My God, the price of Xbox gold was exactly the same before offering Netflix, MS doesn't takes a cut from Netflix.
If one wants to understand it's not difficult.
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
My God, the price of Xbox gold was exactly the same before offering Netflix, MS doesn't takes a cut from Netflix.
If one wants to understand it's not difficult.
Cost-per-sale needs to pay for the production. Obviously if you make a fart app or Angry Birds, then the production cost is somewhat different compared to if you make a digital magazine app or if you have an app that streams content that you don't own and have to pay for.
The size of AppStore sales is what's driving Apple to add the AppleTax.
But as I've pointed out, the fact that the number of Android phones are growing and that Google is working on Android Market will mean that the difference will become smaller and smaller.
If eating both pies also means that a developer can't have different price structures reflecting what Google and Apple demands from them, then developers might just decide that one pie is enough.
And one more difference, you can have the service on Android without paying anything to Google
There is no cost-per-sale! Digital downloads are not tins of beans. That's why this market is interesting.
If you have developed an app, your costs have been spent already.
If you create a digital magazine, your editorial and production costs are already spent. Your profitability is determined by the total cost of production vs. the total revenue from all sales.
So all you care about is making sufficient revenue to cover that outlay. And this is why content creators place iOS as their first target, because they get five to ten times the revenue from the next best platform.
C.
Umm yes their is a cost per sale in terms of subcriptions and digital things like music.
Where do you get the idea that there is not a cost per sale. For example in text book (Digital or not) a vast majority of the cost is not for the printing of the book but for licencing writes to publish it and often those rights are tied directly to the sales of the book.
Cost per sale only applies when you don't own the rights.
And that takes us all the way back to my first post on this thread.
This subscription model makes it hard for middle men.
C.
it hurts everyone.
Thing about the ones who sell those rights to a middle man. They often times do not have enough content to be able to sell anything in terms of a subscription or lack the inventory to sell things like books so they go to a middle man who has a huge amount of stuff that pulls together on what people want.
Take for example a magazine XYZ. XYZ puts out one every month and they buy their contact from tons of different writers. Each writer on their own can not really make a sell so they sell to XYZ which can over all get more traffic so to speak and sell them to people.
Or book author Bob who publishes a book on Amazon. Amazon has a huge library of book so he will get more sells because people go their first to look for a book.
Apple system screws over everyone. I could argue apple did predatory pricing the past few years by going for free to really get themselves into the market and now that they are their they are jacking the rates up sky high. Predatory pricing is illegal in both the EU and US. If apple had the prices at 30% from day 1 this would not be an issue but now they are requiring it and the gate keeper they are screwed.
Remember there is no other way to get on any iPad device with out going threw Apple. No 3rd party way of doing it.
How is Apple charging 30% any different from Amazon charging 30%?
Or any worse than Microsoft charging 70%?
C.
Isn't that Amazon's problem?
How much do Amazon charge for iBooks on the Kindle reader?
C.
No, is a problem for the consumers
Nothing if iBooks where compatible with Kindle reader.
To sell e-books, Amazon, designed, manufactured and sold its e-reader product. It built up a user-base.
It uses that user-base to sell its content, and makes a profit.
It absolutely and completely would not allow a rival bookstore onto its platform for free. That would utterly undermine how it makes money. It would be commercial suicide.
Everyone seems to think that Apple should do EXACTLY that!
C.
Less hard. They own the platform.
If you design, develop and sell a successful hardware platform, you can exploit it too!
C.
which goes back to predatory pricing.
Apple was doing predatory pricing and predatory pricing is illegally in both the US and EU.
If apple had block Kindle reader for example from day 1 or required their 30% cut like that from day 1 this would not be coming up.
Fact that apple did what they did to get ingrained in the market is what makes is predatory and illegal now.
For consumers this screws us over big time.
Apple doesn't have a rival bookstore on their platform, they have ALLOWED since the begining of the App Store an App that syncs books.
And you can buy books on other stores ans sync with your kindle and Amazon doesn't take any cut.
Ah, no, you have said that being a middle man is hard, Apple is a middle man.
Ey, changing arguments when you're losing is so easy
Content Owner - > Amazon - >Platform Holder.
See. Amazon is in the middle.
Content Owner - > Apple
See. Apple not in the middle.
C.
It's arguable that the pricing was predatory as it didn't drive anyone out of the market. It certainly isn't illegal to give stuff away for free to gain market share.
But the fact that you continue to ignore in all your antitrust claims is that Apple does not hold significant and durable market power, which is how the FTC defines a monopoly.
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/monopolization_defined.shtm
Last edited:
Apple doesn't allow Kindle books in iBooks, do they?
There's a way to install applications on the iPad, there's really not an official way to install apps on the Kindle reader. If you recall that was one of the things that made the iPad superior, that it wasn't single purpose like the Kindle.
Apple's main competition on smart phone and tablets OS:es, Google, doesn't restrict Apple from making an Android iBooks app, do they? It's more Apple not wanting to do one.