Slashdot Mirror
Developer Blames Apple For Ruining eBook Business
An anonymous reader writes "A bookseller and app developer has blamed Apple for writing its final chapter, claiming the iPad maker had pushed it out of business. 'Apple has made it completely impossible for anyone but Apple to make a profit selling contemporary ebooks on any iOS device,' BeamItDown said. 'We bet everything on Apple and iOS and then Apple killed us by changing the rules in the middle of the game.' The company blamed Apple's decision to impose a 30% commission on books sold through apps for the unhappy ending."
Well, that's why you don't put all of your apples in one basket (pun intended).
Get burnt.
Nothing to see here.
"We bet everything on Apple and iOS and then Apple killed us by changing the rules in the middle of the game.â
I think I see your problem right there...
and it won't be the last.
Dear Developer: Get it, read it. Stop being Hem and start being Haw. Apple is a company, not your mom.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Old man yells at clouds.
"I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further."
Next time: don't put all your apples in the same basket.
Apple is raping developers and Google is raping your privacy. Never thought I'd consider moving back to Windows Mobile :(
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Apple will be pissed to find out that I buy ebooks through Amazon on both my Android phone and my iPad.
Putting all your eggs in one basket is a poor business decision, and now you are reaping the rewards of that decision. Apple is not solely to blame here.
"We bet everything on Apple and iOS"
Well, silly you.
Apple went out begging third party hardware developers to build to CHiRP (PReP) machines so it would run Mac OS8 and then reversed course denying them Mac OS-9 license. Some things never change with Apple. My first computer was an Apple ][+, I doubt I will ever own anything Apple related again.
so sad
Some businesses succeed while others fail. Don't think you're so special.
Then change your pricing structure, QED.
What are we, 5 years old? Don't blame Apple for the failure of your business. Don't like the iBookstore rules? Publish your eBooks on Android instead. Or publish on your own & other web sites in PDF or ePub formats. There are tons of alternatives.
His eBook goes to (Chapter) 11?
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
So their contracts with the publishers -and- the Apple cut didn't work. The Apple cut has been pretty well known. Seems to me that the contracts with the publishers are equally to blame here. After all, it costs a publisher NOTHING to release a digital version (there's no printing or physical distribution costs). The publisher should cut the digital distributor a substantial discount for that.
Just raise your prices to compensate, and quit your bellyaching..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
True, but would you really expect Apple to explicitly say "you are not allow to make any profit selling books on our platform"? From TFA:
* You must sell books from major publishers at the same price as Apple does.
* Those publishers must give you exactly 30% commission.
* iOS booksellers have to give 30% of their revenue to Apple.
Hence enforced 0% profit margin. I don't think you can blame them for thinking that Apple would never go quite *that* far. Of course they should have diversified to Android *anyway*...
...you must pay the gatekeeper.
My sympathy is limited. What the hell did they expect?
"We bet everything on Apple and iOS and then Apple killed us by changing the rules in the middle of the game."
Sounds like they ruined their own business by making bad decisions. If Apple is being short-sighted by killing off the providers of content users put on Apple devices, then those providers are just as short-sighted by assuming Apple would be considerate of their interests.
Oh wait, this isn't from a content originator, this isn't the authors guild, this is another middle man.
I have some buggy whip makers who want to talk with you.
https://www.iflowreader.com/Closing.aspx
iFlow says that five of them spent nearly a year and a half of our lives and over a million dollars in cash and sweat equity developing the iFlowReader app with its unique AutoScrolling approach but all of it now has gone to waste. "We put our faith in Apple and they screwed us. This happened even though we went to great lengths to clear our plans with Apple because we did not want to make this substantial investment of time and money blindly. Apple's response to our detailed inquiries was to tell us that our plans did not infringe their rules in any way, which was true at the time, but there is one little catch. Apple can change the rules at any time and they did. Sadly they must have known full well that they were going to do this. Apple's iBooks was already in development when we talked to them and they certainly must have known that their future plans would doom us to failure no matter how good our product was. We never really had a chance."
This space for rent.
"We bet everything on Apple and iOS "
That was really stupid bet! Not one I would take.
So you get around things like this by signing contracts and service level agreements. If you don't have one of those or, more likely when dealing with Apple, you can't get one of those, then you probably shouldn't bother using their service, or at least be prepared when those goalposts move. Eggs in multiple baskets, the smallest fraction of those eggs in Apple, etc.
Get a lawyer, get it signed. This is business.
But...according to the Washington Post, there is an "e-book gold rush" going on right now.
"Joe Konrath, a 41-year-old thriller and horror writer out of Chicago, started self-publishing his books online at cut-rate prices in the spring of 2009. That April, he made $700. In April 2010, he made about $4,000. A screen shot of his Kindle account for a period ending in late April of this year showed him netting $78,231.16 in six weeks."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/novel-rejected-theres-an-e-book-gold-rush/2011/04/09/AFZdqb9F_story.html
While I do not feel bad for the guy, all he is doing is issuing a warning to other companies that are considering doing business with Apple or on IOS devices. This particular business made a bad decision that a little bit of observation of past behavior would have told them would end in tears. However, the point he is making is that Apple encouraged them to develop this market and business strategy, while Apple was already planning to cut the supports out from under it if the business was successful. Apple basically encouraged another business to take the risk of developing a market that Apple intended to steal if it worked out.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
* You must sell books from major publishers at the same price as Apple does.
Are you sure? I thought they stated that you had to have your in-app price be the same as your out-of-app price. That's not the same as having to match Apple's pricing.
Really? Amazon is not profiting from the Kindle business or does not expect to be profitable in future? That is probably why they keep expanding it This story is stupid, and these people are just crying because THEY not ANYONE can't compete.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
We bet everything on Apple [...]
If you didn't see this coming then you shouldn't be in business. Apple charges a premium when you buy from them, and they charge a percentage when you sell through them. If they dont take a commission it just means they're waiting for you to create a market for it before taking their cut.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Seriously, building an entire business around one iPhone/iPad app and in app sales of content that can be had anywhere? You pretty much were doomed to fail from the start before Apple changed the rules.
You are also an idiot for NOT expecting Apple to make that change. Why on Earth would Apple leave a blindingly large loophole in the system that allowed you to sell services which funnel through Apple and as such require Apple to support them (which costs money) and without you making any contribution to the system? If you thought at any point Apple was going to let you charge for in app purchases without ever taking a cut, you're an idiot. Theres no other way to state it, you're simply too stupid to run a business on that alone.
Finally, the most important thing to point out here ...
If you've made all that investment and got a bunch of software, hardware, and book licenses ... WHY ARE YOU NOT SELLING BOOKS FOR ANDROID, BLACKBERRY AND WINDOWS MOBILE/PHONE?!
Yes, caps were required, because thats the obvious thing to do, and once again, you're a complete fucking moron for not doing it.
Instead you said 'OMG WE FAILED BECAUSE OF APPLE!!!'. If you take off the word because, and everything after it, the sentence is true.
You failed, and you did it to yourself. Go back to sucking on mommies teet for safety, you don't belong in the business world, no one is going to carry your weight for you.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Now you can easily self publish any book you want. What margins do a writer make right now?
From what I gather it is at MOST 15% of the NET profits, so a $25.00 book may only make you as a writer $2 at most after all the "Costs" of selling are added up.
