So what cut do you think that Windows and MS should get from iTunes? Or is it that the iPad is a store, and Windows is not - even though it provides a customer base for Apple - and a developer environment etc.
We keep going around in circles. As a major Apple fan this kind of bugs me - Apple is doing something uncompetitive, something which may reduce choice, or increase costs on the iPad ( or both) and we're cheering like idiots. Making up excuses which they haven't even bothered with.
You're equating Windows with the App Store, not iOS as it should be. The two are closely tied, but not the same thing. The App Store is the easiest way to get content on an iOS device but is not the only way. There's HTML5 webapps as well as jailbreaking.
When using the App Store, companies pay for convenience and a large customer base. Apple provides value with a storefront and easy-to-use APIs thy facilitate easy purchasing.
Further, Apple relaxed restrictions, which means developers can charge different rates, allowing the customer to choose. They just don't want a freeloading app that has a big message saying "GO HERE FOR CHEAPER PRICES". There's nothing stopping developers from doing their own marketing.
It sounds more like you're against Apple not allowing side loading of native apps by default, which is a more defensible position. Personally, I preferred the gated-community approach.
It is monopolistic. They are controlling their ecosystem so that the competition within the device itself is not free.
You contradicted yourself twice in that statement. Monopoly in its business definition, and we are talking business here - right? In its business definition you CANNOT have a monopoly on or within something you in fact own, period. The term monopoly does not apply to owed infrastructure or processes or business. Therefore, BY DEFINITION, when you said "THEY ARE CONTROLLING THEIR ECOSYSTEM" you immediately disallowed the use of the term monopoly - because it doesn't apply. They OWN the App Store. It is theirs to do with as they please - be as hard-core or laid-back as they choose, because it is THEIRS. If they were supplying apps to all the mobile platforms, and were the majority supplier and preventing other app stores from competing successfully in the marketplace for all mobile platforms, then your statement would have some level of validity.
For the love of the English language, just stop blathering nonsense and misappropriating words just because you have not made the simple effort to understand what they mean.
Selling content in-app is NOT equivalent to selling via the App Store. That's what it comes down to. If you can't grasp that concept, there's really nothing that can be done.
How about this analogy: Best Buy sells magazines. Best Buy starts demanding a cut from all subscriptions and products that are purchased from that magazine. After all, by your reasoning Best Buy delivered that customer.
If Best Buy sold books, then absolutely they'd take a cut. But Apple isn't selling or even hosting Amazon's electronic Kindle books. All Apple is doing with in-app purchases is forcing Amazon to use them as the transaction processor. I'm fairly certain Amazon can handle that just fine without Apple's help.
Or if you're going to argue about Apple delivering customers to Amazon, how about the counter argument? How many customers does Amazon deliver to Apple? How many people were going to purchase a Kindle and decided to get an iPad since there was an app for the device? By the logic you've espoused, Amazon should get some amount of compensation from Apple for that customer. How many people choose an iPad because of apps like Netflix, Hulu Plus and Kindle? Clearly, Apple owes those companies some compensation.
Don't know if you have background in publishing or sales, but your arguments, while cogent, do reflect reality, for as much as you frankly don't seem to know precisely how the relationships between Apple, the publishers, Amazon, Best Buy or any of these retail-based relationships work. Or do you? You make very good arguments - but they are roundly speculative and do not in fact reflect the reality of retail operations. Otherwise things would be different and your remarks in fact reflecting accurately on what IS not what (IYO) SHOULD BE.
Correct me here though - if in fact you have the background to make the statements reflecting directly on those relationships mentioned above. I've been behind the scenes on a couple of different retail operations and would like to actually compare notes should you choose to provide them.
We keep going around in circles. As a major Apple fan this kind of bugs me - Apple is doing something uncompetitive, something which may reduce choice, or increase costs on the iPad ( or both) and we're cheering like idiots. Making up excuses which they haven't even bothered with.
What is good for Steve is good for the Entire Apple Community. Sometimes people forget.
