business franchise of their own clueless creation outside of and prior to Apple's marvellous, ground-breaking global sales umbrella.
This argument assumes that the majority of people subscribing to these services will subscribe to them through their iOS app. Which isn't very likely to be the case.
The far majority of people who use these services will subscribe to them through the provider. I'm sure Apple knows that very few people will subscribe through the iOS app itself.
If apple knows this, then why require the fee? You think apple is that stupid? If they're just creating this as an "option" for their customers, they would allow app developers to at least make a LINK to offer to let the customers purchase from their browser instead, but they don't.
And if you're buying a book, you're going to purchase the book on the platform you'll consume it on.
Please tell me how it makes sense for Amazon to offer an app on iOS if they lose money on EVERY SINGLE BOOK purchased through the app. It doesn't matter the overall % because there is NO WAY that those customers will be profitable. This means that at 1% or 5% cost, it makes sense to just cut the losses.
In what world would offering an iOS app that loses money with EVERY sale ever mean a financial gain for Amazon?
In a world where the increased sales to iOS users more than cover the small real percentage that will go to Apple from IAP sales. You can insist that the overall sales don't matter, but you're simply wrong and, since your entire argument requires what's false to be true, you have nothing at all to support your wild doomsday claims.
More BS. None of your doomsday predictions will come to pass. No one is being, or will be, "forced" into anything. And, if you mean that iBooks won't be available on Kindle, you are probably correct. If you mean that iBooks will never be available for any other platform, I suspect you are wrong.
Really? You mean I can sync my itunes playlists with a Droid? or a WebOS device without resorting to a third party solution? not to mention actually PURCHASING content through another device.
If you think iBooks will move to ANY platform Apple doesn't have direct control over, you haven't been paying attention to the company. iTunes is offered on windows because it's a way to sell ipods/iphones/and eventually mac computers. This is why it ONLY syncs with iDevices. iBooks is a programs made to sell content ON iDevices.
ibooks won't make it to the kindle because the kindle is a SINGLE purpose device. It's there to consume amazon books. It's not a smartphone, it's not a tablet. Now, if apple wanted to they COULD create an app that would work perfectly on the nook color, but they won't.
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.
The only way you will learn is to open a bookshop or write a book.
If you are a publisher or own a bookshop and sell books at $9.99, chances are that, minus your cost of sales and the costs of running the business, you'd be lucky to see 10% of that revenue per book as net income. If Apple sells just one book for you, you'll get 70% delivered to your bank.
If you are an self-publishing author, it may get even better. This is something Apple should pay attention to. As a writer, I would be happy to see 70% of net revenues zooming into my account when, using the publisher-route with all its hangers-on taking their cut, I'd be lucky to see 5% of any book I wrote until I was seriously famous.
This is a kiss-of-life for all concerned and especially for an industry on a fast track to life-support based on its own ideas of the future.
In a world where the increased sales to iOS users more than cover the small real percentage that will go to Apple from IAP sales. You can insist that the overall sales don't matter, but you're simply wrong and, since your entire argument requires what's false to be true, you have nothing at all to support your wild doomsday claims.
Only if those iOS users DON'T purchase content on their iOS devices. But they will.
Once again you're trying so hard to throw straw men and red herrings out there you miss the giant elephant in the room. there is NO WAY that selling kindle books through the iOS app would turn a profit for Amazon, no matter WHAT the volume.
The ONLY way those iOS customers would result in ANY profit for amazon is if those customers LEFT iOS, or purchased a kindle/other device to consume a majority of their content on and only used their iphone's to read already purchased content.
Unless enough people purchase content from other devices (which is highly unlikely) Kindle for iOS will always be a net loss.
You keep avoiding the question. Please explain to me HOW it will mean more money. Volume is NOT a valid answer. You need to tell me how these readers will switch from using the convenient on device purchase method (IAP) to something less convenient which actually makes amazon money.
Comments
If I decide to subscribe through Apple, perhaps I'll do so because I don't like my data being sold to any taker by some pimp publisher who doesn't see my privacy rights as any kind of concern.
Eeesh.
Apple doesn't see your privacy rights as a concern either, or did you miss the part where they were pimping how much more profitable their targeted iAds were?
Well, Apple certainly seems to be losing the PR war here.
Tech blogs constantly complain about Apple. The majority of people pay it little attention.
They do come off as greedy and more controlling than in the past.