So, if you sell the book yourself through Apple, you get to keep 70% of your profit, doing some simple math that turns out to be $17.50.
Now who is the evil company, publishers who give you $2 on your $25 book or Apple who gives you $17.50?
They invested significantly in Apple, had a *slightly* profitable business going. Then Apple effectively goes into "price-fixing" anything on the iOS platform, saying no-one can charge more then they do. As well, anything purchased on an iOS device will have to sacrifice %30 on the altar of Jobs. So:
1: a business starts up an app on [insert iOS device here]
2: business starts raking in profits
3: Apple notices, develops it's own app, as well as negotiating lower prices for itself.
4: Apple prices other business right out of it's market, due to %30 fee that affects everyone but Apple.
5: Profit
No ??????, it's pretty much cut and dry, and especially so now that Apple controls all the data mining from their iOS. This alone allows them to choose their battles, because they can see where the money flows. They can choose to try to take %30 of the profit, or all of it.
Symbian(s60) was better than all others..
You never had applications revoked, a user could install whatever they wanted, and you got a fantastic combination of battery life, Audio quality and camera quality at a decent price.
You lost out on the good looking UI and gaming power though
Pricing yourself at a razor-thin margin expecting the third party distribution channel you're piggy backing on to remain free in perpetuity is also a bad business decision. If their margins were so thin that 30% kills them, they were doomed to fail regardless.*
* = a comfortable margin does not equate to gauging the customer, there's a fine line between covering your ass and screwing people, nobody wins a race to the bottom.
First all media companies hype Apple ipads and ignore everything else in their reporting, hoping to finally lock in the user and get their piece of the cake without directly telling the user how much money they want, and completely forget how Apple fucks the users, and the the very same companies suddenly discover that Apple wants a larger piece of the cake.
Yes, dear Journalists, publishers etc. If you let yourself lock in to a single platform which sometimes is incompatible by definition to the knees of a single vendor who is famous for ignoring the economic interests of the rest of the companies producing sth for the platform, something bad will happen.
There was epub available. If enough companiess would have explained to apple that thats the format they will be delivering, respectively html5, Apples would have had a problem.
Every post here says some variation of "Quit whining. This is your fault for trusting Apple not to change the rules."
Which is not the point (or rather you are making the author's point for him). Apple's business practices are (and always have been) aggressively biased against third-parties. It's remarkably consistent and it's their Achilles heel.
The stark lesson is: do not develop for Apple platforms. No matter how shiny or revolutionary the hardware, and no matter how brilliant your idea, Apple will rip you off.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
I believe major publishers have pricing agreements, fixing a minimum price for their books.
This is why some major titles are more expensive as an ebook than in paper format despite paper being obviously more expensive. I found this with a couple of minutes searching Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Devil-Wears-Prada-ebook/dp/B000FBFNBK/
$10.19 in paperback, $11.99 if you want the Kindle edition.
With publishers removing any opportunity to discount, it becomes nearly impossible to compete - especially if you have to give 30% of any sale to your competitor.
Here's what I don't get about this: Apple is telling ebook retailers that they have to buy from publishers at a fixed margin. How is the margin of a given ebook publisher any of Apple's business? Apple is basically forcing two other entities to modify or annul the contract they already had, and/or is actively preventing them from agreeing to a future contract that doesn't fit Apple's requirements. How is this not a textbook definition of tortuous interference?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
No one thinks its a bad for a start up company with limited resources to put all its eggs in the Microsoft Windows basket.
Apple has the 80%+ market share with tablets. They have no choice but to rely on Apple for them to remain profitable. Other platforms aren't bringing in enough revenue at the moment to justify the investment.
Yawn. Seriously? You can't troll better than that? I'm severely disappointed.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
I don't think you can blame them for thinking that Apple would never go quite *that* far.
Uh, this is Apple we're talking about. Anyone who didn't think they'd go that far can't be paying too much attention
If you read the blog post, the owner explains that they repeatedly asked Apple for a validation of their business model, and that the only response they received was that their app did not violate policy. Moreover, he suggests that Apple acted in bad faith by implementing iBooks to destroy his business model, without alerting him of their intentions.
He also states that they went through considerable trouble and expense to build an application, only to give it away for free and depend on revenue from a "middle-man" business model, where they would resell e-books that publishers were already selling.
He further states that all publishers had moved to an "agent" model where they require all resellers be bound to the same price, of which they get a 30% commission, so his margins were already razor-thin.
This all strikes me as very flawed business model from the beginning. This is not an app developer, this is a re-seller--a middle-man-- that happens to give away an app in order to sell e-books from it. The fact that he developed the app is immaterial, since it was not the product that he sold.
Did they really expect Apple to have their lawyers and business executives analyse their company's business model to make sure that it would be successful? Is it really Apple's fault that they didn't see the flaw in their "middle-man" re-seller model?
If his e-book reader is such a novel and marvelous app, as he suggests in his blog post, then why doesn't he just sell the app and let it stand on its own merit? He suggests that iBooks is just gimmicky with its page-turning animations, and that his app is superior; well, then he should be able to make money out of it. His business model was broken, not his app.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
I think you missed the point that the publishers get 30%, and now apple gets another 30%. With costs and salaries, it's not unthinkable that 40% isn't enough to make a profit.
It's cruft like this that makes me boycott all Apple products. Yes, as a company they can skew all products that run on their platform to maximize their profits, to the detriment of others who wish to ride on their coattails, but in the long run, that is just killing the goose that laid their golden egg, IMO.
30% kills them because they were already getting charged 30% by the publishers. RTFA.
No one thinks its a bad for a start up company with limited resources to put all its eggs in the Microsoft Windows basket.
Microsoft can't demand you pay them 30% of your revenue if you want to sell stuff on Windows. They might buy you out or give away a competing product, but everyone who develops for Windows knows that.
Sony's looking for people to write apps for their phone, maybe they could port to that:
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/05/07/1936221/Sony-Encourages-Linux-On-Their-Phones
Or Symbian perhaps.
You must sell books from major publishers at the same price as Apple does.
Which is entirely wrong.
You can't see books cheaper than Apple does, you can certainly charge MORE. This is a rather common thing in retail.
You are required to sell in app if you sell online and allow that to be downloaded too the app.
If you sell books on your own website (that you can get on your iOS device as well), then you have to charge the same price (or more) than it costs to get them on the iOS device. Basically you can't charge $200 for a book on the device, and $20 on your website as a way to skirt around Apple requiring you to sell them in the app.
Those publishers must give you exactly 30% commission.
Apple does not say that anywhere, nor do they have ANY control over who much you pay to license content from others. This is just bellyaching and lies.
iOS booksellers have to give 30% of their revenue to Apple.
Yea, and if you have even the slightest clue about the retail world, you'll know that when you put your shit in someones store, they take a cut. 30% is pretty much THE standard amount. In big box retail, there are times when you end up paying more to be in the store, per item, than your item costs total. Its not just a loss to be in the store, you're actually loosing more than just the cost of your item!
