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

[elcreative]

Jokes only work when the cultural idea is shared... and yes, KKK = evil but Dark Lord of the Sith = Fiction - made-up!

As for YouTube clip... mildly amusing but not quite

Originally Posted by ApK

He had a FRICKIN' LASER BEAM ATTACHED TO HIS HEAD!

No? Nothing? OK. Maybe you didn't see that movie.
See, that was a joke. But yes, it was so subtle I can see how you could think I was actually claiming Apple is genuine evil, like, what, the KKK or the Dark Lord of the Sith?

Yeah.
Oh, speaking of movies (and totally not related to anything else), I just found this clip on You tube. This was a great movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW_jvLbAqMg

ApK

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The New York Time Quoted Apple:

No, they didn't. That isn't a quote from Apple, it is the New York Times' interpretation of what Apple said. A quote from Apple would be the words that Apple actually said. The Sony issue, as has been said multiple times, was entirely different to the Amazon/Kobo situation.

Nobody has stepped forth to deny this.

Non-denial is not agreement.

And Jobs *did* clarify the policy: he said it doesn't apply to software as a service (browsing, aggregation, analysis). It thus applies to everything else.

Rubbish. He was specifically asked about SaaS, he replied about SaaS.

And everything else includes content, both downloaded and streamed.
That's clear enough to me.
Everybody ellse can believe whatever they choose to believe.

You seem to have decided exactly what you want to believe, and are reading your interpretation into what other people are saying.

I'll stick to what I said earlier, nothing is clear at this point, there is very little information actually available from Apple, and none of it is clear.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Apple could easily settle this with a statement, but they choose not to. Therefore, this must be a trial balloon and they're judging how much negative feedback they'd get if implemented.

I think that is the most likely reason.
There is also the chance though that with Job's health in doubt again there isn't any clear chain of command who feel that they can make such a statement authoritatively.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by ApK

That's fundamentally wrong. Companies are run by people who make decisions. Those decisions can be good or bad, or even evil.

Those people's decisions can be, yes, but they're definable people, not "the company" as people (pro or con) talk about Apple. You can argue that Steve Jobs is good or evil (and no, I'm not going to give my opinion). But he does not have sole control of Apple, nor could he decide, at least for very long, to take actions that were contrary to the best interests of the stockholders and the board.

A company can make money by serving the best interests of their customers and doing good work for their communities, or they can make money by breaking safety laws, and dumping poisons into the water supply.

Serving the best interests of their customers does not make any money at all for a company; it costs them money. Companies treat that much like an advertising expense: if they spend X amount on looking good to the community, it will bring in Y in profits. Any given company has a number of ways to look good to its customers. It could support the local high school band. It could sponsor a sporting event (with, of course, its name on it). It could buy advertising telling people how great it is. Which one they choose comes down to which one they think is most likely to bring in the best return on investment. And that has nothing to do with the best interests of their customers, and everything to do with the numbers from their accountants.

As for dumping poisons into the water supply ... so, prior to the passage of environmental protection laws, were companies more or less evil than they are today? And how did the existence of those laws change the fundamental nature of the companies?

Legal is not good, and illegal is not evil. If Apple violates some provision of Sarbanes-Oxley, let's say, do they become evil because they broke the law? Was General Electric's dumping of toxic waste into the Hudson River prior to the laws against doing so a good act? Would this be specific to location? For example, is the wage Apple pays (through intermediaries) the people who assemble its products good (because it's legal in China) or bad (because it's illegal in the US)?

...it's perfectly legitimate and potentially effective to tell a company 'we like your products, but if you don't change your policies, THEN we will shop elsewhere.'

Of course it is. And a company can decide that having your business will bring them more profit than changing their policies will lose them, or that their existing policies bring them more profit than losing your business will cost. Corporations make decisions like that all the time. Good and evil, though, don't enter into it.

If you think that a pure profit motive, and a focus on legality (or paying the price of illegality) instead of moral rectitude, is evil, then every public corporation is evil. Every company that says "it's cheaper to pay the fines than obey the law" is evil. Every company that says "it's not illegal in that country, so we'll do it there" is evil. And, for that matter, every company that coldly, cynically advertises how their toothpaste will get you laid is, again, evil. Maximizing profits is the whole point (and in fact the legal obligation) of a corporation. But Apple is no more or less evil than any of the rest of them, which neither the Apple lovers nor the Apple haters seem to get.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

If you think that a pure profit motive, and a focus on legality (or paying the price of illegality) instead of moral rectitude, is evil, then every public corporation is evil. Every company that says "it's cheaper to pay the fines than obey the law" is evil. Every company that says "it's not illegal in that country, so we'll do it there" is evil. And, for that matter, every company that coldly, cynically advertises how their toothpaste will make sure you get laid is, again, evil. Maximizing profits is the whole point (and in fact the legal obligation) of a corporation. But Apple is no more or less evil than any of the rest of them, which neither the Apple lovers nor the Apple haters seem to get.

