Maybe it’s not so bad if there are more entrants competing. But I’m afraid they will cosy up to each other soon and split the margins…Amazon, Ebay, Apple, Google, News Corp.
Understood, and I conceded as much in an earlier post. If Apple processes the transaction of in-app purchases, then they are entitled to a cut. 30% is a bit high for simply processing a transaction, but so be it.
But what is offensive is prohibiting app developers to have a link in their app that would open a web browser where the customer could complete their purchase, paying the vendor directly, avoiding the 30% fee. This is how the Kindle app worked.
They are not prohibiting that. The Kindle app still works that way today. Nothing has changed. What they are saying is that they also want an in-app purchase option given to the consumer. What should be interesting to see is whether Amazon complies or not and what Apple does if they don’t.
Then the article I’d read was misleading:
[quote]That’s the good news. The bad news for publishers is that Apple now requires that all subscriptions be offered via in-app purchasing. Companies can also offer those deals on their websites, but they must offer exactly the same deal through their app (which prevents publishers from jacking up prices to cover the 30-percent take that Apple removes). The important line in the news announcement is:
[b]Publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.[/b]
This seems certain to impact Amazon, which currently allows users of its Kindle app on iPhone and iPad to click a link and get taken to the retailer’s website to finish the transaction when buying a book. In effect, Apple has put up a roadblock for publishers that makes it difficult to route around the in-app purchase, increasing the likelihood that users will opt for the simplest choice, which is to buy the item through the app itself. [/quote]
73.4% of the MP3 player market
83% of online music sales market
99.4% mobile app market (dated figure)
99% TV show download market (also possibly dated)
95% of the tablet computer market
Oh, I’d be suspicious of those numbers. If for no other reason than I suspect the black/grey/free market of bit torrent etc SWAMPS all major outlets combined for music, tv shows, and movies.
Do courts consider those kinds of illegal ways of obtaining products and services when deciding anti-trust cases?
dupe
Do courts consider those kinds of illegal ways of obtaining products and services when deciding anti-trust cases?[/quote]
Good question. I don’t know. But I know that content providers get paid more by Apple than by The Pirates Bay.
not when the commission is 30% of the sale and the markup is only 20%.
Y’all just keep defending Apple. They’re gonna need your support on this one, from what I’ve been reading.
[quote=“CraigTPE”]
Then the article I’d read was misleading:
[quote]That’s the good news. The bad news for publishers is that Apple now requires that all subscriptions be offered via in-app purchasing. Companies can also offer those deals on their websites, but they must offer exactly the same deal through their app (which prevents publishers from jacking up prices to cover the 30-percent take that Apple removes). The important line in the news announcement is:
[b]Publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.[/b]
This seems certain to impact Amazon, which currently allows users of its Kindle app on iPhone and iPad to click a link and get taken to the retailer’s website to finish the transaction when buying a book. In effect, Apple has put up a roadblock for publishers that makes it difficult to route around the in-app purchase, increasing the likelihood that users will opt for the simplest choice, which is to buy the item through the app itself. [/quote]
gigaom.com/2011/02/15/apple-give … big-stick/[/quote]
The article is in the future tense. I.e. It seems that this WILL impact Amazon in the future. However according to Apple there is no change to policy. So somehow Amazon’s current setup seems to fit in with Apple’s guidelines, even though on paper it shouldn’t. That’s why I’m interested to see if Apple makes Amazon change or not. I’m guessing they don’t.
I just remembered something.
Not too long ago, a manager at the hockey rink rented some space to himself on the first floor and set up a business renting skates for less than the arena changes. He then put up a sign at the entrance informing patrons that they could get their skates for less downstairs. The city (owners of the rink) were unimpressed and canned his sorry ass. I don’t recall anyone being much surprised. I’m not sure why anyone would be surprised that Apple would disapprove of companies advertising – INSIDE its platform – where to get their wares without giving Apple a cut.
