Amazon, Google Cave To Apple, Drop In-App Buttons

CWmike writes "Amazon bowed on Monday to Apple's newest App Store rules, and removed a link in its iPhone and iPad Kindle apps that took customers directly to its online store. The move was required to comply with new rules designed to block developers from evading the 30% cut that Apple takes from in-app purchases. In February, Apple CEO Steve Jobs laid down the law. 'Our philosophy is simple — when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30% share,' said Jobs in a statement released Feb. 15. 'When the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100% and Apple earns nothing.' Rhapsody updated its iPhone app last week to, among other things, remove the in-app subscribing link. Also on Monday, Google complied with Apple's new rules when it re-released Google Books — which had been yanked from the App Store — minus an in-app purchasing button."

Comments

Google Cave?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this an unannounced product?

Re:Google Cave?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's a social network for Afghan terrorists.

Cave?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it caving? They have no choice, it is Apple's platform after all.

Re:Cave?

[sqlrob]

They have a choice. Pull the app.

Re:Cave?

[Hazel Bergeron]

Is a Windows PC "Microsoft's platform"? Is your house built by Acme Inc. "Acme's platform"? Do Microsoft and Acme respectively get to choose what appears on your desktop PC and in your house?

Re:Cave?

[mswhippingboy]

I just don't get it. Why is it that if Google doesn't want to comply, their only option is to pull the app. But if Google were to strip Apple from it's search engine results, that would be anti-competitive behavior?

Re:Cave?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Apple can do no wrong. You must be new here, so I'll forgive your apparent inability to understand Apple's infallibility in all things.

Re:Cave?

[Anonymous Coward]

True; they can't just strip Apple from their search engine completely. First, they have to give Apple a chance to sign on to a deal whereby Google gets a 30% cut of any business that they send Apple's way. Seems to be exactly what Apple is doing. If Apple doesn't agree to the 30% cut for the service of Google bringing a new shopper to their site - then they can remove them from the index.

Re:Cave?

[sqlrob]

That's an even better solution than pulling the app. Places the onus squarely on Apple.

Re:Cave?

[Sancho]

Like Apple would ever allow that.

Re:Cave?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Google has a far, far higher proportion of the search market than Apple has of the mobile device market. Heck, Google has a higher proportion of the mobile device market on top of it.

Re:Cave?

[jimpop]

The solution is to charge a premium to iPhone users.

Re:Cave?

[sexconker]

I'd have left the button, but changed the functionality to display a message saying "Sorry, this feature no longer works. You bought an iWhatever, so you'll have to pay 30% more than everybody else because Apple wants their cut."

But then again, I have a tendency to be a dick when people tell me I can't do something.

Math. How does it work?
If Apple wants a 30% cut, and an company wants $X for their application across the board, then they have to adjust the price upward to raise the .7X they get (after apple takes .3X) back to 1X.

You have three way of looking at this: .7X + Y = 1X. Y = .3X. Increase the price by .3X, or 30%. This is wrong, as Apple will tax your price increase by 30%. .7X * Y = 1X. Y = 10/7. Increase the price by a factor of 3/7 (multiply by 10/7). This is correct, and results in a 42.857142...% price increase.
10/7 (price to Apple users) * 7/10 (your cut after the Apple tax) = 1.

You can round (assuming you haven't rounded down any fractions of a cent yet) and say your price is 43% more for Apple users. Not just 30%.

The third way of thinking about it is a flat +30%, then realizing you get taxed on that and doing a +30% of the 30%, and then +30% of 30% of 30%, ... for an infinite summation of the form SUM(n = 1, n -> inf) X * .3^n ... which is the same as 10/7 X.

Re:Cave?

