Amazon, B&N, Kobo: iOS aps to be pulled in June

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Er, I'm sorry Apple is doing... nothing? Apple built the devices on which the ebooks are read. Apple marketed these devices-so successfully that they have sold 160M of these devices, creating a huge market for ebooks. These apps that read and more importantly, sell these books are distributed through the Apple's App Store and hosted and updated by the App Store. All that is....nothing? I'm going to be blunt-I just don't think you understand how business works.

Guess what, Apple got their cut when they made their profit on the hardware sale just like every other pc maker does when somebody buys a computer.

Also, you should probably check your facts before making incorrect claims, the only thing apple hosts is the kindle app and everything else goes via amazon, so for the sake of 10mb per download apple get a very nice selling point for their hardware, but to be fair they should expect amazon to pay hosting costs for the app.

Now there are lots of businesses that thrive without Apple's help-like, for example, the business of growing turnips. That's completely irrelevant to the the issue of whether Apple should get a cut of sales made on IOS devices for use on IOS devices I can gaurantee Amazon and B&N are certainly negotiating hard to stay on the IOS platform and would be willing to pay a cut. Hell, GOOGLE is looking for cut (10%) of products sold on the Android platform.

The google offering is an optional service rather than being mandatory to everyone whether they need it or not so nice try, but you fail to deflect from what apple is doing.

I am sure Amazon and B&N are talking to Apple too, but it is more likely that they are trying to arrange an exception and to pay for the costs of the app hosting than trying to get a lower fee because the margins simply aren't there and they they will be forced to walk away and throw their weight behind all the tablets and phones from android, blackberry, webos, windows phone etc. making those platforms more appealing than the one that has just forced out 95% of the ebook market.

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Anti-Apple folks

The only conceivable situation when uttering this phrase is understandable is when you get your salary from Apple. Even in that case this phrase does not even make sense - it is just understandable you say it. Because Apple is NOT your friend (nor any other company for that matter). It does not pursue your best interests it does not want you anything good at all. It is just a company with owners who want to make money. So at the very best it is a reliable and fair service provider. But that is the best and it won't go even that far if it is not necessary. So every conscious customer better keep a close eye on what Apple (and again any other company for that matter) does and how it serves its customers. Defending a company is equally ridiculous and pathetic.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Er, I'm sorry Apple is doing... nothing? Apple built the devices on which the ebooks are read. Apple marketed these devices-so successfully that they have sold 160M of these devices, creating a huge market for ebooks. These apps that read and more importantly, sell these books are distributed through the Apple's App Store and hosted and updated by the App Store. All that is....nothing? I'm going to be blunt-I just don't think you understand how business works.

Before you go on about understanding how business works, you should *show how booksellers can make a profit with Apple.*

That is *fundamental* to business. It is also pretty much the main point people are making, and the point you have not addressed.

It's not about Apple or anyone else "deserving" anything. It's about profit, pure and simple.

And I don't think that conflating iPhone, iPod touches, and iPads is very helpful; this is really about the iPad. I didn't buy my iPhone to read books on; and while it is kind of convenient on occasion, I will probably still buy a new iPhone even without Kindle, since I didn't buy my phone to read books on.

But I've decided against buying an iPad 2, since one of the reasons I would like one would be to read books on when I don't have my Kindle.

But this is obviously much worse for people who already bought an iPad and use it to read Amazon or B&N's books, since they will have suddenly lost an important feature.

Now there are lots of businesses that thrive without Apple's help-like, for example, the business of growing turnips. That's completely irrelevant to the the issue of whether Apple should get a cut of sales made on IOS devices for use on IOS devices I can gaurantee Amazon and B&N are certainly negotiating hard to stay on the IOS platform and would be willing to pay a cut. Hell, GOOGLE is looking for cut (10%) of products sold on the Android platform.

Android's system is optional. Android doesn't require you to implement in app purchasing. Android's system only applies to subscriptions.

[stonetools]

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.

Once again, these apps aren't just applications in the way that Microsoft Word is a word processing application or Numbers is a spreadsheet application. These "reader" apps are stores, operating on the Apple platform. They are ways through which Amazon can sell ebooks to IOS customers. That's why treating them as "just" computer programs and referring only to the cost of hosting the app makes no sense from a business perspective. Its like treating a store in a mall as "just a room". Well, that's true but for purposes of charging rent its more than just a room. You should understand that mall owners charge bookstores a LOT for operating in a shopping mall-way more than the cost of lighting and heating a room.
Of course , the Apple ecosytem of apps is an important selling point for the Ipad-which is why they are going to want to work something out with booksellers and the publishers so that Amazon and B&N could remain on the IOS platform. THat's why I'm optimistic that this can be worked out. I'm certain that all the parties involved are negotiating vigorously behind the scenes. I would caution that neither the Kindle or the Nook app is in the Top 10 app charts. It's important to us ebook readers but it isn't vital to Apple.

