Apple has stated publicly, including in quarterly calls, numerous times that the App Store is essentially a break even operation. I think one of you is ignoring everything that's involved in running the App Store and the app approval process, and the other is being intentionally obtuse.
Apple's costs for hosting the Kindle app are the same as every other free or ad supported app in the store. The extra costs of selling and distributing ebooks and other content was borne purely by Amazon.
Pretty much correct if analysts estimates are correct. Thru middle of last year Piper-Jaffray figured around 1% of Apple's net profit came from the Appstore. But as they also correctly pointed out, that's not why Apple put it in place anyway. It's meant to push hardware sales.
But, it's also meant to be self-sustaining through revenue sharing, not fee for service, which is the more important point in this discussion.
I don't see why so many people, like Orlando above, and those I've replied to, have so much understanding this very simple point. It's not about what it costs, because it isn't fee for service. If you generate revenue, you are supposed to share it, according to the agreement you made with Apple to have your software accepted into the store. Not doing so, whether through selling content out of app or subsidizing it through third-party ad services is cheating on that agreement, at the expense of developers who are not cheating.
It's got nothing to do with "extra costs" borne by anyone, it's got to do with honestly abiding by an agreement you made, and not leaving those who do honestly abiding picking up the tab for you. Amazon, in this instance is like the guy you go to dinner with who pays for his meal with a coupon and doesn't contribute to the tip, leaving the other diners to cover that for them. Ethically, the two situation are more or less equivalent.
4. Yes, those distributing free apps that generate revenue through ad sources other than iAds are freeloading on the backs of honest developers.
Well, in that case, if there is any freeloading, the one to blame is not the app developer, but Apple for nor charging their costs or not banning those applications.
Apple this week revised its rules for in-app subscriptions, and no longer requires that subscriptions purchased outside of an iOS application have the same price or less.
Under the old rules, Apple required that subscriptions sold outside of the App Store umbrella, where Apple does not receive a 30 percent cut, be "at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app."
With all due respect, does anybody EVER proofread this crap?
The facts are stated 180 degrees opposite of reality, and nobody at AI noticed?
Sam, do yourself a favor. Get a buddy to read read your stuff before you submit it. AI obviously doesn't read for content in the proofreading process.
Do you always insult people that don't have your opinion? Perhaps you are the one pretending to be that difficult of understanding.
And, please, can you show me where in the agreement is thepart you are saying?
No, typically, I only insult people who I believe are being deliberately dishonest in what they post here.
And, frankly, your question is just another bit of either ignorance or dishonesty from you in this discussion. Does, the developer agreement specifically say, "the app store is run on a revenue sharing model"? No. Does that make it any less true or obvious that it is? No.
Ah, so the Great Subscription Scandal is over? And right after Financial Times made a big deal about their web app.
Contrary to the way the blogs and boards want to play this, Apple probably did NOT cave all because FT flipped them the finger. This change was likely already in the works. And even if they had announced it a week ago, FT probably still would have gone web app. Because the chief issue is subscriber personal data, in particular location data, type of credit card used etc. The very things Apple won't tell them
Which costs? They pay the costs with their anual developer license.
Idiotic statement. The cost for the annual developer license is for the LICENSE. Not for the storage, deployment , bookkeeping, money collection, security of site which apple provides for the 30% cut which they take.
Idiotic statement. The cost for the annual developer license is for the LICENSE. Not for the storage, deployment , bookkeeping, money collection, security of site which apple provides for the 30% cut which they take.
Apple's not storing or deploying the content in question.
Idiotic statement. The cost for the annual developer license is for the LICENSE. Not for the storage, deployment , bookkeeping, money collection, security of site which apple provides for the 30% cut which they take.
Yap, the $99 includes the storage and distribution, Apple doesn't account for it.
No, typically, I only insult people who I believe are being deliberately dishonest in what they post here.
And, frankly, your question is just another bit of either ignorance or dishonesty from you in this discussion. Does, the developer agreement specifically say, "the app store is run on a revenue sharing model"? No. Does that make it any less true or obvious that it is? No.
Is obvious and true FOR YOU, but no for other so I'm not ignorant not dishonest so stop insulting me.
Apple's not storing or deploying the content in question.
they easily could be. Suppose I write a new iOS game and put it up free on the App Store. Suppose I then allow users to connect to my website where they can pay to unlock additional level packs. All the storage and deployment is managed by apple, all the profit is made by me.
It's this kind of model that Apple is worried about, and trying to find ways to avoid. I expect we'll see a bunch of iterations of App Store policies before they hit upon a compromise that ensures they get remunerated for distributing for-profit applications, even if the for profit apps are ostensibly free.
Comments
Apple has stated publicly, including in quarterly calls, numerous times that the App Store is essentially a break even operation. I think one of you is ignoring everything that's involved in running the App Store and the app approval process, and the other is being intentionally obtuse.
Apple's costs for hosting the Kindle app are the same as every other free or ad supported app in the store. The extra costs of selling and distributing ebooks and other content was borne purely by Amazon.
