Apple Is Now Dead To Me | Hacker News Reader

Apple Is Now Dead To Me

mikecanex.wordpress.com

20 pointsmikecane29 comments

Based on other content on this site, it sounds as though Apple was already dead to this author.

Talk about sour grapes. Seriously. Where is the content in this article?

I suppose taken to the extreme, someone could just sell a 'myAppStore' app in the Apple AppStore, and then use that to sell Apps without giving apple anything. Obviously that wouldn't do. Similar principle with the iBooks store.

If I recall correctly, you can't even pull that sort of a stunt on Android, now.

Correct. They even pulled a Kongregate app because it looked too similar to an app store.

Of course, this being Android, it's easy to just install it from an apk.

Ironically, there are reports that Amazon plans to release a "curated" Android marketplace app which will have to be installed from an apk, although they're trying to do an end-run by getting the manufacturers and carriers to do the installing for them.

Between their marketplace and this 30%, Amazon may be preparing to go "all-in" on Android...

Given that installing from an APK is as easy as "Here's a download link, click it on your phone, then select the APK from your downloads list", I don't see that there will be much of a barrier to entry there. Even without carrier support it won't be hard to get up and running.

I don't see Amazon offering Apple's ebooks on the kindle.

That has more to do with Apple. There is nothing stopping you from putting other .txt and .mobi files (as an example) on your Kindle.

Indeed; my Kindle has no books from Amazon on it; it's all .mobi and .txt files I've loaded in myself. That's what makes it such a great device: I get to choose what I load onto it.

It really sucks that I can't put .mobi and .txt files on my iPad. Damn you, Apple!

Non-iPad owner, so forgive me if I missed the joke, but can you seriously not do that on the iPad/iPhone? Weird. I use my Droid as a USB drive all the time.

Of course you can do that on an iPad.

Same thing for my iBooks, which filled with PDFs and epubs, organized into Collections.

Actually they do.

You see, Amazon has been around quite a bit longer than apple as an online book seller. The books in iBooks? Well, those are a strict subset of what the Kindle has available. I think this might be part of Apple's motivation -- to push iBooks to the forefront, at the risk of loosing BN/Amazon's support for the iPad.

It sucks for the consumer, but it'll be interesting to see how it works out...

That's very different from what the press release said this morning on App Store [http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html]:

“Our philosophy is simple—when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO.

In other words, for Kindle, if a new subscriber registered through channels other than the Kindle iOS App, then Apple does not take a cut.

It's not where the customer registers, it's where the sale occurs.

A publisher must make all content that's available elsewhere also available in the app, and at the same price.

If the customer buys in the app, the transaction settles to the iTunes account and Apple takes 30% off the top.

I bought an iPad thinking I'd be able to access my Kindle books from it. In fact, I bought more books on the Kindle system specifically because I could read and sync them across the most number of devices. I'm not saying Apple isn't within their rights to make this move, it just really pisses me off. This is the kind of crap I'd expect from Verizon, not Apple.

What's the argument here? That Apple isn't entitled to a slice of revenue generated on its own platform?

I missed the part where the author explained why this is a reasonable stance to take...

I think you have this backwards. Apple doesn't provide distribution for Amazon Kindle. This is like if you bought an HP laptop and charging 30% for each purchase you make with an application simply because the content falls within a certain category. Nothing is stopping Apple from declaring tweets news feeds and charging per transmission. It's not likely to happen but they can do it at any point. This just illustrates the danger of doing business on a closed platform with absolute control. They are looking more and more like Microsoft everyday. As developers or businessmen you would be a fool to support Apple.

It's more like you bought a ticket to an event hosted by Apple and while there, Amazon set up a free booth giving away carry bags.

Every time you buy something from Amazon (at the event) to put in the carry bag, Apple takes 30% of the purchase price whilst screeching "WE ALLOWED YOU TO GIVE AWAY THOSE BAGS!"

So, you've paid money for a platform. Amazon showed up on that platform and gave away something for free, taking a freely available booth to do so. THEN they used that to encourage you to buy things from them. And Apple went nuts and demanded they get 30%, even though you paid for entry and they were giving booths away for free.

Apple should be careful about creating a MAP in a roundabout way.

http://elr.lls.edu/issues/v21-issue3/elahi.pdf

Apple provides a content distribution platform connected to a network of millions of devices, of course they're going to take a cut of revenue generated on their network

That's all very fair, but I think what people are taking exception to is Apple's attempts to prevent their customers from accessing other content distribution platforms where Apple doesn't get a cut.

Why should they not be allowed to generate revenue from someone who is using all of their technology and network distribution work to make their own money?

I think you are missing the point here, as an example, Amazon cannot sell ebooks in its own site if it's cheaper than the version in app store, if so they remove it from app store. Apple is trying to control pricing outside of its distribution network. That's what I understand from the whole story.

Is that network worth 30% of the selling price in all cases? Does "one size fits all" really apply here. As an example, it's already been pointed out in plenty of places that Amazon doesn't have 30% to give to Apple, even if it wanted to. They are locked in to agreements with publishers that demand a 70% cut.

I can identify with them as well. I work with a good friend in the publishing market who has a product that they want to bring to iOS. His product facilitates the delivery of interactive book content from publishers and distributors to schools and libraries. Neither the publishers, distributors, nor the schools seem to have even the beginning of an idea on how to solve the problem themselves, yet his business model would be wholly incompatible with the Apple pricing model. As a facilitator, his company only makes a couple of dollars on the sale of each SKU. I just sat across the table from him at lunch today and recommended that he stay as far from the Apple App Store as possible. Going back to the table and requesting an additional 30% from publishers and distributors would get him laughed out of the room.

The greater point is that by applying a fixed 30% fee to all in-app purchases, Apple is excluding many different business models that might otherwise be developed on their platform. I know they have their reasons, and Apple is famous for disregarding edge-cases in favor of simplicity for the larger market, but there are a lot of models that flatly don't fit this fee structure. Anyone whose margin is less than 30% simply cannot move product through the Apple App Store.

Businesses stuck in this position have to decide which will be more costly and difficult: retooling their business model to accommodate an additional 30% margin, or avoiding the Apple ecosystem altogether and finding another way to reach their market. In my opinion, an extra 30% of margin is not easy to find in any business, much less the cut-throat content publishing space.

"Their network?" What does that even mean? How is the fact that we have 1) The internet, and 2) Tablets with Wifi made by Apple, make it Apple's network?

The iOS devices are no more a "network" than are Macs are a network, or Android devices are a network. They are pieces of hardware.

Lets take the foremost example: Kindle. Apple does not create, distribute, filter, or store the content for Kindle. I purchase Kindle books, and I view my purchases on a variety of devices. When I choose to download a book to my Kindle for reading, pray tell where does any of this touches an Apple asset? I own my iPad. I pay for my internet connection. Amazon stores my books. I download them from Amazon to my iPad.

What possible justification does Apple have for demanding a cut of the books which I purchase from Amazon? How can they demand that Amazon not provide a link to purchase more books on a website that Apple has absolutely no fiscal interest in? It's none of their damn business!

"their network" is the apple phones that access the apple store. No other devices can access the Apple store but Apple devices. Therefore, "their network"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com