For some reason you seem to avoid the arguments regarding Spotify, Pandora and other subscription services. You chose to dumb down the entire topic to books only, which is the least of the worry in this case.
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.
U.S. and European Regulators 'Looking At' Apple's App Store Subscriptions Program
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For some reason you seem to avoid the arguments regarding Spotify, Pandora and other subscription services. You chose to dumb down the entire topic to books only, which is the least of the worry in this case.
You guys are crazy if you think most of the companies are just going to abandon iOS.
In 2010, iOS users spent 6 billion dollars on iOS apps. Even with a 30% cut, that means the developers of iOS apps made a combined 4.2 billion dollars. To put that in perspective, Android users spent a hair over 1 billion dollars on Android apps, which equates to 900 million dollars to Android developers.
Sure some major companies are going to have to work out deals behind the scene, but they won't just get up and leave.
In 2010, iOS users spent 6 billion dollars on iOS apps. Even with a 30% cut, that means the developers of iOS apps made a combined 4.2 billion dollars. To put that in perspective, Android users spent a hair over 1 billion dollars on Android apps, which equates to 900 million dollars to Android developers.
Sure some major companies are going to have to work out deals behind the scene, but they won't just get up and leave.
umm that is different and no one has that issue. This is for things like inapp purchases.
For things like Nook App and the kindle App for example BN and Amazon would be better off pulling the Apps instead because they only get a 30% cut off the price of the book any how so it would be a loss for them.
Netflix would suffer a loss as well since they run on less than 30% margin as well. Hulu would be another one. The list goes on. The margins are not there for this.
No matter how you cut it this new rule is bad for consumers and the only winner here is Apple. Hell I expect to see much faster development for WP, WebOS and android as these places dump iOS.
Some will, the ones that are not big enough to negotiate their own deals. Other will raise their rates. In either case the customers loose. Thats why there is this outrage.
On the other hand that makes $1.8B for Apple just from AppStore sales .. not too bad .. considering that the AppStore costs around $1B to be operated (http://www.asymco.com/2010/09/09/it-takes-nearly-1-billionyr-to-run-itunes/). I guess Apple needs more money to put in the bank.
T.
Not sure where you are getting your numbers about 6 billion from the app store. Or does that include iTunes as well?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20032012-37.html
And the difference in the android market and app market will never line up as long as you can purchase outside the market with android. Not to mention there are many great apps for free on android and not so much the case with the app store. Angry birds alone is making 1 mil a month from ad revenue on android. And I know about half the apps I have bought I got straight from the dev on my android handset. That is not an option on my iPad.
I think you must be crazy to think that some companies will not leave. Amazon was doing fine before the iPad came around. But I do agree that something will most likely get done behind the scenes with them. They have had a linking program for years and I am guessing that the in app link has been using it. But there is no way that Amazon will give 30% to apple when the entire margin on ebooks is 30% when they have done all the heavy lifting to get the books.
Most, if not all, of the iOS apps people are getting the iPad or the iPhone for aren't making a 61% profit or even a 30% profit.
People don't get an iPad or an iPhone for the Angry Birds app, they get it for the Kindle app, the Netflix app, or the Spotify app.
So, these companies should now make backroom deals? Every other developer will know that if these apps are still on the iPad or the iPhone that a deal have been struck, and while they themselves will have to pay the 30% AppleTax, none of the big ones will have to. Depending on their loyalty to Apple, these developers will leave as soon as they can.
Except those numbers are not correct. The entire iTunes store (plus iPod services, and Apple-branded and third-party iPod accessories) brought in 1.4 billion in revenue in the 4th quarter of 2010.
http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q111data_sum.pdf
And the 1 billion/yr in operating costs was based on the assumption that Apple is operating at breakeven.
What would you do if you were Spotify that sells subscription of £10/mo out of which they get to keep 5% and rest goes to music labels? And now Apple wants you to pay 30% to them? They would have to not only not make profit (what a sentence), but also create loss and finance Apple out of their own pocket. And all this because I as a user am not allowed to consume content with the device I purchased.
You are just making things up.
I know a lot more people who have started using Netflix for exmaple, because they finally came to IOS then I know people who bought an IOS device for a single app... I bet you would find more people have bought IOS devices to play Angry Birds than people have bought them to use The Kindle App.
So don't just make stuff up.
