PDA

View Full Version : Apple To Slug Partners 10% Of All Revenue


MacBytes
Oct 11, 2005, 01:32 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: 3rd Party Hardware
Link: Apple To Slug Partners 10% Of All Revenue (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20051011023243)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

stoid
Oct 11, 2005, 01:38 AM
Steve calls the record industry execs greedy, and then turns around and does stuff like this? You're kidding right? Who's greedy now? :mad:

24C
Oct 11, 2005, 01:44 AM
Looks like creating targets within the product divisions at Apple brought this on. Personally this is a very silly move by Apple and agree with previous poster...who's being greedy now Steve?

Incidentally when the licensing "Made for iPod?" scheme came out, there were people & manufacturers saying this might happen, looks like they weren't wrong.

iMeowbot
Oct 11, 2005, 01:56 AM
An attempted stunt like this is how USB 2.0 came about as a (rather successful) FireWire killer. Apple wanted to collect $1 per port, even though various would-be payers (including Intel) had contributed to the 1394 standard. An agreement was worked out among the companies to split a smaller per-unit fee (25c), but the damage was already done.

Abstract
Oct 11, 2005, 02:00 AM
If that's the way Apple is going to be from now on (ie: greedy ***holes), I don't think I'll be buying that Nano anymore.

Despite what people here try to make you believe, some of the iPod alternatives out there are quite good. The only reason I chose the iPod was because it was the best at the time and there were no decent alternatives (iRiver flash players with 256MB of memory? C'mon!), but that's not the case anymore. I have used 2 alternatives recently, and they were both surprisingly good (although a bit heavier :o ). Also, iPods worked perfectly with iTunes, so there would be no hassle.

Anyway, the iPod I'm using right now might be my last iPod, apparently.

Nermal
Oct 11, 2005, 02:16 AM
I have trouble believing this. I'll wait until I see something official, either from Apple or an accessory maker.

cc bcc
Oct 11, 2005, 02:16 AM
Greedy bastards.. :mad:

bousozoku
Oct 11, 2005, 02:21 AM
Apple has done this too many times for them to be doing it again. I'm hoping this is not real but some sort of scare tactic against them.

SilvorX
Oct 11, 2005, 02:54 AM
if this is true, why do i see this as the end of apple's reign as an audio player king?

winmacguy
Oct 11, 2005, 02:57 AM
I dont have too much of a problem with a small tax like 1-2% on iPod peripherals but 10% is rediculous! I would have thought it better to foster and encourage 3rd party add ons which will in turn help a growing market AND help encourage addtional sales of Apple hardware to first time customers. Bad stupid greedy move if it is true Apple :mad:

autrefois
Oct 11, 2005, 03:24 AM
If Apple needs money (ha!), I think they should instead collect a 10% tax from Steve Jobs for his private jet.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=478

Apparently it cost Apple $43 million to purchase and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for travel expenses.

Charging companies 10% for making a product compatible with yours is not justifiable unless pure greed is a justification.

Applespider
Oct 11, 2005, 03:28 AM
This article is poorly written and badly spelled so I'm not sure how much faith I put in the accuracy of its report; 1-2% is the normal in what? Examples please?

10% of revenue seems high although there's no mention here whether that's capped at a certain level, whether it only kicks in after a certain number of sales or whether it's a licensing fee based on projected sales within certain bands.

I can't see why Apple shouldn't be allowed to charge something for 'official' iPod accessories since it may potentially limit them. They're signed up to the dock connector now even when it doesn't always suit (see the nano). I wonder how those manufacturers would feel had Apple totally changed the connector on the nano and future iPods - I'd bet it would cost a lot more than a few %.

coolfactor
Oct 11, 2005, 03:34 AM
I have trouble believing this. I'll wait until I see something official, either from Apple or an accessory maker.

Yes, same here. If you read some of the other Apple-related articles on that site (links at bottom of page), they are all negative. I think this is someone who got their wires crossed and is spewing their mis-information onto the 'net.

Unlike the music industry (where the music and money should actually belong to the artists, not the executives), the iPod does belong to Apple. If there's any ounce of truth to this, that may be their position.... helping to weed out cheap accessories makers.

winmacguy
Oct 11, 2005, 03:41 AM
This article is poorly written and badly spelled so I'm not sure how much faith I put in the accuracy of its report; 1-2% is the normal in what? Examples please?

