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

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by stonetools

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.

Firstly, you have no proof whatsoever that apple is more secure than others and indeed the various demos showing how simple it is to hack an iphone would tend to indicate that has little basis in objective reality.

In any case, while some may trust apple more than others, millions of existing customers of a great many companies have already decided that they also trust the likes of amazon, b&n etc as well so this is a complete non-issue for those.

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.

Nice idea in theory, I think the reality will be more than a little different as you can see from some of the magzines subs that are already out and costing more on the ipad than on rival services such as zinio.

As far as the upfront fee, is this the latest idea you have been told to put forward by apple as part of your job since we have all ignored your flawed attempts to excuse the 30% charge?

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by stonetools

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.

Once again you choose to ignore the value that these apps also currently provide to apple making their ios products more appealing, but then I guess that isn't what you are being paid to consider.

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.

I think you are mistaken about this, in an ideal world for them, apple want to be the only content provider on their devices and now think they are in a strong enough position to force through this change in some areas.

You are really reaching now, people have simple been trying to point out to you that it is not a one way relationship as you seem to be trying to make it out to be with all these evil companies stealing poor defenceless little apple's profits with their evil apps when the reality is that these companies benefit from being on ios devices and the ios devices also benefit from having these apps on them and that apple's cut has already come from hardware sales and the other apps sales brought to ios devices by the presence of these service-related apps.

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I've looked at your questions and again

...and failed to answer the questions. Where are the answers? It is very simple, 3 answers:
1. The added value here is...
2. The added value here is...
3. The added value here is...

I am waiting.

Your privacy is better protected than with most merchants.

The audacity of this statement is breathtaking.

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.

That is a reasonable belief if you have not attended any elementary school math classes.

Once again:
Cost1 = Author + Copyright owner + Publisher + Retailer
Cost2 = Author + Copyright owner + Publisher + Retailer + Apple

Claiming that Cost1 = Cost2 because cost of Apple will be absorbed by the other players is ridiculously (pseudo)naive even from an Apple agitprop agent.

What is more important here is that even if it WAS true (which of course is ridculous assumption) it would be unacceptable to let Apple to extort money from other players for NOTHING.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Well, in my analogy

APP Store= Mall

B&N Nook=store

The problem is that your analogy is fundamentally flawed. The reason the mall gets a cut of every sale made in the mall is because the mall is involved in every sale made in the mall. This continuous involvement is what justifies its continuous participation in sales revenue.

Continuous involvement generates continuous revenue.

That's not the case with the current generation of eBook applications and the App store. It's a one-time transaction, not continuous involvement.

Apple could shut down the App store completely and the current Kindle and Nook apps would still function in exactly the same fashion. No fuss, no mess, just opening up a browser and selling on the web.

However, if a mall shuts down, every store in that mall shuts down with it. That's continuous involvement.

What I think you're missing is that people aren't so much opposed to Apple getting a cut of purchases made through their infrastructure, as that they're trying to force people to use their infrastructure just so they can get a cut.

They're saying "you can keep doing business but you have to go through us and hand over a cut to do it."

I leave any possible parallels to that business model up to the reader.

[stonetools]

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.

First, I'm glad that you understand that the 30 per cent model applies solely to subscriptions. Apple has said NOTHING definitive about its policy regarding one off purchases like ebooks. For all we know, they may leave things exactly as they are now, although I doubt this. What we have gotten is many pages of fulminations about what people THINK that Apple may do.
As to subscriptions, my understanding isthat Apple wants that subscription services offer an inapp purchase OPTION in addition to its other subscription options. For the consumer, well he can sign up for a subscription on the web and consume on his I device, if he wants to. Of course, Apple hopes that the consumer will use the inapp option but if you have some obsession with never using the in app option, they you can just subscribe and renew on the web. And the merchant gets to keep 100 per cent of all the money that comes through non inapp subscriptions.

To be honest, I don't see the big deal with the policy AS ANNOUNCED. People have getting themselves in a lather over speculations born from FUD. I say let's wait and see,

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by stonetools

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

Well, you pushed too hard by now and you have obviously been exposed for what you are: an Apple rep who is paid to spread propaganda here. I think by now it is clear to anyone who read the topic.

The funny thing is that you do not even recognize that this discussion is not for your sake anymore but for all other people who read the topic. It is completely irrelevant what you believe and whether you will be persuaded by our arguments or not (obviously not because you are not paid to be convinced). The main thing here is that anyone reading this topic will see that an Apple rep is desperately trying to explain the unexplainable and is continuously failing to make logical arguments as well as failing to answer questions challanging Apple propaganda lines. It is also important that we can point out all the reasons why Apple is extremely unethical (and possibly illegal) in this matter.

So go on continue ridiculing your company.

[MsAstoria]

Originally Posted by Shack70

For those of you on iOS check out Stanza as an alternative with support. It will not read DRMed files but all in all it is a good ebook reader and it is free. Stanza is available for other mobile devices as well I think

Stanza in iTunes Store

If only It would sync across devices like amazon does, then it would be perfect!

