IAP REMOVES advertising data, thus they will make LESS money in advertising. Heck, you know the first part, it's not a big jump to get to the second part. Opt in data is LESS useful because it's a statistical bias. How do I know this? I paid attention in school. Effective targeted advertising (the most profitable) depends on a wide range of data. Sure, a company could switch to general ads, but they make a LOT less money.
On top of that, Readability REMOVES ads. That's the POINT of the program, and WHY they give 70% back to publishers of content. This means, for those paying attention, that the ONLY revenue they get from a customer is the subscription, they don't get ad data because they don't place ads.
Furthermore, Apple will retain ALL that data and use it to pump you with targets iAds. As in, all you've done is shift your purchase data from one broker to another. If you trust Apple more, that's your prerogative, but don't think for a SECOND apple is going to keep the data they get through IAP and never use it.
As far as amazon goes, kindle is it's OWN ecosystem. They have content across multiple devices, and they have their own systems of payment, including gift cards. They're not trying to skirt the App purchasing model. If they were, Apple would've blocked them LONG ago. See, that model is there for stuff you purchase to use EXCLUSIVELY on your iOS device. Kindle books don't fit that model and apple has NO cost associated with their sale save the credit processing fee through IAP. (Amazon pays $100 a year for the "Right" to offer their app to iOS users, so they're not "freeloading")
Kindle handles their own authentication servers, their own hosting servers, and they negotiate the contracts with publishers.
Furthermore, Amazon WILL NOT make up the added cost by having the "benefit" of being on iOS. Again, this is simple math.
Currently:
Book Price: $10
Publisher Cut: $7
Amazon Cut: $3
7+3=10.
With IAP
Book Price: $10
Publisher Cut: $7
Apple Cut: $3
Amazon Cut: $0
7+3+0*=10
*But Amazon's costs aren't $0. Let's be cynical and say it only costs them on average $.05 a book. The reality is, that there is a cost.*
Now, because a majority of the major publishing houses use the "Agency Model" (something made popular by iBooks) Amazon can't increase the price to try and make money back. Instead, they'll have to renegotiate that model (70/30) to something that they can still turn a profit on if the book is sold via iTunes, similar to the distributing fee charged if a book is downloaded over 3G on the kindle.
The problem with that is that iBooks exists. Generally, I'm all for competition, but that's not what we're seeing here. What would happen is Apple is essentially positioning iBooks so that it becomes THE most profitable way to get content to iOS devices. They're not doing this by being aggressive with their own pricing, but rather they're actively trying to INCREASE the costs of their competitors by forcing a monopoly-like setup with iOS device. So Amazon won't really be able to pull that off, because those publishers will find someone else. Now, you could say this is just the "Market" at work, but it's not. Amazon's costs are artificially increasing because Apple wants to hedge them out of the market, Not because of any natural market factor.
The discussion of if they should be allowed to do this (lock out their users) is something left for another day. The end result is that you as an iOS consumer will have an INCREASING amount of your purchases locked to an ecosystem that will give you no easy way to escape. Furthermore, Amazon (and other companies) have developed an ecosystem that encourages cross platform compatibility with their products, in part, because Apple didn't seem to care when they first launched the App store and they were desperate for big name companies to release content. Now that the App store is popular, they're suddenly claiming the deserve a part of that ecosystem. Sounds like a bait and switch to me.
But what about volume? You said it before, I'm sure you'll say it again since you will skip over the numbers above. But here's the reality: No matter HOW MANY BOOKS you sell at a -$.05 loss you can NEVER turn a profit. This means that there is NO way IAP (and thus iOS) becomes "Worth it" for a distributor like Amazon to develop for. it doesn't matter if they would only "lose" 5% of their revenue to offer it on iOS. The point is that EVERY sale they make on the platform would be a loss.
This means the ONLY way iOS customers would be attractive enough to offer the app (at a loss) is if an overwhelming number primarily purchased their books on amazon's website or on another non-iOS device. Do some customers do that? Yes. But the whole point of IAP is for the convenience factor, with Apple going so far as to say companies can offer NO incentive or direct link (in app) for the customer to buy online. The reality is that convenience sells, especially within the iOS ecosystem. (it's one of their marketing hallmarks) Apple knows this, which is why they wrote the guidelines the way they did. If a customer has an iOS device that they actively use for reading, the reality is that they will almost always purchase the book from their device, meaning that iOS customers are no longer an attractive market, no matter HOW much they spend or how many there are.
