Why are you people defending Apple? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#81

Post by mryall » Thu, Feb 17, 2011, 1:58 AM UTC

coffeedrinker wrote: post #29

chc wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish that were practical, but Web apps just don't measure up for a lot of domains. Personal example: I was recently toying with the idea of porting a design program to be a Web app, but even just getting very simple typography right is pretty intractable.

Sure, not everything can be a web app, but a lot of the subscription world can easily be ported to web app, since the content will likely be delivered in HTML.

Interestingly, serving e-books over HTML would destroy the DRM models that Amazon and others have developed to "protect" their content. I can't see there being a Kindle web-based reader unless Amazon takes the same road as Apple with regard to DRM [1], and tells all their content providers to get on board.

[1] http://www.apple.com/fr/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#82

Post by greendestiny » Thu, Feb 17, 2011, 2:02 AM UTC

davidu wrote: post #9

Comments all removed. The parent asked why I defend apple and I laid out my argument. Clearly people cared enough to respond and react. And yet I'm being downvoted for sharing my perspective just because it might be contrarian? Maybe that's /not/ why I'm being downvoted, but that's what it feels like to me. So no thanks. I'm content to keep my opinions to myself.

I see almost entirely positive points on your comments? In fact this comment is still at 10.

For myself I agree with the good points you raised about Apple, but this article and all these comments are much more about the specific issue at hand. I feel like you're not seeing the context in quite the same way as other commenters myself included.

Considering you didn't mention compulsory In-App price matching at all, you actually haven't defended Apple over this issue in these comments at all. It just kind of reads like you didn't read the article and are just responding to the headline.

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#83

Post by enneff » Thu, Feb 17, 2011, 2:04 AM UTC

jkincaid wrote: post #76

neutronicus wrote: post #6

"And finally, there’s the related notion that anyone who doesn’t like Apple’s rules can pick up and move to another platform, like Android. Which is ridiculous." What? Ridiculous how? This claim is ridiculous. Suck it up and use Android. You'll live. I did.

I did suck it up and switched to Android. It isn't painless. I now like Android better than iOS, but you need to change your muscle memory and learn where various options are. And all of the apps and content you purchased on iOS are no longer accessible, which is the real pain-point. These things weren't difficult for me, but they're a pretty big hurdle for 'normal' people. If Amazon pulls the Kindle app, a user is p…

Oh, come on. None of these things even existed a few years ago. People are consumers and will adjust to whatever is the newer, better tech.

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#84

Post by mechanical_fish » Thu, Feb 17, 2011, 2:05 AM UTC

statictype wrote: post #57

lotusleaf1987 wrote: post #16

Zach said it best yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2224469 Of course Rhapsody can't sell their stuff for a 30% margin. It's not their own stuff! They're trying to be the last link in a chain of 90/10 (or more) splits. They repackage record labels' repackaging of artists' content. Do you think the artists would find 30% economically untenable? The App Store is 70/30 because Apple can take things straight…

The App Store is 70/30 because Apple can take things straight from content producer to customer. When the Apple takes the place of publishing, distribution, inventory, sales, payments and shipping, there's real value for that 30%. This was already addressed in the article. iBooks has a significantly smaller variety of books than Amazon. By becoming the sole gatekeeper for content, Apple is ruling out larger distribut…

iBooks has a significantly smaller variety of books than Amazon.

But will this be true for long, now that this particular shoe has dropped?

Apple's primary target here is probably Amazon. A company which, incidentally, is no stranger to the art of using a powerful distribution network, an existing customer base, and a DRM-locked e-reader platform as a lever to demand big shares of revenue:

http://www.jeremyrossmedia.com/2010/02/21/word-kindle-70-30-...

According to this article, and the Stross piece linked therein, Amazon's standard deal is that they take seventy percent. Their "generous" deal for self-publishers is that they take a mere 30%... but the publisher must give Amazon the right to set the price as Amazon sees fit.

Makes Apple's 30% cut look pretty good, actually. But, of course, if you're a print publisher you pretty much have to have a deal with Amazon, so I expect there are a lot of negotiations going on right now.

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#85

Post by halostatue » Thu, Feb 17, 2011, 2:07 AM UTC

statictype wrote: post #56

rauljara wrote: post #41

If the basic argument is that apple's margin are too high, I agree completely. They are a massively profitable company; they don't need to be charging what they're charging. If the argument is that there is something immoral about them charging people for use of their subscription service, I call bullshit. Until incredibly recently, they had no subscription service. Now they are offering the _option_ to use a subscri…

Now they are offering the _option_ to use a subscription service. Wrong. Please don't misunderstand this new policy as something that is in addition to the existing rules. The Kindle App currently in the app store (which doesn't offer in-app purchase or subscription) is now probably in violation of the app store guidelines in light of these new terms. They have forced companies that offer any subscription service out…

It's both.

It's something in addition to the existing rules (a new feature; recurring subscriptions) and a change to the existing rules (content provided externally from the app store must now also be provided internally to the app store and give Apple their 30% cut).