73.4% of the MP3 player market
83% of online music sales market
99.4% mobile app market (dated figure)
99% TV show download market (also possibly dated)
95% of the tablet computer market
tech.fortune.CNN.com/2011/02/16/ … es_fortune[/quote]
It’s convenient to paint a picture of a non-existant Windows Mobile 7, RIM or Android phones in this case and then one of “Android is killing Apple” in another. Apple could just as easily play an angle where they simply define the device as the content delivery mechanism and list the numerous other ways out there to get this content onto these delivery mechanisms.
They could say the device space is primarily app-running smartphones:
They could technically argue that ALL internet-connected mobile devices are end points. Then it’s in low single digits. Impossible to make a case here that there are no alternatives for content publishers and consumers.
In the tablet space, Apple’s share in tablets went from 95% to 75% in the months since the Samsung Tab, and it’s going to get eroded even more soon. If you include eReaders as competing distribution endpoints, the iPad looks much smaller indeed. It’s hard to make a case there to say there are no alternatives for both content publishers and consumers.
The huge difference between this and the Microsoft suit is that Microsoft didn’t have any sizable competitors at all in the home PC operating system space back when they bundled IE. Why do you think Microsoft basically gave Apple $150M USD in 1997 to keep to them alive?
That article you posted exists for the sole purpose of doing essentially a contrarian link swap riding on MG Siegler’s take on this in Techcrunch and really does a thinly veiled job at distorting the reality. There are in fact alternatives. And plenty of them.
mabagal, the article I posted with the market statistics was using Steve Jobs own numbers.
The issue is the article put the numbers in 4D (ie: with no respect to time). We all know the market is changing so rapidly that it’s more about trajectories than absolute numbers at this point. It also uses figures that have questionable relevance on the issue at hand.
The discussion point here is about app/content markets within markets and the problem of freeriding that is inevitable with that capability in place. A specific example is Amazon’s Kindle app, although it is unclear at this point precisely what will happen with that. Since the Amazon app ships free, it puts a load on the market, but it doesn’t give anything to the market in return. That’s the issue at hand.
Effectively, what we’re talking about here is owning a popular shopping mall and having vendors set up shops inside. None of those shops are going to get to do that for free. The mall owners are perfectly within reason to pick their tenants for any number of reasons from brand to product mix to granting exclusivity to a flagship store. The Kindle app in the iPad effectively is like setting up a food stand in the middle of the mall and not paying anything to the mall.
Like the unlicensed vendors who get raided out of night markets and the streets of Zhongxiao Dunhua from time to time.
With that, let’s go down the article’s figures:
73.4% of the MP3 player market
Questionably relevant unless it’s about making MP3 stores within Apple’s App Store. Putting a music stand inside Tower Records, so to speak.
83% of online music sales market
Same as above
99.4% mobile app market (dated figure)
Relevant but very dated. this figure is drastically different between mid-2008 and the 2009 rise of the Android market, for example. this figure could ONLY be possible when the only game in town was the app store. we all know this is not the case, given you can buy any hundreds of Android phones or Blackberrys or Windows Phones versus an iPhone, and each has a reasonably well populated app store.
99% TV show download market (also possibly dated)
Once again, dated matters here. also, questionably relevant unless it’s about making a TV store show inside the App Market. That’s a DVD store inside Best Buy.
95% of the tablet computer market
Currently 75% and likely ~ 50% by mid summer. that’s pure tablet to pure tablet. put Kindles and other readers in that batch, since they are comparable content distribution endpoints, and the iPad looks small.
double
multiple
mutiple
I stand corrected. Looks like Apple IS forcing existing content providers to adhere to their new rules by June 30.
Google has launched their one-pass feature to compete with Apple subscriptions, only charging publishers 10%. However Apple’s feature lets users choose whether to submit their personal details to the publisher whereas Google doesn’t.
The other odd thing about Google’s version is it requires the user to be online while accessing the content. So you couldn’t download a magazine to your tablet for offline reading. That seems odd.
Looking forward to seeing how this battle plays out! 
I would imagine the rent at Taipei 101’s shopping mall is more than the rent in a less trafficked / less spend happy area, amirite?
Yet retailers have locations at multiple malls, all with different rents.