From other threads, some of you might say I am simply biased against Apple, but here again is another reason for me to be so.
This morning, I read an article that Apple will not only require that apps pay them a 30% commission for in-app purchases, but they will also prohibit app developers from putting a link in the app so people can make commission-free out-of-app purchases (eg Amazon Kindle app). This especially affects e-book reader apps and other content subscriptions like magazines and newspapers. Apple asserts that they brought the customer to the table and therefore deserve the commission. Apple doesn’t prevent the consumer from buying content on the web and manually sending it to their iPhone, but it still looks a bit like extortion to me. I would also dispute that Apple brought the customer to the table. Maybe the customer owned their Kindle before they bought their iPhone.
Additionally, it was reported that if you have jailbroken the most recent iOS platform, iBooks will no longer allow you to read any DRM protected purchases.
I get it that this kind of tight control by Apple allows them to assure a consistent customer experience, but I will sacrifice consistency for freedom to use my purchase however I want to.
Reason to celebrate the finding that jailbreaking is legal and the many competitors trying to follow Apple’s lead.
30% is a steep cut on apps, but strikes me as ridiculous for subscriptions. Cheaper, I expect, than traditional printing and delivery, but expensive relative to costs. (But, expensive to existing costs?)
I still don’t get why Apple thinks they are entitled to anything. It would be a bit like Microsoft demanding a commission on anything bought online using a computer with a Windows operating system.
If Apple would give the Ipad, Iphone, Ipod for free, I could understand they take a part of sales … but now, it’s pure greed … and over-confidence that they have the best system … :no-no:
If you buy something on eBay or Amazon, then yes, they get their cut. But if you subsequently use that product to buy something else, then no they don’t.
If you buy something on eBay or Amazon, then yes, they get their cut. But if you subsequently use that product to buy something else, then no they don’t.[/quote]
If I buy a Kindle, then use that Kindle to buy an ebook?
iBooks is free. Comic reader apps are free. The contents usually aren’t.
eBay’s website is free to browse, as is Amazon’s. The goods aren’t.
[quote=“Jaboney”]iBooks is free. Comic reader apps are free. The contents usually aren’t.
eBay’s website is free to browse, as is Amazon’s. The goods aren’t.[/quote]
I don’t understand your point.
Amazon is the e-book seller, whether you buy it on their website, a PC or phone Kindle app or a Kindle reader. Amazon is the content seller and is entitled to earn their money. Where does Apple fit into this equation? Should Microsoft get a cut if I use my Windows PC to buy the book?
Amazon doesn’t handle a great many of the transactions that take place on its site. The company provides the portal and its partners – often small, secondhand book stores, camera or clothing stores, etc – list what they have for sale, ship directly to the customer, and pay Amazon a cut.
Amazon provides a portal, payment infrastructure, oversight and some degree of security; it often never touches the goods exchanged.
Aside from the distinction between bytes and physical goods, how’s that any different from what Apple’s doing?
(Anyone know what Amazon’s cut is?)
[quote=“Jaboney”]Amazon doesn’t handle a great many of the transactions that take place on its site. The company provides the portal and its partners – often small, secondhand book stores, camera or clothing stores, etc – list what they have for sale, ship directly to the customer, and pay Amazon a cut.
Amazon provides a portal, payment infrastructure, oversight and some degree of security; it often never touches the goods exchanged.
Aside from the distinction between bytes and physical goods, how’s that any different from what Apple’s doing?
(Anyone know what Amazon’s cut is?)[/quote]
Apple is playing no role in the transaction at all. Why should they get a cut? If I buy an app from the iTunes app store, then yes, they should get a cut. But, if I subsequently use that app to buy a product from the other vendor, that’s not Apple’s business. If Apple is processing the payments for in-app purchases, then an argument could be made, but what justification can they possibly offer to prohibit apps from having a link to allow an out-of-app purchase?
Their philosophy is clearly “Everything goes through us, take it or leave it.” There’s no “should” or “shouldn’t” here in my opinion. It’s just business; it’s not as if they’re steamrolling the Amazon or making sneakers from babies to make an extra buck here.