I know you have issues with anything that paints an Apple move as negative, going so far as to claim that links giving you the evidence you requested "won't work" in your browser. But please tell me how losing even .05 of EVERY SALE could ever be worth it to a company?
Simple. It's a sale they might never have made otherwise.
Also, on such sales, the publisher will take less from Amazon too - for the same reasons. This multi-modal selling model is used in many industries. Why? Because it is the fact of a sale that matters. Why do you think every salesman gets both a base salary AND a commission based on results?
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.
So don't leave Apple! In fact, better yet, don't even buy Apple in the first place! The rest of us, including thoselike me that have been on the Apple platform since 1984, will not weep to see you go, and will be JUST FINE, thank you,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
While you're at it, please tell me how Amazon is a "leech".
They're leeches because Apple doesn't need them (they need the content creators and, for now, the content producers), and because Apple can take the profit they presently keep for themselves - on Apple's proprietary system. Tell me; do you see Amazon putting other readers on their Kindle? How about B&N on their Nook? No?
Only if those iOS users DON'T purchase content on their iOS devices. But they will. ...
Only if they purchase any and all content through IAP is your argument valid. You certainly haven't presented any argument as to why that would be the case. In fact, most Kindle users will probably be purchasing and reading on multiple platforms and only a fraction of their purchases are likely to be through IAP. If you wish to insist otherwise, you'll need a pretty strong argument to make the case that any and all purchases will be through IAP, and you don't have one.
Simple. It's a sale they might never have made otherwise.
Also, on such sales, the publisher will take less from Amazon too - for the same reasons. This multi-modal selling model is used in many industries. Why? Because it is the fact of a sale that matters. Why do you think every salesman gets both a base salary AND a commission based on results?
It's a sale they wouldn't have otherwise, but you only SELL to make money. Sales don't matter, GP does.
If I can net $100 profit by selling 5 of something, or net $90 selling 3,000 of something, I'll go for the higher Net profit anyday. Any salesman would.
And the publisher has another way to get their content to the same customers, in fact a method that no only pays them more but will soon have a captive audience.
They require the fee so that for profit subscription services participate in supporting the App Store that is bringing them new customers.
The outside link allows the developer to skip financially supporting the App Store.
Why do you think people are going to exclusively consume books on an iOS device?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
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.
You are right. People so badly want to prove that Apple is wrong in this. That they are willing to create a reality that does not resemble our current one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Oh, he understands it very well. He's just doing everything he can to avoid that admission since it destroys his entire argument.
As with Readability. They have come up with a business model that is in contradiction with Apple's business model and wants Apple to make an exception for them.
As with Readability. They have come up with a business model that is in contradiction with Apple's business model and wants Apple to make an exception for them.
That's not going to happen.
And yet Apple integrated readability into the Safari browser. Sounds more like a case of Apple wanting all the profits for doing very little work. (how much has apple paid to advertise readability? How much are their server costs to host the app that ARN'T covered in the developer fee?)
Apple didn't integrate Readability into Safari. Apple developed a way for Safari to function like Readability. These are two important distinctions. The ability to read only the text of a website is not new or solely owned by Readability. The way it works in Safari the ads still load and are seen.
You say that Apple doesn't want to do any of the work?
Apple created the entire platform, the devices, the operating system, the software development framework. To create the iPhone and iPad required a great deal of effort and risk on Apple's part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
And yet Apple integrated readability into the Safari browser. Sounds more like a case of Apple wanting all the profits for doing very little work. (how much has apple paid to advertise readability? How much are their server costs to host the app that ARN'T covered in the developer fee?)
What you seem to fail to understand is that a Kindle user could buy books outside of iOS and read the books on iOS and Apple would never get the 30%.
What you seem to understand is that Amazon would get that money ANYWAY, with or without the IAP clause, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.
The only way you can make it relevant is if you can give me any evidence to suggest that a majority of Kindle accounts with registered iOS devices purchase content in some other way than the webapp.
I'm not missing something here. A company isn't going to roll over an accept someone else taking their revenue unless the new policy gets them net PROFITABLE sales. IAP will not do this, and it will take profitable sales and make them unprofitable. Unless you feel that with IAP suddenly customers will STOP buying books on their iOS devices and start buying them else ware.
In short, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the addition of an iOS app will increase purchases on devices other than iOS, and that the money lost from IAP will not be greater than this increase. (which, if Apple's ecosystem is as great as you claim, will be impossible to prove. The better apple's ecosystem is, the more it will COST amazon)
The only way you can make it relevant is if you can give me any evidence to suggest that a majority of Kindle accounts with registered iOS devices purchase content in some other way than the webapp.
