If you really want to go with this analogy - the rent at Apple's "mall" is zero if you make no money. But if you make money, the rent is equal to a percentage of your revenue. Seems like a pretty sweet deal, especially for smaller developers.
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.
DoJ Claims Apple Implemented In-App Purchase Rules to 'Retaliate Against Amazon'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you really want to go with this analogy - the rent at Apple's "mall" is zero if you make no money. But if you make money, the rent is equal to a percentage of your revenue. Seems like a pretty sweet deal, especially for smaller developers.
But again... it's not $0. Event the smallest dev still has to pay Apple the annual Dev fee to get their app listed in the first place.
I agree that it's not a matter of "deserving", it's a matter of contractual power. Apple with the iOS ecosystem has for now so much contractual power that it can request fees which on other ecosystems would be unrealistic.Undeserved?Where do ideas like this come from?
Consider it a break on rent/dev fee in exchange for a percentage of sales.
And then calling a company "greedy" for negotiating the most money it can is just a complete non sequitur.
The funny thing is, if I read Steve Job's letter in the article correctly, that he actually wanted to make Kindle on iOS a better experience than Kindle on Android, since he considered purchases with Apple's IAP a better end-user experience not available on Android. What ultimately happened is that Amazon removed the ability to purchase ebooks from Kindle on iOS entirely, actually making Kindle on iOS an inferior experience.
Seems straight forward to me
Seems pretty straight forward to me. Apple charges for In-App-Purchases of Digital content that would/could be used in conjunction with the app.
The reason is clear, Apple HOSTS the app and the entire App store environment, to pay for this, Apple could charge a "flat" fee on every app download, but that would be punitive to "cheap" apps and prohibit free apps. Sooooo..... Apple charges a percentage of the purchase price, 30%. This allows for free apps (no charge), Cheap apps (small charge), and expensive apps (big charge). If Digital IAP were allowed to bypass Apple's store then you could release a "$10" game, on the app store as a disabled "freeware"(i.e. play for 1 minute or 1st level or something) for free, therefore not pay for the hosting of the app, or the search features that found the app, or the bandwidth to deliver the app, or the security development and implementation so securely deliver your app, etc... Then inside of the free disabled app the user would enter their credit card and buy an unlock code for the full game.
If this In-App-purchase could circumvent the app store then many, if not all, "Pay" apps would eventually go this route,as Developers would get more profit (By getting the hosting for nothing) and this would deprive the App store of the needed income to run the store.
This sort of pricing policy would never fly in the outside world. For example, We would never allow a manufacturer to “sell” a product for $0 in best buy (taking up shelf space, sales force etc…) just to charge the “Actual” price directly to the consumer to “unlock” the product. Nor would we fault best buy for demanding a percentage of the “real” value of the product.
I know that is a sloppy analogy, because there isn’t a really good physical analogy to the digital world
But, if IAPs are allowed to bypass the app store, then it will be the beginning of the end for the app store.
Seems pretty straight forward to me. Apple charges for In-App-Purchases of Digital content that would/could be used in conjunction with the app.
The reason is clear, Apple HOSTS the app and the entire App store environment, to pay for this, Apple could charge a "flat" fee on every app download, but that would be punitive to "cheap" apps and prohibit free apps. Sooooo..... Apple charges a percentage of the purchase price, 30%. This allows for free apps (no charge), Cheap apps (small charge), and expensive apps (big charge). If Digital IAP were allowed to bypass Apple's store then you could release a "$10" game, on the app store as a disabled "freeware"(i.e. play for 1 minute or 1st level or something) for free, therefore not pay for the hosting of the app, or the search features that found the app, or the bandwidth to deliver the app, or the security development and implementation so securely deliver your app, etc... Then inside of the free disabled app the user would enter their credit card and buy an unlock code for the full game.
If this In-App-purchase could circumvent the app store then many, if not all, "Pay" apps would eventually go this route,as Developers would get more profit (By getting the hosting for nothing) and this would deprive the App store of the needed income to run the store.
This sort of pricing policy would never fly in the outside world. For example, We would never allow a manufacturer to “sell” a product for $0 in best buy (taking up shelf space, sales force etc…) just to charge the “Actual” price directly to the consumer to “unlock” the product. Nor would we fault best buy for demanding a percentage of the “real” value of the product.
I know that is a sloppy analogy, because there isn’t a really good physical analogy to the digital world
But, if IAPs are allowed to bypass the app store, then it will be the beginning of the end for the app store.
It'd be a long time before they'd be able to pull it off like Apple has. You've got about 50 billion different ways (give or take) to get a program on regular Windows, and their app store isn't exactly booming, so they can't throw in a bunch of one sided caveats into the mix that you're forced to accept because everyone and their grandma is using their platform.
----------
No it wouldn't. Hosting an app is pretty cheap. Specially when most of the free ones are only a few meg in size. They wouldn't be losing any money by allowing a 3rd party service to use their own payment setups for their own services.