The levels which are activated in the case of games are downloaded prior to being activated ( in general) - this makes Apple the provider of delivery. Once the Kindle is downloaded it can access it's own servers to get it's own content -content which Amazon has already paid for.
Right, but the point is that Apple's App Store policies apply to both cases - by which I mean it's very hard for Apple to distinguish in its policies between levels that are in the game and merely being unlocked and genuine DLC that is being supplied by an outside server. Kindle definitely falls into the latter category but in the majority of cases it won't be that simple so apple wrote wide ranging policies that at worst will mean that an iphone kindle user has to go to safari himself to buy content, rather than there being a shortcut button inside the app.
Frankly I tend to buy my kindle books from a full-sized computer because Apple's website is horrible enough to deal with on a full sized screen - so I really don't think this will impact them badly.
The cut that Best Buy takes when it sells just about anything is primarily because it DELIVERS CUSTOMERS and provides a purchasing environment.
That is what Apple does. Shouldn't Apple get a cut? They aren't a charity. Do you not agree that Apple provides value to developers? It provides a digital environment (like a brick-and-mortar store) where a HUGE number of customers with credit cards on file can purchase content; further, it provides an extremely easy way for said customers to purchase additional content. Is that not valuable? Apple isn't saying developers can't sell their content independently. They just can't advertise that fact INSIDE Apple's STORE, which includes In-App.
If you're hung up on the whole "distribution cost" (which is not all companies pay retail stores for), then change the analogy to a third-party salesperson who sells on commission. When a salesperson delivers a customer to a company, they get a percentage cut. If they continue to sell additional products or services to that customer, they get a cut. Usually, the company is not allowed to actively "poach" that customer from the salesperson, as that is their customer that they delivered. If the company doesn't want to pay a commission, they can deliver their own customers. But the company usually can't contact that customer and tell them they'll sell it to them cheaper if they buy directly instead of through the salesperson.
It sounds like you're against capitalism. Apple is following the principles of capitalism: if you provide value, you can demand compensation. If people don't think the value provided warrants the cost, they don't pay.
lets see how long apple lasts without hulu, netflix, kindle and other popular apps. steve already blinked when game developers told him they were going to use other dev kits whether he likes it or not
Regarding a Kindle sale at Best Buy -- Best Buy does not give the Kindle product away. Amazon does give the Kindle App away free, and earns their profit solely from the purchase of books. Apple gets no revenue from offering the Kindle app in their App Store, nor many other free apps. Apple gets no revenue at all from free apps, and yet Apple's costs for the App Store infrastructure are significant, as you should imagine. Apple needs to get revenue to support the environment and they should.
They can bill developers for data hosting and downloading
Selling content in-app is NOT equivalent to selling via the App Store. That's what it comes down to. If you can't grasp that concept, there's really nothing that can be done.
How about this analogy: Best Buy sells magazines. Best Buy starts demanding a cut from all subscriptions and products that are purchased from that magazine. After all, by your reasoning Best Buy delivered that customer.
If Best Buy sold books, then absolutely they'd take a cut. But Apple isn't selling or even hosting Amazon's electronic Kindle books. All Apple is doing with in-app purchases is forcing Amazon to use them as the transaction processor. I'm fairly certain Amazon can handle that just fine without Apple's help.
Or if you're going to argue about Apple delivering customers to Amazon, how about the counter argument? How many customers does Amazon deliver to Apple? How many people were going to purchase a Kindle and decided to get an iPad since there was an app for the device? By the logic you've espoused, Amazon should get some amount of compensation from Apple for that customer. How many people choose an iPad because of apps like Netflix, Hulu Plus and Kindle? Clearly, Apple owes those companies some compensation.
Well, the subscription/content IS still being sold by Apple, as it uses Apple's APIs and purchasing environment. Apple doesn't get a cut of anything outside of this.
As far as Amazon providing a benefit, Amazon could have offered terms to Apple, and had Apple agreed, then Amazon could demand a fee. But they didn't. Apple did. If a developer doesn't like it, they can not use the In-App model or even leave the App Store.