Right now there are 0 Kindle users who have bought books with the Kindle app. Amazon has not released a version that allows this function yet. Right now the only way to buy books is through the web link. So there is no way to answer this question.
Quote:
I'm not missing something here. A company isn't going to roll over an accept someone else taking their revenue unless the new policy gets them net PROFITABLE sales. IAP will not do this, and it will take profitable sales and make them unprofitable. Unless you feel that with IAP suddenly customers will STOP buying books on their iOS devices and start buying them else ware.
Amazon knows the number of people who use the Kindle App and how profitable it would be for them. They have not released those numbers publicly. So any opinion about it would be conjecture.
What is known for sure that Apple is providing a popular and powerful platform for Amazon to grow its subscriber base. We know that Apple sells more iOS devices than Amazon sells Kindles.
Its not very likely that very many of the 200+ million iOS owners also own a Kindle.
Quote:
In short, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the addition of an iOS app will increase purchases on devices other than iOS, and that the money lost from IAP will not be greater than this increase. (which, if Apple's ecosystem is as great as you claim, will be impossible to prove. The better apple's ecosystem is, the more it will COST amazon)
If the fact that there are many more ways to access Kindle services other than iOS devices isn't proof enough, I don't know what else to tell you.
Only if they purchase any and all content through IAP is your argument valid. You certainly haven't presented any argument as to why that would be the case. In fact, most Kindle users will probably be purchasing and reading on multiple platforms and only a fraction of their purchases are likely to be through IAP. If you wish to insist otherwise, you'll need a pretty strong argument to make the case that any and all purchases will be through IAP, and you don't have one.
And you have yet to give a Single reason why they would do this. Do you have the numbers for the number of kindle users who purchase from the device as opposed to a website? No? That's because they don't get published yet. But Amazon does. You're right, I have very little "hard evidence." but you have none. But common sense points to me being right, you can't say the same.
You can't demand I show "hard evidence" when you can't give anymore more than what's essentially "Quantity over quality"
First, let's look at the givens:
-We currently have no date for % of people who buy a Kindle book in app because the current app uses what's essentially a webapp to handle payments. This doesn't mean we don't have any data, just that it's not clean.
-People spend a LOT of money in the Apple ecosystem. things like iTunes giftcards go a long way in helping this.
-Everything else being equal (like price), people ALWAYS choose the convenient method.
-IAP is significantly more convenient than either web app purchasing or buying on a computer and sending to your phone.
Then, let's look at the customers:
-Customers who have a kindle account but don't have a registered iOS device. These customers don't matter for our discussion.
-Customers who have an iOS devices registered along with other devices. (this is the market your entire argument hinges on)
-Customers who have only iOS devices registered to their kindle service. (These customers will be a net loss with IAP where they make Amazon money right now)
-Potential iOS Customers.
Now, we don't have hard numbers, but Amazon does. They know that, unless the customer is purchasing content with a gift card, a MAJORITY of books currently purchased through the webapp site (from iOS devices) will become IAP purchases, meaning these sales will be a net loss. The ONLY exception to this is those purchases made with an amazon gift card as those purchases are incompatible with IAP.
A majority of people who currently buy their content outside of the iOS ecosystem will continue to do so. That's why I'm saying it doesn't matter. the addition of IAP can only have a NEGATIVE impact on these purchases, as it allows iTunes gift cards to be used to buy content.
So what you have to show is that having an iOS app will INCREASE sales outside of the iOS ecosystem. As this is contrary to common sense or even the entire market Apple's trying to foster, the burden of proof is on YOU to show this.
So please tell me how IAP will get enough customers to switch to buying OUTSIDE of their iDevice to offset all of the people who switch from the webapp to IAP. This means that having an iOS app will get customers to buy a Kindle Device, start reading on their computer, or switch to a competing platform (android, bberry, webOS)
And yes, there will be a switch. Amazon, per the developer agreement, cannot provide incentive or easy access to the website from within the App to get customers to purchase with something OTHER than IAP.
The customer's we're talking about now, the ONLY ones who will be effected one way or the other are:
-Customers who currently purchase their content via the webapp in mobile safari/current kindle app.
-current iOS customers who don't have a kindle account that might sign up for one.
So please, tell me how offering a IAP will increase sales OUTSIDE the iOS platform enough to offset the loss of content purchased WITH IAP.
Right now there are 0 Kindle users who have bought books with the Kindle app. Amazon has not released a version that allows this function yet. Right now the only way to buy books is through the web link. So there is no way to answer this question.
