Simply because every single in-app purchase currently handled by Apple applies this 30% cut. Sure, Apple can change things in the future but we have no indication let alone announcement that they intent to charge a lower rate for certain categories, eg, e-books.
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 Requiring eBook Apps With External Purchases to Also Offer In App Purchasing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If Amazon currently sell a eBook at $10 and add 30% it will cost $13.
Apple's 30% cut of $13 equals $3.90 so how much is Amazon left with?
Answer: It's not $10.
It's almost like you're suggesting that they'd have to charge about 43% more or something.
Yes, they do. Them's the rules. For a $0.99 track, Apple keeps $0.29 and gives $0.70 to the distributor who listed the track for sale. They don't keep all $0.29, because they spend most of it on the costs of operating the store.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...e_a_greater_cash_crop_than_apple_implies.html
I think all of this is overreaction since everything besides the specific quote from the Apple representative, including that Apple wants their "tax" on purchases is pure speculation on the part of All Things Digital and others.
Apple claims their guidelines haven't changed, and had allowed Kindle, nook, kobo, google books, ... apps in the store Sony just didn't do something the others did.
B
Got to ask... why do you feel so oppressed? NOTHING here says you HAVE to buy from iTunes.. you can buy direct still. All Apple is saying is, if you're going to sell through you iApp you have to also sell through iTunes. They are NOT saying you can't purchase books or any content anywhere else and use it on your iPad or iPhone. You have a choice.
Can anyone read?
True, you still would have the option of buying it straight from the service provider.
I guess I'm just not a fan of how Apple treats iOS as a closed platform. I bought the computer from them, I should be able to do with it as I please. You shouldn't have to jailbreak or root your phone to load a secondary app store & whatever applications that you please.
It's the same with how AT&T / Verizon try to charge you $20 for WiFi hotspots. Especially with AT&T now that they removed unlimited data. If I pay for 2Gigs, I should be able to use it however I want. Ya know?
Not a big deal. Just buy the ebooks with your computer, and use the Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Sony apps to read them. iOS devices require a "real" computer anyway.
Amazon can't just up the in-app price for a very, very large amount of books because of a little piece of rubbish called Agency Pricing.
In-app purchases to-date haven't included much (any?) distributed retail content.
Charging a software developer (not a middleman) 30% is completely rational. I don't see this applying to pass-along sales like eBooks being sold by retail middlemen like Amazon or B&N (just as we certainly aren't seeing a 30% cut for songs in iTunes).
And until there's confirmation of this, we should go with common business sense and assume the 30% does not apply here.
That number has been disputed. I've seen it reported it's more like $0.16 per track.
I love the "is it legal" stuff.
Look it's simple. Someone like Amazon can sell their books for what they want on their site. Now depending on what they would negotiate with Apple, they may or may not raise their prices on products sold through iTunes.
Apple can "legally" take a cut for products sold through their store. But the pricing is totally up to the players. Amazon and Apple or whoever and Apple. As a customer, you have a choice. Buy it at Amazon or Apple. No one is saying you have no choice.
I agree basically but does additional storage space in Dropbox or Skype credit count as "additional application features"?
I think the distinction should be whether the "additional application features" can also be accessed via a web browser or native apps on a desktop OS. This may sound a bit complicated or odd as a definition but it fullfils the general idea that one does not want to pay for the same service or product twice, ie, pay once to read a Kindle book on a Kindle and pay again to read in the Kindle iOS app. Pay for a newspaper digital subscription to read it via a browser and pay again to read it in an iOS app.
I don't see how Amazon can accept these terms.
It's simply not possible for them to offer the same service with IAP (even if it's optional).
They can just make in-app purchases such a pain in the ass that people won't use it. For example, walk through 40 disclaimer screens or just push the button to get it done in Safari? There's a risk this will hurt the reputation of the app developer, but there's a greater risk to Apple's reputation if enough developers do it.
I agree, and I hope Apple will charge less for this type of content. But all rumours about newspapers complaining always included them complaining about this 30% number.