10% of revenue seems high although there's no mention here whether that's capped at a certain level, whether it only kicks in after a certain number of sales or whether it's a licensing fee based on projected sales within certain bands.

.
It might be a badly written article, but that doesnt stop it from being picked up by the usual Mac news sites
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=12848

autrefois
Oct 11, 2005, 03:47 AM
This article is poorly written and badly spelled so I'm not sure how much faith I put in the accuracy of its report; 1-2% is the normal in what? Examples please?

Good points. I guess we can see if this is confirmed in other sources.

I can't see why Apple shouldn't be allowed to charge something for 'official' iPod accessories since it may potentially limit them.

I don't think anyone said that Apple shouldn't be allowed to charge anything, I think it was the 10% that caught everyone's attention. I don't see what details could justify such a high fee. It doesn't seem logical that this would be an industry norm. iMeowbot also mentioned that Apple already has a history of trying to charge what were considered high port fees. So I guess we'll see.

EDIT: Well winmacguy's link seems to confirm that Apple at least was reportedly considering doing this, since it has links to a previous article by MacWorld which has Cnet as a source. (Not that Cnet is reputed to be particularly unbiased when it comes to Apple, but it certainly lends more credence to this story.)

Abstract
Oct 11, 2005, 03:54 AM
I don't understand why people are so quick to doubt news articles like this.

I don't need an official statement from Apple for this. While it sounds incredibly stupid, and incredibly greedy for Apple to do this, it is still "believable." This is Apple we're talking about.

crap freakboy
Oct 11, 2005, 04:37 AM
Steve calls the record industry execs greedy, and then turns around and does stuff like this? You're kidding right? Who's greedy now? :mad:

You took the words right out of my mouth.

winmacguy
Oct 11, 2005, 04:39 AM
I don't understand why people are so quick to doubt news articles like this.

I don't need an official statement from Apple for this. While it sounds incredibly stupid, and incredibly greedy for Apple to do this, it is still "believable." This is Apple we're talking about.
After some of Steve's comments about the music industry being "greedy" with regards to charging more for song downloads I think chargeing a 10% tax for iPod peripherals is HIPOCRYTICAL Apple

irmongoose
Oct 11, 2005, 05:02 AM
Well I don't want to point fingers but perhaps we would like to SPEIL words correctly before accusing people of being a certain way(especially those words that we have tried to emphasize) :p ;) :D

Anyways, my reaction to all this?

Money-whores! Sick greedy bastards! Capitalistic pigs! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Fu** you, Steve.





irmongoose

J-Squire
Oct 11, 2005, 05:05 AM
After some of Steve's comments about the music industry being "greedy" with regards to charging more for song downloads I think chargeing a 10% tax for iPod peripherals is HIPOCRYTICAL Apple

Steve is just an incredibly talented salesman. I am a big mac addict, and love steve's charisma, but things like this just make me realise that he's just a charismatic salesman - he's no philanthropist.
He wants us all to believe that the record labes are greedy (which we do) so that we put pressure on them not to hike song prices. But he is more than willing to do some deals to try and get the most bang for the buck himself.

24C
Oct 11, 2005, 05:08 AM
I don't understand why people are so quick to doubt news articles like this.

I don't need an official statement from Apple for this. While it sounds incredibly stupid, and incredibly greedy for Apple to do this, it is still "believable." This is Apple we're talking about.

Agreed, Apple have made this move before and the whole "Made for the iPod" thing mooted such a point was possible-- that Apple could levy a higher tax at some point-- and here we are talking about it.

The issue for me whether it's close to the truth or not, these scaremongering stories are yet more negative reporting, and I'm getting a little tired of these 'goofs' appearing, especially when they now have a strong product and great marketshare. I'd like to know who keeps hitting the self destruct button.

1macker1
Oct 11, 2005, 05:09 AM
Damn this is unApple like, but from a greedy business standpoint, it's a good move. Wait until u corner the market, make everyone love you, your product, and your company, then BAM! start tax'in mofo 10%. Just in time for the holiday season. *golf claps for Mr. Jobs*

Dreyfus
Oct 11, 2005, 06:52 AM
Well, could it be that Apple has not only redesigned the dock connector, but added functionality (video streaming, universal remote... or so) and will offer a kind of a license program under which companies can actually gain access to additional revenues while reducing own development cost? This would make 10% more reasonable. I really cannot see a company making trivial art deco shuffle docks or other low value gimmicks to pay that?!