[DJRumpy]

Because Google holds a majority of the search engine market, making them the market leader, and by restricting (or removing search results from Apple, or any other company for that matter, they would definitely fall into the 'abuse' area of competition, as that could directly impact Apple sales). In contrast, Apple requiring apps to remove links to external app purchases outside of the app store is leveraged against all developers, not just some, and it could easily be considered a justifiable expense. These purchases are still allowed, but this allows Apple to take it's cut. They most likely justify this as a cost of the service itself (bandwidth, storage, distribution, credit transactions, etc), all of which they provide to the developer for a %30 percent cut. For many developers, the price is worth it since they don't have to deal with storage, distribution, credit, etc. Those that don't like it have a healthy market of competition to go to in Android.

http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2080003/May-2011-Search-Engine-Market-Share-from-comScore-Compete-Hitwise

Now Google could do something like prevent iOS apps from being ported into the Google market and rightly so since they pay infrastructure costs to support, distribute, etc.

Re:Cave?

[sortadan]

I would really like to see a major player start promoting jailbreaking in a responsible way. It's completely legal, and they can distribute unsigned applications that do whatever they want without giving anything to apple except the money the consumer gave them when buying the hardware.

I'm so locked in with the apps and games I already have for my iPhone that I'm not going to go to Android any time soon, but I hate the closed platform monopoly. I can take care of loading it on my iPhone, just let me buy the version that doesn't suck because apple is forcing you to cripple it...

Re:Cave?

[GumphMaster]

You have to charge 42.9% more to Apple-sourced customers to cover the 30% commission and still pocket the same amount yourself.

Re:Cave?

[cvtan]

So Apple is really the Pope app.

Re:Cave?

[amicusNYCL]

Right. Previously, Apple also outlawed that, where they said the price you offer through the app has to be the same price on your website. They took that part out, so now the theoretical "Apple tax" is actually a real thing. If purchasing something through an iOS app, people should expect to see an extra 30% charge, for Apple's share. It's the price people pay for the convenience of buying things through their iOS apps. Vendors can indicate that the price is lower on their site, but they're not allowed to put a link to their site in the app.

Re:Cave?

[mswhippingboy]

But Apple has a complete monopoly of the iOS device market. WTF does that have to do with anti-competitive behavior? Technically, Google has close to 0% of the mobile device market. HTC, Motorola, Samsung, etc all have chunks, but Google (with the exception of the Nexus) has very little. Being a monopoly is not a requirement to being charged with anti-competitive business practices last time I checked.

Re:Cave?

[Twinbee]

Exactly. No matter how bad of Apple this, Anon hit the target. There are various shades of grey, even when it comes to monopolies.

Re:Cave?

[node 3]

I just don't get it. Why is it that if Google doesn't want to comply, their only option is to pull the app. But if Google were to strip Apple from it's search engine results, that would be anti-competitive behavior?

Google pulls sites from their search engine all the time. They do so when the rules are violated. Apple does the same thing with their App Store. Neither are anticompetitive behaviors.

Where did you get this idea?

Re:Cave?

[node 3]

But Apple has a complete monopoly of the iOS device market

By definition, they are allowed to control their own products. That is not called a monopoly. Otherwise the term "monopoly" becomes meaningless, since every company would be a monopoly.

Re:Cave?

[mswhippingboy]

Where did you get this idea?

Oh, silly me. I should have known better to even question Apple's practices. Excuse me while I go and gouge my eyes out now.

Apple makes about 30% profit on their devices. They make 30% profit on apps sold through the app store. Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck? What, having the highest market cap of any technology company is not good enough for them?

You're right, IANAL, but I do have a brain and a sense of right and wrong and my "greedometer" gets pegged just about daily every time Apple makes a move.

I used to think IBM was a greedy corporation, then Microsoft came along and made them look like Ed McMurray. Now, Microsoft looks like like a gentle giant compared to the Apple. One big difference that worries me is that Microsoft seemed to care about the bad press they got and occasionally tried to smooth things over. Apple seem to just give the finger to anyone that complains about their business practices, and yet they manage to maintain a religious following, the likes of which I've never seen in 35 year in the business.