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Er, I'm sorry Apple is doing... nothing? Apple built the devices on which the ebooks are read. Apple marketed these devices-so successfully that they have sold 160M of these devices

How is it any different from Windows PCs, Android phones and other platforms? I will help you out it is not different at all. Why would Apple get extra money for something no one else gets extra money for?

, creating a huge market for ebooks.

Apple benefits even more from the fact that content is available on its devices. So following your logic in fact Apple should pay to content providers.

sell these books are distributed through the Apple's App Store and hosted and updated by the App Store.

Now this is just utter nonsense. AppStore does not distribute books much less hosts them. That is done by the application made by Amazon and B&N. AppStore hosts and distributes applications not content.

Amazon and B&N are certainly negotiating hard to stay on the IOS platform and would be willing to pay a cut

Even if it were true (which I doubt) it would be against the interest of customers because if Apple gets a cut that will be paid by the customers that's for sure. So if it is true Amazon and B&N should be roasted for that.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Once again, these apps aren't just applications in the way that Microsoft Word is a word processing application or Numbers is a spreadsheet application. These "reader" apps are stores, operating on the Apple platform. They are ways through which Amazon can sell ebooks to IOS customers. That's why treating them as "just" computer programs and referring only to the cost of hosting the app makes no sense from a business perspective. Its like treating a store in a mall as "just a room". Well, that's true but for purposes of charging rent its more than just a room. You should understand that mall owners charge bookstores a LOT for operating in a shopping mall-way more than the cost of lighting and heating a room.

In some ways it is more than just a software application, but you continue to ignore the very valid point that it is a two way street, while amazon and the like benfit from being on the ipad, apple most definitely benefits as much if not more by their presence on there too so the whole argument that they merit 30% for other people's work while amazon deserves to make a loss on their own business that helps to promote the ipad is frankly ludicrous in the extreme.

You do realise that however many times you try to parrot out this flawed analogy that sounds like it was generated by apple's pr company you are not going to convince people of your point, but one point to consider when the mall owners up the rents too much then stores cannot afford to stay there and due to them going somewhere else it makes that current mall a lot less appealing to shoppers when they have plenty of other malls to choose from.

I would caution that neither the Kindle or the Nook app is in the Top 10 app charts. It's important to us ebook readers but it isn't vital to Apple.

I am not surprised, the turnover for free apps is going to be a lot more cyclical, but can you honestly say that an ipad without kindle, nook, kobo, zinio, last.fm, pandora etc. will be anywhere near as appealing to somebody looking to buy some new hardware?

Also, beyond the loss of profits from the hardware sales there is also the loss from all the other little apps that people happen to buy after they have bought the device e.g. some of the main reasons for me that I bought an ipad was to read books, comics, magazines etc. and wouldn't have bothered if it didn't have suitable apps, but I have since bought other apps and games for it and apple have obviously got a cut from those additional sales too so it isn't simply the hardware sales where these service-related apps are helping apple profits.

[stonetools]

How is it any different from Windows PCs, Android phones and other platforms? I will help you out it is not different at all. Why would Apple get extra money for something no one else gets extra money for?

Because Windows is a purely an applications platform. IOS is an application AND a merchandising platform. Itunes is the largest music store in the world . The App Store is the largest software store. The bookstore apps are just that-bookstores within the Apple App store. That you don't understand this just shows that you don't and will never get it.

Apple benefits even more from the fact that content is available on its devices. So following your logic in fact Apple should pay to content providers.

Apple has lots of content on its platform. Its the largest media and software store in the world. Content providers are trying as hard as they can to get on the IOS platform.

Now this is just utter nonsense. AppStore does not distribute books much less hosts them. That is done by the application made by Amazon and B&N. AppStore hosts and distributes applications not content.

That's what I said. Read what I wrote.

Even if it were true (which I doubt) it would be against the interest of customers because if Apple gets a cut that will be paid by the customers that's for sure. So if it is true Amazon and B&N should be roasted for that.

Amazon and B&N are in the business of making money. They will do what they have to to remain on an immensely successful merchandising platform. If that means paying a cut to Apple, disappointing the vast numbers of folks out there who think Apple is wrong for asking for a cut, well that's what they will do.