I don't care much about the former; I don't like the latter.

It's also not yet clear whether this applies to any subscription service or merely content subscription services. Even within the concept of content subscription services, it's not clear whether this applies only to downloadable content (a la The Daily or Amazon Kindle) or streaming "rental"-type content (a la Netflix or Hulu).

Apple will need to clarify those positions, but I believe that this probably applies to downloadable content only. I do not believe that it applies to services (e.g., Dropbox or Salesforce, etc.) or to rental services (e.g., Hulu or Netflix).

This rule change badly hurts reseller-distributors (Amazon Kindle, Amazon Audible, B&N, Kobo, etc.); they don't have 30% of margin to give up and they can't afford to raise the price on everything 30%+ across the board just so they can stay in the iOS game. This is (to me) clearly anticompetitive and probably is just at the edge of antitrust-legal.

This rule change does not (immediately, if ever) hurt content owner-distributors (newspapers, magazines, major publishers). I say "(immediately, if ever)" because this is access to an additional stream of income, although it's at a fairly high premium. Apple's 30% may be a fairly low customer acquisition cost, though. The newspaper that it might hurt a little is the WSJ as (IIRC) it doesn't give access to all content unless you're already a WSJ subscriber. They will probably be required to implement in-app purchase to a WSJ-app subscription for an update very soon.

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#86

Post by chc » Thu, Feb 17, 2011, 2:07 AM UTC

davidu wrote: post #9

Comments all removed. The parent asked why I defend apple and I laid out my argument. Clearly people cared enough to respond and react. And yet I'm being downvoted for sharing my perspective just because it might be contrarian? Maybe that's /not/ why I'm being downvoted, but that's what it feels like to me. So no thanks. I'm content to keep my opinions to myself.

Re: Removing your comments:

Yeah, some people seem to be very downvote-happy. Sorry. I appreciated hearing your opinion, though I did think it was very weird. Weird is interesting.

Just remember that with as many users as HN has nowadays, there will always be some people who feel the need to downvote anything they disagree with. I've found that, in general, it's not the same people you're talking to.

I think the best policy is to ignore the downvotes unless they're accompanied by a comment with a good reason why, because jerks who downvote frivolously are not worth your time.

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#87

Post by danik » Thu, Feb 17, 2011, 2:10 AM UTC

imichael wrote: post #48

lotusleaf1987 wrote: post #16

Zach said it best yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2224469 Of course Rhapsody can't sell their stuff for a 30% margin. It's not their own stuff! They're trying to be the last link in a chain of 90/10 (or more) splits. They repackage record labels' repackaging of artists' content. Do you think the artists would find 30% economically untenable? The App Store is 70/30 because Apple can take things straight…

So ideally they publish music from the artists directly, eliminating the other intermediaries and effectively making them the... the... the record label.

Another Apple Records? Isn't that a trademark issue? hehe...

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#88

Post by dannyr » Thu, Feb 17, 2011, 2:13 AM UTC

davidu wrote: post #9

Comments all removed. The parent asked why I defend apple and I laid out my argument. Clearly people cared enough to respond and react. And yet I'm being downvoted for sharing my perspective just because it might be contrarian? Maybe that's /not/ why I'm being downvoted, but that's what it feels like to me. So no thanks. I'm content to keep my opinions to myself.

davidu owns operate OpenDNS which competes with Google DNS.

http://blog.opendns.com/2009/12/03/opendns-google-dns/

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#89

Post by halostatue » Thu, Feb 17, 2011, 2:15 AM UTC

coffeedrinker wrote: post #13

myhf wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the price have to stay the same between platforms?

That is one of Apple's requirements. Whatever you sell somewhere else, it has to be the same price or cheaper at Apple. You cannot charge more on iOS to compensate for Apple's 30% cut (which I think is rather high for subscriptions).

Aside from the subscription model involved, this is identical to (but with a better producer margin at 70%) what Handango and other PalmOS app distributors offered.

I remember developers being up in arms because (a) Handango wanted a 60% cut, (b) you had to offer the same pricing on the Handango store as anywhere else, and (c) you couldn't direct people out of the Handango store.

The clause you're talking about is pretty standard in reseller contracts everywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if there were one in the distributor contract for selling software in boxes at Apple stores, where the manufacturer makes 10% or less of the retail price. Also, Amazon has to make certain deep discount prices only visible after clicking or putting into the customer's cart because while they can sell for less than the MSRP, they aren't allowed to advertise (or let searches advertise) at that deep discount price.

Edit: Added (c) as I remembered it while rereading this.

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#90

Post by radley » Thu, Feb 17, 2011, 2:16 AM UTC

Apple's new subscription model will cost more for end-users on all platforms. The new terms mean ~50% subscription price hikes across the board. Services can't reduce costs, and they aren't going to give away their profit.

Ironically, it also creates incentives for competing platforms because the profit will be 2-5x greater than on iOS.