There is no enforced 0% profit margin, though I'll admit, why would you buy from someone other than the iBookstore if the iBookstore is the cheapest, but thats just business. Don't like it? Sell on someone elses device or make your own. Ever heard of Windows Mobile, Android, or BlackBerry?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Dilbert on your chances doing App Store monkey business
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-02-12/?CmtOrder=Rating&CmtDir=DESC
Let's see: Apple takes 30% of the revenue from e-books sold on the iPad. Some clever developer discovers they can write an app that they give away for free, then they sell e-books for the iPad and Apple earns 0% of the revenue from every e-book sold through this loophole. Developer gets mad because Apple closes the loophole. Seriously, did they really believe that Apple would leave this loophole open? Does the developer think that they can write an "App Store" app for the iPad, give it away for free, sell apps through their App-Store and cut Apple out of the picture as far as any revenue goes?
I'd also point out the inaccuracy of the headline "Developer Blames Apple for Ruining eBook Business", since it should read "Developer Blames Apple for Ruining their eBook business which is built on the iPad".
The article also states "the trouble started when Apple began taking 30% of the sale price of books sold through its app. As publishing pricing models meant BeamItDown already made less than a 30% cut, its margins went from minimal to negative." I guess that means the developer is going to have to take a smaller percentage (maybe 10%) and pay Apple their 30%, which puts them at higher cost than Apple. This means they'll have to make such a kick-ass app that they can compete with Apple's direct eBook sales, even though the author gets a smaller cut of the sales price.
I don't have an Iphone or an Ipad. How is Apple forcing this particular business to give them money? Refusing to host the app on their marketplace? Or threatening to remove the app from devices? Or terms and conditions of being a developer? What arm is Apple twisting that says "give me your money or die"?
Paraphrased: "We bet everything on one single trendy niche product among many, which is linked to one single trendy content sales channel, both of which happen to be tightly controlled by another party whose interests conflict with ours, and somehow it didn't work out for us."
If it makes you feel any better, that particular manufacturer probably isn't going to have lasting, long-term dominance (but if they stay on the ball (and I think they will), they'll be a player you can't quite totally ignore), so it's pretty silly to say they've ruined the ebook business. You'll face other challenges later, so the general lesson you should take from this ephemeral phenomenon is: don't be anyone's bitch. And face it, you did decide to be someone's bitch.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Their app only has two reviews, and both of them are bad. Maybe they were going to fail anyway.
In a few years, people will hate Apple as much as they hated Microsoft. And Apple is going to give them the reasons for free.
No, it sounds like Apple gets 30% of the 30% the app developer gets. So they (developer) get to keep 70% of the 30% commission.
100%-30%-30%=%40
Hmm seems like they are generating revenue to me.
Ahem. MS does demand 30% if you sell apps on their app store.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
There was a time when one could dream of starting a small niche business and if done right, grow it into a large and successful company.
Those days are long gone. The dream today is more along the lines of "start a small business and hope to
A. eek out enough profit to keep the doors open, or
B. (if you're lucky), get bought out by a bigger company".
While starting any kind of business is a bit of a crap-shoot, the odds used to be good enough to at least encourage people to try.
I've been around long enough that none of this comes as a surprise, but what still irritates me is that people, for the most part, are OK with this. It's just business.
Well, that's all fine and good, and one day we can all thank our Wal-Mart overlords for allowing us to buy their products at whatever price they want to charge while paying us the minimum amount they can get away with.
I just wonder, how long do you folks that think unbridled capitalism will last? Marx predicted that Capitalism can't last because it will basically keep eating it's young, with the wealth and power continually becoming concentrated among so few that eventually the populace would revolt.
Personally, I would rather see some checks put on capitalism rather than see it fail and be overtaken by some form of communism, but I guess the pure capitalists won't believe this will happen until it's too late. What a shame.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
This company shouldn't have put all it's eggs in one basket. They should have considered platforms other than iOS. There are probably a lot of other things they should have done.
However, they did encounter some very real challenges, especially being a small company. Often times a smaller company is operating at thinner margins. So Apple comes along demands 30% and what are they going to do? Raise their prices accordingly, risking alienating customers, or do they eat the difference and hope to make it up on volume? A small company doesn't always have the luxury of just raising prices.
If they provided a unique and/or compelling service they might be have been able to weather this. But this is part of the of the risk of doing business in a space that's already filled by established players.
It's enough to make a profit, just not enough to become obscenely rich instantly.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Don't be silly. "Embrace, extend, extinguish" is what Microsoft does to upcoming businesses which try to compete with Microsoft. You can't be profitable if you need the cooperation of your main competitor in order to be profitable. The name of the competitor varies, the game stays the same. The dependent company always loses.
First of all you still can sell ebooks over the web and there are enough ebook readers which allow direct drag and drop into the app.
Apple allows also public epubs to be sideloaded into ibooks by synching. Also you can always sell a PDF.
There is one thing however, if you want to sell your books over your own app nail them down with drm etc... you cannot do it unless you sell over apple.
Fair choice you still can sell drmed books the kindle way by doing the billing over an external website.
So it is a fair choice.
And they wonder why people like me buy the paperback and then torrent the ebook version. Fuck the publishers and their over the top greed.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Apple wants to control their devices, their software, their users and yes, their developers. Freedom is simply not an ingredient in anything Apple. That's not to say this is a bad thing as it reduces chaos for a lot of users which makes things "simple and easy" which was one of the major selling points of Apple products in the first place. Is it possible to have "simple and easy" without controls in place? I would argue not -- people simply think too differently to... uhm.. "think different."
30% of 30% is 10%.. RTFA yourself. the 30% is from NET revenue not Gross.
Sounds like most slashdotters need to take Accounting 101.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
If 40% isn't enough to make a profit, how do the publishers and Apple manage to do it on 30%?
Its possible, it just doesn't' result in truckloads of money showing up at your door for no apparent reason.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
So basically.. if you want to survive as an app developer make sure that iOS isn't your primary platform. You can make an iOS app on the side but you better make Android your primary goal so that if Apple screws you over you aren't screwed.
They typewriter and walkman people have something to say about this, too
Yes but the 30% charge by the publishers is beyond Apple's control. The real problem here us that Apple is pricing the middlemen out of the market. Normally when you cut out middlemen, prices go down but is not always true. The developer still has options like different platforms.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Developer cannot adapt to market changes; blames Apple for its failure.
FTFY.
Adapt or die.
You Americans are always freaking out about "socialism".... well then, stop whining when you can't keep up with the end result of a purely capitalist society.
Sink or swim. Do or die. Do or do not, Luke, there is no try. THAT is Capitalism. Blaming your lack of success on anyone but yourself is not.
The right to offend is central to the right to free speech.
Your parent and GP posts are talking about Microsoft Windows, not Windows Phone. Get it?
This space for rent.
Rule 1: The house always wins.
Rule 2: If they don't like you for any reason, you're barred.
Writing apps for Apple devices IS gambling, and if your business is soley writing apps for Apple devices then you best have a nice nest egg ready somewhere or another job lined up...
If Apple had released a tablet with no default eReader, they would have been slammed. And rightfully so. This isn't the same scenario as say Apple making a version of Angry Birds. This is Apple extending the functionality of their product. If he wants to make an even better eReader than the default, he's allowed to do so.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is an iOS Kindle app.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I don't believe when one of the parent is was talking about Apple's 80% of the tablet market they were talking about Windows. Of course anything is possible if you want to selectively ignore inconvenient facts.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
This isn't about the price of the application. Apple can take their 30% of the application sale price as a cost of all the things you list. I'm okay with that.