Those old Apple 1984 commercials could not be more ironic.

Re:Cave?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, Steve Jobs can't fart without someone on here screaming that he's going to patent methane emissions.

Re:Cave?

[RenderSeven]

They have no choice, it is Apple's platform after all.

Actually, if I paid for it, isnt it my platform?

Re:Cave?

[ninetyninebottles]

Apple makes about 30% profit on their devices. They make 30% profit on apps sold through the app store. Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck? What, having the highest market cap of any technology company is not good enough for them?

Apple runs the app store (like the regular iTunes store) at near break even levels. [citation] They do it because it sells hardware, not out of any altruism, but claiming Apple's percentage on app sales is exorbitant shows an ignorance about what percentage online retailers normally charge and about Apple's particular numbers. If anything you should be upset that they charge so little and thereby undermine the ability of competitors to get started in the market.

Now, Microsoft looks like like a gentle giant compared to the Apple.

There is certainly a lot of PR to that effect, and it seems like the "in thing" among some people to espouse such opinions. In my opinion, that just demonstrates one's ignorance about MS's business practices. Maybe MS finally figured out effective marketing for their brand image.

Re:Cave?

[gottabeme]

It's not Apple's product after it's sold to a customer.

There is a fundamental confusion caused by the fact that Apple is providing the app store service for free to purchasers of the iPhone, who have paid a one-time fee (carrier subsidies are a different matter). Apple is asserting control over the service as if people were subscribing to it for a monthly fee.

Oh, wait, are their customers the consumers who purchase their products, or the developers who write software for their products? Or are they the media companies who sell music and movies on iTunes?

Apple wants all of them to be its customers--it wants to make money from all of them for everything that happens.

It's got to stop somewhere--and it ought to be at the first-sale doctrine. But the practical solution is to support Android instead. On the other hand, if Apple is allowed to get away with this forever, and they keep growing, it may become the accepted norm--or is it already?

Re:Cave?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every fucking Apple article claims every fucking Apple product and every fucking Apple piece of software is just about breaking even and not making any money. I don't care what your citation states. Statistics and numbers within the organization can be moved around and applied to different products with in the company to make anything look to break even or to make 100% profit. Bottom line, they are making a huge profit every quarter. An example.. There are other online music retailers that do not sell hardware and they are making money and they charge even less than Apple does, how the fuck are they making money but Apple which has 10-20x the volume just "breaking even"?

Re:Cave?

[npsimons]

I just don't get it. Why is it that if Google doesn't want to comply, their only option is to pull the app. But if Google were to strip Apple from it's search engine results, that would be anti-competitive behavior?

Because Apple can do no wrong, and Google is the antichrist. /sarcasm.

Re:Cave?

[MikeUW]

Couldn't you just have said the formula (X/7)*10 to begin with, then state that it equals ~43% more?

Re:Cave?

[mswhippingboy]

Apple runs the app store (like the regular iTunes store) at near break even levels.

And you have the temerity to claim I'm ignorant? Even the citation you give shows that the app store made has contributed $189 Million since it opened. Granted, for a company with its revenues that may be small change, but only a lunatic can claim that a $189 Million profit is "just breaking even". Poor apple. Maybe, we should all chip in to support this charitable organization.

I wonder how many iPhones would have sold if there were no independent apps available for it? I'd credit the apps in the app store at least as much as Apples hardware for catapulting the company to the top of the food chain. True to Apple's image, they stick their finger in the eye of the indy developers that helped make them a success.

AFAIK, Microsoft hasn't changed anything. I still consider them as evil as ever. It's just that Apple has surpassed them on the list of companies I'd like to see burn in hell.

Re:Cave?

[mswhippingboy]

Hold on there mister. Did you just type that particular configuration of letters "A p p l e" together in a word? I regret to inform you that you have now violated Apple's trademark and can expect notification from our legal council.