I think they only come off greedy and controlling if you refuse to really understand the fully context of what Apple is requesting.
Exactly, Apple changed the way publishers got paid. Which is why the 30% is DEVASTATING for companies like Amazon. It means that they essentially CAN'T reduce the cut given to publishers to compensate for the loss thanks to IAP because publishers know they can reach those consumers through another source (iBooks).
THIS IS NOT COMPETITION. This is a monopolistic practice, where Apple is using their marketshare (100% of iOS users) to jack up the rates of their competitors knowing that that there is NO way for them to come up on top.
Under these new rules, with the restrictions of commissions Apple helped to create, iOS is NO LONGER a "Draw" for companies like Amazon, no matter how much they spend, or how many customers there are.
Apple's not a "Partner" in this analogy. They're doing NOTHING for Amazon but creating a media consumption platform, a platform the customers ALREADY PAID FOR. Apple will assume NONE of the costs associated with getting content to a customer past the credit processing fee, and they're doing that at gunpoint. Amazon PAYS THEM $100 a year to host their app, and features iOS devices in their own ads (largely in a positive light until the iPad came about).
What Apples doing here is akin to a mob boss inviting a small pizza chain into the neighborhood. They'll allow the chain access to all the residents in the area, but in order to be there, the Mob boss gets 30% of EVERY sale (delivered to his "family" run pizza place across the street) or he shuts the chainstore down. Apple's not a partner. They're an extortion racket here.
Yes, the App store helps sell apps, this is true, but does it help amazon sell kindle books? not really beyond the point of allowing an app to exist on the platform. Big names like Netflix, Amazon, etc helped spur app store development when it first launched. Does apple give them a kickback for every device sale? Sure, they have the promise of making a profit off of the content sold, but when apple is taking the ENTIRE cut that Amazon used to get, there's no longer a profit.
Cry me a RIVER, for Pete's sake! Those poor downtrodden LEECHES! They won't be able to suck the customer's blood anymore!
Get real, dude. This is great for the content makers (who get 70% of the profit, for cripe's sake!), and it is good for the consumer. Nothing else matters.
Or maybe you think we should have stayed with horses and buggies rather thqn put the buggy whip manufacturers out of business....
That's a much truer picture of what, in reality, this actually means to Amazon's bottom line. Your numbers falsely assume that every eBook Amazon sells will be sold through IAP, which is patently absurd, given the number of avenues customers have to purchase Kindle books. Frankly, I think that $0.50 as Apple's cut of the $10, spread over all of Amazon's eBook sales is probably significantly higher than it is likely to be, so the above is pretty much a worst case scenario for Amazon.
No I don't assume that. if you read my post, you'd see I said the exact opposite.
I was giving numbers for the books sold THROUGH IAP of which a MAJORITY of books purchased for iOS devices would be because Apple won't let publishers provide an INCENTIVE or a CONVENIENT way to have the books purchased elseware save relying on customers to purchase elseware of their own free will.
It doesn't matter what "Apple's Cut" will be compared to Amazon's total revenue. What matters is that for EVERY SINGLE BOOK sold on an iOS device (unless, for whatever reason, the customer has the amazon app and only buys books in safari) will COST amazon money. If it's .01 or 1 it doesn't matter. You don't open a store in a market where it's IMPOSSIBLE to turn a profit on.
Amazon's not going to lose money on iOS customers just because they feel like it. Please tell me how offering an iOS app will MAKE them money because of that app. It won't. The only customers they'll "lose" by pulling their app are those customers who EXCLUSIVELY consume kindle books on their iOS devices and EVERY SINGLE ONE of those customers would become a net loss under IAP.
The far majority of people who use these services will subscribe to them through the provider. I'm sure Apple knows that very few people will subscribe through the iOS app itself.
Exactly, Apple changed the way publishers got paid. Which is why the 30% is DEVASTATING for companies like Amazon. It means that they essentially CAN'T reduce the cut given to publishers to compensate for the loss thanks to IAP because publishers know they can reach those consumers through another source (iBooks).
Exactly, Apple changed the way publishers got paid. Which is why the 30% is DEVASTATING for companies like Amazon. ...
Yeah, devastatingly inaccurate, just like the rest of your hyperbole.
Amazon will make more money because Apple is bringing them millions of more Kindle users.
