Quote:
Originally Posted by leebase
That's pretty much it...other than denying Apple's it's role in creating the platform and marketing it.
Oh...and it's not enough for Apple to value it's platform, OTHER folks have to value it. So far, seems abundantly clear, that plenty of folks agree that the Apple platform is valuable.
Now perhaps YOU don't value it quite so much. Maybe some publishers won't either. That's business as usual. I have no problem walking by stores like Gucci, Nordstrom -- any high price brand. I don't even bother to go in. I don't value what they sell anywhere near the prices they ask. I've never even gone into one of those "if you have to ask the price..." car dealers though I might well admire the look of their cars from the sidewalk.
That's like you and the other Apple naysayers. Perfectly legitimate.
But those businesses do what they do because THEY value their own products and have a clientelle that does as well.
The mall example is a rather fitting one. Some malls can command higher fees than others because they draw a higher paying clientelle. I'm sure folks that shop at Gucci and the like don't care how Wal-Mart runs their business.
Listening to some of these discussions is rather like hearing the WalMart crowd criticize how Gucci runs it's business.
Lee
|
I'm actually an Apple user - I have a Mac and I love it.
I also think the Apple platform is valuable, and I have no problem with the idea that Apple deserves a cut of all transactions that happen through their infrastructure. As per the mall analogy, stores pay for the privilege of selling from that mall.
Where we disagree is on where to set the line of what constitutes a transaction on Apple's platform.
A transaction made through the IAP system is definitely on Apple's platform, and Apple does and should get a cut of that.
Paying the power bill online through the Safari Browser on one's iPhone is not on Apple's platform and so Apple should not get a cut.
The issue here is whether purchasing a Kindle book from Amazon's website while using an iPhone is closer to the first or second case.
I submit it's closer to the second - and so Apple does not need a cut of that transaction.