The only alternatives are to increase their prices across the board to cover Apple's charges or pull the app from iOS.
In either case, Amazon's customers are going to lose out.
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
The only alternatives are to increase their prices across the board to cover Apple's charges or pull the app from iOS.
In either case, Amazon's customers are going to lose out.
In-app purchases sold and delivered by Apple are already subject to the 30% cut. They won't have to raise prices.
The only change here is content sold or subscribed to outside the App Store must also be available in the app store and subject to the 30% cut when purchased that way.
B
Apple surely does wrong, but not in this instance. Way to not answer a very specific question, though. That says it all.
No, actually YOU FAIL because your conveniently forgetting the small fact that Apple has all these things in place REGARDLESS as it uses the same systems for iTunes, iBooks .Mac, and it is NOT going to suddenly have a 30% increase in any of those costs as all the content involved with this new ruling is NOT being hosted by Apples data centres but by the app owner like Amazon, Apple has nothing to do with the storing of Kindle books....
Last edited:
Whether you think it's laughable or not, retail is retail and rents are rents. Hint: I wasn't talking about the people growing the food, I was talking about what happens between the grower and your table.
I tried much more direct, same-industry comparisons with companies like Amazon, but everyone ignores that. Hard to tell if it's just because they like their Apple-hate too much, or they're getting paid for it.
I work in the music industry so I'm the first to say a lot of the stuff is tired BUT...the thing with the tired stuff is in the old days, if you put out a great song that everyone loves, the artist can put out another song just like it and people will buy the album to have it. With iTunes (and other digital services), people can now buy the individual songs so now on top of labels losing money for the entire album being skipped, we lose a cut of that to iTunes, music licensing publishers, etc. AND the artist is pissed thinking "why the hell make a 17 track album when they're only going to by the 2 songs they like" which leads to them making ******** albums more frequently. It's a circle of crap and Apple was the start of it.
This is right on the money! 30% is not the issue (although apple is a company out to make a profit), publishers and others are pissed they don't get to share in your info.
yep, the near-bankrupt firm that is now the richest tech company in the world w/ the highest profit margin in the industry and the only PC maker that has climbing (PC) sales, is well on its way making all the same mistakes. all the way to the bank...
either that, or they know more about business development than you do. one of the two.
It wouldn't cost Kindle, Kobo etc 43% to recover the loss...
If that were true, then basically, we are going to see a 10.00 book now cost 14.28 roughly... both inside of iOS and also even if you don't own an iPhone or iPad at all. That's 43% increase in price to make up the 30% loss. Of course, it will benefit them outside of the iOS ecosystem as they will now be making 4.28 more on every 10.00 book sold through their online store outside of the iPhone/iPad ecosystem as well. And we all know they don't sell 100% of their content through iPhones and iPads.
If they took the percentage of how many of their purchases are actually iOS purchases vs other means, and then worked it out, we might see a slightly lower increase. For example if 90% of their purchases are made outside of the iOS ecosystem, then to compensate for losing 30% of that 10% of sales, then they not need to mark everything up by 43% to make up the difference. They'd only need to mark everything up by about 4.3% across the board to make up the difference... (I don't know what the actual percentage of iOS purchases to non iOS purchases is.... this is just an example)
But the outcome is still that there will be a price increase that affects everyone, not just iOS device owners. Why should someone who is not an iPhone or iPod owner have to foot the bill for this at all?? When it all comes down to it... a 4.3% increase across the board on all ebooks is not the end of the world... and I'd probably still buy them (a 10.00 book would now be 10.43 everywhere). But it's still not fair for those that don't own an iphone or ipod.
In the end all eBooks (and other media) everywhere may now cost more than they did before because of this....Apple is trying to dictate the market even outside its own borders.....how is this legal??
If that were true, then basically, we are going to see a 10.00 book now cost 14.28 roughly... both inside of iOS and also even if you don't own an iPhone or iPad at all. That's 43% increase in price to make up the 30% loss. Of course, it will benefit them outside of the iOS ecosystem as they will now be making 4.28 more on every 10.00 book sold through their online store outside of the iPhone/iPad ecosystem as well. And we all know they don't sell 100% of their content through iPhones and iPads.