In this case, however, Apple has fixed the wholesale AND retail price of a product sold through your application. All retailers have to buy books at the same price and sell at the same price, as dictated by Apple (if the publisher wants to be distributed through Apple's ebook service, of course). The margin you buy at is the same margin Apple demands just because the user is on an iOS device.
Can you imagine MS doing the same with "Games for Windows" and everyone being okay with it?
Enough said.
"The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
Apple requires you to charge the same price in-app that you do elsewhere. You can't just do the logical thing and add 30% to the price to cover the Apple overhead.
That's the same retail price - not the wholesale price.
Don't retail outlets charge a markup too?
Surely Barnes & Noble is getting some cut of the $5 they charge for a magazine. Might even be more than 30%.
Wouldn't you expect that Amazon make a profit on things sold via their website?
The only difference is that we can all see what Apple's cut is.
Putting moderation advice in your
All your profit are belong to us.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Here is a word to the wise... This includes you Apple. The publishing business changes every 10 years, maybe less now.
- B-Dalton, GONE pushed out by Crown Books
- Crown Books, GONE. pushed out by Barns and Noble.
- Barns an Noble, huge pressure by Amazon and online Books. They are already modifying there business to accommodate the change, will they be successful, maybe, maybe not.
These companies actively sought to destroy the other model. Apple is doing the same. Google might end up eventually doing it to Apple or some other company might do it to both.
BeamItDown ... well they just don't understand the game and only have themselves to blame. I personally would stay clear of the book business, let the big boys play that game. Seriously they are all just evil.
Would that not be 30% of the 30% commission, or a total of 9% of the total sale price going to Apple?
It doesn't have nearly as many fart apps at the moment, but it is a much better OS IMHO. The hardware is ok, though not outstanding but it is improving with each release. Very healthy homebrew/hack community too and you don't have to root your phone to access those tweaks. Personally, I feel hamstrung whenever I use an iPhone, Android, or Blackberry device.
Yup. Apple is in the driver's seat and it's their car. If they don't like what you're doing, they simply push you out the door.
Either way, how are you going to sell an ebook - possibly the ultimate commodity item - at a price substantially higher than RRP when Apple can sell at RRP, still make a profit and you can't?
They tried to be an ebook seller. They didn't add anything of value to anything. They wanted to do the exact same thing the RIAA does, just with books. No even as much as RIAA, as someone else would have to pay the Auther, promote the book, sell to these guys, then they sell to the consumer. Now the auther can just sell directly skipping both middle men, paying only Apple a brokerage fee. They went out of business because they should be out business.
I don't believe when one of the parent is was talking about Apple's 80% of the tablet market they were talking about Windows.
The part that said "no one thinks its a bad for a start up company with limited resources to put all its eggs in the Microsoft Windows basket" might have been a hint.
There is no requirement to sell windows programs in their app store.
So, Apple, being well, a business, stacked the deck with their own profit in mind, rather than yours. Then you got into the market with them whilst trying to use your old, incompatible publisher business model, and didn't do well? this surprises you?
Apple isn't in business to make you money, they're in business to make them (/shareholders) money. At their store, they write the rules. The rules favor them, but if you operate properly (and they do give you suggestions and help here) then you will get a share of the money. If you try instead to be greedy and do it your own way, while still bound by their end of the rules, you're going to tank. Look at it this way: their rules say "We get at least this much, and you can have what's left over". If you choose to ignore the margin Apple is giving you, and instead attempt to grab something specific that you're used to having working elsewhere, Apple happily takes what you're ignoring, (can you blame them?) and won't let you take what you already promised them. (or perhaps you blame them for that instead?)
do that, You Lose. Put the blame where it belongs.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
2) sell books online in unencumbered PDF/ePub
3) let customers use the application and platform of their choice
4) Profit!
I'm sure neither "pragmatic programmer" nor O'Reilly have to worry about their business model - both sell tons of ebooks in open formats. This move by Apple may lead to ebooks that are as open as music files are nowadays.
It costs you what to produce the book exactly? 6 months, 1 year? Even with high income figures this would be $50,000 you need to recoup or sell all your books about 65,656 times per year (+30% @ $0.99 per item). Given that your average app sells 1,000 times/day and your e-book sells at least 100 times/day and usually goes for ~$10 I would say that is not entirely unreasonable from Apple to take ~$15,000/year for publishing, hosting, promoting and distributing your book or app.
Maybe your book or app didn't make you money because
a) It was worthless to begin with
b) You asked too much money
c) You asked somebody else to take another chunk of money out to do the services Apple already provided you with
d) You didn't diversify to a bigger audience and didn't work on the fact that you are an obscure writer/programmer/category to begin with.
There are many people that are writers and app programmers. Just don't quit your day job yet just because of the success of someone who thought that shooting ill-mannered birds into a stack of blocks was hilarious.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I use the kindle for iOS. Not the apple ebook reader. That's a free app with loads of free classics. Just reread 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea; cost $0. This bookseller/app maker had a flawed business plan.
They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
Apple ruined your attempt at an ebook store. Get it right. The ebook business is not going away, and it seems to be working quite well for Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Apple, etc.
No one thinks its a bad for a start up company with limited resources to put all its eggs in the Microsoft Windows basket.
Apple has the 80%+ market share with tablets. They have no choice but to rely on Apple for them to remain profitable. Other platforms aren't bringing in enough revenue at the moment to justify the investment.
One difference is that there are more than a billion Windows users and something like 10-20 million tablet users. Your argument is akin to saying that making clothes targeting only men between 5' and 6' tall works so why not make clothes targeting only men between 5'6.4" and 5'6.5"?
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Trusting Apple without an ironclad contract and a hostage is a poor decision too.
Isnt that 30% OF 30%, not you get 30% from the pub, we get that 30% from you?
They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
Then can't they just draw an interface that lets them browse through book titles and post debits to their private account? If you eliminate Apple from handling the money, then will they assassinate the app?
In other words, if Apple is not handling money for you, how can they take 30%?
was this whiny when Henry Ford came along.
I'm curious about why the developer doesn't simply start charging for their reader. The books aren't really the selling point, after all, the reader is. People pay for applications, they pay a lot of money every day.
They were both mentioned. My point is if you are developing for mobile, both Apple and MS charges you to put apps in their mobile store. Apple will charge you to put apps in their OS X store. MS does not really have a 3rd party store yet for Windows so technically you are correct but the situation is not analogous. Compare apples to apples. And if the time comes that MS starts to sell Windows apps on their store, you don't think they wil charge developers for overhead?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Sounds like technology is helping content creators reach Apple consumers through Apple.
As a consumer I kinda like that the company running the store is only interested in breaking even (you can read the quarterly results for proof of that statement). Apple makes software to sell hardware. They're happy to have anyone make profits on the software as long as it sells hardware. If I want to create software without a middleman todays markets are a utopia compared to the past ways.
The old markets of music film and reading material, are stuck in their old ways of having too many useless people doing things that todays markets don't need. A publishers job today compared to 20 years ago is silly. We have the internet for free marketing, the internet for easy distribution, the internet for product feedback, and the internet for global communication. The only thing they add is money, they've been reduced to a VC job for all intents and purposes.