...It doesn't mean what you think it means. There is nothing monopolistic about it, period. Try using language that accurately expresses your thoughts instead of going for large words for which you have clue as to their actual meaning. Apple OWNS iOS, the App Store that serves it and makes the rules concerning how to use it. You can call them anal, draconian, overbearing but they cannot by definition (because in business, MONOPOLY has a very specific definiftion) monopolize what they in fact own. It is tantamount to you be charged with monopolistic practices for your car. You own your car, and can pretty much do with what you please. You can drive by yourself, you can pick up passengers for hire (subject to applicable local laws), you can give friends rides or even keep a fish pond in the back seat. It's your car to do with as you please. The exact same situation is in place for the App Store - Apple set it up, made the rules and invited developers to participate under those rules. Whether or not those subscription policies "cross a line" is determined by acceptance by developers, not you or anyone else.
Same this for the Android Marketplace - Google owns it but keeps the rules to a very minimum. But they can if they wish impose more rules if they desire because Google owns the Android Marketplace.
You make some very good points here, although they go directly against the point you're trying to argue. I own an iphone, I have owned multiple ipods, and I have owned a couple macs, and will likely continue to buy apple hardware in the future. That said, I DO NOT agree with their policies regarding my device.
The problem you seem to have is that you think that your iphone is still somehow apple's property, and they have the right to say what you can and cannot do with it. The car analogy you gave is perfect. Imagine if you bought a car from Ford, and were told that you can only buy Ford gasoline for it... oh, and Ford makes a 30% profit on every dollar you spend on gasoline. The gasoline is the exact same as other gasoline, but gas stations need to be outfitted with a special pump that only Ford leases to them. This pump automatically makes sure Ford is given their rightful cut of all profits.
A handful of people (jailbreakers) mod their car so that it can use regular gasoline, and Ford claims such modifications break the car's warranty.
This analogy is much closer to the relationship we are seeing between OUR devices, and apple's competitors. If I buy a phone, it should become MY phone, not Apple's phone. Trying to claim that iOS and Apple's App Store are two different things is really pushing the limits of logic. Granted in a strictly CS sense, the OS is just the kernel, but in the present meaning of iOS, the OS includes the OS kernel, the GUI, the application frameworks, and yes, the place where you buy applications.
I understand Apple has costs involved in running the iOS App Store, but those costs are not remotely 30%, especially for content that really has nothing to do with the store. In the case of Hulu, the content really is very different from the application. It really doesn't cost apple much of anything to host the Hulu application. They're not paying for credit card transactions, they're just hosting the downloads. Hosting space is cheap, and Apple knows that hosting free applications can convince people to buy iOS devices. In the case of Hulu plus, the content is in no way Apple's content, and the users are not paying for Hulu Plus because of the iOS App Store... in fact, the opposite is more likely the truth. The users are more likely to buy an iOS device because they know they can watch their Hulu Plus content on them, or their amazon content etc.
In many respects this has almost been a bait and switch on Apple's part. Both toward developers and to their userbase. Initially they allowed these applications with no strings attached. Apps like Hulu, kindle, netflix, etc brought a HUGE amount of content to people's devices, and that made these devices much more useful to the people buying them. Then a few years later, once the platform has gained a huge amount of momentum (partially because of these applications), Apple wants in on the action. They want to take money from these other companies that helped sell their devices in the first place. To the user this isn't as obvious, but they'll end up with higher prices, or less choice, with Apple changing what they can and cannot do with their property.
I don't like the direction the Apple's App Stores are going in, I don't like one company owning devices that I purchase. The power that they can exert is immense. Up until recently Apple was pretty benign with their ownership of the store, being fair to their developers and users such that they didn't mind the chains they placed on the device. If they keep pushing in this direction, and exerting control over user's devices... well the competition is looking strong, even if their hardware isn't as good.
All Apple says is that Amazon or other developers can't post a "sign" saying "BUY OUR PRODUCTS CHEAPER ON OUR SITE". Best Buy wouldn't allow a similar sign in their store.
