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

[Lemurion]

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.

[tomsem]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

What about audio books? I recently purchased a subscription for Audible.com for my husband. I didn't realize that audible.com was owned by Amazon until recently.

Sure, but as far as I can tell, all of the audiobooks for sale in the iTunes store are "presented by Audible.com" as well, and contractually Apple probably can't change that any time soon. The Audible iOS app can read audiobooks in the iTunes library as well. Subscriptions have to be purchased on the web at Audible.com, they are not offered in the audible app or in the iTunes store. Presumably this is all the result of agreements between Audible/Amazon and Apple, and has mutual benefit to both parties.

That could change, but the status quo seems to be in everyone's interest.

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

How is that different from Microsoft?

Look at personal computers: if you ask people why they don't buy a Mac, they'll tell you either "it's too expensive" or "it doesn't run the programs I want." Expense is a rather subjective thing, and rather hard to quantify. But not running the programs you want is pretty solid. Microsoft has done a better job of attracting developers to Windows than Apple has done for the Macintosh OS, so people buy Windows machines.

Any developer or vendor of an operating system needs to have programs and content for it. Apple does. Microsoft does. The Linux people do. There is no difference between them. My desktop computer is just as much a "mall" as my netbook, which is just as much so as an iPad.

Of course, Microsoft is probably kicking themselves for not thinking to collect money for every sale made on their Windows platform. Think of how much money they could have had!

...Think of how badly it would have sucked to be us.

yeah, BUT then there would have been little to differentiate MS from aPpLe because MS did the smart thing and that was put their OS on every desktop in existence back in the 80s and 90s, well around 90-93% of them anyway. Even mac users needed MS Office is many, many cases.

But I dunno why but I feel that MS did try something like that at one time or at least discussed it. Seems there was an Chaos Manor (Jerry Pournelle) in Byte Magazine way back when talking about the one time possibility, but maybe he was just contrasting it to Apple's policy.

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

One critical thing to remember, which some of the company partisans here are forgetting:

Apple does not do what is best for the customer; Apple does what is best for Apple.

There are times when what is best for them is to look like what they're doing is best for us. There are times when their interests and ours actually do coincide. But they do what is best for us only, only, when it also happens to be best for them; if impaling their customers on poles in front of their headquarters happened to be best for them ("best" of course including it being legal) then the poles would go up tomorrow.

And you can fill in the name of any other public corporation in place of "Apple".

yup applE is all about their own image not that the customer receive fair value for the investment in the product:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2366993,00.asp

"Apple's objections relate to its interests as a manufacturer and distributor of a device, the iPhone," the Copyright Office concluded. "The harm that Apple fears is harm to its reputation."

[rwizard]

I am only aware of one business model that both charges a percentage of the sale price of an item or service and (I am pretty sure) also states that you cannot sell the item or service for less if another method is used to pay for it.

I owned a small business for a short time and I used to get many offers for a service to allow me to take credit cards. All of these charged a small percentage of each credit card transaction for the privilege of taking the credit card for payment. This percentage was between 2 and 5 percent. I am also fairly certain that part of the agreement is that you cannot charge more for using a credit card than other forms of payment (cash for instance). The difference between this and apple, of course, is that apple is talking about forcing in app purchases to be an option for any paid content and any business can choose not to take credit cards as payment.

For those that like analogies consider the following:
1. The app store is a mall - there are allot of flaws with this part of the analogy, but for now it will do
2. Apps that provide a way to buy content are store fronts in the app store mall.
3. In app purchases are an alternate form of payment.

What Apple wants to do is say that if you have a store in our mall, you have to offer the ability to use a service we will provide to purchase items in said store. If the customer chooses to use this service, it will cost you 30% of the purchase price. You cannot offer the exact same items for less when another form of payment is used even if the the item is not bought through the store front in the mall.

An analogy to the way this has been working is:
1. The app store is a consignment shop - Apple does not set the prices for the items in the app store, it just collects a commission for allowing others to use their store to sell the items.
2. The apps that let you purchase other items are more like free magazines you see at the supermarket (here in the USA anyway) that have house listings, rental listings, etc.
3. In app purchases are an alternate form of payment. - This is actually a very good analogy for in app purchases since this is exactly what is happening.

So, currently the consignment shop has these magazines available to attract more people to come and look at the items for sale. What apple is proposing is, instead of charging the people who want to put the magazine out at Apples store a fee for the space they are using, forcing them to offer an option for the customer to pay the store instead of sending their payment directly to the person selling the item in the magazine. At this point Apple pays the person selling the item, minus 30%. Can you imagine the store where there is a free real estate magazine collecting a percentage of the purchase price of real estate sold by having the customer pay them instead?

Now, this would be illegal (at least here in the USA) if there were not viable alternative (for instance, Android devices). However, since there is, Apple would likely get away with it from a legal standpoint. Also, I agree that the vast majority of companies (especially publicly traded ones) would do the same kinds of things if they thought they could get away with it. So I hope it does not happen but the app store is more like a consignment shop than a mall and in app purchases are more like an alternate form of payment.