Amazon knows the number of people who use the Kindle App and how profitable it would be for them. They have not released those numbers publicly. So any opinion about it would be conjecture.
What is known for sure that Apple is providing a popular and powerful platform for Amazon to grow its subscriber base. We know that Apple sells more iOS devices than Amazon sells Kindles.
Its not very likely that very many of the 200+ million iOS owners also own a Kindle.
If the fact that there are many more ways to access Kindle services other than iOS devices isn't proof enough, I don't know what else to tell you.
You're missing the argument. I KNOW that there isn't an IAP kindle option yet.
However, what amazon does have is the number of books purchased within the weblink on mobile safari. Unless the customer is using a gift card, it is safe to assume that ALL of those weblink purchases will be IAP.
This means that in order for IAP to be profitable it must get customers to purchase ANOTHER non-iOS device to purchase the content on, something that Amazon themselves cannot give incentive for.
It's exactly BECAUSE most iOS owners don't also have a kindle that this is an issue. IAP means Amazon only cares about the iOS subscriber base if those iOS users go out and buy ANOTHER device.
I don't know how I can make this any clearer. IAP will NOT be profitable for Amazon. Period. I'm sure even YOU can agree with that. So what that means is that the addition of IAP means more purchases outside of iOS, which you should see makes absolutely no sense.
So you want us to provide hard proof that people will purchase Kindle books outside of iOS.
Despite the fact that there are a billion personal computers that could be used to access Kindle. Half a billion phones that could be used to access Kindle. Tens of millions of Kindle devices that can access the service. A very soon growing and competitive tablet market.
Despite those facts you feel that if we cannot provide hard proof, its only inevitable that most Kindle user will use the 200+ million iOS devices to access Kindle services?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
And you have yet to give a Single reason why they would do this. Do you have the numbers for the number of kindle users who purchase from the device as opposed to a website? No? That's because they don't get published yet. But Amazon does. You're right, I have very little "hard evidence." but you have none. But common sense points to me being right, you can't say the same.
Out of everything you are saying this is the most important. You feel safe to make wide sweeping assumption and conjecture to prove that Apple is being greedy and unreasonable. You disregard anything that does not prove your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
....it is safe to assume that ALL of those weblink purchases will be IAP.
So you want us to provide hard proof that people will purchase Kindle books outside of iOS.
Despite the fact that there are a billion personal computers that could be used to access Kindle. Half a billion phones that could be used to access Kindle. Tens of millions of Kindle devices that can access the service. A very soon growing and competitive tablet market.
Despite those facts you feel that if we cannot provide hard proof, its only inevitable that most Kindle user will use the 200+ million iOS devices to access Kindle services?
No, what I'm asking you to prove is that the addition of IAP will INCREASE sales outside of iOS. Your ENTIRE argument hinges on this. If most of those iOS users use IAP and not another device, iOS is USELESS to Kindle.
Out of everything you are saying this is the most important. You feel safe to make wide sweeping assumption and conjecture to prove that Apple is being greedy and unreasonable. You disregard anything that does not prove your point.
Really? Then tell me how it could be otherwise. No really. Please tell me how a customer will go from a convenient one click payment option from the device they CONSUME the media on, to buying it from some other device.
Current view (from a customers perspective) they see a book they like, hit the "Purchase" button and their credit card is billed.
with IAP, the customer will see the book they like, hit the "pay with itunes" button, and often times the SAME card will be charged, the SAME price.
Now, why in the world would that customer choose to purchase it from a computer, or go buy a kindle device?
Again, YOU are claiming that a kindle App will bring MILLIONS of potential customers to amazon. you are saying that this will offset the cost. So please tell me how Amazon can switch these MILLIONS of potential customers from buying content on the device that supposedly brought them to the application to something that makes Amazon money. THAT's what you need to prove.
Basically you're saying that Apple will bring all of this revenue to Amazon because it will give a convenient method of payment, but that those customers who downloaded the app thanks for IAP WILL NOT USE IT.
If MOST customers buy from outside the app anyway, then why not allow developers to make a READ ONLY app? Why force them to offer one click for purchases? Seriously, why can't Amazon offer a reader for iOS, but if you want to browse a book you either have to go to their website (which they still can't give a link to) or purchase via another device. If the cost to Amazon is so monumentally small like you're claiming, then Apple is taking a SERIOUS PR hit for what will amount to a very small amount of income. If you can justify requiring a cut of each purchase made on the device, can you also justify Apple REQUIRING that amazon allow on device purchases?
I am NOT saying that apple shouldn't get something for creating the ecosystem. All I'm saying is that it should be more like RENT and less like a Tax.
