That's a good point. I'm not sure what to make of that. I guess it has to be challenged. If we keep generalizing, traffic is just traffic, media is just media.
P.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Debuts App Store Subscriptions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's a good point. I'm not sure what to make of that. I guess it has to be challenged. If we keep generalizing, traffic is just traffic, media is just media.
P.
Wait, can a company have a monopoly on a product they own? I can't think of a comparison, but I'm not sure that makes ANY sense.
That's what I'm still trying to get my head round.
Reading this thread makes my head spin and Apple aren't saying much to make it clear. Why don't they make an actual statement about how this applies to services like Kindle?
Magazine and Newspaper apps aren't the same as the kindle app are they, but the latest statement doesn't clarify this. I think if I try to sell my mag through app store and there is a monthly subscription its fair to have Apple take their share. But if I have a content delivery system across various platforms and the iOS device is just a one of many reader devices then Apple should make the supplier charge for the app not the content.
It's the app and the app content that needs to be separated out isn't it?
Ex
I buy an app inc subscription to "Sheep Shaggers Monthly" for $29.99.
I can't get it anywhere else (the mag) so Apple gets. 30%
Here, Apple infrastructure is the news stand
I buy a kindle reader app $9.99 cheaper than a real kindle. Apple gets their cut of the app price. I can buy the content for the app from the web, on my real kindle, on my android wherever.
Here, The app is the newsstand
Does this work
Silly.
McDonalds has a 100% monopoly on McDonalds food.
What's the point of saying it that way?
I would agree with this, except that Apple is requiring that they cannot sell outside the app store...i.e., for publishers with an existing model (Amazon Kindle, Netflix) outside of iOS who don't need or want Apple's exposure, they either have to raise their prices for all users to maintain their margins (non-iOS included), or cut their margins, or charge a separate fee for iOS users, or abandon the platform.
My guess is that they're not releasing a statement about Kindle because it's different and they're only talking about subscription services (it would almost be like asking why aren't they releasing a statement about iPad 2 as well).
I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that Amazon/Apple have had discussion about the topic and when it comes time to address it they will.
I think we may be lumping in services like Netflix and Amazon in without reason. It may apply to them, but they're services aren't "subscriptions" in a way that magazines are. Mag subs give you a brand new single product on a regular/recurring basis. Amazon lets you buy a singly product once, then another single product, then another single product once. Netflix charges you a recurring amount for access to several products.
The guidelines set-out inthe release may apply differently to those types of stores... or course they may not, but like everyone else, I'm just guessing.
I think what Apple is trying to prevent is what we now see in the Kindle app -- a link directing a customer to the amazon web site on safari. What apple wants is for the customer to have the purchase ability to buy through itunes in addition to having the link to Amazon's web site. If Amazon removes the in-app link to its web site, they will not be required to have an in app itunes purchase button. I will still be able to manually navigate to Amazon on safari to purchase.
It was only dropped after Apple admitted guilt and stopped charging different amounts (granted, by raising prices in other territories rather than dropping the UK price, but it did so).
It is - the ability to fix prices by having having majority market share is one of the tests, and it had already been established that Apple were guilty of this.
Phazer
Apple's market share in the tablet market and in the mobile application distribution market (not just on iOS, but all platforms) is bigger than Windows share ever was.
But your guess means words in the press release not meaning what they do in English, so I don't think it's a good guess.
Phazer
I'm not understanding that (actually, not being a d!ck
) please elaborate on what parts. Maybe I misread it, but it seems to apply to subscriptions and I don't think the Amazon store is a subscription.
More ridiculous Apple uber-control
I can see this latest policy interfering with my use of apps like Kindle and Zinio. It'll either result in increased prices or the apps simply no longer being available for iDevices.
While I love my iPad, if Apple's policies interfere with my use of my favorite apps, I'll be ditching my iPad in favor of an Android tablet. I've already ditched my iPhone in favor of an Android phone because of Apples policies.
Until the dust settles I won't be considering an iPad2 and will be closely watching the release of a plethora of Android tables over the coming months.
I can see this latest policy interfering with my use of apps like Kindle and Zinio. It'll either result in increased prices or the apps simply no longer being available for iDevices.
While I love my iPad, if Apple's policies interfere with my use of my favorite apps, I'll be ditching my iPad in favor of an Android tablet. I've already ditched my iPhone in favor of an Android phone because of Apples policies.
Until the dust settles I won't be considering an iPad2 and will be closely watching the release of a plethora of Android tables over the coming months.
