Another post calling people ignorant?
I don't know why such an intelligent and formed person like you stays in a forum full of ignorant, you can leave, you will be happier and won't lose your mind.
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.
Will Kindle App Survive Apple's Deadline for iOS Content Purchasing Compliance?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Another post calling people ignorant?
I don't know why such an intelligent and formed person like you stays in a forum full of ignorant, you can leave, you will be happier and won't lose your mind.
Still wonder how that symbiotic relationship will work out when Amazon starts selling their own tablet later this year.
Sounds more like an abusive relationship to be honest.
Wasn't Apple told they can't do that? As in their license didn't cover other developers?
Apple has the following (not limited to but including) expenses when it comes to the app store:
Marketing
Payroll
Benefits and Insurance
Customer Service
App Developer Service
Adminstration Costs
Server and Network Costs
Billing and Collection costs including all related credit card costs and chargebacks
Development of Developer tools/SDK
Management and Development of App Store
Marketing
Legal
Those are just SOME of Apple's costs related to running the App Store. It does not even incldue the extra value its services provide to customers.
On the revenue side they have:
Annual Developer Application Fee
30% of Paid App Sales
30% of Subscription Revenue
30% of In App Purchase Addons
That is it. That is essentially all their revenue streams to cover the significant cost and expenses to providing the entire App Store. They choose not to charge every free app, nor do they force companies to sell their subscription App for $20 so they can make their fee. All their revenue to support the entire store comes from those sources. Developers can take it or leave it if they don't like it. However there is real and significant value to being able to publish your FREE app in the App Store and access 100s of millions of customers and then with a single click get a new subscription to your service.
People that are ignorant of business think that all that is going on there is 30% of a subscription for credit card processing. If they could get those subscribers themselves they wouldn't need to be in the app store at all.
Almost all subscription Apps are free and they heavily partake in the cost structure and expense of the App Store on Apple's behest. So claiming that the only service Apple provides to them is credit card fees means you have NEVER run a business or even been in any meaningful position to manage any sort of real business, because this is pretty basic stuff.
For me just to publish my FREE App to allow my customers to get subscriptions to my content, Apple incurs a huge amount of costs and creates a massive amount of value for me.
But they don't host any of your content (aside from the app itself) how is that of value to you?
EDIT: If anything shouldn't that mean that Apple should charge more upfront for developers access? Especially if you are just giving your app away for free.
Kidding?
Apple filed for a motion to intervene in Lodsys cases against the the developers. They have made their legal team available for that, surely at some cost.
They - like Google, Microsoft and others - have also have licensed the in-app payment patents that Lodsys claims to own.
All that is beyond the role of a "payment service"
Now what I'd like to know how Google justifies their 30% commission on in-app payments since they offer much less: no customer service, no legal support, no curating/reviewing, no marketing of the Android Market. But that's going off topic.
Who cares about Kindle store button?
Having to drop the "Shop in Kindle Store" button is hardly likely to be a deal-breaker for Amazon. I have lots of Kindle books, and I don't think I've ever used the button. Most of the time, I order Kindle books via my computer, or (if I want to place an order immediately) I access the Amazon web site via Safari.
Having to drop the "Shop in Kindle Store" button is hardly likely to be a deal-breaker for Amazon. I have lots of Kindle books, and I don't think I've ever used the button. Most of the time, I order Kindle books via my computer, or (if I want to place an order immediately) I access the Amazon web site via Safari.
OMG! THANK YOU, marksman!
So very awesome of you for explain all that. It seems 99% of the people in these forums don't understand it! You'd think they get it, but they don't. Like the guy below who say "but they're not hosting your stuff". Totally missed it. I think it's a lost cause. I was trying to do the same thing over at the Wired forums. Bottom line: 99% of the technophiles have no idea how the business side of tech industry is run. And lets not mention the legal parts of it.
Thanks again!
Don't misunderstand my questioning, I get it. Apple can charge whatever they want. They can also set rules that disallow app devs to link to alternate stores from within the app.