Don't tell me I'm ignoring information that counters my position when you can't even offer a single SHRED of evidence that supports yours.
Comments
Ok... I'll try and make this simple for you:
IAP REMOVES advertising data, thus they will make LESS money in advertising. Heck, you know the first part, it's not a big jump to get to the second part. Opt in data is LESS useful because it's a statistical bias. How do I know this? I paid attention in school. Effective targeted advertising (the most profitable) depends on a wide range of data. Sure, a company could switch to general ads, but they make a LOT less money.
On top of that, Readability REMOVES ads. That's the POINT of the program, and WHY they give 70% back to publishers of content. This means, for those paying attention, that the ONLY revenue they get from a customer is the subscription, they don't get ad data because they don't place ads.
Furthermore, Apple will retain ALL that data and use it to pump you with targets iAds. As in, all you've done is shift your purchase data from one broker to another. If you trust Apple more, that's your prerogative, but don't think for a SECOND apple is going to keep the data they get through IAP and never use it.
As far as amazon goes, kindle is it's OWN ecosystem. They have content across multiple devices, and they have their own systems of payment, including gift cards. They're not trying to skirt the App purchasing model. If they were, Apple would've blocked them LONG ago. See, that model is there for stuff you purchase to use EXCLUSIVELY on your iOS device. Kindle books don't fit that model and apple has NO cost associated with their sale save the credit processing fee through IAP. (Amazon pays $100 a year for the "Right" to offer their app to iOS users, so they're not "freeloading")
Kindle handles their own authentication servers, their own hosting servers, and they negotiate the contracts with publishers.
Furthermore, Amazon WILL NOT make up the added cost by having the "benefit" of being on iOS. Again, this is simple math.
Currently:
Book Price: $10
Publisher Cut: $7
Amazon Cut: $3
7+3=10.
With IAP
Book Price: $10
Publisher Cut: $7
Apple Cut: $3
Amazon Cut: $0
7+3+0*=10
*But Amazon's costs aren't $0. Let's be cynical and say it only costs them on average $.05 a book. The reality is, that there is a cost.*
Now, because a majority of the major publishing houses use the "Agency Model" (something made popular by iBooks) Amazon can't increase the price to try and make money back. Instead, they'll have to renegotiate that model (70/30) to something that they can still turn a profit on if the book is sold via iTunes, similar to the distributing fee charged if a book is downloaded over 3G on the kindle.
The problem with that is that iBooks exists. Generally, I'm all for competition, but that's not what we're seeing here. What would happen is Apple is essentially positioning iBooks so that it becomes THE most profitable way to get content to iOS devices. They're not doing this by being aggressive with their own pricing, but rather they're actively trying to INCREASE the costs of their competitors by forcing a monopoly-like setup with iOS device. So Amazon won't really be able to pull that off, because those publishers will find someone else. Now, you could say this is just the "Market" at work, but it's not. Amazon's costs are artificially increasing because Apple wants to hedge them out of the market, Not because of any natural market factor.
The discussion of if they should be allowed to do this (lock out their users) is something left for another day. The end result is that you as an iOS consumer will have an INCREASING amount of your purchases locked to an ecosystem that will give you no easy way to escape. Furthermore, Amazon (and other companies) have developed an ecosystem that encourages cross platform compatibility with their products, in part, because Apple didn't seem to care when they first launched the App store and they were desperate for big name companies to release content. Now that the App store is popular, they're suddenly claiming the deserve a part of that ecosystem. Sounds like a bait and switch to me.
But what about volume? You said it before, I'm sure you'll say it again since you will skip over the numbers above. But here's the reality: No matter HOW MANY BOOKS you sell at a -$.05 loss you can NEVER turn a profit. This means that there is NO way IAP (and thus iOS) becomes "Worth it" for a distributor like Amazon to develop for. it doesn't matter if they would only "lose" 5% of their revenue to offer it on iOS. The point is that EVERY sale they make on the platform would be a loss.
This means the ONLY way iOS customers would be attractive enough to offer the app (at a loss) is if an overwhelming number primarily purchased their books on amazon's website or on another non-iOS device. Do some customers do that? Yes. But the whole point of IAP is for the convenience factor, with Apple going so far as to say companies can offer NO incentive or direct link (in app) for the customer to buy online. The reality is that convenience sells, especially within the iOS ecosystem. (it's one of their marketing hallmarks) Apple knows this, which is why they wrote the guidelines the way they did. If a customer has an iOS device that they actively use for reading, the reality is that they will almost always purchase the book from their device, meaning that iOS customers are no longer an attractive market, no matter HOW much they spend or how many there are.