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by stonetools

First, I'm glad that you understand that the 30 per cent model applies solely to subscriptions. Apple has said NOTHING definitive about its policy regarding one off purchases like ebooks. For all we know, they may leave things exactly as they are now, although I doubt this. What we have gotten is many pages of fulminations about what people THINK that Apple may do.
As to subscriptions, my understanding isthat Apple wants that subscription services offer an inapp purchase OPTION in addition to its other subscription options. For the consumer, well he can sign up for a subscription on the web and consume on his I device, if he wants to. Of course, Apple hopes that the consumer will use the inapp option but if you have some obsession with never using the in app option, they you can just subscribe and renew on the web. And the merchant gets to keep 100 per cent of all the money that comes through non inapp subscriptions.

To be honest, I don't see the big deal with the policy AS ANNOUNCED. People have getting themselves in a lather over speculations born from FUD. I say let's wait and see,

Apple has only talked openly about subscriptions, but that's not what the guidelines say.

1) May only use IAP to sell content and services from within the app (Section 11.2)
2) Must not direct users to commerce or transactions outside the IAP system (Section 11.14)
3) Must price IAP and subscription content the same as, or lower than, equivalent content offered outside the app (Section 11.13)

Those guidelines as written make it clear that the policy is not limited to subscription content, regardless of what's been announced.

[Horemheb]

Originally Posted by stonetools

First, I'm glad that you understand that the 30 per cent model applies solely to subscriptions.

1. It is obvious that Apple intends to get money for other content too.
2. Even if it was solely about subscriptions Amazon and B&N sell subscriptions too so the problem is exactly the same.

[stonetools]

As far as the upfront fee, is this the latest idea you have been told to put forward by apple as part of your job since we have all ignored your flawed attempts to excuse the 30% charge?

There IS no 30% charge for sale of Ebooks. I just want to nail that down, since you seem to be asserting, based on no evidence, this either is so or will soon become so. A number of magazines have already signed up for Apple's new approach. Apparently you know their businesses better than they do , since ytou are convinced they will fail. Let's see how they do.

Apple has an opt-in, rather than opt out approach for subscriber info. Everyone agrees that better protects subscriber info. THat's what I mean with regard to privacy.

(snip useless, self-congratulatory, irelevant BS)
I agree, Apple benefits by having the Kindle and Nook apps on the Ipad. Unfortunately, you seem to miss that Amazon and B&N benefit hugely, to the tune of millions of dollars of books that would not have been sold absent the presence of these apps on IOS. Amazon and B&N understand this, which is why no-one is rushing for the door.

[Horemheb]

The main point what Apple reps on these forums are not able to recognize (for ovious reasons) is that when you buy content then you buy content. Content is the product. Not content on a platform not the purchase of the content but content itself in its pure disembodied form. All platforms are just tools for accessing the content. And of course most of us expect the content to be accessible on all platforms we have.

Most times we have more than one platform used to access content and in many cases more than 3. Which means that we access content from 4-5 platforms, always from the one which is at hand when we feel like enjoying the content. In many cases we access the very same content (the same book, the same film etc) from all our platforms. The same goes to buying content. It is extremely irrelevant on which of our platforms we actually buy the content because we will access it from all of our platforms. Once again: the product is the content. Any one platform from the many we have is not worth mentioning in itself for it is just replacable tool because we have a lot of other ones.

Also there is a very clear indicator whether a company has anything to do with a content transaction. If the transaction (e.g. selling an e-book or magazine) is covered by a contract between the company in question and the publisher of the content then yes, the company is entitled for money (and most probably it is the retailer). In the case of Apple it is very clear that selling Amazon and B&N books are covered by contracts between Amazon and publishers and B&N and publishers. So it is also clear that Apple adds nothing to the story and is not entitled for anything. Because Apple is not selling the content which is - again - is the product. And once again we pay for the product in a transaction not for something else.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by stonetools

There IS no 30% charge for sale of Ebooks. I just want to nail that down, since you seem to be asserting, based on no evidence, this either is so or will soon become so.

The evidence is in Apple's own guidelines.

1) May only use IAP to sell content and services from within the app (Section 11.2)
2) Must not direct users to commerce or transactions outside the IAP system (Section 11.14)
3) Must price IAP and subscription content the same as, or lower than, equivalent content offered outside the app (Section 11.13)

Apple takes 30% of all transactions made through the IAP system.

According to their own guidelines, any app that allows the purchase of any content or service through or with the app must use the IAP system.

Currently, Apple does not take 30% of purchases made through or by the iOS Kindle App because that app uses the browser to enable the user to make purchases online through Amazon's website. This contravenes Section 11.14, and so will no longer be allowed, and users will then be required to make purchases through IAP which will lead to the 30% charge being levied on eBooks.

