I didn't knew that ebay, Amazon or the airlines pay Apple when you buy an item from their app.
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
I didn't knew that ebay, Amazon or the airlines pay Apple when you buy an item from their app.
First of all it's not madness. What is madness is not being open to another POV. You can debate my POV, but my POV is not madness, especially when a top company such as Apple also sees it that way.
You example ignores many things. You mention cleaning, water, electricity, etc, but you miss all the same things for the Apple App Store. That's called operating cost or infrastructure. It's the same for the App Store as it is for a physical store. Why can't you see that? The App store costs money to run just like a physical store.
You miss my other point. So what happens when all apps go free and only have IAP? Apple just runs the store for fun? No. It costs money to run just like a physical store. So the store gets a cut of any sales.
So we touched on one issue operating costs (as you put it electricity, etc). The other main issue is revenue. You're making money on my store. This is another place for you to make money. The store gets a cut. It's that simple. It's business 101. All other business work like this. I open a new revenue stream for you, I get a cut. So sure you make a sale on the web or wherever and you open that media in the app, fine that's no sale. But if you actually make a sale in my store - in my ecosystem - I get a cut. It's not madness or robbery. It's how business has always worked.
Get it? It's not madness at all.
Last edited:
This is what the $99/year pays.
Wrong, you're not making money on the Apple App Store.
What happens when....
Why do people assume that all games will suddenly go free? You do realize they would have to rework their game for that, right? There is no big blue button that says 'IAP' for games. And that type of model wouldn't work for every game anyway.
Undoubtedly they would offer their apps on a different store... if they were able to.
A good example is Slingbox. They had sold their smartphone player only from their own website for years before the iPhone came along. Phone manufacturers did not get to take a cut.
They pay all the overhead to sell your App for you with one of the most successful business models. It cracks me up how people think everything should be free for them to profit yet can't understand that Apple is a business for profit.
Look at it from the other side. What sells smartphones? Apps are a major reason.
Some of the most popular are apps from companies who are likewise in business for profit. EBay, Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, airlines, Home Depot, Chilis, games from EA, Rovio, etc.
Remove all those apps and the iPhone would be much less desirable.
By your logic of who provides value, Apple should be paying those companies who make the apps, which are a big reason why Apple's phone sells.
.
Last edited:
What a ridiculous argument.
I'm sure you are aware that in a business agreement money can change hands even if both sides provide some value. Generally, because one side is providing more value.See, this is the backwards thinking that I'm talking about!
Apple should pay the devs? So I run a store, and I pay the people who sell their products in my store? I now LOSE money. Brilliant.
Yes, those products make my store desirable but it has to be a split, so we both make money. Running my store costs money too. Sure, I can make separate and unique deals, but the point of my store is to make money and specifically profit.These type of posts are like talking in one huge circle. I have to stop responding.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say?
What I'm trying to say is, I own a business and if you sell your products in my store that I advertise for, pay all running expenses and you are not paying any of that over head, my agreement would be a percentage of what sells, no?
The other way is if I buy your product to sell, of course at wholesale and then sell for retail.
What I'm reading is some people feel it's ok to put an App for free in my store or buy it, you get 70% of that, then sell the real product 100% at your register. So come on in to my store with your product and setup your own register and collect all the profits. Or someone buys App to get into store, then your register collects the rest of what's sold.
In that case I as a business man would buy your App at wholesale and sell for profit, not just a small percentage of what .99 cents.
If you want to sell "In App" without paying percentage then you should be sharing in the cost of running business as in pay rent!
Would Apple be ok to charge rent for the space in App Store? Salons are a good example, they pay rent for space to do there business. Store pays overhead & I have known some salons that get a percentage of Stylists sales. I have also heard of a salon that only gets a percentage of stylists sales.
I pay a lease on my building to do business, my landlord does nothing so why should I pay him? Because I'm using his facility and he maintains the building (most of it, it's a Triple Net lease). So the sales percentage is nothing more then rent and with the App Store you get a lot for that!
To whoever said without developers Apps the iPhone would not be popular is nonsense! The App Store was actually done after the the iPhone released with no intentions opening to developers. Apple's App Store has made a lot of developers rich and a lot of businesses much more successful, and yes it helps sell phones.
Apple should and deserves a cut of business done through App Store!
Everybody keeps talking about rent, but imagine if your landlord said "yep, 30% of your income is mine" instead of having there be an actual amount stated as rent. That isn't how rent works, aside from a few places for poor people (where they can't afford fixed rent because they're poor)
You mean like how the MTA tells its tenants at Grand Central that "a percentage of your income is mine." It's completely reasonable to negotiate revenue sharing as part of a lease agreement.
You really love the MTA and Grand Central argument.
People choose the Grand Central because that is free advertising.
The same can't be said for the App Store. :|
I chose the Grand Central example because it was easy to find an article about it to back up my claim. The same is true at many malls and shopping centers. They just don't publish their lease agreements online.
And, obviously, you could consider placement in the App Store as "free advertising" in basically the same way as Grand Central.
You think people are buying from the Kindle App on the basis of it being on iOS devices?
Really, though, Amazon should just pull their app completely. See what happens.
The problem with what you're trying to say is that Amazon Kindle or B&N Nook, like ebay or an airline are not selling in the store, Apple is not advertising the products and Apple is not running any expense for those products.
So, I repeat, you think that when you buy an item from the ebay app, Apple have to get a cut, don't you? Or when you buy a 60" Plasma TV from the Amazon app Apple deserves a cut, don't you?
Yes.
Primarily iOS users.Do you actually think that would benefit Amazon?
----------
You mean, besides the billions that Apple has spent developing the infrastructure that these products depend on.
Yes.