It is just a shame that Apple is going to allow the user experience to potentially suffer, just to keep some businesses from not giving them their cut.
I guess it would depend on what market Amazon is aiming for. To me it looks like they're just trying compete with the Nook Color, which is an E-reader first, app platform second.
If they're aiming for the same market as the iPad and non-niche Android tablets, they'll probably fail because they don't have anything new to offer. The only thing Amazon could have leveraged is their Kindle library, and since they've already distributed it cross platform and rely on the distribution to make money, they've got nothing.
Yes, kidding?
Can you show me the contract where is stated that with this 30% there is legal advisors in case of a suit?
Apple is considered to be nothing more than a payment processor for subscriptions because that's what they are. Free subscriptions doesn't partake in the expense of the app store in any way, no subscriptions do. Only the app itself partake which is covered by the 30% of the price of the app and/or the developers fee.
I don't believe for a second that a 30% cut from subscriptions is essential for the app store to even get by as your insinuating, but what you're saying is that it's perfectly standard business strategy that Apple is locking down their system, banning alternatives and using this to offset the cost of a lower one-time fee (your obviously suggesting that the developers fee doesn't cover what it should) against a very high per-purchase cut of the money transfers.
I disagree
This is Apple problem, when you pay the $99 anual fee you have the right to send for review and publish any number of apps.
The service Apple gives with the in app purchase cut is only payment processing, nothing more, as Apple themselves states
What? What has to do getting a subscriber with having an app in the app store. Does Hulu need an app in the app store to have subscribers? Or it is a service that provides for their subscribers?
And do you call others ignorants with such an argument?
Lawyers think they deserve 1/3 of your money BEFORE you pay off your medical bills, etc. too. It's also standard practice. That doesn't mean they still aren't SCUM an that Apple isn't SCUM because BOTH clearly are and only another business person would think otherwise. You do ALL the work and they take 1/3 of your money before you see a dime (let alone your own expenses and your own costs to keep your business running). and you had to do all the programming and development. Sorry, but no fracking business is getting 1/3 of my money for doing JACK SQUAT. Apple are crooks. Lawyers are crooks. Society would be better off without crooks.
Yeah, that's EXACTLY like saying "that's how politics work" when they take massive bribes, pass laws for corporations instead of the people they represent, etc. "That's just how politics work". That's just how organized crime works. It's just business.
They're ALL a bunch of immoral money grubbing greedmongering scum, in my book who never made an honest day's work in their entire lives.
You wonder why people would respond negatively to you. We spend many posts trying to explain things to you over and over. We give you solid business answers. And you keep ignoring our answers, stating the same thing over and over, and asking the same questions. Then respond to us like we're out of our minds. How many times can we tell you the same thing?
I'm going to respond to your above statement one last time ...
If Apple didn't create the iPhone and the App Store companies would not be able to sell their products in this new way. Sure they can sell them other places but they would not be making this new money is this new way Apple that is allowing them. Apple has created this specific business opportunity.
Like if I opened a real physical store and you wanted to sell your products in it. This is what happens in actual physical retail stores now (clothing stores). If you make sales in my store, I get a cut. I'm the one, the store owner, that is providing the service that allows you to sell your products in my store. I built the building, pay the electricity, put the signs outside to attract the customers. Not you.
Get it? Apple is doing the same. Sure Hulu has it's own service, but people would not be able to subscribe to it, in this new context, if Apple's service was not there. Apple's service is the long list that Marksman made. Apple takes care of all that and they obviously should be compensated. They feel they should get a cut of all money your company makes thru them. And every business person agrees with this! Why? Because they would have not made any of this money at all without Apple's help. Thus the 70% of something is way better than getting nothing, which people keep saying. That's how this (Apple, Android, RIM, etc) business and many others (cable tv) work. No if, ands, or buts.
That's it. I hope you got it now.
Don't think Apple needs Amazon all that much either. Both could do with each other but ultimately don't need each other.