And yet not all companies behave the same way, and there are ones that will repeatedly attempt to break or at least circumvent restrictions upon them, and ones that don't. 'Good' and 'evil' are not the right terms to use, but neither is it right to say that all companies act the same way.

[ApK]

Serving the best interests of their customers does not make any money at all for a company; it costs them money.

On the contrary, its USUALLY how companies are able to get make any money at all, build a customer base and survive. We're just talking about making business decisions that attract customers and keep them wanting to come back. It's USUALLY the decisions they make later, in order to grow bigger and bigger, that can be good or bad. Some companies make choices that give existing customers more and more reasons to be brand loyal (In my recent banking experience, ING Direct* comes to mind) and others make decisions that make customers feel trapped and cheated (Wells Fargo comes to mind out my same recent experience).

ApK

* Actually, USAA is my primary bank and my current favorite corporation, but as they are a member-owned co-op, their motivations are different. ING Direct is also good.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by ApK

On the contrary, its USUALLY how companies are able to get make any money at all, build a customer base and survive.

No, it isn't.

Companies are able to make money because their customers give it to them. They make money by having customers give them more money than they paid for whatever it is they're providing the customers. That is the only way companies make any money.

Inducing those customers to give them more money, or getting additional customers to give them money, are just more means to that end: having customers give them money. Advertising boils down to one of those two things: either it gets your current customers to give you more money than they otherwise would have, or it gets you new customers to give you money that they otherwise wouldn't have. Advertising that does neither is wasted, and companies don't become large and successful by wasting money.

Serving the best interests of the customers -- or at least providing something the customers see as being in their best interest, which may not be the same thing at all -- is a form of advertising. It brings in absolutely no money, not one penny, itself. It costs money. It's the price paid to attract other money. It's a way of getting existing customers to shell out more money, or of getting new customers, or at least of having customers not hold onto their money and/or migrate to the competition, which amounts to the same thing. What a person thinks about any given company doesn't matter two hoots to the people making the decisions unless it affects whether or not that person gives them money.

Yes, doing things that make your customers happy can be an effective way of competing with other companies. But it's a cost of doing business -- the price of profit, not profit in and of itself. If a company has a monopoly on things people need, they don't have to be nice; if a company is in close competition to sell things people merely want, image becomes everything. Coca-Cola is no less ruthless a company than Microsoft, but they know Coke drinkers can just as easily drink Pepsi instead, so they have to woo those soda drinkers while Microsoft has faced little real competition for years.

[ApK]

I think you're making meaningless semantic distinctions that have no bearing on the argument at all. You seem to be fabricating tautologies just to say you're right. You're saying companies are not good or bad because you're choosing to narrowly define 'company', 'are' and 'good or bad' in a very specific and topically irrelevant way that makes it so.

Fine. You're right. You've convinced me. I concede.

Now, to everyone else:
If Apple does in fact do more of this evil stuff, do you think we have a chance of making them do good again? Because it's certain that their most loyal customers will not mind it at all. Will the only option be to take business to competitors and hope they can produce stuff equally as cool. Because, I have to admit, despite the high price, closed ecosystem which they seem to be wanting to close even tighter, and other bits of evil, stuff like the iPod touch and iPad is REALLY cool and has very little real competition.

ApK

[Worldwalker]

My argument is that companies are neither evil entities waiting to pounce, nor bastions of sanctity which should be glorified, only companies, out to do what's best for themselves and their bottom lines. The apparent differences between them are because they have decided that different things are best for their profits, not that some of them are uninterested in profits. While we, as the people with the money, can push companies to act in certain ways as the price of getting our money, they were not evil before they did that, nor good after -- merely taking the course that will give them the highest ROI, and the largest amount of our money. "Have it your way" would become "take it our way and like it" in an instant if the latter would bring in more profit.

And that's what so many people don't seem to be seeing about Apple.

[Joykins]

On the other hand, something called "goodwill" which can be obtained by a good reputation amongst customers, can sometimes be accounted as an asset. It is not always in the best interests of a company or its shareholders to tick customers off while (purportedly) chasing an impossible goal.

* impossible: requiring Amazon or B&N to use an in-app purchasing system which can't handle their catalogs. If the real (not stated) goal is to drop nook and Kindle apps, then the goal is not impossible, of course, just unpopular.

