Because there are no lobbyist to keep gas cars on the market? You are very naive to think THIS doesn't happen.
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's App Store Subscription Policies Raise Antitrust Issues as Content Providers F
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because there are no lobbyist to keep gas cars on the market? You are very naive to think THIS doesn't happen.
Does the TV provide a distribution method for me to get the Apple TV? All it does is provide a way for me to view a device I plug into it.
By your logic Apple would have to pay Dell for every Mac hooked up to a Dell monitor.
The point of my post was that I already have a problem with that. 30% seems too high for just a "convenience charge" which is essentially all Apple is providing here if they don't deliver the content.
B
Unfounded conclusion. If content owners can still make money, which they can, as this is a better deal than any other distributor, they'll still offer an iOS venue.
Giving the publisher 70 million potential subscribers, no credit card fraud, no billing support, no having to deal with cancellations.... that's a service.
The big question is...
What is Apple going to release that will replace a Netflix, or Spotify? They're doing this on purpose to get rid of a competitor. We should be excited that Apple might have a better or worse option to the two apps referrenced above.
What is Apple going to release that will replace a Netflix, or Spotify? They're doing this on purpose to get rid of a competitor. We should be excited that Apple might have a better or worse option to the two apps referrenced above.
Right, so in theory, TV manufacturers should charge Apple 30% for every iTunes movie purchased using the Apple TV device.
You're allowed to care about anything you want, but portraying what is a clawback against a bunch of billionaire, predatory middleman as some sort of offense against decency and the common man is beyond ridiculous. So one questions what exactly it *is* that you care about, given the volume of the disingenuousness.
Amazon, etc, already paid for the distribution method when they signed up as developers. The distribution method point is moot now. That has been paid for.
It depends on your view of a television. If you view a Television as a utility then they do not deserve anything. When 95% of households have a TV by over 100 various manufacturers it is a utility just like your toaster any other appliance.
An iPad or an iPhone is not really yet a utility. Not even close. It's some idea and concept with an ecosystem established by one entity. if you want to play in their garden they want you to pay. That is apples take.
So I can't decide who is right or wrong. Is apple being jerks. Sure but so are most if not all companies.
A TV is a monitor. They provide no means of actually delivering the media. They're just a display. They shouldn't be charging Apple anything.
Because in return for that 30% apple has taken the cost of printing and distribution, warehouses, wastage, logistics off Murdoch's hands. That's a nice deal.
It's a single model structure for many different businesses. It will work for some (The Daily, pretty much any magazine where the subscription is in place of a physical magazine) and not for others (netflix), because netflix has a different business model with tiny profit margins. And amazon's ebook margin is 30%, apple wants all of their profit, for what? Amazon still have to deal with the content and delivery.
Ironically, your hypothetical scenario is actually reality, and the public doesn't give a ***** as far as their dollar spending goes.
WalMart DOES use its amazing selling power as a distributor to bargain for deals on goods that leaves the producer with razor thin margins. But unlike Apple, they take it a step further and make sure that in some cases they are provided even BETTER deals than anyone else. This tactic has actually put companies out of business. The public doesn't really care, because they get the goods they want for less, and more conveniently. Same is true for Apple. 1 click subscription where it all goes to one account? Sign me up.
Still doesn't explain how your analogy is entirely wrong. And I'm not sure that the developer fee is applied as covering the costs of distribution or not. ToC of the developer application likely states that 30% of the price covers part of that.
Problem is that it doesn't match with other reports. I wish it did.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article..._app_store_subscription_rules_by_june_30.html
B
Except it's wrong. They wont be allowed to take new subscribers without offering subscriptions in app. Then they are forced to price match (and take a 30% hit) and not allowed to direct people to their website from the app.
Apple isn't delivering the media. Amazon and Netflix are. They're paying for all the costs associated with it. Once you have the app (which associated costs have been paid for when the developer signed up for the SDK), the iPad is just a display.
Thanks for actually backing yourself up unlike most here. That still gives a lead of 4 months to straighten this one out.
You can say this as often as you like, but it doesn't make it true. The retailer (Apple, in this case) can choose their fees without your input, thanks much. What is this, some sort of fascism-of-the-technocracy? A few self-styled "smart" nerds get to vote on what terms one megacorp offers to another for retail services, and mandate that it never change?
Seriously, what a bunch of ridiculous children.
Moves like this are things that can lead to meltdowns in your ecosystem..
Here is how the game is played. Apple takes 30% of the revenues over the lifetime of the subscription if it was bought in the app-store. Content providers cannot make better prices outside of the app either. Apple also patently refuses to share who the content providers are selling information to. This is like netflix providing content blind; they don't know who is getting their service. Apple won't even give them basic information. The customer has to approve of it and even then the best thing they have is a zip code and an email address. This matters to some people more than it matters to others.
Example - It really all comes down to advertisements. If you are popular science, you know who your primary target audience is. Using this information people who advertise in your magazine will give you the most money to fit your target demographic. Popular Science has already signed on to their new model.