BTW, if anyone hasn't seen this, ya gotta take a look (not a goatse, I promise). I especially got a kick out of the last part (NAZI impersonation)

Richard Dreyfuss Reads the iTunes EULA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu0lqUlHEko&feature=related

Re:Cave?

[UnknowingFool]

And you have the temerity to claim I'm ignorant? Even the citation you give shows that the app store made has contributed $189 Million since it opened. Granted, for a company with its revenues that may be small change, but only a lunatic can claim that a $189 Million profit is "just breaking even". Poor apple. Maybe, we should all chip in to support this charitable organization.

First of all the estimates are just that, estimates. Apple does not release the profit numbers from their store only the revenue. Munster has estimated they made $189 million; he also estimated only 1% for storage and delivery. He did even take into account other operating costs and did not take into account capital costs. If you read another report which delved more deeply into the numbers, Munster concedes that he did not factor capital costs.

This does not factor in the roughly $81 million Apple has spent since launch to store and deliver the 4 billion free apps that have been downloaded.

I don't about you but my impression is that building the data centers is not cheap. Since that report, Apple has building data centers for their App Store as well as the iCloud offering for estimates of $1B a piece.

Re:Cave?

[mswhippingboy]

But Apple has a complete monopoly of the iOS device market

By definition, they are allowed to control their own products. That is not called a monopoly. Otherwise the term "monopoly" becomes meaningless, since every company would be a monopoly.

Ummm, I recall Microsoft being called up on antitrust charges because they tried to give preferential treatment to IE on THEIR product and discouraged other browsers. I agreed with the charges at the time because I did think it to be unfair. I guess this doesn't apply to Apple because, well because they're Apple. Praise be to Jobs.

Re:Cave?

[erroneus]

Well, Google controls a much larger portion of a large market. They are in a near-monopoly state. When they do things that are unfair, it is cause for anti-trust investigation. In contrast, Apple is intentionally* limited in their market share. And because of their limits in the market, the impact of their control of their segment of the market is significantly smaller.

The difference is essentially "harms the public" or "harms their portion of the market." In the second case, it is clear and obvious that there is at least one alternative and a place for consumers who don't wish to endure the harm to go. In the first case, there are no other good options.

This isn't side-taking, it's just the way it is.

* I believe, and have believed for quite some time, that Apple keeps itself limited for precisely the reasons which answer your question. Apple wants to continue to make its choices with impunity. If they were to become a market leader, they know they would become a monopoly at some level and then they would be less free to make radical changes, choices or decisions as somewhere within all of that, the "public may be harmed" and antitrust investigations will follow.

Apple is beginning to walk a fine line with its iPhone at the moment. It needs to be less numerous than its competitors (and it is... fewer in number than Android devices collectively) while at the same time wildly popular. They also feel compelled to sue the pants on of any competitors. If they actually put any of their competitors out of business, they run the risk of becoming "the market leader" and will lose their freedom to, shall we say, "innovate."

Re:Cave?

[erroneus]

In order to become an Apple customer, you have to pay in two things: 1. Money 2. Your brain.

Re:Cave?

[erroneus]

It's a part of the human condition. Do you not see how blindly the Fox News crowd follows 'their leaders' believing that everything their leaders do is just and right in every case?

I can easily see and identify this type of behavior even if I cannot fully understand or appreciate it. There are certain areas of my brain I cannot simply turn off. These people can and do live without those areas of their brains and they seem quite happy and confident as a result. When I was a kid, I used to cry wishing I could be stupid like the other kids... (I know, there are some here who will say I got my wish... fuck you, I said it first, dumbass.) But I definitely see things differently from the rest of the masses and I see things the masses can't or don't see. I get the impression that there are lots of people on slashdot who have a similar issue with not being able to turn off parts of their brains as well and will see stupidity everywhere they look even and especially when the stupid can't see it for themselves.

Re:Cave?