Anyhow, will call my BMW dealer tomorrow and tell him I will pay 10% less for my new car and deliver the difference to an Apple Center (it has an iPod dock - that makes it a peripheral, or). :confused:

Cheers

iGary
Oct 11, 2005, 07:20 AM
There has been talk of "iPod taxes" for accesory manufacturers forever.

Forever.

I'll believe it when I see proof.

macFanDave
Oct 11, 2005, 07:39 AM
Smells like a hoax to me.

I'm going to reserve judgment until I hear more information, like an actual manufacturer revealing a document from Apple demanding such a "tax." I suggest the rest of you also hold your tongues until we find out if this is really true or not.

Gasu E.
Oct 11, 2005, 08:08 AM
After some of Steve's comments about the music industry being "greedy" with regards to charging more for song downloads I think chargeing a 10% tax for iPod peripherals is HIPOCRYTICAL Apple

I think Steve took the HIPOCRYTIC oath.

:D

gekko513
Oct 11, 2005, 08:34 AM
But this is just for the trademark, isn't it? Manufacturers are still free to make iPod accessories that work with iPods but don't hold the trademark, right?

mj_1903
Oct 11, 2005, 08:35 AM
I don't believe it will happen mainly because I think that article is simple speculation. If I hear Griffin Technology complaining then I know we are in trouble. Currently, that article is just tripe.

Hell, I have never heard of the magazine before and I am Aussie. That doesn't really give me much faith of them getting a scoop on this topic.

SiliconAddict
Oct 11, 2005, 08:42 AM
How dare Microsoft pull this.....aw crap.

iMeowbot
Oct 11, 2005, 08:44 AM
But this is just for the trademark, isn't it? Manufacturers are still free to make iPod accessories that work with iPods but don't hold the trademark, right?
Right. There is still a (smaller) royalty for the dock connector though.

gekko513
Oct 11, 2005, 08:48 AM
Right. There is still a (smaller) royalty for the dock connector though.
Then what's with the whining here? Apple doesn't force anyone out of business. If manufacturers wish to drop out, they can. If they want to stay in, they can, too. In the end the market decides if the high trademark cost is a good or bad business decision, but either way it's just a business decision and doesn't force anything on anyone.

Gasu E.
Oct 11, 2005, 08:49 AM
If you read the MacWorld article and follow the links, this appears to be a voluntary program. In return, the partner product will be Apple-certified and be allowed to wear the "Made for iPod" logo.

The author of the "Smarthouse" article appears to have intentionally omitted the "Made for iPod" aspect. It's not surprising. Look at the author's other articles. These go beyond the more typical Enderle-level MS-frontrunner riding, or Dvorak-style fan-baiting, into actual Apple hatemongering.

gekko513
Oct 11, 2005, 08:58 AM
If you read the MacWorld article and follow the links, this appears to be a voluntary program. In return, the partner product will be Apple-certified and be allowed to wear the "Made for iPod" logo.

The author of the "Smarthouse" article appears to have intentionally omitted the "Made for iPod" aspect. It's not surprising. Look at the author's other articles. These go beyond the more typical Enderle-level MS-frontrunner riding, or Dvorak-style fan-baiting, into actual Apple hatemongering.
OK, that explains the whining. Macworld.co.uk also has an article on this. (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?home&NewsID=12848) And they clearly state that this is just for the voluntary trademark program. I didn't read the article that was linked to here straight away, but now I have read it and, yes, it omits the voluntary part.

iMeowbot
Oct 11, 2005, 09:09 AM
Then what's with the whining here?

The other part of the controversy is that Apple have been getting really aggressive about who gets to use the iPod name at all, and the fear is that the co-branding arrangement may become necessary just to retain the ability to say what the product does.

The circumstances are indeed limited where this could all become onerous, since the bigger amounts only involve the dock connector -- which most accessories don't even use! Cases and analog audio equipment aren't affected by that, and there is a much simpler arrangement for devices that go through the Apple camera dongle.

Savage Henry
Oct 11, 2005, 09:16 AM
The same author swears blind about the video (http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Entertainment/Games_And_Gear/?article=/Entertainment/Games%20And%20Gear/News/E6P7W2Q9) iPod being released tomorrow ... despite the picture they are using is obviously fake.

Bless him .... but it is his family I feel sorry for.

gekko513
Oct 11, 2005, 09:23 AM
... and the fear is that the co-branding arrangement may become necessary just to retain the ability to say what the product does.
If that becomes the case, I will agree that Apple has become too greedy.