Netflix, hulu and others, subscriber information is VERY important. If they have a large number of 18-29 years olds over their others users, they can go to content holders and get better prices because that content will likely be used more if it fits that demographic. With out this information, and taking a 30% cut, netflix and hulu are going to have some serious questions about remaining in the app store. Sure they will still get some new customers, but these would be "unknowns" and with 30% less revenues would not be as profitable either.
This is bad for consumers because like it or not, Netflix and Hulu would have to raise prices. Internet content delivery was suppose to drive down prices not keep them up. The fact that apple can even get away with this should be enough for anti-trust. The reason netflix now costs half as much as it did (used to be 15 dollars remember) was because they have gotten rid of those fixed costs like warehouses and mail delivery.
The problem is apple is changing the rules in the middle of the game, from a legal standpoint ... idk what that would mean for them.
Here is how the game is played. Apple takes 30% of the revenues over the lifetime of the subscription if it was bought in the app-store. Content providers cannot make better prices outside of the app either. Apple also patently refuses to share who the content providers are selling information to. This is like netflix providing content blind; they don't know who is getting their service. Apple won't even give them basic information. The customer has to approve of it and even then the best thing they have is a zip code and an email address. This matters to some people more than it matters to others.
Example - It really all comes down to advertisements. If you are popular science, you know who your primary target audience is. Using this information people who advertise in your magazine will give you the most money to fit your target demographic. Popular Science has already signed on to their new model.
Netflix, hulu and others, subscriber information is VERY important. If they have a large number of 18-29 years olds over their others users, they can go to content holders and get better prices because that content will likely be used more if it fits that demographic. With out this information, and taking a 30% cut, netflix and hulu are going to have some serious questions about remaining in the app store. Sure they will still get some new customers, but these would be "unknowns" and with 30% less revenues would not be as profitable either.
This is bad for consumers because like it or not, Netflix and Hulu would have to raise prices. Internet content delivery was suppose to drive down prices not keep them up. The fact that apple can even get away with this should be enough for anti-trust. The reason netflix now costs half as much as it did (used to be 15 dollars remember) was because they have gotten rid of those fixed costs like warehouses and mail delivery.
The problem is apple is changing the rules in the middle of the game, from a legal standpoint ... idk what that would mean for them.
If the iPhone and iPad were game consoles, then they would be taking more than a 30% cut of every piece of software sold. If all iOS developers were game makers they would not even be blinking at 30% -- in fact the game developers were probably thrilled when they discovered they could sell their games on iOS and still retain 70% of revenue with zero distribution costs.
However, the rest of the industry is not accustomed to this -- especially not the media publishers. Certainly stores purchase magazines today and sell them at the newsstand price (which is printed on the magazine -- which is essentially a soft form of price fixing). The store maintains some percentage of every sale they make and I'm sure it's enough to make a profit and cover all the magazines they fail to sell each month that go in the waste bin.
Now let's look at the iTunes model.... Publishers no longer need to actually print an issue for each subscriber. Nor do they have to sell to a bookstore at "wholesale" price so the bookstore can take their cut. If they give up 30% then they are still in very good shape.
The problem lies in cases where the publisher was already using digital delivery (e.g.: Netflix or Spotify) or the publisher is a reseller for somebody else's content and is only making a cut as it is. In the former case there is no savings in going from physical to digital delivery. In the latter case, the publisher's cut is already a small piece of the pie, and it would seem Apple is asking for 30% of the entire pie rather than 30% of the reseller's piece.
So in summary, from some perspectives the 30% is completely fair or even a steal, from the perspective of others it will dramatically effect their bottom line. I don't know how you resolve it, but I don't think a blanket 30% is the correct answer.
However, the rest of the industry is not accustomed to this -- especially not the media publishers. Certainly stores purchase magazines today and sell them at the newsstand price (which is printed on the magazine -- which is essentially a soft form of price fixing). The store maintains some percentage of every sale they make and I'm sure it's enough to make a profit and cover all the magazines they fail to sell each month that go in the waste bin.
Now let's look at the iTunes model.... Publishers no longer need to actually print an issue for each subscriber. Nor do they have to sell to a bookstore at "wholesale" price so the bookstore can take their cut. If they give up 30% then they are still in very good shape.
The problem lies in cases where the publisher was already using digital delivery (e.g.: Netflix or Spotify) or the publisher is a reseller for somebody else's content and is only making a cut as it is. In the former case there is no savings in going from physical to digital delivery. In the latter case, the publisher's cut is already a small piece of the pie, and it would seem Apple is asking for 30% of the entire pie rather than 30% of the reseller's piece.
So in summary, from some perspectives the 30% is completely fair or even a steal, from the perspective of others it will dramatically effect their bottom line. I don't know how you resolve it, but I don't think a blanket 30% is the correct answer.
Clearly, Apple is trying to (in the context of iOS) replace Amazon. Doesn't bother me one way or the other. Amazon is very content-owner-unfriendly, with the same 30% cut that Apple wants but much more onerous licensing terms.