Amazon's not going to lose money on iOS customers just because they feel like it. Please tell me how offering an iOS app will MAKE them money because of that app. It won't. The only customers they'll "lose" by pulling their app are those customers who EXCLUSIVELY consume kindle books on their iOS devices and EVERY SINGLE ONE of those customers would become a net loss under IAP.
... It doesn't matter what "Apple's Cut" will be compared to Amazon's total revenue. ...
Actually, yes, that's the only thing that matters to this discussion.
Cry me a RIVER, for Pete's sake! Those poor downtrodden LEECHES! They won't be able to suck the customer's blood anymore!
Get real, dude. This is great for the content makers (who get 70% of the profit, for cripe's sake!), and it is good for the consumer. Nothing else matters.
Or maybe you think we should have stayed with horses and buggies rather thqn put the buggy whip manufacturers out of business....
How is this good for the consumers? Being FORCED to have the only way to buy content is through a highly proprietary app store (iBooks) so that if you want to leave iOS in the future you also have to leave your ENTIRE library because Apple will NEVER make an iBooks client for other platforms.
How is that good for consumers? Please, tell me.
While you're at it, please tell me how Amazon is a "leech". They provide content, they are one of dozens of content providers competing in an open marketplace. They don't hold a gun to your head and say "because you have a PC, you MUST buy through us" no, I can get a book from sony, or Barnes and Noble, or ibooks, the Gutenberg project, or even a traditional brick and mortar store.
They're the ones who pay the content creators (so I don't need to make an account with all of them) they handle my licenses so I can log into a kindle app on practically ANY platform and access my content. Please, tell me how is this leeching?
The Leech is Apple who's basically telling other content distributors to f**k off, holding their customers hostage so that the ONLY way publishers can get content to an iOS user is by dealing directly with Apple.
... Amazon's not going to lose money on iOS customers just because they feel like it. Please tell me how offering an iOS app will MAKE them money because of that app. ...
You're right, they aren't going to lose money on IOS customers; they're going to make a lot of money from them. And offering an iOS app will make them money because what Amazon offers with Kindle, and what makes it attractive to readers, is the apparent ubiquity of the platform, which is why they won't pull the Kindle reader for iOS and they will do just fine financially.
Actually, yes, that's the only thing that matters to this discussion.
No it doesn't.
Please tell me how it makes sense for Amazon to offer an app on iOS if they lose money on EVERY SINGLE BOOK purchased through the app. It doesn't matter the overall % because there is NO WAY that those customers will be profitable. This means that at 1% or 5% cost, it makes sense to just cut the losses.
In what world would offering an iOS app that loses money with EVERY sale ever mean a financial gain for Amazon?
I think you missed some important parts here.
When you are buying from iOS application, you are still buying from Amazon. You are not replacing Amazon with Apple and buying directly of publishers. Apple does not have contract with publishers - Amazon is. Apple is just another middle man.
Thinking of it, it would be really mad if Amazon offer Kindle app that would let you buy from Apple and completely avoid Amazon. Who on Earth would agree to make such app?!?
So basically what happens - much as I have understood it - is, if Amazon sells ebook of their web site, they charge, say, $10 for it and split that money with publisher, authors... but. If Amazon sells same book through their iOS app, Apple takes $3 and gives Amazon $7 to share with their contractors. From Amazon point of view, they are being forced to give Apple 30% better price than they are giving end users who buy directly off Amazon's web site. If it is true that Amazon is making roughly 30% themselves, this is basically taking all their profit away, or forcing them to re-negotiate with publishers for a different split. Eventually, like many people noticed, this would likely end up for amazon and publishers agreeing to pump book's price to $13.333 so that, when Apple takes their tax, they can still make sustainable profits.
This is nonsense. Try publishing a book. It is ALL about sales. The iOS customer brings in a sale that might never have come to Amazon. The zero-effort opportunity value of that sale will put a smile on the faces of Amazon and the publisher since it is a windfall opportunity won with zero effort. It is the sale that matters. He who delivers the sale takes the major cut. Ask any retailer.
Your argument is shallow and shows a naive lack understanding of the value of a windfall sale. Any money coming in under such circs is very welcome.
You are going quite overboard on this argument. The few people who will use in app purchasing will not destroy Amazon or Kindle's bottom line.
Amazon will make more money because Apple is bringing them millions of more Kindle users.
Only if those kindle users go out and buy a kindle or switch to another platform. If those users remain with iOS they will NEVER make amazon money.