[mswhippingboy]

I don't about you but my impression is that building the data centers is not cheap. Since that report, Apple has building data centers for their App Store as well as the iCloud offering for estimates of $1B a piece.

I have no idea how much Apple will pay for their data centers (though 1B apiece seems to be a bit much), but I do know one thing. Apple would not be building them it if it were not expected to be a profitable venture. All I can say is WAKE UP! Apple has passed Microsoft in terms of Market cap. Microsoft employs 93,000 employees, has a widely diverse product line as well as service organizations as well as a fairly profitable gaming division. They provide enterprise software that runs a sizable portion of the worlds businesses and still maintain about 85% marketshare for desktop computers. Microsoft is just about everywhere.

Apple, on the other hand employs about 34,000 employees, has a primary product line of about a dozen desktop or laptop machines, an mp3 player, smartphone and tablet. Yet they were able to surpass Microsoft handily and continue on a rapid rise.

I'm all for companies doing well and it's good to see periodic shakeups in the industry just to keep things fresh, but I can only see one explanation for Apple's meteoric rise and that is an enormous profit margin on all their products. People who purchase a MacBook Pros actually feel good about paying $1300 for a 13" laptop with 250GB drive, 2GB RAM and a dual core CPU. OTOH one can pick up a DELL XPS with 17" display, 750GB drive, 6GB RAM and i7 quad core CPU for the same price. DELL is able to do this and still make a profit (even after paying MS the licensing fee for Win7). I realize that Apple puts it in a prettier box, but it ain't that damn much prettier. And spare me the fanboi rhetoric about how much better OSX is than Win7. That is a pile of steaming BS. I use both on a daily basis (because my work requires it) and I personally prefer the Win7 UI hands down to OSX, but I'm intelligent enough to realize that different people have different tastes (to be perfectly honest, I even prefer Ubuntu to OSX).

Re:Cave?

[Totenglocke]

Actually, since Apple takes 30% of what you charge, they'd have to raise their prices on iOS by 42.857% to make the same money that they did before Apple began this campaign of general asshattery. Companies that are on both iOS and Android need to raise their prices and then undertake a cooperative ad campaign about how you have to pay 43% more if you use iOS because Steve Jobs is a greedy bastard.

Though, it is amusing to see how as Android market share keeps growing and iOS has stagnated Apple changes to bullshit like this and suing everyone to try to increase profits.

Re:Cave?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. If you paid for an Apple product, you're obviously an idiot, and shouldn't be allowed control over anything. Luckily, Steve Jobs has already solved that problem, preemptively. It's what's known as a "reverse-Groucho lock-in".

I'm absolutely fine with people having to pay 30% extra (well, 43% extra, actually) if they buy something through an Apple iToy. I just expect that to be clearly stated on the website or application, so that only iOS users pay that Apple tax, instead of it being spread evenly across all buyers.

Re:Cave?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since that report, Apple has building data centers for their App Store as well as the iCloud offering for estimates of $1B a piece.

They aren't donating $1B data centers to their customers, if they are spending that much on data centers then that's proof that they expecting a massive fucking return.

Re:Cave?

[UnknowingFool]

I have no idea how much Apple will pay for their data centers (though 1B apiece seems to be a bit much), but I do know one thing. Apple would not be building them it if it were not expected to be a profitable venture.

Google spends about $500M on each of their data centers although their purpose is primarily crawling and their expenses are differently structured. So $1B doesn't seem that far off. Looking at their latest quarterly results, Apple made at most $1.3B in iTunes and app store revenue. At most Apple took in $390M in revenue before accounting for costs including those $1B centers. At the same time, they made $20B in revenue for iPad/iPhone/iPods for a profit of $6B. I would say even if Apple made no money on their stores, $6B is reason enough to keep running them.

Re:Cave?