If they took the percentage of how many of their purchases are actually iOS purchases vs other means, and then worked it out, we might see a slightly lower increase. For example if 90% of their purchases are made outside of the iOS ecosystem, then to compensate for losing 30% of that 10% of sales, then they not need to mark everything up by 43% to make up the difference. They'd only need to mark everything up by about 4.3% across the board to make up the difference... (I don't know what the actual percentage of iOS purchases to non iOS purchases is.... this is just an example)
But the outcome is still that there will be a price increase that affects everyone, not just iOS device owners. Why should someone who is not an iPhone or iPod owner have to foot the bill for this at all?? When it all comes down to it... a 4.3% increase across the board on all ebooks is not the end of the world... and I'd probably still buy them (a 10.00 book would now be 10.43 everywhere). But it's still not fair for those that don't own an iphone or ipod.
In the end all eBooks (and other media) everywhere may now cost more than they did before because of this....Apple is trying to dictate the market even outside its own borders.....how is this legal??
Actually... it's gotten much better. You order online and it pushes to your device. Works very well. http://market.android.com/
No netflix on Android yet...maybe later this year...There are too many IOS users to ignore.....they will not pull out. The App Store makes too much money.
Still not as good as Apples App Store....nothing can beat it yet...and Nobody is making as much money on their store and on the Apple App Store.
I'm of the mind that 30% is too much, but I'm not about to make silly arguments, like the one you just did
I'd LOVE it if every consumer were as smart as you'd like to pretend they are. It would reshape advertising and the products we buy. However it just isn't the case. An absolutely insignificant number of people bought an iPhone because it has Pandora. In fact, I would place a large sum of money that the majority of iPhone users don't even have Pandora on their phone. I might even bet, after a little research, that the majority of those with iPhones don't even know what Pandora IS, or that its available for the iPhone.
So while having apps like Pandora is good for the iPhone, please don't mistake a "solid ecosystem" selling iPhones, as "Pandora and Spotify(which isn't even available in the US) is selling iPhones for Apple like hotcakes. It sadly isn't true.
Umm... Because the Apple app ecosystem is doing poorly, and declining? Whatever Apple is doing, they are doing it better than everyone else. Time will tell if this is a good move or not. But I don't think that you can argue this is a bad move because Apple has a history of making bad moves
Of course the hardcore Apple cult is going nowhere no matter what the company does.
Make no mistake, they are certainly pissing off the content providers. They are however doing the consumers a favor. How? After this goes into effect, if I want to subscribe to something I will
1. Not have to give my personal information to a 3rd party
2. Give my CC information to a 3rd party
3. Subscribe and unsubscribe using my iTunes password, no need to enter all my private information for the zillionth time
4. Manage my subscriptions in one convenient place
And because Apple already has all my information, and I trust them, there is almost zero risk if I choose to subscribe and unsubscribe to a dozen services.
AND, its my choice as the consumer. I can always bypass Apple if I don't trust them, and go straight to the content provider and sign up through them, giving them 100% of the proceeds when I do so. Apple isn't forcing the Consumers hand, they are forcing the content producers hand.
Accounts such as my Netflix one will continue to be billed outside of Apple, so Netflix will continue to get 100% of the money I pay them.'
Again, new and better options for the consumer, but content producers will have to do some adjusting. I'm okay with that.
Does it really? Answer this question for me if you will. Why do you care?
Because I'm not a fan of people who support corporate megaliths over actual content creators, which is the position of anyone who is against Apple in this particular "dispute".
I'm especially not a fan of them when they're trying to dupe other people into buying up this culturally-destructive ************.
Umm tell you the truth even in retail 30% is a huge chunk. Most of the time retail has maybe a 10% market up over cost on most items. Often times less. That 10% has to cover all their over head.
I know in construction contracts 10% P&O (Profit and over head) is the standard amount. That means 10% of the cost plus overhead. That is really not much.