Fiveos22
Oct 11, 2005, 09:29 AM
Stick it to 'em Apple. If this means that you will have even more money to hurl at R&D, as well as slick industrial design, then I'm all for it.

Its economics, people. Raise prices until you find that point of maximum profit.

wordmunger
Oct 11, 2005, 09:31 AM
The Macworld.co.uk article just links to the same original smarthouse article. It's not independent confirmation.

gekko513
Oct 11, 2005, 09:34 AM
The Macworld.co.uk article just links to the same original smarthouse article. It's not independent confirmation.
That wasn't really my point, it's just that the article linked to here "forgot" to mention that it was for the trademark, but macworld.co.uk, didn't.

mainstreetmark
Oct 11, 2005, 09:36 AM
Then what's with the whining here? Apple doesn't force anyone out of business. If manufacturers wish to drop out, they can. If they want to stay in, they can, too. In the end the market decides if the high trademark cost is a good or bad business decision, but either way it's just a business decision and doesn't force anything on anyone.

What planet are you on?

If your margins for an accessory product are, say a reasonable 5%, and the guys who make the product you're accessorizing suddenly demand 10%, that pretty well forces you right out of business.

This may be another needle poised to burst the iPod Bubble.

gekko513
Oct 11, 2005, 09:39 AM
What planet are you on?

If your margins for an accessory product are, say a reasonable 5%, and the guys who make the product you're accessorizing suddenly demand 10%, that pretty well forces you right out of business.

This may be another needle poised to burst the iPod Bubble.
They can still continue to sell the product, they just can't stick this logo,
http://www.ipodnoticias.com/fotos/made-for-ipod.jpg,
on it.

Phobophobia
Oct 11, 2005, 09:42 AM
Apple made the iPod, I believe they are entitled to some of the profit of iPod accessories sold in Apple stores. Accessories manufacturers can still make accessories without paying the fee--they just won't be sold in Apple stores. This isn't greed--it's reaping the benefit of something completely created by Apple. The device the accessories are made for is made by Apple, the store the products are being sold in are made by Apple, the publicity and ad campaigns for the iPod are paid for by Apple. Steve's intentions aren't greed, he could be many times richer than he is now if he were being greedy.

Companies don't have to pay the fee, and Apple doesn't have to sell their products.

This is completely in Apple's rights

Not that hard to understand, people. Why don't you make the best mp3 player there is and tell me if you don't feel cheated when people making accessories end up getting more money than you do for something you created.

Phobophobia
Oct 11, 2005, 09:49 AM
If your margins for an accessory product are, say a reasonable 5%, and the guys who make the product you're accessorizing suddenly demand 10%, that pretty well forces you right out of business.

Do you honestly think that iPod Socks cost $27.55 to make?

Josh
Oct 11, 2005, 09:57 AM
Typical Apple.

Over-charge for hardware to get as much $ from customers. Now go straight for the partners and see what $ you can get from them.

Phobophobia
Oct 11, 2005, 09:58 AM
Typical Apple.

Over-charge for hardware to get as much $ from customers. Now go straight for the partners and see what $ you can get from them.

Why don't you make the best mp3 player there is and tell me if you don't feel cheated when people making accessories end up getting more money than you do for something you created.

Stella
Oct 11, 2005, 10:04 AM
Seems as apple want to destroy the iPod 'economy' that has been built up.

This is not beneficial to the iPod, or Apple, it is complete and utter greed, just like the RIAA.

Apple would benefit from having iPod accessories being sold in their stores, and obviously, the manufacturers.

10% is a lot of money.. if companies withdraw from iPod accessories, then it is completely Apple fault. Apple would definitely suffer. The iPod economy is a great thing for the device as it makes the iPod more attractive to buy.

There is no difference between this and record companies wanting a slice of iPod revenue because their music help to sell iPods...

Apple made the iPod, I believe they are entitled to some of the profit of iPod accessories sold in Apple stores. Accessories manufacturers can still make accessories without paying the fee--they just won't be sold in Apple stores. This isn't greed--it's reaping the benefit of something completely created by Apple. The device the accessories are made for is made by Apple, the store the products are being sold in are made by Apple, the publicity and ad campaigns for the iPod are paid for by Apple. Steve's intentions aren't greed, he could be many times richer than he is now if he were being greedy.

Companies don't have to pay the fee, and Apple doesn't have to sell their products.