[rdfry]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Because Windows is a purely an applications platform. IOS is an application AND a merchandising platform. Itunes is the largest music store in the world . The App Store is the largest software store. The bookstore apps are just that-bookstores within the Apple App store. That you don't understand this just shows that you don't and will never get it.



Apple has lots of content on its platform. Its the largest media and software store in the world. Content providers are trying as hard as they can to get on the IOS platform.




That's what I said. Read what I wrote.



Amazon and B&N are in the business of making money. They will do what they have to to remain on an immensely successful merchandising platform. If that means paying a cut to Apple, disappointing the vast numbers of folks out there who think Apple is wrong for asking for a cut, well that's what they will do.

I don't own anything made by Apple but because Apple is greedy now I will have to subsidize this. F them

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by stonetools

IOS is an application AND a merchandising platform.

So is Android and Blackberry. So why would get Apple get a cut from Amazon and B&N books when Google and RIM does not get any?
The question is even more fundamental: why would a customer pay more when content purchase happens on Apple platform than in the case the purchase happens on any other platform?

You keep saying that there is added value by Apple while failing to point out any. You have dodged to answer 3 very simple questions of this post. You still can make it up for it and point out the added value in real world scenarios.

Apple has lots of content on its platform. Its the largest media and software store in the world. Content providers are trying as hard as they can to get on the IOS platform.

I think based upon these kinds of comments by now it is obvious that you are no normal customer. You are sales rep / agitprop agent / other interested party of Apple. And I am being generous here. The other explanation for quoting propaganda lines would be very embarassing for you.

[rdfry]

[QUOTE=Horemheb;1417870]So is Android and Blackberry. So why would get Apple get a cut from Amazon and B&N books when Google and RIM does not get any?
The question is even more fundamental: why would a customer pay more when content purchase happens on Apple platform than in the case the purchase happens on any other platform?

You keep saying that there is added value by Apple while failing to point out any. You have dodged to answer 3 very simple questions of this post. You still can make it up for it and point out the added value in real world scenarios.

[

I think based upon these kinds of comments by now it is obvious that you are no normal customer. You are sales rep / agitprop agent / other interested party of Apple. And I am being generous here. The other explanation for quoting propaganda lines would be very embarassing for you. [/QUOTE


He seems to think because Apple has a large user base that for this reason Apple deserves to gouge everyone.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Amazon and B&N are in the business of making money. They will do what they have to to remain on an immensely successful merchandising platform. If that means paying a cut to Apple, disappointing the vast numbers of folks out there who think Apple is wrong for asking for a cut, well that's what they will do.

All three of them are in business to make money, and theres's nothing wrong with that.

However, if Apple makes it impossible for Amazon and B&N to make money on iOS devices they will pull their apps. They can't afford not to.

Now since Apple is in business to make money, I can understand that they may want to charge Amazon and B&N for the service of hosting their apps. However, that should be a per app (or download) fee, not a percentage of everything sold through the app. That's grossly disproportionate.

Remember, Apple makes a profit on hardware, so every time someone buys an iOS device to use non-Apple content, Apple makes money.

I also disagree with your mall analogy from another post.

Yes the mall takes a cut of sales from all the stores in the mall: but they don't ask for a cut of every purchase made on a device purchased in the mall.

It's like my cell phone: Verizon doesn't get a cut of everything I buy from my phone, they just get a cut of everything I buy through them. Apple wants to move from the latter to the former, and that's just not something that can work.

The only way this makes sense is if it's an attempt to drive all other content resellers off the iOS platform. It's their right, and it's not evil, but I don't think it's a good idea either.

I'm just glad my next phone upgrade won't be until well after this shakes out: because this may well put Apple off the list.

[stonetools]

In some ways it is more than just a software application, but you continue to ignore the very valid point that it is a two way street, while amazon and the like benfit from being on the ipad, apple most definitely benefits as much if not more by their presence on there too so the whole argument that they merit 30% for other people's work while amazon deserves to make a loss on their own business that helps to promote the ipad is frankly ludicrous in the extreme.

Wow, I guess you would have a great point-IF I made that argument. What I'm arguing is that Apple deserves a cut for items sold on the IOS platform, for use on that platform.I've argued that apps which are in actuality storefronts should be treated as if they are storefronts and not as if there are mere computer software programs that have nothing to do with sales and selling. Your argument is that the wonderfulness of the Ipad would be compromised if Amazon has to pay Apple a cut of the millions of dollars it makes selling books, etc. on one of the greatest merchandising platforms in the world. Moreover, If Apple asked for a cut, they would flee the platform without even trying to negotiate and it would ruin the Ipad.

