NYT: Apple Moves to Tighten Control of App Store

[athlonkmf]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

Have you been reading the news in the last 8 months?

Android has larger market share than iOS
http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/ar...010/1297309933

Android beating iOS almost 2:1 on new sales
http://www.examiner.com/smartphones-...-last-6-months

And if that 8 out of 10 upgrades is true, then that just goes to show that Apple's sales are mostly just forcing customers to upgrade every year.

Funny you said that, because I think apple is actually going to use that to prevent being accused of abusing their monopoly. 'hey, android has a larger marketshare, we don't have a monopoly. Actually it's the other way around. Google only asking for 10% would mean severe losses for us. Do something about that market regulators '

Besides... It's scary to read comments of android users... The amount of them who actually says that 'you're a fool for actually paying for content! Everything needs to be free'

[Graham]

Originally Posted by tomsem

Actually I don't think Amazon allows subscriptions to be sent to the iOS apps (not even sure you can send any subscription to any app just yet, though this capability was announced, and it will be up to the publisher whether it is allowed).

Ah, sorry, yes; I've done some digging and I'd got that wrong. I hadn't realised that you couldn't see your subscribed issues from the iOS app. You can see your issues from both a Kindle and the Android app, regardless of which device you subscribed from.

Graham

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

The author signs the contract with one of the big six

Why do they do that?

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by Graham

From the press release:



Graham

They are all the same, Graham. You missed the joke.

[RockdaMan]

Apple's move exposes a long-flawed business model at most media companies, one that Apple has clearly decided will not be its burden.

>snip<

When the iPad was first announced, media firms hoped it would provide a new vehicle for which they could charge users realistic fees -- basically relying on Apple to give them a platform where they could avoid their old mistakes. Book retailers thought they could get a free ride on iOS devices to build their sales base; the same goes for streaming media providers. Why they all thought Apple wouldn't change for that privilege escapes me.

Still, it's true that Apple is overreaching. A one-size-fits-all pricing policy of 30 percent for any digital content ignores the reality on the ground. The economics of different media segments vary. Charging developers 30 percent of an app's price was reasonable -- it costs far more to establish a presence in a retail store. The music and video industries swallowed Apple's charge because their retail sales were declining (and they pay more to retailers than Apple wanted) in favor of unpaid pirate downloads -- but they did persuade Apple to raise its initial prices, so both they and Apple netted more per sale.

>snip<

For sales of a single-copy book, magazine issue, video rental, and the like, a 30 percent commission is probably fair. A book publisher gives a retail bookstore 50 percent or so for a physical book, after all, as do magazine publishers for their newsstand sales.

You can argue it both ways on magazine and newspaper subscriptions. Thirty percent is a huge portion relative to the usual new-subscriber bounties, and it's a much higher rate than what the printing and mailing typically costs (10 to 20 percent, based on audience size) for a print subscription. Plus, the digital production is not cheap -- it's costlier than print design and layout because of all the custom coding required -- and Apple's model doesn't account for that.

On the other hand, smaller publishers in particular face daunting costs to attract and service readers, so the Apple model likely skews in their favor -- just as the app store model favors small developers over large ones. And for publishers of all sizes, the iPad represents its best hope for new revenue.

>snip<

let's not forget Google's very media-unfriendly moves, such as its trying to corner the market on old books and its scraping of others' content in search results. There are two devils for media firms to dance with, not just Apple.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/22018..._the_cart.html

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Why do they do that?

From the customer point of view it does not matter why. We only see the result of it in increased prices - if the current players will let Apple to get money on the same business in addition to the current players. It is simple math. If it has been X players earning on a business and from now on an additional one claims money on the same business, then it will be X+1 players feeding on the business. There can be no other result than the increase of prices.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

From the customer point of view it does not matter why.

If they want me as a customer it does matter very, very much.

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

If they want me as a customer it does matter very, very much.

Well, in general it is true. However it is a whole different problem. Apple's initiative is a new threat to customers which is independent of any previously existing problems. If making enough noise can help neutralize Apple's initiative then it is a gain for all customers. Trying to mix other problems in it makes it more difficult to focus on the current problem.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

Well, in general it is true. However it is a whole different problem. Apple's initiative is a new threat to customers

No, it's a threat to the middlemen that used to rip off the authors. It's disruptive to those middlemen...and only because via the Internet, we've entered an era where the publishing houses and the bookstores don't always hold the most direct path to the consumer.

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

it's a threat to the middlemen that used to rip off the authors.

1. No, it's not. It obviously will not be the middlemen who will pay the extra cost. It will be the customers (and somewhat the authors). It is simple math. If you are OK with it then so be it. I am not and nor should be any customer who is not a payed agent of Apple.
2. Even if it were a threat only to the middlemen it still would be less than justifyable that Apple wants money for NOTHING.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

Apple wants money for NOTHING.

Google too, for that matter.

Back to the point at hand, you can't compare the old with the new. You get a headache and endless threads on MR.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

... Apple wants money for NOTHING.

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Google too, for that matter.

Neither want money for nothing. Both want money for supplying the services and infrastructure for fulfilling and maintaining subscriptions - a not insignificant undertaking (I have helped build and maintain such a system professionally).

The difference is that with Google's store it's optional, while with Apple's store it's mandatory.

Graham

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Back to the point at hand, you can't compare the old with the new. You get a headache and endless threads on MR.

How in the world could not I compare them? The new one will cost more to me than the old one. That is my concern not a headache.

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by Graham

Neither want money for nothing.

This is just not true. Apple wants money exactly for nothing. If you think there is value added in Apple's "service" I am sure you can point it out in the examples I drew up in this post and you can answer all 3 questions.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

No, it's a threat to the middlemen that used to rip off the authors. It's disruptive to those middlemen...and only because via the Internet, we've entered an era where the publishing houses and the bookstores don't always hold the most direct path to the consumer.

If Apple told you that the sky was orange, you would believe it. Do you seriously have so little ability to think independently of Apple that you can actually write "it's a threat to the middlemen that used to rip off the authors" while defending Apple's taking 30% off the top of an author's price...without your head exploding?

Or is Apple somehow not a middleman because Apple is cool and middlemen aren't cool?

If Apple actually does this, the only books you will be able to get on an iPad will be iBooks, customers for whom using the iPad as an ereader was important will migrate elsewhere (although I'm not sure how many people that is), people with e-readers who were interested in buying iPads will look elsewhere (not sure how many people that is, either, although it includes me). But the people hurt worse will be those who already bought the iPad with the intent of using the Kindle or Nook apps on it.