Do you actually think that would benefit Amazon?
----------
You mean, besides the billions that Apple has spent developing the infrastructure that these products depend on.
So iOS users wouldn't buy Kindle books if it wasn't on an iOS device? They wouldn't just view them on a different device?
Wow, a lot of iOS users need to start thinking for themselves...
So iOS users wouldn't buy Kindle books if it wasn't on an iOS device? They wouldn't just view them on a different device?
You're just being black and white. iOS users are definitely more likely to buy Kindle books if they are available on their iOS device.
And some people are more likely to buy iPads if they're able to also read their Kindle books on them.
People aren't even talking about the actual situation, which has nothing to do with in-app purchasing.
What Apple did was to require Amazon to REMOVE a Safari link to their OWN STORE from within THEIR OWN APP. (Before and after pics below)
After that forced removal... which came AFTER THE APPS HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN APPROVED... a user who wanted to buy a book from the Amazon Kindle Store (or B&N Nook store), had to exit the reader app, open Safari on their own, buy the book, then reopen the reader app.
In stark contrast, Apple's own iBook app is allowed to have its Apple store integrated, to make it more attractive to users.
Even a child can see that this was clearly an Apple attempt to unfairly gimp their competition.
Therefore, the DOJ wants Apple to allow Amazon (and B&N, etc) to put their original Safari links BACK in, so their customers GET ALMOST THE SAME CONVENIENCE AS IBOOK customers have.
What Apple did was to require Amazon to REMOVE a Safari link to their OWN STORE from within THEIR OWN APP. (Before and after pics below)
After that forced removal... which came AFTER THE APPS HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN APPROVED... a user who wanted to buy a book from the Amazon Kindle Store (or B&N Nook store), had to exit the reader app, open Safari on their own, buy the book, then reopen the reader app.
In stark contrast, Apple's own iBook app is allowed to have its Apple store integrated, to make it more attractive to users.
Even a child can see that this was clearly an Apple attempt to unfairly gimp their competition.
Therefore, the DOJ wants Apple to allow Amazon (and B&N, etc) to put their original Safari links BACK in, so their customers GET ALMOST THE SAME CONVENIENCE AS IBOOK customers have.
What infrastructure?
Beyond the store's front end (web servers) and a trivial amount of storage for the actual app, (which doesn't cost billions btw), the rest of the infrastructure (payment processing, app content storage, iCloud storage, etc.) is not required by companies like Amazon or Netflix since they host their own content and can process payments themselves.
They don't depend on a huge chunk of what Apple WANTS them to depend on.
Without apps, the iPhone and iPad are fairly limited in what they do out of the box.
If every dev left today, the iOS platform would wither and die pretty quickly.
The whole iOS ecosystem.
----------
I didn't realize that the DOJ could force Apple to do stuff because they think it's unfair. I figured that Apple had to break some sort of law. Home court advantage isn't illegal.
I'm out of energy trying to sort this out with non business minds. But I just have a few last thoughts and questions? So Apple's App Store is in business to strictly make other people rich but not themselves?
If one more person says Apple would not sell devices if devolopers left is ludicrous! First off they sold a ton of iPhones before the App Store was even conceived, so they would still sell iPhones with there own Apps, however very limited in comparison to what we see today.
It is Apple that got the world talking about Apps & it was the App Store that created what we see today as well as Android Market etc.
The developers only helped and became a great team effort with the App Store as it was the only thing of its kind at the time. Yes if developers left today it would kill the App Store, but would that not be shooting yourself in the foot?
This logic is nonsense, it's just like a bunch of pissed off employee's saying without us there's no business, true to an extent but they would have no job and the business would higher hungry new people and eventually be right back where they were.
Someone commented to me about rents not the same as Apple getting a percentage, ok what should Apple do to fund the App Store & still profit since they owe so much to developers for making the developers rich? Another comment was Apple is not selling there products, really? What are they hosting in the App Store, is their App not product? With the logic of a lot of people here is Apple should pay them to host there Apps so it will sell iPhones & iPads and their really nothing without them, BULL ****!!! Wake the **** up!
I'm done, out of energy and a neighbors dog is barking out of control, I need an App to shut it up! I'll check the App Store before the developers walk out!
Good night all......
If one more person says Apple would not sell devices if devolopers left is ludicrous! First off they sold a ton of iPhones before the App Store was even conceived, so they would still sell iPhones with there own Apps, however very limited in comparison to what we see today.
It is Apple that got the world talking about Apps & it was the App Store that created what we see today as well as Android Market etc.
The developers only helped and became a great team effort with the App Store as it was the only thing of its kind at the time. Yes if developers left today it would kill the App Store, but would that not be shooting yourself in the foot?
This logic is nonsense, it's just like a bunch of pissed off employee's saying without us there's no business, true to an extent but they would have no job and the business would higher hungry new people and eventually be right back where they were.
Someone commented to me about rents not the same as Apple getting a percentage, ok what should Apple do to fund the App Store & still profit since they owe so much to developers for making the developers rich? Another comment was Apple is not selling there products, really? What are they hosting in the App Store, is their App not product? With the logic of a lot of people here is Apple should pay them to host there Apps so it will sell iPhones & iPads and their really nothing without them, BULL ****!!! Wake the **** up!
I'm done, out of energy and a neighbors dog is barking out of control, I need an App to shut it up! I'll check the App Store before the developers walk out!
Good night all......
No,before the Apple store they didn't sold a ton of iPhones and if you think that developers leaving the App Store or Google Play won't affect sales then you're in denial.
Wrong, there was mobile app stores before, Apple streamlined them
If they have another platform and people leave iOS/Android for them no, they won't be shooting in their foot
Wrong, they will have a good job