30% cut for apple is HUGE. Apple AT MOST should get a 5% cut.
you do realize his blog was all about apple for years before iphone4, right? and that he is indeed critical of apple when its warranted, right?
of course you do.
So you won't mind if the content providers raise their prices to allow for Apple's cut?
So much mis-information it's silly.
1. Netflix is a subscription model that is currently ONLY available outside of the app. Going forward they HAVE to offer the subscription in-app at the same or better pricing. AKA they lose 30% (or they have to back into how much loss this will equate to (what percentage of their subscribers will subscribe via the apple method, how much will we lose, how much do we have to raise our prices overall to to cover the loss (it's not a straight 43% unless EVERYONE subscribes via the app store)))
2. Amazon offers no in app purchasing currently. However, given the new model, they have too. Again, Amazon will have to figure out how much this will affect them, and either raise the prices to compensate, or eat the loss. I know a lot of people are talking about how Amazon was taking so much. However, when the Apple iPad came out and the publishers went to Amazon to get the "new" pricing model they got from Apple, book prices went up. Amazon typically sold first run books on kindle at a loss in order to encourage kindle sales (thanks Apple for raising my price of books). Now Amazon must either offer an in-app purchase for the books (at a further 30% loss) or remove the app.
Now the slippery slope I'm worried about is how long before they don't allow me to put content I purchased outside of the "app" store on my device? It's coming, they're already heading down the slope at record speeds. My iPad is going on craigslist today, this is silly. I moved off iPhone 6+ months ago (best choice I ever made, and not just because of how bad AT&T was). At the rate things are going, I'll be off my Mac's soon too.
But will this be good for the consumer? It saves you from shopping around for a better deal (not than you can't find better deals than iTunes which is why competition is good alla amazon etc) but when that content is either pulled, or it drives the price up and you're paying more, how is that good for the consumer? Or to keep the price the same, you get less content. It's Wal-Mart economics in the digital world. Yogurt used to be 10-12 ounces, detergent used to be 30% larger. Wal-Mart used their dominance to demand lower prices. The companies couldn't lower the price and make a profit. The solution? Shrink the amount in products. So sure, Wal-Mart saved you money on a yogurt and bottle of laundry detergent, but really cost you more because the cost per ounce went up. So you really didn't win anything as a consumer with a big company "trying to do good for their customers." 96 ounces of detergent used to be-= $12.99. Rollback baby! Now it's 10.99... oh, but for 68 ounces? So you were really paying $2.74 more! Then over time to mask how much less was in the bottles, they called it echo friendly packaging.
What's not good for the content provider/manufacturer will NEVER be good for you. These companies do not answer to APPLE, they answer to WALL STREET. In many of these cases, they might make more money for Wall Street not selling to Apple under these terms. One thing Apple isn't is Wal-Mart who actually accounts for about 70% of most companies sales at retail. Content providers can actually afford to diss Apple in some of these scenarios.
What's not good for the content provider/manufacturer will NEVER be good for you. These companies do not answer to APPLE, they answer to WALL STREET. In many of these cases, they might make more money for Wall Street not selling to Apple under these terms. One thing Apple isn't is Wal-Mart who actually accounts for about 70% of most companies sales at retail. Content providers can actually afford to diss Apple in some of these scenarios.
As you said previously... that says it all. You have got people tagged totally wrong in this situation. People here don't give a crap about content creators or corporations. They care about the products they are receiving and who is dictating the cost of those products. As a consumer what Apple is doing (Apple is a mega-corp now btw.) is scary.
I've worked for CompUSA, Bestbuy, and Apple in my days and I can tell you CompUSA and Bestbuy made more money on accessories. Most computer products were 5%-7% margin. Accessories and services is where the money was made. At Apple everything was about 35% with accessories hitting the 50% range.
If Apple takes 30% of the gross sales, the content providers will make a lot less than "30 percent less money." (An exercise for the reader: If a provider like Amazon gives the publisher/author/etc. 70% of the selling price of a title and Apple takes 30% off the top, how much does Amazon keep?)