Hey if a company can't afford to do business in the Apple App Store, then so be it. Someone else will certainly fill their shoes and make all the money they left behind.
Some businesses are not well suited to this model. That is why other businesses who are more able to handle the changing marketplaces will thrive and those who can't will not.
Being solely a distribution middle man is always a risky business to be in, as some other middle man can come in a do something you can't do, or your vendors can market more directly to the customers. It is a risky business, I know it is what my business does. You adapt or die though. Crying is for bankruptcy court.
Ebook sellers are just unnecessary middle-men... Who cares if they go away... The products they sold will still be available on the IOS environment. The ebook publishers will have all their products available on the IOS platform, so what does anyone care? Why should Apple care if Kindle people can't read their kindle books on the Apple IOS environment. Amazon does not allow apple books to be read on Kindles. Arguing about this one way street is absurd.
As for netflix, you don't understand their business model, so you are just wrong about them not being able to stay.
If Rhapsody can't make money, then someone else will come along and create a service that fills that little requested niche and provide a service that is similar in the IOS environment.
These issues are failures of those companies business models, not failures of the IOS marketplace. They will either adapt or go away.
Most of the people don't have even a rudimentary understanding of how businesses work let alone the variety of different businesses impacted here...
If a business owner who is currently in the APP Store told me to my face that their costs just went up by 30% because of this, I would instantly know they are doomed for failure anyways. The thought is that far out of bounds for anyone with any business experience at all.
Let us take Rhapsody's massive 700,000 user base. Let us say for the sake of discussion 300,000 of those people regularly use an IOS device to listen to Rhapsody.
If Rhapsody left the IOS world, how many of those 300,000 people would stop using IOS devices? I suspect it would be well short of 10%. So maybe Apple loses 20,000 customers and Rhapsody loses 250,000 customers. Who is going to be hurt more by Rhapsody leaving? Rhapsody better figure out better ways to package their products and make deals so they can get back into the IOS world...
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a flawed math. Android developers tend to use free apps with advertisement revenues. Just look at Angry Birds (paid on iOS, free on Android). Besides, what does app purchasing has to do with subscriptions?
You do know that it is not the company that is ending up paying, but you are? You pay and download a pdf, read it on your paid macbook. You pay and download a pdf, read it on your paid ipad and then pay 41% extra to do so.... why the **** should apple be allowed to tax you for buying stuff from other people. HEY YOU BOUGHT TICKETS FOR THE CINEMA ON THAT IPAD, GIVE US 41% FOR THAT!
Last edited by a moderator:
YEs... Well netflix makes a handful of movies every few years but otherwise yes. Do you know what the term "middle-man" means? It is someone else who is aggregating and reselling other peoples products. In this case Netflix buys rights from the movie studios and producers and packages them together to sell to the public. They are a middle-man, they are not selling their own content.
Spotify and Pandora are the same thing.
Amazon is a middle-man as well. They don't make e-books. When they sell them to be used on their OWN ebook device it is a bit different, but when they sell them to be used on the IOS devices, they are essentially a double middle man. That is why it will not likely work for them. And that is okay...Middle men exist because they are able to fill inefficiencies in marketplaces.
As those inefficiences are removed the place for them becomes less necessary. The iTUnes store is also a middle-man. The App Store is also a middle-man. See all these middle-men stocking on top of each other. Some of them have got to go. That is the point. With each additional middle-man in the process the consumer pays more.
I personally like Apple's role as a middle man because they provide me with significant value when it comes to my IOS app usage. So if other middle men get squeezed out in the process so be it. We will then either have more content direct from publishers providers to apples, or more efficient middle men will take the place of those who got squeezed out.
No matter what happens it will be better for the consumer.
Anyone who thinks that creating a system that supports 5 level of middle-men for every product is ever better for the consumer is just ignorant on the subject.
Amazon is the tip of the spear on this. Being able to read KIndle books on the IOS devices is nice, but Apple certainly didn't have to allow it at all. Amazon does not return the favor to them. Most any book you can get from Amazon you can get from Apple directly, so Amazon is not saving anyone any money. They charge the same prices. Apple has upped the stakes now and said Amazon has to pay to play. That is fair enough. There is no benefit for Apple allowing Amazon to utilize their resources and customers for free. So either Amazon puts up or they resign themselves to selling on their Kindle devices.