[UnknowingFool]

I don't know how accounting works in your world but normally when pay for something as huge as a data center it goes to something called "capital costs". That capital cost has to be deducted from any and all revenue before you can show something called "profit". Some capital costs take a long time to pay back. There is the idea that some companies are willing to take a loss on some aspects of their business to make more money on other aspects. It's called "selling razor blades". Considering the huge amount of money Apple makes on their hardware, it seems they are using the reverse of selling the razor for a large amount and selling the blades for little or next to nothing.

Re:Cave?

[Cutting_Crew]

doesn't apple have to give the app the 'apple blessing' with a signed signature before you can put it on an iThingWhateverItIs? If that's the case what about the one that i own? can I not test it on my on tablet without interference? Assuming that mine is NOT jailbroken that is. It seems silly that I should be able to sell my app or give it away to whomever i want who has bought the device and totally circumvent apple through blessing the app and/or through the app store.

Re:Cave?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, either you are too dumb to understand the difference between revenue and profit, or you are pretending to be too stupid to understand it. Why don't you do us a favor and go play on the highway, because there are already enough dumb trolls here.

Re:Cave?

[macs4all]

Now, Microsoft looks like like a gentle giant compared to the Apple.

Oh. Please find me the Windows Genuine Advantage equivalent in OS X.

Where, pray tell, are the Missile Launch Codes that the OS X installer needs?

How many of your Macs can you install Apple App Store apps and OS X Lion on?

When was the last time someone had to call up Apple to get their OS turned back on?

How much DRM is REALLY in OS X to make sure you don't install it on non-Apple hardware?

How many seats is OS X Server licensed for?

How many users can be active at one time in OS X?

Those are just a few differences between Apple and Microsoft that I can think of in a few minutes. I am quite sure there are many more...

Re:Cave?

[Graff]

Apple makes about 30% profit on their devices. They make 30% profit on apps sold through the app store.

And a brick-and-mortar store often makes anywhere from 50% to 200% profit on stuff sold through their store. Amazon makes money on stuff sold through its store. Google makes money on stuff sold through their outlets.

Every store has its rules and as long as the rules are spelled out and applied evenly then the only question becomes: "Do I want to buy or sell stuff through that store?"

If Apple asks for too much then rest assured they will have people dropping support for the store. If they are asking for the right amount then people will come to the store. There's nothing evil in this, it's pure business. Right now Apple has a lot of people interested in buying stuff through their stores so they can make it a condition to sellers that Apple gets a cut.

And don't think that the 30% is pure profit to Apple. There are development costs for the software running the stores, there are administrative costs, hardware costs, bandwidth costs, etc. In fact, the last time I saw numbers on the stores they weren't turning much of a profit at all, they were meeting costs and making a little bit extra.

As evidenced by the number of people willing to sell through the Apple stores there are a lot of people who think that a 30% cut is a fair price to pay for the benefits of selling through the stores. That should speak for itself.

Re:Cave?

[stasike]

Brilliant!

Re:Cave?

[SvnLyrBrto]

> But Apple has a complete monopoly of the iOS device market.

That's like saying that Ford has a complete monopoly on the Mustang market. Technically true; but a straw man at best.

Re:Cave?

[Fjandr]

I don't own any Apple devices. Is there a way to buy apps that doesn't go through the Apple app store? If not, I don't see how the following is possible:

When the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100% and Apple earns nothing.

If you can only get the application through Apple (jailbreaking aside), then only Apple can bring new subscribers according to their logic. The above then becomes a sort of red herring.

Re:Cave?

[mosb1000]

No, no. You're thinking about it all wrong! Apple's not taking 30%. They're letting the rest of us keep 70%! That's over half, you should be grateful!

Re:Cave?

[mcvos]

Those differences are all about Macs. iOS and the App Store are a very different story. And some Mac users are terrified that Apple might take the lessons learned with the iOS platform and implement them on Macs.

I'm not terrified, but certainly somewhat worried. The Mac is an excellent platform, and the only Apple product I'm willing to pay for, exactly because it is relatively open. As soon as Apple starts locking it down, I'll have to look for an alternative. And simply paying money to Apple already hurts me because of all the crap they pull.