And I agree with that, what I disagree was forcing IAP saying that other were doing a free ride
Well, the subscription/content IS still being sold by Apple, as it uses Apple's APIs and purchasing environment. Apple doesn't get a cut of anything outside of this.
As far as Amazon providing a benefit, Amazon could have offered terms to Apple, and had Apple agreed, then Amazon could demand a fee. But they didn't. Apple did. If a developer doesn't like it, they can not use the In-App model or even leave the App Store.
Well, Apple FORCED using the IAP system and only the IAP system even if before there was no way of starting a purchase within the app.
lets see how long apple lasts without hulu, netflix, kindle and other popular apps. steve already blinked when game developers told him they were going to use other dev kits whether he likes it or not
They relaxed their terms. What's to complain about? Why would those companies leave? They were bound to get special treatment anyway.
Well, Apple FORCED using the IAP system and only the IAP system even if before there was no way of starting a purchase within the app.
No, not forced. You can go to the web. The web isn't locked down.
If you want the convenience of purchasing directly in the app, using Apple's store account, then you have to pay Apple a fee, as they provide that easy-to-use environment.
If you had created a system that allowed easy purchasing of Apps, easy purchasing of additional content in apps, built a huge customer base filled with millions of users with credit cards on file... would you not want to be rewarded if someone uses your framework and service? Nothing prevents people from using another method. If they use yours though, and unless you're a charity, I'd expect you'd want compensation.
Once again, if you're arguing that iOS should allow sideloading of apps or third-party native stores, then argue that.
No, not forced. You can go to the web. The web isn't locked down.
Before changing the rules this week, Apple forced any app which you can buy any content outside the app to implement iap system and disallowed any link outside the app to buy this content.
So yes, they tried to force the iap system on any app, now they have backpedaled but it's also not allowed to link outside the app.
Comments
So what cut do you think that Windows and MS should get from iTunes? Or is it that the iPad is a store, and Windows is not - even though it provides a customer base for Apple - and a developer environment etc.
We keep going around in circles. As a major Apple fan this kind of bugs me - Apple is doing something uncompetitive, something which may reduce choice, or increase costs on the iPad ( or both) and we're cheering like idiots. Making up excuses which they haven't even bothered with.
You're equating Windows with the App Store, not iOS as it should be. The two are closely tied, but not the same thing. The App Store is the easiest way to get content on an iOS device but is not the only way. There's HTML5 webapps as well as jailbreaking.
When using the App Store, companies pay for convenience and a large customer base. Apple provides value with a storefront and easy-to-use APIs thy facilitate easy purchasing.
Further, Apple relaxed restrictions, which means developers can charge different rates, allowing the customer to choose. They just don't want a freeloading app that has a big message saying "GO HERE FOR CHEAPER PRICES". There's nothing stopping developers from doing their own marketing.
It sounds more like you're against Apple not allowing side loading of native apps by default, which is a more defensible position. Personally, I preferred the gated-community approach.
It is monopolistic. They are controlling their ecosystem so that the competition within the device itself is not free.
You contradicted yourself twice in that statement. Monopoly in its business definition, and we are talking business here - right? In its business definition you CANNOT have a monopoly on or within something you in fact own, period. The term monopoly does not apply to owed infrastructure or processes or business. Therefore, BY DEFINITION, when you said "THEY ARE CONTROLLING THEIR ECOSYSTEM" you immediately disallowed the use of the term monopoly - because it doesn't apply. They OWN the App Store. It is theirs to do with as they please - be as hard-core or laid-back as they choose, because it is THEIRS. If they were supplying apps to all the mobile platforms, and were the majority supplier and preventing other app stores from competing successfully in the marketplace for all mobile platforms, then your statement would have some level of validity.
For the love of the English language, just stop blathering nonsense and misappropriating words just because you have not made the simple effort to understand what they mean.
Pay no attention to Gwydion. This has all been explained to him over and over again. At this point, it's clear that he's just a troll.
Yes, because anyone who dares disagree with the policies and/or decisions of the Big A must be a troll. Praise be to Jobs. Hallelujah!