[snipenekkid]

Well, to me it comes to this, Apple wants to simply be a pocket catalog not a hardware platform. But I am willing to bet that unless Apple specifically moves from the illusion people are buy hardware and just renting/leasing the device since they still try and bully users as well as developers into submission to Apple's will, they are going to pretty much break the company in the long term. As the market sees more devices as well as more mature alternative OS's, think WebOS and all the experience the old PalmOS developers have and they developed WebOS as well as most of the current apps, add in Android 3+ then Windows 7's new tablet version coming out on the Asus 121. But roll those together with the added freedom and for all it's nanny-ism's built into Apple's business model will wear thin and result in Apple staying at the 7%-10% market share just like their computers.

To me Apple's policies remind me of the "Quahog Beautiful Peoples Club" [video - http://video.adultswim.com/family-gu...ples-club.html -- oh it's Flash so iPad users need not apply] wanting only the people narcissists think are narcissistic. I am not knocking wanting an iPod/Touch or other Apple computer, they are nice enough, but if you really objectively look at how Apple runs it's show, they are pretty oppressive, stifling and authoritarian about telling people how they are allowed to use the device they paid money for. And that's fine as long as people are willing to accept the rest of the world is not OK with that sort of control. It genuinely smells of Fahrenheit 451. Apple is today's standard bearer of the "Not made here" company, right up there with Sony, IBM and ???

And I LIKED owning the 4th Gen 32gb Touch as well as really loved the 2nd gen Nano. but am very happy to have sold my Touch while I could for a profit. Just ran into too many roadblocks with content. The real frustration was the whole Audible 2-account limit with iTunes.

Anyway, my point was all Apple wants the iOS platform-family of devices to be is a delivery system for the iTunes store. And Apple needs to stop being a passive-aggressive androgynous metrosexual and state that as a fact. At least then it would be something people could at least respect. And this includes the iPhone. The only reason they made the thing a phone was to get the Cellco's on-board in order to keep the price artificially high.

[ApK]

>> I am also fairly certain that part of the agreement is that you cannot charge more for using a credit card than other forms of payment (cash for instance)<<
You can offer a discount for cash, as long a it's presented as such (not as a surcharge on the credit card). The info is on the cc companies web sites. Just sayin'.

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by ApK

>> I am also fairly certain that part of the agreement is that you cannot charge more for using a credit card than other forms of payment (cash for instance)<<
You can offer a discount for cash, as long a it's presented as such (not as a surcharge on the credit card). The info is on the cc companies web sites. Just sayin'.

right, as far as I know that is still the case.

[rwizard]

Originally Posted by ApK

>> I am also fairly certain that part of the agreement is that you cannot charge more for using a credit card than other forms of payment (cash for instance)<<
You can offer a discount for cash, as long a it's presented as such (not as a surcharge on the credit card). The info is on the cc companies web sites. Just sayin'.

Cool, glad to hear that is the case. So in some ways credit card companies will be better than Apple if Apple decides to do this. Great job at setting the bar lower Apple (if they do this).

[Worldwalker]

I've seen a number of gas stations offering a lower price to cash purchasers and a number of other businesses (often selling live animals, though that could just be the ones I'm most likely to see) who charge a 2% or so premium to credit card buyers to cover their CC fees.

[doreenjoy]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I've seen a number of gas stations offering a lower price to cash purchasers and a number of other businesses (often selling live animals, though that could just be the ones I'm most likely to see) who charge a 2% or so premium to credit card buyers to cover their CC fees.

All of the merchant agreements are different. In my company's merchant agreement with Visa, they now allow us to set a minimum price for Visa card purchases. Amex doesn't.

IIRC it's illegal to say "surcharge for credit card purchases," but it IS legal to say "cash discount."

[snipenekkid]

Worldwalker:

it is possible to charge a percentage fee but they cannot, in most all cases, call it a CC surcharge. Like I mentioned earlier it's just semantics which all mean the same thing, it's a surcharge. I believe in the UK it's fine to do this, or did they recently change that as well. I know there was a huge dust-up over it on eBay a few years back because the UK sellers were trying to pass on either CC or PP fees to the buyer. And of course the CC companies are against it because even though the fee is there no matter what but when presenting a buyer with one more fee rather than hiding it in the price, it can give pause to making the purchase. Personally I don't care but just do not want to be charged twice. And also it's not fair to people who use cash or even a debit card (often cheaper to accept than cash [yes it costs merchants money to accept and process cash]) to pay the same price as those using a CC with it's higher fees. It's not a lot but over a year the added cost to consumers sure adds up. I know I earn around $2000 back from my PP card's 1.5% cashback so I know I am paying more than that in added CC overhead by the merchant.

[Pushka]

Still waiting for an answer stonewalls.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

As to Apple, let's just say that I don't like them and we'll leave it at that. As soon as a viable Android version of the touch is released, I'll ditch my one and only Apple device.

And there in a nutshell is the answer to the people who wonder why others buy Apple devices: Because they are ahead of the curve and make better devices before their competitors. There is not currently a viable alternative to the iPad at the same screen size. I'm sure there will be by the end of the year, but at the moment all there is is cheap knockoffs.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

And there in a nutshell is the answer to the people who wonder why others buy Apple devices: Because they are ahead of the curve and make better devices before their competitors. There is not currently a viable alternative to the iPad at the same screen size. I'm sure there will be by the end of the year, but at the moment all there is is cheap knockoffs.

It looks like the Zoom is a better alternative than the iPad. And it is not cheap.