I know you have issues with anything that paints an Apple move as negative, going so far as to claim that links giving you the evidence you requested "won't work" in your browser. But please tell me how losing even .05 of EVERY SALE could ever be worth it to a company?
Simple. It's a sale they might never have made otherwise.
Also, on such sales, the publisher will take less from Amazon too - for the same reasons. This multi-modal selling model is used in many industries. Why? Because it is the fact of a sale that matters. Why do you think every salesman gets both a base salary AND a commission based on results?
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.
So don't leave Apple! In fact, better yet, don't even buy Apple in the first place! The rest of us, including thoselike me that have been on the Apple platform since 1984, will not weep to see you go, and will be JUST FINE, thank you,
While you're at it, please tell me how Amazon is a "leech".
They're leeches because Apple doesn't need them (they need the content creators and, for now, the content producers), and because Apple can take the profit they presently keep for themselves - on Apple's proprietary system. Tell me; do you see Amazon putting other readers on their Kindle? How about B&N on their Nook? No?
You really ned to get serious.
Only if those iOS users DON'T purchase content on their iOS devices. But they will. ...
Only if they purchase any and all content through IAP is your argument valid. You certainly haven't presented any argument as to why that would be the case. In fact, most Kindle users will probably be purchasing and reading on multiple platforms and only a fraction of their purchases are likely to be through IAP. If you wish to insist otherwise, you'll need a pretty strong argument to make the case that any and all purchases will be through IAP, and you don't have one.
Simple. It's a sale they might never have made otherwise.
Also, on such sales, the publisher will take less from Amazon too - for the same reasons. This multi-modal selling model is used in many industries. Why? Because it is the fact of a sale that matters. Why do you think every salesman gets both a base salary AND a commission based on results?
It's a sale they wouldn't have otherwise, but you only SELL to make money. Sales don't matter, GP does.
If I can net $100 profit by selling 5 of something, or net $90 selling 3,000 of something, I'll go for the higher Net profit anyday. Any salesman would.
And the publisher has another way to get their content to the same customers, in fact a method that no only pays them more but will soon have a captive audience.
The readability are giving a 70% margin to publishers they publish, who would otherwise not be published.
You don't seem to know what Readability even do.
More rubbish.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
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.
What you seem to fail to understand is that a Kindle user could buy books outside of iOS and read the books on iOS and Apple would never get the 30%.
Oh, he understands it very well. He's just doing everything he can to avoid that admission since it destroys his entire argument.
The outside link allows the developer to skip financially supporting the App Store.
Why do you think people are going to exclusively consume books on an iOS device?
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.
Oh, he understands it very well. He's just doing everything he can to avoid that admission since it destroys his entire argument.
That's not going to happen.
As with Readability. They have come up with a business model that is in contradiction with Apple's business model and wants Apple to make an exception for them.
That's not going to happen.
And yet Apple integrated readability into the Safari browser. Sounds more like a case of Apple wanting all the profits for doing very little work. (how much has apple paid to advertise readability? How much are their server costs to host the app that ARN'T covered in the developer fee?)
You say that Apple doesn't want to do any of the work?
Apple created the entire platform, the devices, the operating system, the software development framework. To create the iPhone and iPad required a great deal of effort and risk on Apple's part.
And yet Apple integrated readability into the Safari browser. Sounds more like a case of Apple wanting all the profits for doing very little work. (how much has apple paid to advertise readability? How much are their server costs to host the app that ARN'T covered in the developer fee?)
What you seem to fail to understand is that a Kindle user could buy books outside of iOS and read the books on iOS and Apple would never get the 30%.
What you seem to understand is that Amazon would get that money ANYWAY, with or without the IAP clause, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.
The only way you can make it relevant is if you can give me any evidence to suggest that a majority of Kindle accounts with registered iOS devices purchase content in some other way than the webapp.
I'm not missing something here. A company isn't going to roll over an accept someone else taking their revenue unless the new policy gets them net PROFITABLE sales. IAP will not do this, and it will take profitable sales and make them unprofitable. Unless you feel that with IAP suddenly customers will STOP buying books on their iOS devices and start buying them else ware.
In short, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the addition of an iOS app will increase purchases on devices other than iOS, and that the money lost from IAP will not be greater than this increase. (which, if Apple's ecosystem is as great as you claim, will be impossible to prove. The better apple's ecosystem is, the more it will COST amazon)
The only way you can make it relevant is if you can give me any evidence to suggest that a majority of Kindle accounts with registered iOS devices purchase content in some other way than the webapp.