How is this good for the consumers? Being FORCED to have the only way to buy content is through a highly proprietary app store (iBooks) so that if you want to leave iOS in the future you also have to leave your ENTIRE library because Apple will NEVER make an iBooks client for other platforms. ...
More BS. None of your doomsday predictions will come to pass. No one is being, or will be, "forced" into anything. And, if you mean that iBooks won't be available on Kindle, you are probably correct. If you mean that iBooks will never be available for any other platform, I suspect you are wrong.
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.
Naive enough also to be mostly unsuccessful and minus any kind of business franchise of their own clueless creation outside of and prior to Apple's marvellous, ground-breaking global sales umbrella.
Silly.
This argument assumes that the majority of people subscribing to these services will subscribe to them through their iOS app. Which isn't very likely to be the case.
The far majority of people who use these services will subscribe to them through the provider. I'm sure Apple knows that very few people will subscribe through the iOS app itself.
If apple knows this, then why require the fee? You think apple is that stupid? If they're just creating this as an "option" for their customers, they would allow app developers to at least make a LINK to offer to let the customers purchase from their browser instead, but they don't.
And if you're buying a book, you're going to purchase the book on the platform you'll consume it on.
No it doesn't.
Please tell me how it makes sense for Amazon to offer an app on iOS if they lose money on EVERY SINGLE BOOK purchased through the app. It doesn't matter the overall % because there is NO WAY that those customers will be profitable. This means that at 1% or 5% cost, it makes sense to just cut the losses.
In what world would offering an iOS app that loses money with EVERY sale ever mean a financial gain for Amazon?
In a world where the increased sales to iOS users more than cover the small real percentage that will go to Apple from IAP sales. You can insist that the overall sales don't matter, but you're simply wrong and, since your entire argument requires what's false to be true, you have nothing at all to support your wild doomsday claims.
More BS. None of your doomsday predictions will come to pass. No one is being, or will be, "forced" into anything. And, if you mean that iBooks won't be available on Kindle, you are probably correct. If you mean that iBooks will never be available for any other platform, I suspect you are wrong.
Really? You mean I can sync my itunes playlists with a Droid? or a WebOS device without resorting to a third party solution? not to mention actually PURCHASING content through another device.
If you think iBooks will move to ANY platform Apple doesn't have direct control over, you haven't been paying attention to the company. iTunes is offered on windows because it's a way to sell ipods/iphones/and eventually mac computers. This is why it ONLY syncs with iDevices. iBooks is a programs made to sell content ON iDevices.
ibooks won't make it to the kindle because the kindle is a SINGLE purpose device. It's there to consume amazon books. It's not a smartphone, it's not a tablet. Now, if apple wanted to they COULD create an app that would work perfectly on the nook color, but they won't.
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.
The only way you will learn is to open a bookshop or write a book.
If you are a publisher or own a bookshop and sell books at $9.99, chances are that, minus your cost of sales and the costs of running the business, you'd be lucky to see 10% of that revenue per book as net income. If Apple sells just one book for you, you'll get 70% delivered to your bank.
If you are an self-publishing author, it may get even better. This is something Apple should pay attention to. As a writer, I would be happy to see 70% of net revenues zooming into my account when, using the publisher-route with all its hangers-on taking their cut, I'd be lucky to see 5% of any book I wrote until I was seriously famous.
This is a kiss-of-life for all concerned and especially for an industry on a fast track to life-support based on its own ideas of the future.
In a world where the increased sales to iOS users more than cover the small real percentage that will go to Apple from IAP sales. You can insist that the overall sales don't matter, but you're simply wrong and, since your entire argument requires what's false to be true, you have nothing at all to support your wild doomsday claims.
Only if those iOS users DON'T purchase content on their iOS devices. But they will.
Once again you're trying so hard to throw straw men and red herrings out there you miss the giant elephant in the room. there is NO WAY that selling kindle books through the iOS app would turn a profit for Amazon, no matter WHAT the volume.
The ONLY way those iOS customers would result in ANY profit for amazon is if those customers LEFT iOS, or purchased a kindle/other device to consume a majority of their content on and only used their iphone's to read already purchased content.
Unless enough people purchase content from other devices (which is highly unlikely) Kindle for iOS will always be a net loss.
You keep avoiding the question. Please explain to me HOW it will mean more money. Volume is NOT a valid answer. You need to tell me how these readers will switch from using the convenient on device purchase method (IAP) to something less convenient which actually makes amazon money.