NYT: Apple Moves to Tighten Control of App Store

[Dopedangel]

Why I am angry even of I don't use apple and many are not realizing this fact.
In simple terms if a author\publisher etc was going to sell $7 he is now going to sell for $10 outside or inside apple store as they can't sell it for cheaper according to apple rules.
This is going to hurt non apple users as well as anyone buying an epub will have to pay more even if they are not using an apple device.
I am wondering how long will it take for people to start realizing this fact

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Its the online payment & procurement services. Its like paying postage...

If you're buying something via the Safari web browser, Apple aren't providing any "payment and procurement services".

[TallMomof2]

All Apple is doing is providing the platform (which the consumer actually pays for), not server space or bandwidth. This is the same as Microsoft or Mozilla demanding 30% for using their browser to purchase from Amazon.

[Wetdogeared]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Its the online payment & procurement services. Its like paying postage...

Sounds more like a tariff, duty or toll to me. Before I let you through my gate, I'll take my due for crossing my proprietary.

[susan_cassidy]

The article on roughlydrafted.com said: "But Apple isn’t just shipping; it’s also servicing the subscription, from handing the sale to fulfilling the order throughout its duration. ". But normally, content for subscriptions is, I believe (just like Kindle books) delivered via wi-fi, from the producer direct to the device, and Apple has nothing to do with it. I'm not sure why they think that Apple has to do anything to provide the content we are talking about.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by susan_cassidy

The article on roughlydrafted.com said: "But Apple isn’t just shipping; it’s also servicing the subscription, from handing the sale to fulfilling the order throughout its duration. ". But normally, content for subscriptions is, I believe (just like Kindle books) delivered via wi-fi, from the producer direct to the device, and Apple has nothing to do with it. I'm not sure why they think that Apple has to do anything to provide the content we are talking about.

We're still waiting for clarification.

Stripping away the media buzz and reading the Apple comments this is only definitely a 30% charge on subscription content paid for through an iOS app. There's no confirmation that this will apply to non-subscription content. If that is so then Apple is charging 30% of cover price for handling all the subscriber side of the deal, including charges, renewal tracking and refunds.

So, definitely providing a service there, but one that Google believes it can provide for just 10% of the cover price, without the restrictions that Apple is imposing, and with the service as an option rather than a mandatory requirement.

On top of Apple's 30%, the thing that's irking many subscription service providers is that a customer would have to specifically opt in to having their details shared with the publisher - a thing that doubtless a significant percentage would refuse to do - so that a) publishers would not have the marketing data they rely on to promote their products, and b) they'd find it harder to promote services that included the iOS app in a wider package (e.g. print and digital).

Publishers of print content may be able to absorb this 30% as the Apple platform will be bringing in more subscribers, and their margins would typically include a fair chunk for the distributor. But services that stream other digital content such as music and video are already paying royalties and their margins are much lower. For them, this subscription move makes them far less able to compete with iTunes, and may wipe them off the iOS board completely. Legal action may or may not come to their aid there; it seems to boil down to whether the the competition laws would apply to Apple's platform in isolation or the platform considered in the market of all other competing platforms.

Graham

[boxcorner]

Pressure mounts over Apple's 30% subscription charge
BBC News : Technology - 18 February 2011

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by Graham

We're still waiting for clarification.

Stripping away the media buzz and reading the Apple comments this is only definitely a 30% charge on subscription content paid for through an iOS app. There's no confirmation that this will apply to non-subscription content.

Per Apple's statement 3 days ago:

"In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app."

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html

On the off chance that they didn't mean books, even though they were responding to heated demands for clarity, I can't imagine that Apple wouldn't have come out in the last few days to stop the bleeding, if it were not true.

Bad PR has a price. Apple is gambling on the 30% cut they could get from their acolytes and people who aren't aware of the deal being worth the scorn and loss of sales from everyone else.

But surely even Apple knows it would be foolish to unnecessarily draw this much bad PR and would have cleared that up if it weren't true.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Piper_

Per Apple's statement 3 days ago:

"In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app."

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html

Yes, I originally took that to mean that the move applied to both content and subs as well, but after prompting from Kali Yuga above and rereading I realised that the word content only appears in relation to the links, and could still mean that the 30% only applies to subs, i.e. the wording just prevents links to the publishers' websites where they have 'content and subs'.