Sounds like when the free market drove the price down to the lowest common denominator a whole lot of people lost jobs and are now pissed off and ranting on the web.
Back to Apple, I guess there could be a problem when Apple makes competing software, because they subsidize it with hardware money or with system bundles ( that could change with enough complaints (like Microsoft and IE)), but a lot of Apple software is (besides iLife) profitable on it's own. I'm sure that most people would buy iLife if it wasn't bundled with the computer because they really are great products to use.
This is uttery essential reading for anyone interested in the role of platform and distribution methods for any product or service (though it focuses on video games): http://www.lostgarden.com/2011/03/gdc-2011-game-of-platform-power.html
From the application developer's blog here discussing the issue, they say:
I'd be happy to read any articles or discussions about the "Agent Model" that show these guys are lying, as you say they are. They very well may be, I don't know. But according to what they say, Apple has fixed prices such that a competitor can not make money through the iOS platform.
Under the new 'Agency Model', the publishers set the end-user price. They set that price at $10, and you, as an agent, get $3 of that. You can't change your prices up or down. Only the publisher can do that.
Sort of. They indeed can't affect how much you pay to license content. However, they don't need to: publishers no longer 'license' content— they give a fixed commission to sales agents. Many publishers give a different amount. Unfortunately, it's most commonly less than 30%. 30% is, in fact, the highest commission the publishers give any sales agents these days. So most booksellers will be getting perhaps $1.50 or $2 commission from that $10 book. But still, Apple will take $3 from them, meaning they have to pay $1 - $1.50 to the publishers out of their own pockets. Which is unsustainable, when it happens on every single bit of income your company makes (or a high enough percentage of it, like, say, more than 30% of your revenue sources).
They're not selling books through Apple's store, though. They're selling software. And they're happy to let Apple have 30% of the price of the software, since Apple hosts it on their servers, advertises it, etc. The situation you describe would suggest that if I created an eReader device and sold that at a Wal-Mart, then Wal-Mart should be able to claim a percentage of all money I make through that device. Which is wrong— they sold my eReader, so they got their commission on that. They can sell gift cards for it, and get commission on those. But they don't get commission on anything they're not involved with.
The problem, however, lies with the eBooks being sold. Apple doesn't do anything with those. You have to pay someone like Microsoft or Amazon for Azure or S3 storage, or you have to run your own server farm (trust me, 3 million eBooks needs an awful lot of space). You then need to look at CDNs so your customers on the other side of the world can pull down content as fast as your local ones. You need to hire lawyers to negotiate with the publishers, since Apple doesn't do that for you.
In the end, what is Apple charging 30% for? What service are they providing that is worth so much?
Credit card transaction handling.
That's it. They don't host anything, they don't pay for bandwidth costs, they don't help with acquisition. They don't even do a great deal to help you get customers, since they're actively trying to lure your customers away to their competing software offering.
Sure. The company I work for sells eBooks on just about every platform going. iOS i
Marketing is not limited to persuading customers to purchase product. It also applies to persuading third-party developers that working as if they were an employee without benefits, or an contractor without a contract, makes good business sense. It works because Apple is rich and shiny enough to provoke greed, overcoming rational thought.
Since 1977 Apple has led technically proficient but socially naive developers to produce third party products, software accessories, services, you name it. Virtually without exception, if that product or service became profitable enough, Apple co-opted it shutting the developer out in the cold.
The only way to thwart this is to learn enough--while developing for Apple through NDA revealed facts--about every part of Apple's business that you can create your own start-up or expand your business with a true partner of capital or leadership. Without of course violating the NDA, or at least arguably not until your net worth is a few billion so as to be a major opponent in an intellectual property lawsuit. Thus Adobe survived although it was a developer of postscript for the Apple LaserWriter, or Microsoft although it was a developer for Office, Apple Basic, etc.
Think about it. The very fact that Apple's business model is being discussed here on Slashdot, rather some technical innovation like booting over the cloud or an Ive's brain fart, it a sign that Apple has captured mindshare of people who can be victimized by it.
Apple cuts out another middle man. I'm shocked.
Crisis is the rule, not the exception.
No, you misread that. The publishers get 70% of MSRP and Apple gets 30% of the sale price. So for sale prices at or below MSRP, the middleman gets nothing or takes a loss.
What happened was that this company was buying books on a 50% margin, which meant that they got a 50% cut of the suggested retail price, assuming they sold at MSRP. Apple was willing to sell eBooks on their store for a 30% cut, so the publishers said to the other booksellers, "Why should we give you more than a 30% cut?" Then, they raised their wholesale prices to 70% of MSRP.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I thought they only make you pay the 99$ a year... I wasn't aware of the 30% for each app you sell..
First off, grats on being the 50th person to make that obvious but not well thought out observation.
Secondly, it's completely wrong. Starting a business with a narrow focus is typically what you do and it's what is preached in schools. Find something that you think can make a profit, focus on it, and do it well. In this case they had something until Apple decided they wanted it.
You can't blame them for trying.
Sigs are awesome huh?
You could not have picked a worse business model, and Apple has nothing to do with it. First, you entered a crowded app market. Book readers for iOS are a dime (or less) a dozen, and nothing about yours particularly stood out from the crowd. Second, forget Apple; you're competing with Barnes & Noble and Amazon on their home turf. Are you insane? I could buy a book from you and read it on an iOS device, or jump through hoops involving Adobe (shudder) and read it on a desktop. Alternatively, I can buy a book through bn.com or from their Nook app and seamlessly read it on iOS, Android, PC, Mac, or BlackBerry. I'm hard pressed to think of a single reason why I'd want to use an unknown developer instead of one of the enormous, well-established booksellers.
It's easy to blame Apple for your failures. Realistically, though, you never had a chance against the other major players who are in a cut-throat competition right now.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
You are the one that needs compare apples to apples, we are not talking about Apps here, but purchases made through apps, for which Apple has zero overhead. MS may charge you for the apps in their mobile store, but they're not charging you for the purchases made through those apps. See the difference?
This space for rent.
Yea, and if you have even the slightest clue about the retail world, you'll know that when you put your shit in someones store, they take a cut. 30% is pretty much THE standard amount.
Also, in the retail world, there is a legally enforced single store. If you attempt to sell through any other black-market stores, the main store will ban you for life. When you sell stuff in the real world through a store, that store doesn't provide any of the item stocking, and you have to pay for your own delivery truck to ship goods directly to the consumer. In fact, in this case the main store is really just selling catalogs. Anything the catalog sells to the consumer has to give the main store a 30% cut. And blanket minimum price-match clauses, effectively banning discounts in any other country, are totally enforcible in the real world.
Good analogy.
The ______ Agenda
...than the one in your commodore 64, why aren't you complaining about not being able to run arbitrary software on it?
When starting up you have to have contingency plans.
"What happens if we can't sell direct guys and live with the cut to APPLE?"
The answer apparently was "Uhh..."
The answer should have been, "OK, we need an additional profitable business strategy." "How about selling our App as a superior Reader, Markup and Outlining utility to really make an advantage for the user who wants to retain information about the books and other similar documents they read?"
There are ways to structure advantages to give the user something he is willing to pay for that they can't get elsewhere as good as or for less than your product. Then comes the ability to do things like in app running text adds at the bottom of the screen that are like the nightly news scrolling text, which the user could turn off or turn on to see special offers, etc.