[david_e]

Originally Posted by Horemheb

This is just outright mathematical nonsense. Currently the cost of content is:
Cost1 = Author + Copyright owner + Publisher + Retailer

If Apple succeeds in his unethical (and possibly illegal) plan then the cost of content will be:
Cost2 = Author + Copyright owner + Publisher + Retailer + Apple

Simple math tells us Cost1 < Cost2 .........................

That is right, they want to make money. A sane and healthy society however will nevel let anyone to extort money from people and other organizations with nothing provided in turn. There are lot of companies who try to make money without providing anything useful to the society and there are ones even doing damage to society. They need to be stopped however this is obvious.

Let us see if this is 'simple' enough for you...

Mama and Papa have two children. Every Sunday Mama makes pie. Mama, Papa, and their two children eat the whole pie. One day Grandma comes to live with Mama, Papa, and their two children. On Sunday Mama makes pie in the SAME PAN she always used. Mama, Papa, their two children AND Grandma eat the whole pie.

See how simple that was? Five are now sharing what used to be shared by four. Some may now get a little less, but everyone still gets SOME.

"The Society"? There is no ONE society. And who is to decide what is dangerous and what companies should be stopped? Do you feel qualified to make these decisions? Just for yourself or for everyone else? Will you alone be making these decisions or perhaps you and like-minded others?

Perhaps these decision making positions would be best filled with people who aren't baffled by 'simple' mathematical concepts like division.

Originally Posted by Horemheb

Facts are never outdated.

If this were true we would all be relying on the 1768 Encyclopedia Britannica. What this statement really shows is that you are only capable of thinking in a black/white, yes/no, right/wrong manner.

Originally Posted by Horemheb

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.

Yes, you've done this before. When your incessant droning about ethics, lack of value, and the evils of corporations fail to sway, you resort to name calling. And not even new names, but the same names, over and over again. Even in rudeness you are nothing more than a repetitive bore.

And what about you? What value have you offered? Other than repeating the same opinion for some thirty-odd posts, what new thoughts or viewpoints have you brought? None. Why? You simply don't have the intelligence that is required to consider someone else's opinion and respond to it. Like most children, you apply human emotions to non-human entities because the concept of 'living' versus 'existing' is foreign to you. You repeat what you have heard with an incessant force, because it is all that you know and you are incapable of thinking for yourself.

You throw about accusations of other people propagandizing while crying about the evils and ethics of corporations and what benefits 'the society'. While I certainly have no expectation that you be self-aware do you at least see the irony?

How very embarrassing for you.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by stonetools

There IS no 30% charge for sale of Ebooks. I just want to nail that down, since you seem to be asserting, based on no evidence, this either is so or will soon become so. A number of magazines have already signed up for Apple's new approach. Apparently you know their businesses better than they do , since ytou are convinced they will fail. Let's see how they do.

For an individual magazine it may make sense to take the hit rather than potentially miss out entirely, however that will be to the detriment of other consumers since it will lead to higher prices as shown by one of the more prominently promoted magazines that now offers in-app subscriptions is charging £2 per issue via apple as opposed to £1.60 via zinio and apple#s rules state that prices can't be higher in-app.

Apple has an opt-in, rather than opt out approach for subscriber info. Everyone agrees that better protects subscriber info. THat's what I mean with regard to privacy.

Given that people are interested and subscribing to somebody else's content and not apple's content this seems like a pretty spurious benefit in any case to me, all the opt-in stuff does is take advantage of consumer inertia to allow apple to keep control for their benefit rather than anything positive to the consumer e.g. stopping a magazine having special subscription offers that would encourage them not to renew via the in-app process.

I agree, Apple benefits by having the Kindle and Nook apps on the Ipad. Unfortunately, you seem to miss that Amazon and B&N benefit hugely, to the tune of millions of dollars of books that would not have been sold absent the presence of these apps on IOS. Amazon and B&N understand this, which is why no-one is rushing for the door.

Given that we don't have concrete numbers for the mix for kindle etc. your figures are pure conjecture that is heavly biased in favour of your employer apple's claims and also overlooks the very common use-case that even if people buy a book via their ios device they are doing so because that is the one they are reading at the time because the primary benefit of kindle, nook etc. is that they are buy once read anywhere and not that they are buy them because they are on ios.

Incidentally, if even a small percentage of people have ended up choosing an ipad due to the presence of these apps, doesn't that also mean that apple has benefited to the tune of millions of dollars too?

As far as them not rushing for the door just yet, they have no need to do so, they can sit tight and wait for apple to back down before the june deadline since they will still make some money until then, not to mention the obvious point that by then there will be the playbook, the touchpad and an army of honeycomb tablets to welcome their apps.

[MsAstoria]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

ugh, i've never even considered jailbreaking before, but i might have to if it means i can keep my kindle app...

Just remember, even though jail breaking isn't illegal, it will void your units warranty and you may not be able to download updates either.