[NVash]

I wanted an iPhone but pulling these apps gives me one more reason to stay away from it. Same for the iPad and anything else Apple related.

[Worldwalker]

Well, in a business sense, "goodwill" is the difference between the sale price of a company and its paper worth. That is, if a company has a building worth X, inventory worth Y, and receivables worth Z, any difference (simplified here, and yes, I'm leaving out liabilities) between X+Y+Z and the actual selling price of the company is listed as goodwill. It can indeed be customer happiness, but it can also be paper "value" with nothing but a bubble behind it.

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by NVash

I wanted an iPhone but pulling these apps gives me one more reason to stay away from it. Same for the iPad and anything else Apple related.

you are not alone in the sense of deciding to hold back on any Apple purchases. I know I am as well as more than a few others here have made the same decision even of they currently own one or more Apple devices.

Add to that the iPad 2 to be announced in a couple weeks or so and there might be a slight slow down in sales. Still I am willing to bet until more and more news services begin following the current examinations by the AG's in several states and even possible DOJ/US AG involvement in this matter along with the apparent unhappiness on Wall Street with the status of Jobs and a settled upon line of succession (as ghoulish and heartless as the idea is for even the staunchest anti-Apple person, I mean gee wiz, let the man have some dignity fer gawds sakes.) But combine that all and if the investigations get more press as the announcement date gets closer and those factors might well influence Apple's position here.

But as many have pointed out, the info black-hole that is Apple on this matter is what is causing so much confusion, mis-trust, lack of confidence and such which could well have lost Apple many of those of us who might have actually added an iPad, Touch or iPhone despite not using any other Apple products. I know I had been considering it after using a Touch 4th Gen. But one of the primary reasons was and will always be the ability to run K4iOS, period and end of statement. Take that out of the equation and the iOS family of devices will never be of interest to me.

Apple just needs to decide and clarify the issue sooner rather than later because as we see more and more about it carried even by local news stations it could well snowball faster than Apple damage control. And if the iPad 2 is nothing buy an incremental updated device it could all combine really put-the-wood to Apple's brand and image. That sort of thing makes the company owners, the shareholders, pretty cranky.

[stonetools]

There’s not too much Apple love on this issue, is there? I think there are two issues here:

1. does Apple deserve a cut of the revenue from the sales of products on its platform
2. what should be the size of the cut.

From a business standpoint, the answer to 1 is Yes. Apple has , at considerable time, expense and risk, built a unique, successful – dare I say insanely great:-) – merchandising platform. Successful merchandising platforms tytpically charge merchants for the privilege of selling on their platforms.
Walmart charges manufacturers for the placement of goods on its shelves.
Best Buy gets a cut of cell phone plans sold at its stores
Shopping mall proprietors charge storeowners-including booksellers- rent for operating in their malls. No one attacks shopping mall owners for charging rent to B&N, yet when Apple hints that it may do the same thing, suddenly Apple is EEEVUUUL! What gives?
Part of the reason is that Ipad owners interact with their booksellers through those oh-so-convenient reading apps, which Amazon etc. thoughtfully provided to their customers for free. The consumers therefore get mad at Apple for wanting to “gouge” their “ benefactors”.
From a business point of view, of course, those reader apps are really storefronts- channels to the pockets of 160 million IOS device owners. Moreover, these storefronts operate 24/7/365, with the possibility of a sale every time someone looks at the home screen of their Idevice.
Until now, those storefronts have been operating “rent free” , despite negligible setup and rental costs. I myself am an example of this state of affairs. Before I bought my Ipad in December, I had never purchased anything from Amazon or B&N. Since that time, I have bought nine or ten ebooks from them. Not a red cent has gone to Apple, despite the fact that the purchases were made through the Ipad, for use on the Ipad, by means of apps hosted by Apple.
That state of affairs was probably never going to continue. Steve Jobs is just too smart a businessman for that. So Apple is looking for their cut. How big should its cut be?
Apple thinks its cut should be 30 per cent for subscription services that get a subscription through an IOS device, plus non-default access to subscriber information Google thinks 10 percent, plus default access to coveted subscriber info. Rhapsody apparently thinks 30 per cent is too high. What do I think it should be? Hell if I know. The market will settle the issue.
Now we haven’t heard anything about one time purchases like ebooks. Apple hasn’t said anything, or Amazon or the others. Some folks have been demanding clear statements from Apple. Again that’s naïve. Nobody is saying anything, because they are all NEGOTIATING, as hard as possible. Once the negotiations are done, there will be clear statements-probably on the last possible day, June 30, 2011.
I expect that there will be lots of changes, even to the dreaded agency model, as the booksellers and publishers make room for Apple’s cut. One thing is certain-Amazon , etc. will want to remain on the IOS platform, if they can possibly help it. Whatever the Android fans may think, the IOS platform is it as far as making money is concerned . The revenues from the App Store are SIXTEEN times those of the Android market. I have no doubt at all that Amazon, etc. will be on IOS come July 1.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by stonetools