Create = yes. Complain = No
The agency model was created by Apple who made it a requirement for any publisher who wished to sell books through Apple’s iBooks app.
This seems to be talking about agents selling books through iBooks. Where does it say that Apple made it a requirement for any developer who wants to sell books in their own iOS app to adopt the same model?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Or ask your Mom for it the next time she comes down to the basement to do laundry.
I hope you're happy, I hope you're satisfied. YOU WIN, you evil, evil man. I'm of course referring to the Double Team map in PixelJunk Monsters on Hardcore. I'm sure it's possible to beat, but I am not good enough, twitchy enough, clever enough, nor evil enough to get my G.D. double f'ing rainbow on that level!
Gar, I want that double rainbow, It's so mean to dangle that carrot just outta my reach.
As best I can tell, the complaint relates to Apple's decision to require a 30% cut on all purchases. The developer claims this will put them out of business because after paying the publisher, they are left with less then 30% of the retail price. This means the publisher is charging them a cut of 70% or more of the retail price to sell the books. Who knows what the publisher pays the author, I am assuming it is a fairly small cut of that 70%. And yet Apple is entirely at fault? Because they changed (or enforced) the rules from the original terms? Life changes. Because 30% is too much? It isn't clear between Apple, the publisher, the developer and the author what constitutes a fair division, it's certainly debatable in any case.
I'm not trying to defend Apple. My personal opinion is that their 30% cut on in-app purchases is too high, but it's just an opinion and it's not my platform. And I think it's reasonable in this case to turn some attention to the role of the publisher and the developer's decisions as well. Hopefully Android finds a way to put together a viable, vibrant marketplace to offer Apple some competition in the app store.
They haven't screwed over the people who make all that expensive content development software for Mac.. oh wait. Right. Adobe. Uh, forget I said anything.
Where the fuck did you get the idea that Apple has any influence on wholesale prices to 3rd-parties? Publishers are free to sell to these guys for any price they'd like, and Apple can't do a thing. You're an idiot.
30% of the revenue, not 30% of the sale? So if You sell something for 1.00, You make .30, of which Apple will take 30% which is .10. So you make .20. Did I read it wrong?
Don't trust Apple? Duh. Don't fucking trust ANYBODY!
I was comparing Microsoft's dominance of desktop computing to Apple's dominance of tablet computing.
A real distributor of books, CDs, DVDs, etc., needs to employ people to sort, package, ship and keep track of the paper-work. A real distributor typically gets around 10% of the retail price of an item. And they bloody-well earn every penny of it. This is what honest companies do.
The retailer, bricks & mortar, gets around 50% of the retail price tag of the item after sale. And they earn every penny of that, too. The publisher, in turn, ends up with around 40% with which to pay their creative people and their printing/pressing plants. Everybody works hard and earns their keep by putting in some honest hours. And that's how America grew strong.
Then along came the fucking opportunists, gaming they system to everybody's detriment...
Apple fucking does NOTHING to earn their 30%. They've already sold their devices, they've already been compensated for that; (and over-the-top compensated, IMO, given that Chinese slaves did all the hard work, but that's a whole other story.) What did they do to earn a cut of the distribution of media? I'll tell you what they did; They set up a fucking website.
It's a clever website, sure, but do they do enough work, employ enough people to justify the hundreds of millions of dollars they are sucking out of the economy? Real working people are having to tighten their belts because Apple is eating into their normal cut, into their hard work with their bullshit little scheme.
Their desire to get something for nothing is killing us all.
So fuck Apple. Everything about Apple is wrong. Everything. From the brain-damaged people they create who can't walk across the damned street because their heads are permanently turned downward in digi-addicted stupidity. Fuck you very much, Apple. -To the keyboard-less consumption-only devices which turn people into sheeptards who can't even communicate with capital letters or full sentences or full words anymore.
Yes, fuck you very much, Apple.
The only thing worse than Apple are the retarded moronic idiots who think their stuff is worth using and end up supporting the company because they are so ignorant and unimaginative to get that their society is being SCREWED to make a small number of people very wealthy at the expense of a healthy economy. Yes, evil could not exist if it weren't for retarded ass-hat dipshit people who can't think their way out of a cardboard box.
And yes, Bin Laden died in 2003, you fucking ingrates.
It's called propaganda. I don't expect you to get that either.
Tell me how as an author I give a rat's ass about having multiple eBook readers on my iOS Device? Seriously, I write a novel and how come I should be interested in distributing it to a third party who takes a massive cut from my creation? Go Apple. If you think I give a flying fuck that Joe eBook Devs are whining about their POS eBook reader and that I can sell that on multiple platforms, then you're f'n nuts. The actual Publisher rapes the Artist in writing books and you want me to care that the distributor is taking it in the ass on this one? Sorry. Bend over.
This isn't the first time Apple's apparently screwed over developers.
Panic made a better music player:
http://panic.com/audion/
http://panic.com/extras/audionstory/
Widgets didn't originate with Apple (at least according to Arlo Rose):
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=77382
http://www.konfabulator.com/cartoon/partOne.html
Alternative view here - http://www.randommaccess.com/articles/1088610260.shtml
Watson was slain:
http://www.karelia.com/watson/
iPodRip bullied into submission:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/jobs-may-make-mat-lose-his-job-20091125-jq6t.html
My only observation? Over time, anything that dilutes or threatens the iTunes/App Store/iDevice ecosystem is met with increasingly over-the-top responses.
Maybe that's how you get ahead in business, but it sucks nonetheless.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
So how is this different from physical retail? I guarantee that a brick-and-mortal store takes a lot more than 30% on just about anything they sell.
And that includes books.
Apple isn't eBook welfare. They have no duty to subsidize marginal business plans by being the ones to pay for all the hosting, delivery, credit card fees, and all the other expenses associated with e-commerce. It isn't Apple's (or Google's, or Amazon's, or B&N's) job to leak money any time some get-rich-quick scheme gets hatched with the words "on a network that somebody other than me has paid for" involved.
If your business plan requires "and someone else acts as my retailer, storefront and content distributor for free", you deserve failure... for greed, naivete, and parasitism. There are plenty of people making a ton of money in ebooks. I'm not going to shed any tears over someone who can't figure out how.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Exactly. I don't see why they whine about it though. There are tons of reasons why a start-up may fail, and many do indeed not make it. Nothing wrong with that. The dependency on Apple must've been a calculated risk that they decided to take.
I think there are a couple of issues to break this down:
1) How useful would the device be if I could hack on it?
2) How hackable is the device?
I want to be able to hack my microwave, but it wouldn't be that much more useful if I could. I regret that companies don't make hackable microwaves but it's not a big deal.
My router is very useful (more useful) b/c I can hack on it. And I buy hackable routers b/c of this capability, whether the manufacturer explicitly knows they offer that feature or not.
An iPhone is super useful if you can hack on it (that includes install apps from anyone else). And even more useful if their DRM formats were hackable. (But Apple can't -due to third party agreements- and/or doesn't want these things to be hackable, which is their choice, just like the microwave vendor).
But that's why it's more important for iOS devices to be hackable than microwaves: they'd be more useful if they were..