This is completely in Apple's rights

Not that hard to understand, people. Why don't you make the best mp3 player there is and tell me if you don't feel cheated when people making accessories end up getting more money than you do for something you created.

Josh
Oct 11, 2005, 10:18 AM
Why don't you make the best mp3 player there is and tell me if you don't feel cheated when people making accessories end up getting more money than you do for something you created.

Tell me... is Apple assisting them in making those accessories?

Are Apple engineers sitting down and designing them? Is Apple shipping the accessories over the country?

No?...well then...why should Apple get a cut of the profits created by those accessories?

If I make lemonade for $0.50, and you charge people $1.00 to put a cherry in it, that's your thing.

You picked the cherries, you set up your own store, all completely independent of me. What you are doing is not costing me any more money (infact, it gains me more since more people buy my lemonade now that your cherries make them so good), so no - you don't owe me any money.

Just like no one owes Apple money for making accessories. They are doing Apple a favor buy sustaining the market and creating that external market for iPod accessories. Without the Accessories, the iPod wouldn't be as cool as it is. They are doing Apple a favor, not the other way around.

Abstract
Oct 11, 2005, 10:19 AM
Agreed.

And what if Gibson and Fender started charging a levy for each album sold, since a lot of the music today is made using their guitars.

Where does it all start, and where does it stop?

Why don't you make the best mp3 player there is and tell me if you don't feel cheated when people making accessories end up getting more money than you do for something you created.

But nobody makes more money on the iPod than Apple. C'mon! :p

I do see your point though. But if Apple is going to play that game, then many others can do this to Apple. If this goes through, then I hope Apple gets taxed 5%/10%/heavily by the RIAA for every iPod sold. I'd luuuurve it.

1macker1
Oct 11, 2005, 10:44 AM
So I hope you're ok with the Music Industry wanting a part of apples revenue from iPod sales.
Why don't you make the best mp3 player there is and tell me if you don't feel cheated when people making accessories end up getting more money than you do for something you created.

Lacero
Oct 11, 2005, 11:15 AM
Well, the 3rd party companies wouldn't even be in business or even increased their revenue had it not been for the iPod. It's a new market. Apple can charge whatever fee they want at their peril. It's within their right.

Stella
Oct 11, 2005, 11:27 AM
Apple wouldn't have had an iPod without the music industry... so does this mean music industry should get iPod revenue too?

Well, the 3rd party companies wouldn't even be in business or even increased their revenue had it not been for the iPod. It's a new market. Apple can charge whatever fee they want at their peril. It's within their right.

Qunchuy
Oct 11, 2005, 11:37 AM
And what if Gibson and Fender started charging a levy for each album sold, since a lot of the music today is made using their guitars.
That would be a relevant analogy if the albums used a "Genuine Gibson(tm) Guitars" or "Fender(tm) Forever" logo in order to boost their appeal. The article makes it sound like a mandatory 10% license fee in order to use the dock connector, and that doesn't appear to be the case. It's just an optional program to allow using the iPod name on a third-party accessory.

winmacguy
Oct 11, 2005, 12:37 PM
Well I don't want to point fingers but perhaps we would like to SPEIL words correctly before accusing people of being a certain way(especially those words that we have tried to emphasize) :p ;) :D
irmongoose
Thanks 4 that irmongoose, I try spell check next time ;)

wordmunger
Oct 11, 2005, 12:50 PM
That wasn't really my point, it's just that the article linked to here "forgot" to mention that it was for the trademark, but macworld.co.uk, didn't.

Didn't mean to single you out -- lots of people have been citing the MacWorld article, and I just wanted to point out that it's only quoting the other one.

solvs
Oct 11, 2005, 03:15 PM
This is completely in Apple's rights
Yes it is, but that still doesn't make it a good thing. I love Apple as much as the next guy, and they can do all they want for people to use the logo, but this is just stupid. They want to keep the iPod popular, don't shoot themselves in the foot.

I hope this isn't true, I heard it was only ~1%.

shamino
Oct 11, 2005, 06:42 PM
And what if Gibson and Fender started charging a levy for each album sold, since a lot of the music today is made using their guitars.
Bad analogy.

Better would be if lots of musicians were advertising "made using Fender equipment", and Fender said "pay us or stop using our trademark in your advertising."

Which is what Apple is doing. You can make all the iPod accessories you want without paying this fee. You only have to pay up if you advertise with the "made for iPod logo" on your packaging.