To me, it's not brain surgery as to why the rule was not enforced... it was a business decision. Apple let all the content companies makes apps so they could sell the idea of a tablet, people bought millions iPads, & now Apple will enforce the in-app purchase rule knowing that the other eReader apps would be nuts not to comply. Who looks worse now, Apple enforcing a rule or all the other companies pulling their apps because they don't want to give Apple a cut?
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
And that is exactly why this reflects badly on Apple. It is not, 'We made the rules and everybody knew in advance what they were getting into.', it is, 'BTW, we all tricked you into believing we would allow this, but this is our game and we decide whenever we want how to interpret and enforce our regulations.'.
I like Apple's approach, but I sympathize with the app vendors
I like the kindle app, but I don't like having to go to safari to purchase content. It is a clumsy interface.
For this reason, I prefer to buy books on iBooks, and only go to Kindle when the price is way better or it offers a title not available in iBooks.
I would purchase more from Kindle, Nook, etc if they offered an elegant in-app purchase.
That said, with a 30% cut to Apple, this would probably eat all of the ebook app's profit margin on book titles and they may even have to pay out of their pocket to sell titles from within the app.
I would suggest that with the increase in users buying products and Apple being able to share in the profit, Apple should consider dropping their cut from 30% to maybe 20% or less? What Apple loses in margin, they will make up for in volume (the Walmart business model).
They could even institute a policy where the % cut to Apple drops with increasing prices. Example: 30% for $1-2, 25% for $2-5, 20% for $5-10, etc.
The reason for this is Apple is managing the sales infrastructure and pays the cut to the credit card companies. Those are usually more fixed cost so are going to represent a greater percentage of a low-price sale, and less of a high priced sale.
I think it is healthy to charge a reasonable sustainable price and avoid the race-to-the-bottom-mentality the market has taken. By scaling back their percentage with increasing prices, Apple would encourage developers to raise prices (to a reasonable level). Over-pricing will always result in poor sales and stronger competitive pressures.
In addition, by dropping the percentage on higher priced sales, the developer might be able to drop the price of a higher priced app (lets say $40 app to $35) increasing its appeal to the consumer.
Got to get the balance right...
I like the kindle app, but I don't like having to go to safari to purchase content. It is a clumsy interface.
For this reason, I prefer to buy books on iBooks, and only go to Kindle when the price is way better or it offers a title not available in iBooks.
I would purchase more from Kindle, Nook, etc if they offered an elegant in-app purchase.
That said, with a 30% cut to Apple, this would probably eat all of the ebook app's profit margin on book titles and they may even have to pay out of their pocket to sell titles from within the app.
I would suggest that with the increase in users buying products and Apple being able to share in the profit, Apple should consider dropping their cut from 30% to maybe 20% or less? What Apple loses in margin, they will make up for in volume (the Walmart business model).
They could even institute a policy where the % cut to Apple drops with increasing prices. Example: 30% for $1-2, 25% for $2-5, 20% for $5-10, etc.
The reason for this is Apple is managing the sales infrastructure and pays the cut to the credit card companies. Those are usually more fixed cost so are going to represent a greater percentage of a low-price sale, and less of a high priced sale.
I think it is healthy to charge a reasonable sustainable price and avoid the race-to-the-bottom-mentality the market has taken. By scaling back their percentage with increasing prices, Apple would encourage developers to raise prices (to a reasonable level). Over-pricing will always result in poor sales and stronger competitive pressures.
In addition, by dropping the percentage on higher priced sales, the developer might be able to drop the price of a higher priced app (lets say $40 app to $35) increasing its appeal to the consumer.
Got to get the balance right...
What I am saying is can Apple tell Amazon how it sets prices in different areas, or can Apple only take 30% of whatever amount Amazon select to charge?
Could, for example, Apple say to Amazon, your "In-App" prices must be the same as your "Out-Of-App" prices, otherwise we will not allow you to sell these items via Apple?
Like Apple does with retailers who try and take less profit than the fixed price Apple wants their products to be sold for?
LOL!
They were so ordered. Jailbreaking is legal. Cydia is, more or less, another app store. Next case!
LOL! I'm pretty sure you are wrong and the whiny geeks are correct. Much more likely that this means Apple will come to their homes, remove software from their computers, kick the dog, and spill some milk. Pretty sure. And for what it's worth, I want that job!