All of this sounds a bit different from the real business world, where contracts are renegotiated all the time and where merchants understand that they have to pay a cut for selling on any successful retail platform-whether it be Best Buy, Walmart, Macys, Amazon or Apple. I'm pretty sure that the businesses who are making buco bucks on IOS will negotiate it out with Apple.Lets wait and see.

[stonetools]

So is Android and Blackberry. So why would get Apple get a cut from Amazon and B&N books when Google and RIM does not get any?

Because they have not asked yet-or don't have the economic power to ask? There are merchandising platforms (the corner store) and MERCHANDISING PLATFORMS( Walmart, Apple).
I've looked at your questions and again , business understanding FAIL. Apple offered a streamlined buying process in which you can buy, return, subscribe, unsubscribe etc using ONE account and remembering ONE password. Your privacy is better protected than with most merchants. You deal with ONE account instead of a dozen different ones. Now to many people, all of that adds value. To you it may not, but tens of millions of people say different. MoreoverApple's plan is that the pthe cprice would not go up, but that Apple's cut would come from the publisher and the bookseller. Instead of a publisher70-bookseller 30 split of the price , the split might be 60/20/20 split with Apple taking 20.
Another possibility might be that Apple charges tthe merchant an upfront fee of $250,000.00 for a storefront type app. That would reflect the actual value of app which, it bears saying again, is a STORE, not "just a computer program". That would not directly affect the price to the comnsumer.

There's a lot of ways that this can be done without significant immpact to the consumer.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Wow, I guess you would have a great point-IF I made that argument. What I'm arguing is that Apple deserves a cut for items sold on the IOS platform, for use on that platform.I've argued that apps which are in actuality storefronts should be treated as if they are storefronts and not as if there are mere computer software programs that have nothing to do with sales and selling. Your argument is that the wonderfulness of the Ipad would be compromised if Amazon has to pay Apple a cut of the millions of dollars it makes selling books, etc. on one of the greatest merchandising platforms in the world. Moreover, If Apple asked for a cut, they would flee the platform without even trying to negotiate and it would ruin the Ipad.

All of this sounds a bit different from the real business world, where contracts are renegotiated all the time and where merchants understand that they have to pay a cut for selling on any successful retail platform-whether it be Best Buy, Walmart, Macys, Amazon or Apple. I'm pretty sure that the businesses who are making buco bucks on IOS will negotiate it out with Apple.Lets wait and see.

But what Apple is doing here is saying you must change your consumption app into a storefront and then give us an exorbitant cut of the proceeds.

Also, while you're right that it's normal for businesses to pay a cut for selling on a successful retail platform, it's not normal for them to also pay a cut for sales that take place off that retail platform.

If I subscribe to Sports Illustrated through Amazon, Amazon gets a cut of that subscription. However, if I renew my subscription directly, without going through Amazon, Amazon doesn't get a cut of that renewal. Apple's asking for a cut of the renewal - not just the original sale.

Taking another look at your mall analogy: yes, the mall gets a cut of every sale made in the mall; but if you get a store catalog at the mall, the mall doesn't get a cut of everything you buy from the catalog. That's what Apple's after, though, a cut of all the sales made from the catalog, just because you picked up the catalog at their mall.

[stonetools]

Remember, Apple makes a profit on hardware, so every time someone buys an iOS device to use non-Apple content, Apple makes money.

Apple makes money several other ways. They are now exploring yet another way. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, if they can make it work

Now since Apple is in business to make money, I can understand that they may want to charge Amazon and B&N for the service of hosting their apps. However, that should be a per app (or download) fee, not a percentage of everything sold through the app. That's grossly disproportionate.

WEll, what is the real value of an app that serves as a storefront to 160 million IOS device owners. I have a feeling its WAAAAAAY over $99, right? One suggestion I have seen would be to charge like $250,000 for such an app. Would that make you happier? Amazon may like that , but I can see a small scale merchant preferring a percentage sale approach.

also disagree with your mall analogy from another post.

Yes the mall takes a cut of sales from all the stores in the mall: but they don't ask for a cut of every purchase made on a device purchased in the mall.

Well, in my analogy

APP Store= Mall

B&N Nook=store

As you have said, malls charge stores a percentage of their sales revenue as rent. Hope that clarifies things.

However, if Apple makes it impossible for Amazon and B&N to make money on iOS devices they will pull their apps. They can't afford not to.

Right, which is why I feel that Apple and the booksellers will come to an arrangement that both can live with . Apple WANTS the book sellers on their platform-they just want a cut. For other people on this site, there seems to be a near religious beleif that Apple isn't entitled to a cut, because Amazon etc. is virtually doing Apple a favor by putting apps on IOS devices. Go figure.