Pretty much correct if analysts estimates are correct. Thru middle of last year Piper-Jaffray figured around 1% of Apple's net profit came from the Appstore. But as they also correctly pointed out, that's not why Apple put it in place anyway. It's meant to push hardware sales.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/06/...-gross-profit/
But, it's also meant to be self-sustaining through revenue sharing, not fee for service, which is the more important point in this discussion.
I don't see why so many people, like Orlando above, and those I've replied to, have so much understanding this very simple point. It's not about what it costs, because it isn't fee for service. If you generate revenue, you are supposed to share it, according to the agreement you made with Apple to have your software accepted into the store. Not doing so, whether through selling content out of app or subsidizing it through third-party ad services is cheating on that agreement, at the expense of developers who are not cheating.
It's got nothing to do with "extra costs" borne by anyone, it's got to do with honestly abiding by an agreement you made, and not leaving those who do honestly abiding picking up the tab for you. Amazon, in this instance is like the guy you go to dinner with who pays for his meal with a coupon and doesn't contribute to the tip, leaving the other diners to cover that for them. Ethically, the two situation are more or less equivalent.
4. Yes, those distributing free apps that generate revenue through ad sources other than iAds are freeloading on the backs of honest developers.
Well, in that case, if there is any freeloading, the one to blame is not the app developer, but Apple for nor charging their costs or not banning those applications.
But, it's also meant to be self-sustaining through revenue sharing
Can you show me where in the app guidelines or the developer rules the way of sustaining is revenue sharing?
Can you show me where in the app guidelines or the developer rules the way of sustaining is revenue sharing?
I hope you are just pretending to be that difficult of understanding.
I hope you are just pretending to be that difficult of understanding.
Do you always insult people that don't have your opinion? Perhaps you are the one pretending to be that difficult of understanding.
And, please, can you show me where in the agreement is thepart you are saying?
Apple this week revised its rules for in-app subscriptions, and no longer requires that subscriptions purchased outside of an iOS application have the same price or less.
Under the old rules, Apple required that subscriptions sold outside of the App Store umbrella, where Apple does not receive a 30 percent cut, be "at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app."
With all due respect, does anybody EVER proofread this crap?
The facts are stated 180 degrees opposite of reality, and nobody at AI noticed?
Sam, do yourself a favor. Get a buddy to read read your stuff before you submit it. AI obviously doesn't read for content in the proofreading process.
Shouldn't the first sentence end: "no longer requires that subscriptions purchased outside of an iOS application have the same price or GREATER"?
The second sentence has a similar problem.
Which costs? They pay the costs with their anual developer license.
There is a difference between development costs and distribution costs ..... no?
Do you always insult people that don't have your opinion? Perhaps you are the one pretending to be that difficult of understanding.
And, please, can you show me where in the agreement is thepart you are saying?
No, typically, I only insult people who I believe are being deliberately dishonest in what they post here.
And, frankly, your question is just another bit of either ignorance or dishonesty from you in this discussion. Does, the developer agreement specifically say, "the app store is run on a revenue sharing model"? No. Does that make it any less true or obvious that it is? No.
Ah, so the Great Subscription Scandal is over? And right after Financial Times made a big deal about their web app.
Contrary to the way the blogs and boards want to play this, Apple probably did NOT cave all because FT flipped them the finger. This change was likely already in the works. And even if they had announced it a week ago, FT probably still would have gone web app. Because the chief issue is subscriber personal data, in particular location data, type of credit card used etc. The very things Apple won't tell them
Which costs? They pay the costs with their anual developer license.
Idiotic statement. The cost for the annual developer license is for the LICENSE. Not for the storage, deployment , bookkeeping, money collection, security of site which apple provides for the 30% cut which they take.
Idiotic statement. The cost for the annual developer license is for the LICENSE. Not for the storage, deployment , bookkeeping, money collection, security of site which apple provides for the 30% cut which they take.
Apple's not storing or deploying the content in question.
Apple's not storing or deploying the content in question.
What exactly will it take to make you understand that that is irrelevant?
Hint: Think revenue sharing, not fee for services.
Idiotic statement. The cost for the annual developer license is for the LICENSE. Not for the storage, deployment , bookkeeping, money collection, security of site which apple provides for the 30% cut which they take.
Yap, the $99 includes the storage and distribution, Apple doesn't account for it.
No, typically, I only insult people who I believe are being deliberately dishonest in what they post here.
And, frankly, your question is just another bit of either ignorance or dishonesty from you in this discussion. Does, the developer agreement specifically say, "the app store is run on a revenue sharing model"? No. Does that make it any less true or obvious that it is? No.
Is obvious and true FOR YOU, but no for other so I'm not ignorant not dishonest so stop insulting me.
This make a lot more sense.
Glad Apple came to their senses on this one. Trying to cut competitors off at the knees has never worked. The "Apple way" is to compete, not stifle.
Apple's not storing or deploying the content in question.
they easily could be. Suppose I write a new iOS game and put it up free on the App Store. Suppose I then allow users to connect to my website where they can pay to unlock additional level packs. All the storage and deployment is managed by apple, all the profit is made by me.
It's this kind of model that Apple is worried about, and trying to find ways to avoid. I expect we'll see a bunch of iterations of App Store policies before they hit upon a compromise that ensures they get remunerated for distributing for-profit applications, even if the for profit apps are ostensibly free.