Right now there are 0 Kindle users who have bought books with the Kindle app. Amazon has not released a version that allows this function yet. Right now the only way to buy books is through the web link. So there is no way to answer this question.
I'm not missing something here. A company isn't going to roll over an accept someone else taking their revenue unless the new policy gets them net PROFITABLE sales. IAP will not do this, and it will take profitable sales and make them unprofitable. Unless you feel that with IAP suddenly customers will STOP buying books on their iOS devices and start buying them else ware.
Amazon knows the number of people who use the Kindle App and how profitable it would be for them. They have not released those numbers publicly. So any opinion about it would be conjecture.
What is known for sure that Apple is providing a popular and powerful platform for Amazon to grow its subscriber base. We know that Apple sells more iOS devices than Amazon sells Kindles.
Its not very likely that very many of the 200+ million iOS owners also own a Kindle.
In short, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the addition of an iOS app will increase purchases on devices other than iOS, and that the money lost from IAP will not be greater than this increase. (which, if Apple's ecosystem is as great as you claim, will be impossible to prove. The better apple's ecosystem is, the more it will COST amazon)
If the fact that there are many more ways to access Kindle services other than iOS devices isn't proof enough, I don't know what else to tell you.
Only if they purchase any and all content through IAP is your argument valid. You certainly haven't presented any argument as to why that would be the case. In fact, most Kindle users will probably be purchasing and reading on multiple platforms and only a fraction of their purchases are likely to be through IAP. If you wish to insist otherwise, you'll need a pretty strong argument to make the case that any and all purchases will be through IAP, and you don't have one.
And you have yet to give a Single reason why they would do this. Do you have the numbers for the number of kindle users who purchase from the device as opposed to a website? No? That's because they don't get published yet. But Amazon does. You're right, I have very little "hard evidence." but you have none. But common sense points to me being right, you can't say the same.
You can't demand I show "hard evidence" when you can't give anymore more than what's essentially "Quantity over quality"
First, let's look at the givens:
-We currently have no date for % of people who buy a Kindle book in app because the current app uses what's essentially a webapp to handle payments. This doesn't mean we don't have any data, just that it's not clean.
-People spend a LOT of money in the Apple ecosystem. things like iTunes giftcards go a long way in helping this.
-Everything else being equal (like price), people ALWAYS choose the convenient method.
-IAP is significantly more convenient than either web app purchasing or buying on a computer and sending to your phone.
Then, let's look at the customers:
-Customers who have a kindle account but don't have a registered iOS device. These customers don't matter for our discussion.
-Customers who have an iOS devices registered along with other devices. (this is the market your entire argument hinges on)
-Customers who have only iOS devices registered to their kindle service. (These customers will be a net loss with IAP where they make Amazon money right now)
-Potential iOS Customers.
Now, we don't have hard numbers, but Amazon does. They know that, unless the customer is purchasing content with a gift card, a MAJORITY of books currently purchased through the webapp site (from iOS devices) will become IAP purchases, meaning these sales will be a net loss. The ONLY exception to this is those purchases made with an amazon gift card as those purchases are incompatible with IAP.
A majority of people who currently buy their content outside of the iOS ecosystem will continue to do so. That's why I'm saying it doesn't matter. the addition of IAP can only have a NEGATIVE impact on these purchases, as it allows iTunes gift cards to be used to buy content.
So what you have to show is that having an iOS app will INCREASE sales outside of the iOS ecosystem. As this is contrary to common sense or even the entire market Apple's trying to foster, the burden of proof is on YOU to show this.
So please tell me how IAP will get enough customers to switch to buying OUTSIDE of their iDevice to offset all of the people who switch from the webapp to IAP. This means that having an iOS app will get customers to buy a Kindle Device, start reading on their computer, or switch to a competing platform (android, bberry, webOS)
And yes, there will be a switch. Amazon, per the developer agreement, cannot provide incentive or easy access to the website from within the App to get customers to purchase with something OTHER than IAP.
The customer's we're talking about now, the ONLY ones who will be effected one way or the other are:
-Customers who currently purchase their content via the webapp in mobile safari/current kindle app.
-current iOS customers who don't have a kindle account that might sign up for one.
So please, tell me how offering a IAP will increase sales OUTSIDE the iOS platform enough to offset the loss of content purchased WITH IAP.
Right now there are 0 Kindle users who have bought books with the Kindle app. Amazon has not released a version that allows this function yet. Right now the only way to buy books is through the web link. So there is no way to answer this question.