Yes, because anyone who dares disagree with the policies and/or decisions of the Big A must be a troll. Praise be to Jobs. Hallelujah!
[EDIT: comment removed - not conducive to discussion]
Selling content in-app is NOT equivalent to selling via the App Store. That's what it comes down to. If you can't grasp that concept, there's really nothing that can be done.
How about this analogy: Best Buy sells magazines. Best Buy starts demanding a cut from all subscriptions and products that are purchased from that magazine. After all, by your reasoning Best Buy delivered that customer.
If Best Buy sold books, then absolutely they'd take a cut. But Apple isn't selling or even hosting Amazon's electronic Kindle books. All Apple is doing with in-app purchases is forcing Amazon to use them as the transaction processor. I'm fairly certain Amazon can handle that just fine without Apple's help.
Or if you're going to argue about Apple delivering customers to Amazon, how about the counter argument? How many customers does Amazon deliver to Apple? How many people were going to purchase a Kindle and decided to get an iPad since there was an app for the device? By the logic you've espoused, Amazon should get some amount of compensation from Apple for that customer. How many people choose an iPad because of apps like Netflix, Hulu Plus and Kindle? Clearly, Apple owes those companies some compensation.
Don't know if you have background in publishing or sales, but your arguments, while cogent, do reflect reality, for as much as you frankly don't seem to know precisely how the relationships between Apple, the publishers, Amazon, Best Buy or any of these retail-based relationships work. Or do you? You make very good arguments - but they are roundly speculative and do not in fact reflect the reality of retail operations. Otherwise things would be different and your remarks in fact reflecting accurately on what IS not what (IYO) SHOULD BE.
Correct me here though - if in fact you have the background to make the statements reflecting directly on those relationships mentioned above. I've been behind the scenes on a couple of different retail operations and would like to actually compare notes should you choose to provide them.
We keep going around in circles. As a major Apple fan this kind of bugs me - Apple is doing something uncompetitive, something which may reduce choice, or increase costs on the iPad ( or both) and we're cheering like idiots. Making up excuses which they haven't even bothered with.
What is good for Steve is good for the Entire Apple Community. Sometimes people forget.
The levels which are activated in the case of games are downloaded prior to being activated ( in general) - this makes Apple the provider of delivery. Once the Kindle is downloaded it can access it's own servers to get it's own content -content which Amazon has already paid for.
Right, but the point is that Apple's App Store policies apply to both cases - by which I mean it's very hard for Apple to distinguish in its policies between levels that are in the game and merely being unlocked and genuine DLC that is being supplied by an outside server. Kindle definitely falls into the latter category but in the majority of cases it won't be that simple so apple wrote wide ranging policies that at worst will mean that an iphone kindle user has to go to safari himself to buy content, rather than there being a shortcut button inside the app.
Frankly I tend to buy my kindle books from a full-sized computer because Apple's website is horrible enough to deal with on a full sized screen - so I really don't think this will impact them badly.
The cut that Best Buy takes when it sells just about anything is primarily because it DELIVERS CUSTOMERS and provides a purchasing environment.
That is what Apple does. Shouldn't Apple get a cut? They aren't a charity. Do you not agree that Apple provides value to developers? It provides a digital environment (like a brick-and-mortar store) where a HUGE number of customers with credit cards on file can purchase content; further, it provides an extremely easy way for said customers to purchase additional content. Is that not valuable? Apple isn't saying developers can't sell their content independently. They just can't advertise that fact INSIDE Apple's STORE, which includes In-App.
If you're hung up on the whole "distribution cost" (which is not all companies pay retail stores for), then change the analogy to a third-party salesperson who sells on commission. When a salesperson delivers a customer to a company, they get a percentage cut. If they continue to sell additional products or services to that customer, they get a cut. Usually, the company is not allowed to actively "poach" that customer from the salesperson, as that is their customer that they delivered. If the company doesn't want to pay a commission, they can deliver their own customers. But the company usually can't contact that customer and tell them they'll sell it to them cheaper if they buy directly instead of through the salesperson.
