[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by bbusybookworm

Having said that what happens when Apple decides that other services like Dropbox, Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, etc which are subscription based but offer access to their service through dedicated apps should pay as well. While some of them could probably be resonably useful through the web, others may not be so.

This would only be an issue if the dropbox, etc. app were free to subscribers, but not free to non-subscribers. Since the dropbox app (the only one with which I'm really familiar) is free to everyone, this policy isn't implicated.

Originally Posted by CommonReader

And why exactly should Apple receive any payments from the publishers? It's not as if Apple had sold the Ipad at a discounted price. The app is only required to compensate for the limited capabilities of the Ipad, after all.

They are entitled to receive pay from publishers because they are offering a service that the publishers want. Publishers are free to not have an ipad app, to have a free ipad app, or to have a paid iPad app. The only thing they can't do is have an app that is free for users with outside subscriptions but not for other users.

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

But you still don't pay for the app. It is a *FREE* add-on.

Only if you think that "buy one, get one free" offers are really free. The app is not "free" because you can't get it without paying something. Subscribers don't have to pay anything *extra* for the app, but they can't get the app unless they pay something. Non-subscribers either can't get the app, or can't get it for free.

Originally Posted by CommonReader

What a parasitic business model. I've subscribed to my newspaper for more than 20 years but I or the publisher are supposed to pay a hefty regular commission to Apple just because they put an app into their store? On top of it all I get a castrated product because Apple's prudishness doesn't tolerate any naked female flesh? No, thanks.

I don't think you understand what parasitic means in this context. Publishers are using Apple's store, but are not paying Apple for the privilege of using their store. Which Apple would even allow if the publishers made the app free for everyone. But if the publishers are getting paid, even indirectly, for the app, Apple reasonably feels that they should get their cut. That's how their business model works, for music and apps.

Originally Posted by Toxaris

What's next? That websites needs to pay Apple because they deliver RSS feeds that can be read with a free app?

No. Read the article.

Originally Posted by CommonReader

That would be a valid argument if you had the choice to simply download the app directly from the publisher's website instead of getting it from Apple's app store only. Apple prevents any installation of apps that haven't been sold by the app store to generate revenue without offering any added value.

In what universe isn't offering the app added value? If there is no value in using the app store, publishers should stop using it. What value does B&N offer when it sells you a paperbook at some markup over wholesale?

Again, publishers don't have to have iPad apps in the first place; they can put everything they want on the web. Or they could have an app that's free to everyone.

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

It's not that. Apple wants the be the middle man. You won't get the free online version next to your paid-for paper version, no, you'll have to pay for your free online version next to your paid-for paper version (because otherwise Apple won't get its share)

Apple *is* the middle man. They have a store in which they sell apps for their products. In exchange for offering this service, they get paid. That is not really a radical idea.

But publishers can avoid all of this by simply making the app free for everyone, or charging everyone for it.


Also, you're forgetting that Apple demands the customer details as well....[/QUOTE]
This is true, but that doesn't seem to be at issue. Possibly because Apple already has a lot of data on its users.