I can ask you the same question...
As we keep telling you and Marksman over and over, In-App Purchases only provides payment processing. When paying the 30% cut of In-App Purchases, all you're paying for is the payment processing. This is even stated in the Apple documentation.
Apple has a service : Payment processing. They call it In-App Purchases. As a developer/Apple customer, I am paying 30% for this payment processing.
Any business related expenses for this service are not my business nor do I care about it. I shop around for payment processors and Apple is the most overpriced one around. Why does Apple feel they need to charge more than everyone else for the same service, Payment Processing ?
This is not a problem in and of itself. The problem is that I am forced to used them if I even want to hint at the possibility of purchasing stuff in my own app I wrote myself and paid 99$ to get hosted, as per their App hosting/selling service on the App Store. I already paid in full for this service, why do I suddenly absolutely need to use another service of theirs ? One that is overpriced for what it is no less.
I can ask you the same question...
As we keep telling you and Marksman over and over, In-App Purchases only provides payment processing. When paying the 30% cut of In-App Purchases, all you're paying for is the payment processing. This is even stated in the Apple documentation.
Apple has a service : Payment processing. They call it In-App Purchases. As a developer/Apple customer, I am paying 30% for this payment processing.
Any business related expenses for this service are not my business nor do I care about it. I shop around for payment processors and Apple is the most overpriced one around. Why does Apple feel they need to charge more than everyone else for the same service, Payment Processing ?
This is not a problem in and of itself. The problem is that I am forced to used them if I even want to hint at the possibility of purchasing stuff in my own app I wrote myself and paid 99$ to get hosted, as per their App hosting/selling service on the App Store. I already paid in full for this service, why do I suddenly absolutely need to use another service of theirs ? One that is overpriced for what it is no less.
Dude, really? Really?
The label "processing fee" is just that, a label. The money is not going thru some other sort of channels. Its all the same revenue to Apple, and it all supports the same thing. And you as the customer really have nothing to do with this. You're not paying the 30%. There's no mark up. The purchase points were fix when the percentage was developed. As a developer you should understand this. You're paying for the access to millions of people to sell your app, complete with marketing, a store, and more. Of course Apple gets a slice. Just like any other store. As I've said over and over.
The real problem is you haven't done your homework. That's why you don't understand it, and keep asking the same thing. Please go read about business models and the tech industry. Not meant to be condescending.
Also you say "payment processors and Apple is the most overpriced one around." I don't see how you can to this conclusion. Android does the same:
Right from the Android dev site "Also, the transaction fee for in-app purchases is the same as the transaction fee for application purchases (30%)."
Come one. You get it now?
I can ask you the same question...
As we keep telling you and Marksman over and over, In-App Purchases only provides payment processing. When paying the 30% cut of In-App Purchases, all you're paying for is the payment processing. This is even stated in the Apple documentation.
Apple has a service : Payment processing. They call it In-App Purchases. As a developer/Apple customer, I am paying 30% for this payment processing.
Any business related expenses for this service are not my business nor do I care about it. I shop around for payment processors and Apple is the most overpriced one around. Why does Apple feel they need to charge more than everyone else for the same service, Payment Processing ?
This is not a problem in and of itself. The problem is that I am forced to used them if I even want to hint at the possibility of purchasing stuff in my own app I wrote myself and paid 99$ to get hosted, as per their App hosting/selling service on the App Store. I already paid in full for this service, why do I suddenly absolutely need to use another service of theirs ? One that is overpriced for what it is no less.
Exactly, Apple should take their cut where they have their expenses and in proportion to those expenses. I don't believe for a second that the developers fee doesn't cover Apple's expenses for reviewing and hosting an app but some people here do and they seem to think Apple is just making upp for it with these 30% on in-app subscriptions. Even if it were so, offseting a hypothetical loss for discounted one-time fee against a massive gain from a per-purchase percentage doesn't seem justified to me. Seems like most developers wont stand for it and any solution they may take will result in angry customers. Either the subscription wont be possible at all in the app or the content provider has to raise the prise to cover the 30% loss, they have to make a profit after all.