Re:Cave?

[mcvos]

And a brick-and-mortar store often makes anywhere from 50% to 200% profit on stuff sold through their store. Amazon makes money on stuff sold through its store. Google makes money on stuff sold through their outlets.

Every store has its rules and as long as the rules are spelled out and applied evenly then the only question becomes: "Do I want to buy or sell stuff through that store?"

There's one subtle but important difference between the App Store and any other kind of store: When you don't want to sell your stuff through a normal store, you can always look for an alternative, go to the competitor, set up your own store, or whatever. For iDevices, Apple has the only store that can sell stuff for them. There is no alternative, no competitor, and no way to sell your own stuff. If you don't want to sell through their store, you don't get to sell it at all.

Suppose that everything you put into your car, from brake fluid to fluffy dice to toys in the back for the kids, had to be bought at an official Ford dealer. Yes, there are other car brands available, but it's still unreasonably restrictive.

Re:Cave?

[ajo_arctus]

I recall Microsoft being called up on antitrust charges because they tried to give preferential treatment to IE on THEIR product

I know you know this bit, but just for clarity's sake (because a lot of people here don't seem to know why Microsoft are so hated): Microsoft's product was effectively the only product in that market, giving them an actual monopoly. Monopolies aren't bad per se, unless the company that has the monopoly starts to use their position to destroy competition. Microsoft were definitely abusing their position, and that is why they were slapped. The IE bundling wasn't their first serious abuse of power either (if you're interested, also see: DR-DOS problems running Windows 3, the Disk Stacker compression tool, their secret use of APIs for their own software (like scatter-read in NT for SQL Server), something about Word Perfect (I forgot what that was though), bullying OEMs in to not shipping non-MS operating systems on PCs).

The reason it doesn't apply to Apple now is because Apple do not have a monopoly on anything, smart phones included. What share of the smart phone market do Apple have? It's certainly less than the 90% or so that they'd need to be considered a monopoly. If Apple make a serious error of judgement (like you could argue they have with this no-links rule), the theory is that there are enough options on the market that if people really care they can buy an alternative. And there are alternatives and people who don't like Apple are buying them, so it seems the free market is working.

Re:Cave?

[mcvos]

Exactly. And what about the people who buy an iPad with the explicit purpose in mind to use it to access a specific publisher's content? Shouldn't Apple be paying that publisher 30% of the price of the iPad, by that logic?

Re:Cave?

[headLITE]

They took a lesson learned from iOS and brought the app store to the Mac, including the policy that allows installation on multiple devices. Then they dramatically slashed prices for their own software that they sell through the app store. What's so bad about that?

Re:Cave?

[Graff]

There's one subtle but important difference between the App Store and any other kind of store: When you don't want to sell your stuff through a normal store, you can always look for an alternative, go to the competitor, set up your own store, or whatever.

If you're an informed consumer then you know that's the case when you buy an iDevice. You'll either have to use Apple's stores or jailbreak. If you're fine with that then an iDevice is just the thing for you.

If you're not an informed consumer then caveat emptor. You always have the option of returning the device and buying another brand that better fits how you want to use it.

Suppose that everything you put into your car, from brake fluid to fluffy dice to toys in the back for the kids, had to be bought at an official Ford dealer. Yes, there are other car brands available, but it's still unreasonably restrictive.

That's not a reasonable analogy, even if it is the obligatory car analogy. iDevices have a pretty good web browser that can provide all sorts of content and services and they can also use music, videos, books, and other documents from other stores. I have tons of stuff that I bought from other sources that work just fine on my iPhone so it's not as complete of a lock-in as it's often made out to be.

Re:Cave?

[MachineShedFred]

Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck?
By your own statement, that 'someone else' makes 70%, with no marketing or distribution cost whatsoever.