Graham

[leebase]

I want to sell books to kindle owners. I want to sell them on Amazon.com because that's the place all kindle owners look to for their books. And I don't want to pay Amazon anything.

Don't see anyone complaining about Amazon's lock over their ecosystem.

If you don't want to pay Apple's toll -- then make your content web accessible. Apple does not charge for any content accessible via their browser.

If you want to sell content via Apple's App store -- you have to pay Apple. You cannot get around this by giving out a free app, and then have that app link to your online web store.

This is like Target complaining that they can't make money by selling products in WalMart's stores because WalMart will charge Target what Target is charging it's content providers, leaving nothing left for Target.

Apple is a middle man -- and other middle men will have trouble paying charging enough to pay both Apple's toll and their own toll.

I bet Amazon simply removes the in app purchasing link from their kindle app and customers will have to know to go to the web to buy books.

Lee

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by leebase

If you want to sell content via Apple's App store -- you have to pay Apple. You cannot get around this by giving out a free app, and then have that app link to your online web store.
...
I bet Amazon simply removes the in app purchasing link from their kindle app and customers will have to know to go to the web to buy books.

Lee, people wouldn't be half so offended if the situation you're describing were the case. It's not.


Amazon et al are not asking Apple to be the middle man or allow them to use their infrastructure.

Apple is the one demanding Amazon et al allow customers to use the Apple store as the road.

Apple won't allow them to remove the links to their stores so they don't have to use Apple's store.

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, I originally took that to mean that the move applied to both content and subs as well, but after prompting from Kali Yuga above and rereading I realised that the word content only appears in relation to the links, and could still mean that the 30% only applies to subs, i.e. the wording just prevents links to the publishers' websites where they have 'content and subs'.

Graham

Right, it is always possible, but as I asked, if it's true, why not come out and settle the firestorm?

Then, there's also this - apparently they were specifically asked whether or not it applied to Amazon, and:

"
"Apple processes all payments, keeping the same 30% share that it does today for other In-App Purchases," the company said.

Later Tuesday, Apple spokeswoman Trudy Muller confirmed that those rules apply not only to newspaper and magazine publishers, but also to content sellers like Amazon.com, which offers a Kindle app for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad . . . Amazon must also implement Apple's single-click in-app purchasing of content; Apple would skim 30% off the top of all such purchases, however.

To meet Apple's guidelines, Amazon must remove its "Shop in Kindle Store" link from its Kindle application. That link, which opens the iOS browser and displays Amazon's Web-based e-bookstore, is currently the easiest way for Kindle app users to purchase new books."

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...mazon_s_Kindle

Now, if after all that, they still don't mean it applies to book sales, then they're woefully obtuse about what they are communicating and what has people so angry.

I don't think they are that obtuse, but who knows. lol

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

True.

But they are not battling nor winning against Apple in the war for new customers. Apple iPhone sales have yet to peak and 8 of 10 subscribers upgrade to the newest model of the iPhone.

What Android has done is successfully convert many Blackberry, Windows Mobile (the predecessor, not the new) and dumbphone users to it's platform. Kudos to them for that.

Have you been reading the news in the last 8 months?

Android has larger market share than iOS
http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/ar...010/1297309933

Android beating iOS almost 2:1 on new sales
http://www.examiner.com/smartphones-...-last-6-months

And if that 8 out of 10 upgrades is true, then that just goes to show that Apple's sales are mostly just forcing customers to upgrade every year.

[tomsem]

To me this is the latest in a series of slights to the reading and digital publishing community:
- without Apple, there would be no consumer-unfriendly Agency model for ebooks
- another DRM island, like we needed another one
- they are inventing their own extensions of ePub, some of which (e.g. fixed page layout) will undoubtedly not make it into the ePub standard. We don't need ePub to become another mess like HTML standards have been up to this point.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

This is the second or third of those government investigations that's on-going and nothing has changed yet. And it won't in this case either...by the time things are fully worked out between the government and Apple the success or failure of the endeavor will have been decided by the market. Sorry to disappoint you.

The government moves slow (took 3 years to get a settlement for the MS antitrust case), and Apple doesn't listen to anyone. What is new?