It sounds like you're against capitalism. Apple is following the principles of capitalism: if you provide value, you can demand compensation. If people don't think the value provided warrants the cost, they don't pay.
lets see how long apple lasts without hulu, netflix, kindle and other popular apps. steve already blinked when game developers told him they were going to use other dev kits whether he likes it or not
Regarding a Kindle sale at Best Buy -- Best Buy does not give the Kindle product away. Amazon does give the Kindle App away free, and earns their profit solely from the purchase of books. Apple gets no revenue from offering the Kindle app in their App Store, nor many other free apps. Apple gets no revenue at all from free apps, and yet Apple's costs for the App Store infrastructure are significant, as you should imagine. Apple needs to get revenue to support the environment and they should.
They can bill developers for data hosting and downloading
Selling content in-app is NOT equivalent to selling via the App Store. That's what it comes down to. If you can't grasp that concept, there's really nothing that can be done.
How about this analogy: Best Buy sells magazines. Best Buy starts demanding a cut from all subscriptions and products that are purchased from that magazine. After all, by your reasoning Best Buy delivered that customer.
If Best Buy sold books, then absolutely they'd take a cut. But Apple isn't selling or even hosting Amazon's electronic Kindle books. All Apple is doing with in-app purchases is forcing Amazon to use them as the transaction processor. I'm fairly certain Amazon can handle that just fine without Apple's help.
Or if you're going to argue about Apple delivering customers to Amazon, how about the counter argument? How many customers does Amazon deliver to Apple? How many people were going to purchase a Kindle and decided to get an iPad since there was an app for the device? By the logic you've espoused, Amazon should get some amount of compensation from Apple for that customer. How many people choose an iPad because of apps like Netflix, Hulu Plus and Kindle? Clearly, Apple owes those companies some compensation.
Well, the subscription/content IS still being sold by Apple, as it uses Apple's APIs and purchasing environment. Apple doesn't get a cut of anything outside of this.
As far as Amazon providing a benefit, Amazon could have offered terms to Apple, and had Apple agreed, then Amazon could demand a fee. But they didn't. Apple did. If a developer doesn't like it, they can not use the In-App model or even leave the App Store.
...It doesn't mean what you think it means. There is nothing monopolistic about it, period. Try using language that accurately expresses your thoughts instead of going for large words for which you have clue as to their actual meaning. Apple OWNS iOS, the App Store that serves it and makes the rules concerning how to use it. You can call them anal, draconian, overbearing but they cannot by definition (because in business, MONOPOLY has a very specific definiftion) monopolize what they in fact own. It is tantamount to you be charged with monopolistic practices for your car. You own your car, and can pretty much do with what you please. You can drive by yourself, you can pick up passengers for hire (subject to applicable local laws), you can give friends rides or even keep a fish pond in the back seat. It's your car to do with as you please. The exact same situation is in place for the App Store - Apple set it up, made the rules and invited developers to participate under those rules. Whether or not those subscription policies "cross a line" is determined by acceptance by developers, not you or anyone else.
Same this for the Android Marketplace - Google owns it but keeps the rules to a very minimum. But they can if they wish impose more rules if they desire because Google owns the Android Marketplace.
You make some very good points here, although they go directly against the point you're trying to argue. I own an iphone, I have owned multiple ipods, and I have owned a couple macs, and will likely continue to buy apple hardware in the future. That said, I DO NOT agree with their policies regarding my device.
The problem you seem to have is that you think that your iphone is still somehow apple's property, and they have the right to say what you can and cannot do with it. The car analogy you gave is perfect. Imagine if you bought a car from Ford, and were told that you can only buy Ford gasoline for it... oh, and Ford makes a 30% profit on every dollar you spend on gasoline. The gasoline is the exact same as other gasoline, but gas stations need to be outfitted with a special pump that only Ford leases to them. This pump automatically makes sure Ford is given their rightful cut of all profits.
A handful of people (jailbreakers) mod their car so that it can use regular gasoline, and Ford claims such modifications break the car's warranty.