Reading a book written or laid out by a self-published writer is often an exercise in insanity (unless you really don't give a damn about ugly layouts, unreadable embedded fonts, horrible grammar, and ludicrous sentence structure).
Even in this day and age, most books need both a content and copy edit. Non super ugly book cover art is optional. Table of contents are optional, working table of contents are even better. And if you take on to self publish you also need to market yourself and get yourself out there. It's not a matter of "if you write it, they will come". Give readings, talks, have a blog, give copies to review sites, do the legwork to get an ISBN if you care or want to get it into libraries, printed or even P'ODable.
That is if you've passed the hurdle of being a somewhat decent author. Which is a whole other circle of hell in itself ....
wtp that commenting only works in IE and not the latest Chrome or Firefox? Someone's been mucking in my Matrix again ...
Nope. You bet everything on a free app that could display any eBook and the hope to get rich by selling eBooks within the app. Which is why your plan wouldn't have worked on any platform.
Fandroids hate facts.
I want to be able to hack my microwave, but it wouldn't be that much more useful if I could. I regret that companies don't make hackable microwaves but it's not a big deal.
I've seen hacked up microwaves with custom microcontrollers to do various weird things, so it doesn't seem useful to you because you don't have a use for it yourself, others do and have hacked them. Also (not that its AS LIKELY) people have been ... damaged beyond repair ... by such microwave hacks.
And even more useful if their DRM formats were hackable.
The only useful thing you can do by hacking their DRM at this point in time is steal content, so you can define that as useful, but no one but a thief is going to agree with you. You can argue that the DRM will need to be hacked in the future when apple turns off the servers, but since Apple DRM only applies to things intended to run on the iOS devices, its not useful to do anything with it outside of theft ... you aren't going to run those apps on something other than an iPhone ANYWAY.
Your iOS device would be more useful to YOU if you could 'hack' it. Of course, you already can, for a fee, but you're ignoring that. I can pretty much do whatever I want with my iPhones and iPads, but I paid the fee to get that feature.
You can get that feature for free if you are willing to hack your device, just like any other hack, don't expect the manufacture to support you when you install Cydia.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I work for a small software company. We are privately held, and profitable. We have been around longer than iOS (about 10 years).
A large portion of our revenue (we are trying to diversify) comes from a web service that customers pay a monthly fee for. Having a native iOS client has always been a bit of a pain. Not so much because of building for the platform itself (although that is part of it), but we have had to jump through hoops with Apple that are not at all required for any other platform. Nevertheless, we did it, because iOS is big, and we thought it worth it.
However, the change of rules regarding subscriptions is the final straw. Essentially Apple is demanding 30% of a big chunk of our revenue. We're not willing to give it to them. Will not having a native client negatively affect the user experience? Probably to some extent, but that's a tradeoff we feel we're forced to accept. Perhaps it might ultimately cost us some customers, but probably not 30%.
Fortunately we are in a position to make such a decision. Not all companies are. But I hope that those that can, do.
[Sorry if I'm vague on the details here. But I'm trying not to reveal things that I shouldn't be saying in a public forum, while still preserving the gist of my argument.]
Do you define stealing as playing on devices other than those for which it was intended? Transforming it (size, format, bitrate, etc)? Streaming it? Mixing it? If so, then I agree that stealing is the only useful thing hacking DRM is good for.
If you define stealing as giving the content to others who haven't paid for it, then no, I disagree, there are other things to do with un-DRM'ed content than just stealing it.
And I agree, iPhones are hackable today - you can root them and do mostly whatever you like at that point. And no, I don't think companies should support hacked devices (except ideally with help getting them back to factory states where possible).
The original question was why would there be a greater demand for iOS hackability than for hackability on the microprocessors on a microwave. The criteria (utility) I laid out for figuring out why iOS hackability is more important still holds.
There are a few folks who hardhack on microwaves but there are a lot more who root and hack on iOS. This is because it's more useful to hack on iOS -- more applications. More generally if you want to know when something is desirable to hack on, consider the applications.
No one thinks its a bad for a start up company with limited resources to put all its eggs in the Microsoft Windows basket.
Apples to oranges... Windows (and, to be fair, MacOS... for now) is a completely different game from iOS. MS has basically no control over the Windows ecosystem. Anyone can develop for it using any tools they want, sell on any market they want to any audience they want for any price they want under any terms they want.
iOS has very strict rules, and a fascist overseer who values its own monopolies first, its profits second, its consumers third, and its developers a distant fourth.
And Amazon makes it impossible for other book sellers to sell books on kindle? Am i missing something or are they just sore that Apple cut out an unneeded middle man.
Yes, there IS an enforced 0% profit margin. That's what the whole "Agency Model" nonsense is about. Publishers now tell retailers how much to charge for books, period.
Read the iOS developers agreement, not what some guy who can't run a business spouted as he was taking his toys and going home. I'm not going to post articles or discussions links, thats retarded. Why would you want to read a bunch of shit written by anyone other than the source, who has a nice big PDF of the contract online? Do you think you're going to get something from some forum or blog post than you're going to get out of the legally binding contract that EVERY iOS app is bound by?
He's mixing things his content producers changed and Apples changes into one lump complaint against Apple.
Apple does not control the content producers ... they on the other hand said 'welp, if everything goes through iBooks than we get 70% of the profit and we don't have to bother with iFlowReader who only gives us 50%. Wouldn't it be rather stupid for publishers to give iFlowReader, which lets face it, has only been out for 6 months, isn't that impressive, and isn't on the device be default'. It would be rather dumb for the content producers to continue their deal with iFlowReader, as there is a better deal for them with iBooks.
iFlowReader offered nothing anyone was willing to pay for. Not Apple, not the content producers, and they were giving the app away for free, so not the content consumers either. Why should any party involved pay more for the same thing?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Your math is bad.
Your 30% commission that is paid by the publisher is 100% of your revenue.
You then take that 100% of your revenue and pass 30% of it on to apple, keeping 70% of the commission that was paid to you.
Apple has a right to compensation for running the marketplace... 30% of your top line isn't worlds out of reasonable.
Is the requirements on publishers for being listed in iBooks a part of the iOS Developer's Agreement? If so, I'll search it out and give it a read.
If publishers just up and decided, independent of Apple, that they suddenly want 70% and won't negotiate, then I guess there's no issue here. Obviously the view in one-sided in the TFA, but that's not how it's being presented. That's why I wanted opposing views.
INAL, but,
If Apple did the things its accused of in the article, I would thing it would be actionable. And the e reader company should expect to prevail. Apple seems to have abused its monopoly power, and acted fraudulently.
I expect this story may have more, and much-move interesting chapters.
This is what I was getting at. Is the Agency Model a Clear Case of Price-Fixing Collusion? A Closer Look at the Possibility of Antitrust Action in the Courts
I can't find a copy of the publisher/iBookstore agreement, but this and many other pages seem to indicate that the agreement sets prices at 70% across the board and it wasn't some uncorrelated decision by the top publishers.
If it's so stupid to take 50% instead of 70%, why did they agree to it in the first place? Also having it fixed at 70% means their possibly losing money based on the 75%, 80%, etc. deals they had previously to the agency model.
Only if you are thinking that 40% is way over the cost of the item. Not too many companies put a 100% market up on the product. Apple is taking 30% of the gross not net. If the book costs $50. They sell it for $70. Apple wants 30% of the $70. Not 30% of the $20 mark up.