There’s not too much Apple love on this issue, is there? I think there are two issues here:

1. does Apple deserve a cut of the revenue from the sales of products on its platform
2. what should be the size of the cut.

From a business standpoint, the answer to 1 is Yes. Apple has , at considerable time, expense and risk, built a unique, successful – dare I say insanely great:-) – merchandising platform. Successful merchandising platforms tytpically charge merchants for the privilege of selling on their platforms.
Walmart charges manufacturers for the placement of goods on its shelves.
Best Buy gets a cut of cell phone plans sold at its stores
Shopping mall proprietors charge storeowners-including booksellers- rent for operating in their malls. No one attacks shopping mall owners for charging rent to B&N, yet when Apple hints that it may do the same thing, suddenly Apple is EEEVUUUL! What gives?
Part of the reason is that Ipad owners interact with their booksellers through those oh-so-convenient reading apps, which Amazon etc. thoughtfully provided to their customers for free. The consumers therefore get mad at Apple for wanting to “gouge” their “ benefactors”.
From a business point of view, of course, those reader apps are really storefronts- channels to the pockets of 160 million IOS device owners. Moreover, these storefronts operate 24/7/365, with the possibility of a sale every time someone looks at the home screen of their Idevice.
Until now, those storefronts have been operating “rent free” , despite negligible setup and rental costs. I myself am an example of this state of affairs. Before I bought my Ipad in December, I had never purchased anything from Amazon or B&N. Since that time, I have bought nine or ten ebooks from them. Not a red cent has gone to Apple, despite the fact that the purchases were made through the Ipad, for use on the Ipad, by means of apps hosted by Apple.
That state of affairs was probably never going to continue. Steve Jobs is just too smart a businessman for that. So Apple is looking for their cut. How big should its cut be?
Apple thinks its cut should be 30 per cent for subscription services that get a subscription through an IOS device, plus non-default access to subscriber information Google thinks 10 percent, plus default access to coveted subscriber info. Rhapsody apparently thinks 30 per cent is too high. What do I think it should be? Hell if I know. The market will settle the issue.
Now we haven’t heard anything about one time purchases like ebooks. Apple hasn’t said anything, or Amazon or the others. Some folks have been demanding clear statements from Apple. Again that’s naïve. Nobody is saying anything, because they are all NEGOTIATING, as hard as possible. Once the negotiations are done, there will be clear statements-probably on the last possible day, June 30, 2011.
I expect that there will be lots of changes, even to the dreaded agency model, as the booksellers and publishers make room for Apple’s cut. One thing is certain-Amazon , etc. will want to remain on the IOS platform, if they can possibly help it. Whatever the Android fans may think, the IOS platform is it as far as making money is concerned . The revenues from the App Store are SIXTEEN times those of the Android market. I have no doubt at all that Amazon, etc. will be on IOS come July 1.

The problem is that Apple is combining an unsustainable percentage with other rules that make it impossible for many companies to offer content through them without taking a loss on every sale.

Take Amazon for example: On most books they take 30% of list and pass the remainder along. The amount Apple is asking is equal to Amazon's entire gross revenue on every sale made through an iOS device.

They can't add a surcharge to cover it either - because Apple is insisting on price parity with content bought outside their ecosystem.

Amazon can't afford that. No one can.

You can't "sell at a loss but make it up on volume."

There's also the requirement that Amazon implement in-App purchasing (at their own expense) using an API that can handle less than 1/10000th of 1% of their catalog.

That causes a whole set of other issues: especially with the content providers whose stock doesn't get on the iOS app.

Under Apple's new rules it's going to be impossible for anyone to make money as a content reseller on their Market. It's just not going to happen. Content producers and publishers will be fine - they pay that amount or more anyway. Apple's just working to eliminate all other middlemen.

The only option for resellers is going to be to develop web portals - and let the users access them through the browser - and that's not going to make Apple happy because then they're going to lose control.

Now, they could negotiate a deal - but if these rules go through every content reseller is going to have to pull out of the iTunes store and Apple Ecosystem.

It's either that or take a loss on every sale.