I would just hike my price to offset the 30% cut exclusively for iOS and be done with it. Or if that's too obnoxious, provide a "limited-time 30% discount" on my own site off the "list price".
Apple responds: we want a cut of Amazon, Sony e-book sales
81–90 of 129 posts
Re: Apple responds: we want a cut of Amazon, Sony e-book sales
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple's official response: "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase." It's talking about purchasing from inside the app, not access content that you purchased somewhere else.
Not quite. Another way of describing this; if the content is available for sale outside of the app .. it can't be accessed within the app, unless it's also available for sale via Apple's store.
What? Read their statement again.
"...if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app.."
It says if the app lets you purchase books from somewhere that is not the app, the app should also let users purchase through the app. Apple said nothing about "content...can't be accessed within the app, unless it's also available for sale via Apples store." There was nothing said about what content can and can't be accessed.
Re: Apple responds: we want a cut of Amazon, Sony e-book sales
#83easily solved: Buy this book for 10$ on amazon.com Buy this book for 13$ with your itunes account* *explanation
$14.28 :)
And Apple does not allow fractional prices.
Re: Apple responds: we want a cut of Amazon, Sony e-book sales
#84What Apple actually said (emphasis mine): "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase." What ars interprets that to mean (emphasis mine): "If an app lets users access content that they purchased via Amazon's website, for example, then that same app must also let user…
Gramatically you might be correct, but effectually ars is correct. You will not be allowed to access the content if Kindle does not allow you to buy books through IAP. That is exactly what ars is trying to communicate.
Explain how? Where is Apple saying you can't access content not purchased through them? All I see if Apple saying if the apps sends users someplace else to purchase, then the app should also allow them to purchase from inside the app. There is nothing about what content can and can't be accessed.
Re: Apple responds: we want a cut of Amazon, Sony e-book sales
#85easily solved: Buy this book for 10$ on amazon.com Buy this book for 13$ with your itunes account* *explanation
$14.29 on iTunes
Math ftw.
Re: Apple responds: we want a cut of Amazon, Sony e-book sales
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you may be right. But that would be unfortunate, as I don't think the FTC should meddle in Apple's business. I think Apple's management should have the right to set any policy it considers relevant - after all, this is their platform. So, I hope the FTC takes no action.
The FTC shouldn't meddle in Apple's business? Apple's management should have the right to set any policy it considers relevant? What do you see the role of the FTC as being, and why should Apple be able to set any policy, even if it may violate the law?
Thanks for bringing up this good point. Let me explain. I think a government agency should not intervene if there is no law violation. I think this case is very clear - Apple is neither physically compelling nor defrauding anyone. It is offering terms of contract - contract between firms engaging in voluntary trade - and its counterparties are free to accept these terms or to walk away. However, if the FTC is not sure about this and needs to investigate to ascertain legality, I would say that the law they would be referring to is not a very objective one. I think that an essential characteristic of a good law is that its definition allows a person to understand, before he/she takes an action, whether that action is forbidden or not, and what the exact consequences would be if the action is actually forbidden. Clearly, Apple's management is sophisticated enough to understand an objective law.
About the role of the FTC: My understanding is that the FTC, together with the Antitrust Division of the DOJ, tries to ensure that companies comply with antitrust laws. Even though this is a different discussion, based on my knowledge of this field, I think that antitrust laws, generally, lack in objectivity. I disagree with many of them. This, however, does not mean that a company should break them. I would certainly not agree with such an action. A serious problem for companies is, however, that even with their hordes of sophisticated lawyers, it is very difficult for them to determine what constitutes a violation. As proof, consider the lengthy battles Microsoft has had with the European Commission. After years of fines and appeals, neither side fully understands the problem and neither side can define the actions that would guarantee compliance with the law in the future.
Re: Apple responds: we want a cut of Amazon, Sony e-book sales
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you may be right. But that would be unfortunate, as I don't think the FTC should meddle in Apple's business. I think Apple's management should have the right to set any policy it considers relevant - after all, this is their platform. So, I hope the FTC takes no action.
The FTC shouldn't meddle in Apple's business? Apple's management should have the right to set any policy it considers relevant? What do you see the role of the FTC as being, and why should Apple be able to set any policy, even if it may violate the law?
[deleted]
Re: Apple responds: we want a cut of Amazon, Sony e-book sales
#88I think we were all afraid of some move like this. Nobody cares about Sony's ebooks. Everybody (me included) cares about Kindle. I can sort of understand where Apple is coming from in this. They provide an ecosystem and apps live within their ecosystem. That being said, I can't see Amazon or any other big player rolling over on a margin of 30%. This is the problem with one fixed margin: it works well for apps and mus…
[deleted]
Re: Apple responds: we want a cut of Amazon, Sony e-book sales
#89I can make no possible reading of the App Store guidelines that results in this policy - it's clearly new. I guess if Google can't make the Android App Store attractive to developers, Apple sure can. Surely, this cannot be "official" policy, or if it is, it can't be one that lasts more than a couple of weeks. It's not one of those geek-annoying App restrictions that 99% of the iOS target market wouldn't care about ev…
Option 4 would be for Apple to cut them a deal
Re: Apple responds: we want a cut of Amazon, Sony e-book sales
#90jfm3 has responded to the furor over changes in his imaginary App Store and its policies that many believe could affect the popular Kindle, Nook, and Sony Reader apps. The man claims he has not changed any of its guidelines given to developers in his imagination, but he indirectly confirms that accessing content purchased elsewhere could be a no-no if that content isn't also available to be purchased through jfm3's own system.
"I do not actually run an App Store," said jfm3, "but if I did, and I managed to make all you bitches have to use it all the time, I'd totally want a piece of every single drop of hint of money that could possibly pass through there."
"I can't believe you're paying for that crap," he added, in between sips of his excellent tea. "What the hell kind of hackers are you?"