I always find it strange that the people who are defending apple in this never say it's unfair what apple did, but just say apple is allowed to do it.
Nope: What you wrote was:
30% commission and 30% revenues to apple...
for a 10$ book that means 3$ commission and 30% of 3$ which is 1$. You get to keep 2$.
What apple is essentially saying is: You no longer have to pay for paper, printing storage and the clerks. But you are NOT putting all the balance in your pocket.
Of course publishers would like to have the whole pie for themselves. No sympathy for anyone on this.
Apparently, neither is Apple.
In some cases, such as this one apparently, it means selling on iOS is no longer a good value proposition. Yet this is little different from the real world. If a mall decides to up the rent for the retail space you are using and that price is beyond what you can afford, then you have to move. Thats buisness.
I'm not saying Apple's approach is perfect, but its also not as evil as some are claiming it to be. Remember, Apple's primary focus is providing a positive experience for the consumer, and many of these in app subscription and purchase policies are meant to make sure the customer gets treated well. The developer is less important to Apple than the consumer (so long as ther are enough developers to satisfy the consumer and right now that appears to be the case).
Apple made its choice and as a result its alienating a few developers, who can now jump to other platforms. Apple's bet seems to be that such a policy change is worth losing a few developers over. We'll see how it plays out. Its also possible that this is an unexpected consequence of the policy and Apple will end up modifying it based on feedback, preassure, etc. It's not like these rules are written in stone.
There is no requirement that you have to sell OS X programs on the Mac App store. If you choose to sell through the Mac App store, the overhead is 30%.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It is both. Unless you decide to give away your app for free, then Apple will not charge you the 30%. $99 is right to distribute either way.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Unless it specifically says "30% GROSS" then that is incorrect. From what I read in it they say "30%" which in the legal and accounting world means NET. you MUST specify Gross or it is always net.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The "middlemen" are the publishers giving access to sellers to sell the books. It's a typical scheme in the vein of the oil companies. All of the big boys get together and agree on fixed pricing.
I did misread, but it's still a ripoff. They get a 30% commission, not charged 30%. That's 30% of the sale price, which is fixed by the publishers. Apple charges them a 30% fee on the sale price of the book. They are taking a loss after costs. This comes directly from the posting on their site:
The key point here is that all sellers now get a 30% commission and Apple now wants a 30% fee, which is all of our gross margin and then some.
I personally use an iPad for eBooks to read to my children instead of using paperbacks because I got the iPad for free and couldn't figure what else to use it for. Since that time, I have started using it for watching films, but there's no particular reason I use an iPad vs. something else. I love my iPhone far more than my droid phones or windows phones. So I use it as my primary phone. I am not an iFan, I just can't see myself using another device out of principles when the other devices I have just aren't as good (personal opinion here, not a statement of fact).
I do buy a crap load of things through the iStores, though I don't use iBooks. I find it to be quite weak as an offering. Kindle App is much much better as I can use it on my Android devices, PCs, and Windows devices as well. I also purchase audio books directly from Audible since I use their subscription plan and their player is better for audio books than the Apple player is.
But, as a developer let's be realistic about a few things.
1) Apple has historically either bought or reimplemented all technologies every made for the Mac and then forcefully destroyed competition by altering licensing terms or even killing off APIs needed to produce those applications.
- Opera, Chimera, IE and others were screwed by Apple when they released Safari since the only method of handling font rendering on Mac was pretty much impossible to perform quickly without using internal undocumented APIs. Those were hidden in binary wrappers to avoid other developers getting access to them.
- Adobe was screwed by Final Cut, DVD Studio, Logic, Display PDF (quartz), etc...
In fact, every single time a great application has been published for Mac, it has taken little or no time before Apple decided to compete head on with the developers who made it.
2) Apple DOES NOT CARE about their application developers. In fact, the recent decision to start charging (while a very small amount, still charging) for their development tools (XCode) shows that they no longer see attracting new developers who want to experiment to the platform. If there's money to be made from an App, then Apple will make it.
3) Steve Jobs has a powerful position inside of Disney/Buena Vista from the Pixar deal. Even if he isn't active himself... he has "his guys" in there. Disney Buena Vista is the most powerful entity in the entire industry regarding lobbying the government to protect their interests. They have managed to pretty much eliminate expiration of trademarks and copyrights with regards to Mickey Mouse and are such tight asses about their content that Buena Vista Norway can't simply dub or subtitle TV spots for advertising new films on DVD because they don't have the rights to alter Buena Vista's media themselves. So, when Steve wants to make waves in copyright, he simply does and if he says it's alright than Buena Vista will say it's alright and then the rest of the industry will simply say "Well, without Buena Vista, what can we do about it?" So, Apple has chosen in all forms of media to control all aspects except the product of it directly. If they want to have a book from Simon and Schuster on their device, then they'll go to Simon and Schuster... who gives a crap about an app developer who spends 18 hours a day kissing ass to be aloud to publish on new book.
These guys were simply idiots to get into this business the way they did. Apple didn't do a single thing to them that couldn't have been predicted all along. I really wonder how long it will be before they bypass Audible and go straight to the audio book vendors themselves.
Kindle will be around for a while on iDevices. If you have to go to a web browser to buy a book. Amazon has the means to make profits from the books and since they're probably the biggest mail order book company in the world, they have the leverage to make the publishers share their sales a bit better.
I'm just scared to hell what will happen to my books, audiobooks, apps etc... when Apple, Amazon, Google, etc... go tits up or get bored of selling those things.
Apple will be irrelevant before too long, with Grand Moff Jobs tightening his grip further.
How's the Android version coming along?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
After reading the background of what's happened, is anyone here seriously considering giving Apple money ever again?
If they are, I suggest a clue stick is needed.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Apple does not control the eBook business. They may have the best 'store' right now. But there are many other venues for your eBook. So go elsewhere and stop complaining.
You may observe, though, that the AppStore sells 5 times what is sold in the Android market - at least for now.
The metaphor is the high rent charged to retailers in super prime shopping venues. Apple has the primo real-estate. If you don't want to pay to be in a prime location, go elsewhere.
Jumping to other platforms isn't likely to help much. Most purchases come through iOS, so it's highly unlikely that supporting many other devices (which Kobo does) is going to offset the losses on the iOS platform. Additionally, Apple is directly competing with us. That means that we're not just losing our profits, we're actually giving them all to one of our biggest competitors.
True, but you do have to go through their App Store for most iOS devices, which strangely enough is what this article is about, now don't be so obtuse.
I knew they had acceptance criteria, but I didnt know they were using that to force people to pay them money. Its so .. tacky.
Apple has become the overbearing, over-controlling big brother it said MS was. I use hardware and os's from both platforms and have no allegiance to either. I could never quite figure out why Apple gets a pass on everything they do, while MS gets called on everything. Apple reminds me of the old GM, when they said, "if it's good for GM, it's good for America".
But that is strangely enough not what the person I was responding to was talking about.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Kindle App was updated a couple weeks ago and continues to operate the way it alwyays did. Unless they had some exclusive content, these guys could not likely compete with Apple and Amazon. This seems to be there rel problem, the rest just looks like noise to cover / defend failure.