This analogy is much closer to the relationship we are seeing between OUR devices, and apple's competitors. If I buy a phone, it should become MY phone, not Apple's phone. Trying to claim that iOS and Apple's App Store are two different things is really pushing the limits of logic. Granted in a strictly CS sense, the OS is just the kernel, but in the present meaning of iOS, the OS includes the OS kernel, the GUI, the application frameworks, and yes, the place where you buy applications.
I understand Apple has costs involved in running the iOS App Store, but those costs are not remotely 30%, especially for content that really has nothing to do with the store. In the case of Hulu, the content really is very different from the application. It really doesn't cost apple much of anything to host the Hulu application. They're not paying for credit card transactions, they're just hosting the downloads. Hosting space is cheap, and Apple knows that hosting free applications can convince people to buy iOS devices. In the case of Hulu plus, the content is in no way Apple's content, and the users are not paying for Hulu Plus because of the iOS App Store... in fact, the opposite is more likely the truth. The users are more likely to buy an iOS device because they know they can watch their Hulu Plus content on them, or their amazon content etc.
In many respects this has almost been a bait and switch on Apple's part. Both toward developers and to their userbase. Initially they allowed these applications with no strings attached. Apps like Hulu, kindle, netflix, etc brought a HUGE amount of content to people's devices, and that made these devices much more useful to the people buying them. Then a few years later, once the platform has gained a huge amount of momentum (partially because of these applications), Apple wants in on the action. They want to take money from these other companies that helped sell their devices in the first place. To the user this isn't as obvious, but they'll end up with higher prices, or less choice, with Apple changing what they can and cannot do with their property.
I don't like the direction the Apple's App Stores are going in, I don't like one company owning devices that I purchase. The power that they can exert is immense. Up until recently Apple was pretty benign with their ownership of the store, being fair to their developers and users such that they didn't mind the chains they placed on the device. If they keep pushing in this direction, and exerting control over user's devices... well the competition is looking strong, even if their hardware isn't as good.
Phil
All Apple says is that Amazon or other developers can't post a "sign" saying "BUY OUR PRODUCTS CHEAPER ON OUR SITE". Best Buy wouldn't allow a similar sign in their store.
And I agree with that, what I disagree was forcing IAP saying that other were doing a free ride
Well, the subscription/content IS still being sold by Apple, as it uses Apple's APIs and purchasing environment. Apple doesn't get a cut of anything outside of this.
As far as Amazon providing a benefit, Amazon could have offered terms to Apple, and had Apple agreed, then Amazon could demand a fee. But they didn't. Apple did. If a developer doesn't like it, they can not use the In-App model or even leave the App Store.
Well, Apple FORCED using the IAP system and only the IAP system even if before there was no way of starting a purchase within the app.
lets see how long apple lasts without hulu, netflix, kindle and other popular apps. steve already blinked when game developers told him they were going to use other dev kits whether he likes it or not
They relaxed their terms. What's to complain about? Why would those companies leave? They were bound to get special treatment anyway.
Well, Apple FORCED using the IAP system and only the IAP system even if before there was no way of starting a purchase within the app.
No, not forced. You can go to the web. The web isn't locked down.
If you want the convenience of purchasing directly in the app, using Apple's store account, then you have to pay Apple a fee, as they provide that easy-to-use environment.
If you had created a system that allowed easy purchasing of Apps, easy purchasing of additional content in apps, built a huge customer base filled with millions of users with credit cards on file... would you not want to be rewarded if someone uses your framework and service? Nothing prevents people from using another method. If they use yours though, and unless you're a charity, I'd expect you'd want compensation.
Once again, if you're arguing that iOS should allow sideloading of apps or third-party native stores, then argue that.
No, not forced. You can go to the web. The web isn't locked down.
Before changing the rules this week, Apple forced any app which you can buy any content outside the app to implement iap system and disallowed any link outside the app to buy this content.
So yes, they tried to force the iap system on any app, now they have backpedaled but it's also not allowed to link outside the app.