[quote=“CraigTPE”]…if I subsequently use that app to buy a product from the other vendor, that’s not Apple’s business. If Apple is processing the payments for in-app purchases, then an argument could be made, but what justification can they possibly offer to prohibit apps from having a link to allow an out-of-app purchase?[/quote] Everyone always wants to eliminate the middle men, and the middle men always try to make that difficult. That’s not exactly a novel aspect of the online economy.
Let’s compare it to a ‘pupitre’, a book holder … a bookstore sells me one, now I can buy a magazine or book, and put it on there and read … the bookstore has a profit margin on the book and the holder, that’s it … next time I order my book at different store or directly from the publisher, cutting out the original seller of the book holder … free market, no monopoly … publisher happy, me not so because delivery took to long, so next time I go to another bookstore … I’m free to choose … I go back to the bookstore for another magazine, they don’t sell it because it’s not to their standards, I go to another one and buy it … simple … free choice!!!
Forcing them? On their platform, if not jailbroken. There are competitors.
Other people’s arguments.
[quote=“From Jean-LouisGassee’s twitter feed”]Ask publishers about their customer-acquisition costs. 30% is low.[quote]Apple’s new rules rile. But not me: I’m the paying customer and I resent the old model. The new rules are customer-centric.
[/quote][/quote]I don’t know: is 30% for customer acquisition a low price to pay (over the long- and short-term)?
[quote=“TechCrunch”]…a lot of third-party developers both large and small are going to be very, very pissed off by this move. Why? Because it totally changes the game. Companies with subscription elements of their content had been accustomed to leveraging Apple’s platform for free. Now there will be a fee. And it will be a significant fee.
At the same time, Apple has a point. Actually, a few of them.
Apple has built a new backend system that any of these apps can take advantage of. And when they do, it will give them within one-click access to some 100 million-plus credit cards. As Apple puts it, “Subscriptions purchased from within the App Store will be sold using the same App Store billing system that has been used to buy billions of apps and In-App Purchases.” Apple knows that a ton of users will use such a system when it’s in place. And so they want their cut for enabling that — but only when that system actually brings in new subscribers.
They’re making a bet that it will. And you can bet that for any companies that play along, it will.
And that’s perhaps the most overlooked key to all of this so far. Apple’s aim here is not only to make money, but to enable everyone to make money with a system that actually works. How are they going to do that? By doing something that all companies say they do, but few actually really do: focus on the consumer.
This in-app subscription system will undoubtedly be one of the most user-friendly systems that subscription billing has ever seen. Actually, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say it will be the most user-friendly. Apple has created a centralized place to handle a wide variety of subscriptions spanning many different companies. All streamlined. All with one-click capabilities. No need to enter billing addresses. No need to enter credit card numbers. If you want to unsubscribe, it’s one-click. Change you subscription terms? One-click. What was once a nightmare of dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of different backend systems (or worse, phone calls) is now all taken care of thanks to the iTunes ecosystem.
And that’s exactly why consumers would use such a system. And it may finally be the answer for getting people to pay for content such as magazines, online.
[…]
In other words, these publishers, long spoiled on the treasure of user data, will only now get it if the customer opts-in to giving it to them under Apple’s payment system. How many do you think are actually going to do that? Yeah… It’s no wonder many of them are also screaming bloody murder over this system.[/quote]
I like that last point. I like being able to block companies from harvesting my data. I’m not fanatical about data privacy, but I’m strongly inclined in that direction.
I don’t know. I can see why established large media companies will hate this; I can see why it’ll be great for smaller publishers and consumers: I like shifting the balance in that direction.
Sorry, but I still disagree. There will likely be antitrust lawsuits. Just because it’s their platform does not give them the right to extort money from people who have already paid for it.
Glad I made the switch. I think this policy sucks.
…you mean the consistent overcharging.
Everyone always wants to eliminate the middle men, and the middle men always try to make that difficult. That’s not exactly a novel aspect of the online economy.