True, but the storm being whipped up here and elsewhere on the web is creating a damaging effect on Apple, surely some damage control is in order. I don't think anyone expects statements about new unreleased products
True but every anti-trust case by the EU against a US company, has found the US company guilty. As I stated earlier, it's just another form of protectionism by the EU against US products.
The same way Apple does not incurr any more expense for the content stored on amazons servers, being billed through amazon and using amazon bandwidth to sync to an apple device?
So Apple is not asking not to have any subscription outside the app. It is asking to complement that outside subscription with an easy inside app store subscription. Sounds reasonable. The customer decides. Although it depends on the customer's choice how much their take will be. Then again, more people will buy subscriptions, so it probably won't hurt them either way.
I'm not understanding that (actually, not being a d!ck
Maybe I misread it, but it seems to apply to subscriptions and I don't think the Amazon store is a subscription.
To help out here... what Apple is saying is, for all Apps... if you offer an outside link to buy or subscribe, there needs to also be an in App mechanism through iOS and iTunes for the same or a better deal. If the customer buys or subscribes through iTunes, Apple takes it's 30%. Otherwise, if the customer buys or subscribes somewhere else, Apple takes nothing.
I don't get why so many people have an issue with this. Publishers can hold their own. They know if this works for them and for us, Apple is just offering us a choice and trying to build up content for all of us.
I hate it when people get all worked up just because a company wants to make a profit from their products... it's what business is all about. If it's a bad deal for publishers... they will tell Apple and the numbers will speak for themselves.
UGH! This is such a silly argument or discussion.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but what i got from the article is that this is a way for Apple to level the playing field for them. A way to ensure that a publisher doesn't offer content on their website or on the Android Marketplace for cheaper than iTunes in order to gain leverage on Apple. On the music side, it would be like Sony offering their catalog on iTunes for 1.99 per track but on their site (or the Android Marketplace), it's .99$. Apple is trying to make sure it's a level playing field for them. Or in the case of Kindle: Amazon offers a book at $9.99 through iTunes, $7.99 for Android, and $6.99 on their Kindle.
I really don't think this is as big a deal as we are making this out to be. Apple wouldn't do this if Amazon wasn't on board. Amazon leaving would leave a huge hole in the content area and would be a major news story that would garner a lot of negativity about iOS being the premiere content-consumption os. I'm sure Apple met with all the major content publishers and ensured they were onboard.
I really don't think this is as big a deal as we are making this out to be. Apple wouldn't do this if Amazon wasn't on board. Amazon leaving would leave a huge hole in the content area and would be a major news story that would garner a lot of negativity about iOS being the premiere content-consumption os. I'm sure Apple met with all the major content publishers and ensured they were onboard.
Odd, I didn't realize Buick had a grocery store.
(Your analogy fails in multiple ways.)
Right, I think this whole thing is a bit confusing between one-off purchases, like books from the Amazon kindle store vs. a subscription to Time magazine.
The part of the press release that talks about not allowing a link to buy is the troubling issue. Can that and will that affect the Kindle app when it comes to buying books?
Naturally, magazines such as SI or Time aren't going through a 3rd party....they'd sell directly to customers through iOS.
Amazon also takes a 30% cut of subscriptions
https://kindlepublishing.amazon.com/gp/vendor/kindlepubs/common/get-content?id=200492750#RSTC1
-Kevin
iSuppli claims their mobile store share is around 82%
http://www.isuppli.com/Media-Resear...-Mobile-Application-Store-Market-in-2010.aspx
Windows was well over 90% for a long time.
Also, unlike Windows long run, Apple's share here is dropping. It will likely be even smaller next year.
No, the analogy is correct. The Buick is a transport for another vendor's product. Buick isn't designing anything specifically for groceries, but they'd like to charge you for anything and everything that passes through their product.Odd, I didn't realize Buick had a grocery store.
(Your analogy fails in multiple ways.)
The only reason it sounds so ridiculous, is because Apple's policy is as well.
Charging 30% and insisting on same prices, essentially cuts 30% of profit off any subscription, and Apple knows it.
Good idea. Android is "free!"
Legal disclaimer: Google will be closely monitoring your every move so they can assault you with personalized advertising.
Since you agreed with my statement that you as an American only now about anti-trust cases in Europe involving American companies, you cannot know whether American companies have a higher rate of being fined than European ones.
You just assume it must be like this because you assume every country (or economic block) acts like this.