Apple could have done this from the beginning and nobody would have been to bummed about it. Does the Kindle allow you to read books you bought for the B&N Nook? How about Vice-Versa..
So the amazon thing is a no go...If there is enough value for Amazon to have IOS access for their customers, they will figure out how to make it work. IF not, they will not.
Amazon is middle men? I think the one who wants to be middle men is Apple and take a cut
And they don't expect to do it for free, the app store does nothing for them
I can understand why people is so blind regarding Apple[/QUOTE]
Make all money they leave behind? What money would that be? Considering that these don't have a very high profit to start with and that the AppleTax means that they have to pay Apple 30%.
How do you think that would be possible?
Talking about making stuff up. You think that there are companies waiting with a brilliant plan that will replace Rhapsody, NetFlix, and Spotify, and actually be able to have 30%+ of pure profit? (Actually that would as I've pointed out earlier really be at least 61% pure profit.)
There's no place on an iPhone or an iPad for apps from companies that have a business plan built on high volume and a low profit.
I don't know anyone I know who said that Angry Birds or any other smaller app was a reason to buy a iPhone or and iPad, I've heard plenty who mentioned the Rhapsody, Kindle, or NetFlix apps as reasons to get one.
Having just one choice will not be better for the consumer. It will be better for Apple though, since that choice will be Apple. But that won't last long, and soon Apple will be back where they were in the mid 90's.
And about all those comments writing that companies would be foolish to leave the huge number of iPhone and iPads.
Apple takes 30% and Google takes 10%.
If a company releases an app that makes 35% pure profit, then they would need five times as many to buy it for iOS as for Android to make the same profit.
Also, the number of Android phones are increasing and Google is getting Android Market in order for purchases, which means that the advantage will dwindle down and die.
Last edited by a moderator:
In the case of ebooks, the publishers set the price, so how many retailers there are is irrelevant.
Because retailers will never be able to get different prices from publishers, nor will there never be any difference in price of a certain book, like sales for instance.
It was just announced that the regulatory agencies are looking into this. There is no report yet to claim there is no case. That is what the investigation is about.
In the end, an investigation may clear Apple's name and we can move on. Let it happen.
Do you understand the deal Apple made with the major book publishers?
It allows them to set the price for books...
The book publishers are not going to give that up. That was the reason why Apple was able to make the iBookstore. As long as Apple is around selling ebooks, that will be how pricing is set for ebooks.
Oh my. There is so much energy wasted on this irrational anger with Apple. I really think some people developed this anger out of frustration that not everyone in the world wants to do things their way. They want to control others. We should all use their favorite brands because it makes life easier for them. What makes me laugh though is when they project this raw emotion onto others. Somehow Apple users are the "fanboys" and are the irrational ones. I mean look at this. A post about sending blood to Apple and later on a post about letting SB have sex with another's wife? Come on.
Not quite. When iBooks has all the titles that are avail then that might be the case. But in the case of amazon they have 6X the ebooks as iBooks. And then we can talk about the portability of kindle books vs iBooks.
Or they won't. Because these groups are basically reading the new terms at this point. They haven't apparently said one negative word about them.
IF they call Apple and say "We have some concerns we need you to respond to" THEN Apple might back down. But until then, nothing is going to happen.
And frankly an investigation won't create 1/10th the negative publicity that all the sites implying there already is an investigation and folks are unhappy with Apple has and will create.
That is the most pro consumer part of the whole policy. Because it means that I the consumer won't be punished with a higher price if I choose to use the itunes store and not whomever's private website. If I know that I'll have to pay $5 more then I really am not free to choose the way that I am if the price is identical.
But if the company has to increase the price by $5 to make it commercially viable to sell through the app it means they will also have to increase the price by $5 on the web site. I'm struggling to see how this is pro-consumer?
Give it a try, try searching for a book for iBooks, for Nook, and for Kindle. Notice that the prices aren't the same.
Different retailers have different deals with the producers, and they set their prices differently. There's competition. That's a good thing for the consumer.
When the AppleTax has forced both the Barnes & Nobles and Amazon to remove their apps from iOS, and also any other, the consumers will have one store to buy from.
That's a bad thing.
Spotify needs to figure out a business model that works. It's not Apple's job to make special cases to support lame-duck business models.
If you haven't noticed, Borders has gone bankrupt. Is it Amazon's job to create a business model that supports Borders?
C.