Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
What will happen is that the agency model contracts will be renegotiated-something that happens frequently in business. Instead of the division being publisher 70/Amazon 30 , the split will end up something like publisher 60/Amazon20/Apple 20 . Remember, Amazon used to take 70 to publishers 30 prior to last year. That's what the negotiations will be about- a readjustment of who gets what percentage.
I must say, I'm rather touched by your solicitude for Amazon-a big company with an army of lawyers at their command. Trust me, the publishers and the booksellers will take care of themselves.
|
The publisher has no actual requirement to change their terms though and the net result could easily be the kindle app and many others being forced off the platform and while you want to try and mis-characterise this as people being so eager to stand up for one big company vs another that is just not what people are doing. The reality is that an ipad without a kindle, nook, kobo, etc. app is far less appealing to me as an ipad owner and that is why I think this move is such a bad one.
Incidentally, in your previous post you asked:
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
There’s not too much Apple love on this issue, is there? I think there are two issues here:
1. does Apple deserve a cut of the revenue from the sales of products on its platform
2. what should be the size of the cut.
|
My answers would be no and zero when they don't actually provide anything that a particular app wants or needs beyond the initial hosting of the app which they also force on people, they have already got their cut by the existence of these various apps helping to sell their hardware in the first place and if you don't think apps are a selling point for the hardware then you have obviously never seen a single ipad advert as they push the total and individual apps heavily in them.
A far more realistic thing for apple to claim would be a minimum fee for hosting any app and then offering the various payment options for those companies who wanted to use them meaning that they would only be making back their costs from those that they weren't actually doing anything for.