NYT: Apple Moves to Tighten Control of App Store

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

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.

Your post refers to ebooks. As yet there is no confirmation that Apple's new rules will slap 30% on individual ebook sales. If that turns out to be true then I'll agree that they are not providing any service for sales of that sort of content.

However, as written, the new rules apply to subscriptions. Apple will be providing a service, namely:

• taking and processing registrations
• tracking the renewal cycle
• notifying the publisher when the next issue is due and making it available
• managing and securing the customer data
• answering subscription queries
• dealing with mistakes
• processing refunds
• processing cancellations

The iniquitous parts are the size of the fee and the fact that they are making it mandatory to use the service within the app.

Graham

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by Graham

However, the rules only definitely apply to subscriptions, not individual books, and in the case of subs Apple definitely are providing a service (purchase, renewal, support, refunds) not "nothing in return". Worth 30%? I think not. Worth something? Yes; Google thinks 10%.

They are not providing a service though, they are enforcing a service whether or not a company wants to use it and in doing so will force up prices e.g. T3 is a featured app on the ipad appstore at the moment and looking at the top in-app purchases it seems as if the cheapest you can get the magazine is £2 per issue whereas on Zinio you could get a sub for about £1.60 an issue so no doubt the latter will either be forced off the ipad or forced to increase their price to the detriment to the customer.

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by Graham

Your post refers to ebooks. As yet there is no confirmation that Apple's new rules will slap 30% on individual ebook sales. If that turns out to be true then I'll agree that they are not providing any service for sales of that sort of content.

Fair enough. However subscriptions are provided also by Amazon and other players. What about those? Apple provides the same nothing for those subscriptions as it does for e-books. Furthermore it is strongly beleived that Apple's rule applies to all content, e.g. see Gizmodo.

In a sane world Apple would be able to claim money only for content for which it is at least the retailer. It is obvious however that it is not true for the vast majority of content. It seems clear to me (and to lot of others) that Apple wants a cut also for other content.

[Crowl]

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.

Apple is the middleman here, they are doing nothing at all once I have downloaded the kindle app and yet they seem to think they deserve 30% for the huge task of hosting that tiny little app while conveniently ignoring the benefits they get from the very existence of that kindle app which makes their tablet a more appealing purchase.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

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.

While it is debatable how many people bought an ipad for a single app, the number will be much greater when you add up how many bought one due to a particular app and each company that goes elsewhere will make subsequent ipad purchases less likely, oddly enough just as everyone else is finally about to launch rival products that outperform the ipad.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by Graham

The iniquitous parts are the size of the fee and the fact that they are making it mandatory to use the service within the app.

I actually think that it is only the mandatory nature that is the bad part of this change, if apple were offering it as a service that companies could choose to use then that would be fine as they could decide whether the service was worth it to them and the ones who didn't would be free to continue using their current process.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

However subscriptions are provided also by Amazon and other players. What about those? Apple provides the same nothing for those subscriptions as it does for e-books.

For subscriptions, Apple isn't providing nothing where it is charging 30%. It's providing the subscription service for subscribing within the app, and charging nothing for subscriptions made outside the app.

As I said, it's the fact that it's mandatory within the app that's iniquitous, otherwise, yes, Amazon and the other players could choose to provide their own subs service, probably at a cheaper cost.

Graham

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by Graham

For subscriptions, Apple isn't providing nothing where it is charging 30%.

No, Apple is providing nothing for subscriptions from Amazon and other players as well as it is not providing anything for e-books, music and videos from other retailers. And it turns out Apple confirmed that it will require money for all the other content it provides no added value. Here is the news.
So now you can too admit (as you promised) that Apple wants to harvest money for nothing.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

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).

That includes me too. I was really interested in an iPad but held off on purchasing. I'm glad I did.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by athlonkmf

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'

Apple controls 100% of the app market for iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. Where is your market share argument now?

This is the kind of stuff that got Microsoft in trouble in the 90s.

[elcreative]

No it isn't... Microsoft got into trouble for trying to control what dozens of manufacturers were doing... As Apple make iPhone, iPod and iPad then they may control their App markets but if you don't like it then don't use Apple kit... there's plenty of other things out there...

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

Apple controls 100% of the app market for iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. Where is your market share argument now?

This is the kind of stuff that got Microsoft in trouble in the 90s.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by Graham

Neither want money for nothing. Both want money for supplying the services and infrastructure for fulfilling and maintaining subscriptions - a not insignificant undertaking

Agreed.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

new one will cost more to me than the old one.

Probably only during the period of transition. Kinda like how there won't always be a premium on the price of hybrid/electric cars.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

you seriously have so little ability to think

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

And it turns out Apple confirmed that it will require money for all the other content it provides no added value. Here is the news.
So now you can too admit (as you promised) that Apple wants to harvest money for nothing.

Horemheb, we covered this earlier in this thread. The link you've provided was discussed. It does not confirm that Apple want 30% for all other content where it adds no value. The Apple spokeswoman confirms that the (subscriptions) rule will apply to other content sellers like Amazon (who provide subscriptions), not just to magazine publishers. If you dig you'll find that while speculation is rife that this applies to the non-subscription content, that speculation is not confirmed in any of the comments from Apple.

You'll note that earlier in this thread I was saying exactly the same as you, but Kali Yuga pulled me up on it and asked me to look deeper and separate out exactly what was actual Apple comment and what was journalist speculation. When you do that you'll see that Apple have not confirmed that this applies to content, only subscription.

Originally Posted by Horemheb

No, Apple is providing nothing for subscriptions from Amazon and other players as well as it is not providing anything for e-books, music and videos from other retailers.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point here. It seems things are quite clear: Apple are charging 30% for subscriptions made through the app (for which they are providing the service) and nothing for subscriptions made outside the app (where they add no value).

Graham