I mean it's not like it's hurting them now. All the biggest services don't use IAP at all.
Not quite, Apple isnt charging the 30% becuase the app is INSTALLED on IOS, but because apple Hosted the app and delivered that app to the device.
amazon competition
The DOJ claims that Apple wanted to "make it more difficult for consumers using Apple devices to compare ebook prices among different retailers." Gee, how easy it is to see Apple's ebook prices when you are logged into amazon's ebook store from a Kindle or to bn.com from a Nook? Exactly the same difficulty I would say. When I am looking at product on Home Depot's website, they don't show me the price for the same product at Lowes. Anti-competitive I say! Hey DOJ, make Home Depot show Lowe's prices for the same product on their website. The people running the DOJ these days seem to set records for stupidity on a daily basis. Amazon has a near monopoly on ebook sales, and the DOJ is worried about the non-monopoly players actually competing.
The DOJ claims that Apple wanted to "make it more difficult for consumers using Apple devices to compare ebook prices among different retailers." Gee, how easy it is to see Apple's ebook prices when you are logged into amazon's ebook store from a Kindle or to bn.com from a Nook? Exactly the same difficulty I would say. When I am looking at product on Home Depot's website, they don't show me the price for the same product at Lowes. Anti-competitive I say! Hey DOJ, make Home Depot show Lowe's prices for the same product on their website. The people running the DOJ these days seem to set records for stupidity on a daily basis. Amazon has a near monopoly on ebook sales, and the DOJ is worried about the non-monopoly players actually competing.
And I would thought that that hosting and delivering fee was paid by the developer license
No, I think this is a waste of time and government resources. Not a great analogy, but my point being that we are supposed to be operating in a free market. For the most part it is... Until of course, you're successful and make a bunch of money.. Then suddenly you're being told by the government how to run your business. It's similar to how if I, being a normal person, were to bump into you on the street, most people would say "oh excuse me" and move on.. Now if I were a celebrity and you knew I had money, suddenly I'm being sued for damages.
But maybe your right and I just don't get it.. In my eyes they, or anyone not just Apple, should be able to offer whatever service they have with whatever rules they want. If someone doesn't like it, they can go elsewhere.
Last edited:
I didn't knew that Apple has released a iBook app for the Kindle or the Nook.
By the way, you can buy books from B&N using the Nook app in the Kindle Fire and you can buy books on the Nook using the Kindle app.
Right now it's very easy for me to open my browser, type in bn.com and shop away. But I have no problem with Apple not getting a cut of IAP. Doesn't seem necessary to me.
Of course not, they are providing free advertising for their venue for enjoying the content which is their app. Having an app in the appstore provides more brand awareness. That is the very definition of advertising.
This is similar to a storefront. The MTA also does not advertise the merchandise sold by their tenants, only the presence of their stores in their mall.
Why don't you quit now and save some face?
Amazon could simply just offer a web app that allowed purchase of books through it but then they would lose the free advertising of their brand in the app store. If they want that free exposure and want to sell through the app then they have to pay the piper.
Wrong
Here's the problem with this argument. If Apple is your content distributor, then you pay 30%, no exceptions. Zappos, on the other hand, are the distributors of their products.
All I see from the email is a service strategy consideration for iBooks.
Am I missing something here?
Here's the problem with this argument. If Apple is your content distributor, then you pay 30%, no exceptions. Zappos, on the other hand, are the distributors of their products.
All I see from the email is a service strategy consideration for iBooks.
Am I missing something here?
False, Apple is not providing free advertising for Amazon app
Projecting too much?
Apple didn't follow through on that restriction. They didn't end up requiring IAP or no sales etc. Where are the emails about that part of the story
Exactly like Amazon is the distributor of the ebooks for the Kindle app
----------
Ah, can you link an app where something can be bought without using Apple's IAP?
Because the mail talks about in app purchases
Microsoft still holds a monopoly on the desktop so they are actually more limited in what they can enforce in their own OS. I guess on mobile devices it's free for all, but on tablets and phones Microsoft needs developers desperately.
Also, Microsoft has always considered Windows developers as the very lifeblood of the Windows ecosystem, with the rationale that the more developers the more applications and the more applications the more valuable the whole OS is. That's why they put no barreir of entry and provide basic developer tools free of charge, and some of them are actually great.
Because of Apple's rules.
The DOJ is basically saying that those rules were specifically to hurt kindle, nook etc. The rest were just tossed in to cover up the real plan.
----------
Yep.
And Apple's rules only apply to materials for iOS devices. Movie tickets, plane tickets aren't connected to iOS use so they are excluded.
This is where we don't see eye to eye on this. I didn't forget, I find it irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. In this same senerio with a company that's not as popular, Amazon would not care about this. What is stopping Amazon from making their own store and not paying Apple when people use it? Oh wait..
Sure, why not. Developers are in this to make money, as much as possible. So why wouldn't they use whatever tactic they can to make money. Just like any company with the means to use legal tactics to avoid paying taxes is going to use it. And so on