I think you're the one who needs to get a better understanding of business if you think the customers aren't the ones who pay for those 30%. As far as I know, having more expenses than income is not a sustainable business strategy.
Last edited:
Dude, really? Really?
Really.
Again, not my problem. I am paying for payment processing. I don't care if Apple wants to hire 50 engineers to wash their toilets with the money and then want to make a Superbowl commercial of the video they made of these 50 engineers, my money is going to payment processing.
As such, the 30% is plainly, only, for processing my payment. This is what I as a paying customer of In-App Purchases am getting for my money (30% of the price of the purchases in my app).
Explain to me how I, as a customer of In-App Purchasing (namely a developer who's app uses this service) am not paying the 30% nor have I anything to do with it ?
Are you confusing the term customer here with the end-user ? The customer of In-App Purchases is clearly the developer. Are you confused ?
I get that Android is also overpriced then. Paypal/Visa/Mastercard are much cheaper. However, you know what ? Android's In-App Billing is completely optional, so that's not a problem. If I want to host my application on the Android Market but use my own payment processor instead of Google's In-App Billing, I absolutely am free to do so. No restrictions, no pricing rules, no "if you link to your site you have to pay us 30% of every transaction!" nonsense.
Come on. You get it now ?
Frankly, I really don't understand you, or the same people who keep asking.
Also you're making it confusing - are you asking as developer or as a user. Work with me. As a regular app buyer (aka user) you're not paying for 30%. Of course as a developer you're paying the 30% to Apple. Did I really need to spell that out?
Bottom Line: whatever the 30% is used for, that's the cost to play. You're paying for the privilege to play. If you want to make money in their store you have pay them a percent, just like any store (digital or physical). Why is that so hard to understand?! It's in all business. And it is your problem, as you have to pay it. If you don't want to make money than don't develop apps to be offered in iOS. Come on man.
We're having a pointless discussion. You need to do research. You obviously haven't, as I suggested. Didn't you see Marksman with the words "MacRumors Analyst" in his sig? He basically stated the people weren't using business sense. I think you'd consider his input to have weight.
Comparing it to credit cards is confusing. It's similar, but different at the same time. It's not the same industry and not the exact same business model. I'm not going into it, as it could take forever to explain. Also I'm not a banking expert. But I do know the tech, telecom, and cable business models. You're just saying it's the same because they both have the label "transaction fee." Go study it.
And it seems your wrong about Android from my research. You say that there are "no restrictions, no pricing rules." Well from my just going to the dev site it says in-app transactions still have a 30% fee. I posted the quote earlier. So I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Again, I really don't get you. Go find a friend who really knows business. Have a discussion. Ask them these questions. Maybe after a good discussion you'll see it a bit differently. But if you choose not to see things, then you won't. I've learnt a lot on these forums. Things that I've thought I was right about, but I wasn't. I've gone and researched and studied this. I kept an open mind. Give it try.
Last edited:
No, again, I'm not paying 30% on In-App Purchases/Subscriptions for the privilege of making money in their store. That's what my 99$ yearly fees and the 30% of my App's price are for.
In-App Purchases' 30% is for payment processing only. Again since this is still not clear to you :
http://developer.apple.com/library/...roduction.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40008267
As a customer of Apple's In-App Purchases, the only service I am receiving in exchange for my 30% is payment processing. It's spelled out right there in the documentation.
The problem is again not the percentage : It's being forced to use Apple as a payment processor.
False analogy, nor Kindle nor Hulu are using Apple "store", they're using their OWN servers, their OWN distribution method and THEIR own ads and marketing
False, they can subscribe from Safari browser, Hulu doesn't needs Apple infrastructure to get a subscriber.
False, they can make this money WITHOUT Apple, they can get subscriptions from the browser.
And the list marksman wrote has NOTHING to do with in-app purchasing as the SAME Apple states. They are only payment processors
Got it?