Amazon knows the number of people who use the Kindle App and how profitable it would be for them. They have not released those numbers publicly. So any opinion about it would be conjecture.
What is known for sure that Apple is providing a popular and powerful platform for Amazon to grow its subscriber base. We know that Apple sells more iOS devices than Amazon sells Kindles.
Its not very likely that very many of the 200+ million iOS owners also own a Kindle.
If the fact that there are many more ways to access Kindle services other than iOS devices isn't proof enough, I don't know what else to tell you.
You're missing the argument. I KNOW that there isn't an IAP kindle option yet.
However, what amazon does have is the number of books purchased within the weblink on mobile safari. Unless the customer is using a gift card, it is safe to assume that ALL of those weblink purchases will be IAP.
This means that in order for IAP to be profitable it must get customers to purchase ANOTHER non-iOS device to purchase the content on, something that Amazon themselves cannot give incentive for.
It's exactly BECAUSE most iOS owners don't also have a kindle that this is an issue. IAP means Amazon only cares about the iOS subscriber base if those iOS users go out and buy ANOTHER device.
I don't know how I can make this any clearer. IAP will NOT be profitable for Amazon. Period. I'm sure even YOU can agree with that. So what that means is that the addition of IAP means more purchases outside of iOS, which you should see makes absolutely no sense.
Despite the fact that there are a billion personal computers that could be used to access Kindle. Half a billion phones that could be used to access Kindle. Tens of millions of Kindle devices that can access the service. A very soon growing and competitive tablet market.
Despite those facts you feel that if we cannot provide hard proof, its only inevitable that most Kindle user will use the 200+ million iOS devices to access Kindle services?
And you have yet to give a Single reason why they would do this. Do you have the numbers for the number of kindle users who purchase from the device as opposed to a website? No? That's because they don't get published yet. But Amazon does. You're right, I have very little "hard evidence." but you have none. But common sense points to me being right, you can't say the same.
....it is safe to assume that ALL of those weblink purchases will be IAP.
So you want us to provide hard proof that people will purchase Kindle books outside of iOS.
Despite the fact that there are a billion personal computers that could be used to access Kindle. Half a billion phones that could be used to access Kindle. Tens of millions of Kindle devices that can access the service. A very soon growing and competitive tablet market.
Despite those facts you feel that if we cannot provide hard proof, its only inevitable that most Kindle user will use the 200+ million iOS devices to access Kindle services?
No, what I'm asking you to prove is that the addition of IAP will INCREASE sales outside of iOS. Your ENTIRE argument hinges on this. If most of those iOS users use IAP and not another device, iOS is USELESS to Kindle.
Out of everything you are saying this is the most important. You feel safe to make wide sweeping assumption and conjecture to prove that Apple is being greedy and unreasonable. You disregard anything that does not prove your point.
Really? Then tell me how it could be otherwise. No really. Please tell me how a customer will go from a convenient one click payment option from the device they CONSUME the media on, to buying it from some other device.
Current view (from a customers perspective) they see a book they like, hit the "Purchase" button and their credit card is billed.
with IAP, the customer will see the book they like, hit the "pay with itunes" button, and often times the SAME card will be charged, the SAME price.
Now, why in the world would that customer choose to purchase it from a computer, or go buy a kindle device?
Again, YOU are claiming that a kindle App will bring MILLIONS of potential customers to amazon. you are saying that this will offset the cost. So please tell me how Amazon can switch these MILLIONS of potential customers from buying content on the device that supposedly brought them to the application to something that makes Amazon money. THAT's what you need to prove.
Basically you're saying that Apple will bring all of this revenue to Amazon because it will give a convenient method of payment, but that those customers who downloaded the app thanks for IAP WILL NOT USE IT.
If MOST customers buy from outside the app anyway, then why not allow developers to make a READ ONLY app? Why force them to offer one click for purchases? Seriously, why can't Amazon offer a reader for iOS, but if you want to browse a book you either have to go to their website (which they still can't give a link to) or purchase via another device. If the cost to Amazon is so monumentally small like you're claiming, then Apple is taking a SERIOUS PR hit for what will amount to a very small amount of income. If you can justify requiring a cut of each purchase made on the device, can you also justify Apple REQUIRING that amazon allow on device purchases?
I am NOT saying that apple shouldn't get something for creating the ecosystem. All I'm saying is that it should be more like RENT and less like a Tax.
Don't tell me I'm ignoring information that counters my position when you can't even offer a single SHRED of evidence that supports yours.