I think you forgot that Apple is a for-profit enterprise, with public shareholder backing. If they aren't doing everything they can within the law to maximize their shareholder investment, then the management should be fired.

This applies to all corporations, private equity firms, and small businesses the world over. Right or wrong, it's called capitalism; you might have heard of it.

Re:Cave?

[Zibblsnrt]

It's not Apple's product after it's sold to a customer.

Doesn't Apple generally disagree with that assertion these days?

Re:Cave?

[dzfoo]

>> but I do know one thing. Apple would not be building them it if it were not expected to be a profitable venture.

But we all agree that it is a profitable venture: it increases the value proposition of the ecosystem and thereby helps to sell more hardware, which is where the money is.

The poster to whom you were responding alluded to this. What he or she argued was your assertion that the App Store is run for direct profit. In other words, that most of that 30% goes to pay the cost of doing business.

          -dZ.

Re:Cave?

[mcvos]

There's one subtle but important difference between the App Store and any other kind of store: When you don't want to sell your stuff through a normal store, you can always look for an alternative, go to the competitor, set up your own store, or whatever.

If you're an informed consumer then you know that's the case when you buy an iDevice. You'll either have to use Apple's stores or jailbreak. If you're fine with that then an iDevice is just the thing for you.

If you're not an informed consumer then caveat emptor. You always have the option of returning the device and buying another brand that better fits how you want to use it.

Returning something you bought over a month ago is generally not that easy. And with Apple changing its conditions like this, I doubt anyone really knew in advance what was coming.

Re:Cave?

[Sczi]

I've gone to web sites on my iphone and had them pop up "install my app" messages. These tend to be free, but if one were a paid app, would Apple still get their cut?

Re:Cave?

[stewbacca]

I don't care what your citation states. Statistics and numbers within the organization can be moved around and applied to different products with in the company to make anything look to break even or to make 100% profit.

What are you, a Fox News viewer?

Bottom line, they are making a huge profit every quarter. An example.. There are other online music retailers that do not sell hardware and they are making money and they charge even less than Apple does, how the fuck are they making money but Apple which has 10-20x the volume just "breaking even"?

Because iTunes has no advertising, which is the main revenue stream for nearly every online entity these days.

Re:Cave?

[stewbacca]

Considering markup in a retail store is more towards 40-50% than 30% AND you have a much larger audience with an App store AND you have much lower overhead costs, the 30% is looking like a bargain. Once you Apple haters on slashdot realize this, you'll start to understand Apple's huge profits as of late.

Re:Cave?

[intheshelter]

While I think this policy is going to end up shooting Apple in the foot, your analogy does not fit. If Apple pulled Google apps from the App Store then it would be like Google pulling Apple from search results. The analogy you provided was a bit apples to oranges (pardon the pun).

Re:Cave?

[stewbacca]

As long as Google earns revenue by selling ads to me, then yes, they are the antichrist.

Re:Cave?

[intheshelter]

As it turns out Google already does this with Adwords. But of course it's okay when Google sends business your way and takes a cut, right?

Re:Cave?

[intheshelter]

I wish there was a filter where I could automatically block anyone who says Apple has a monopoly on (itunes, iphone, ipad, app store, etc.). It would be great to automatically filter out those posters who are too stupid to understand what a monopoly is, let alone make an intelligent comment.

Re:Cave?

[mswhippingboy]

Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck? By your own statement, that 'someone else' makes 70%, with no marketing or distribution cost whatsoever.

I think you forgot that Apple is a for-profit enterprise, with public shareholder backing. If they aren't doing everything they can within the law to maximize their shareholder investment, then the management should be fired.

This applies to all corporations, private equity firms, and small businesses the world over. Right or wrong, it's called capitalism; you might have heard of it.

Yep. I've heard of it, perhaps you should learn about it rather than repeating untruths. First, the reality is that there is no legal requirement for corporations to maximize shareholder value. The only legal obligations corporations have to their shareholders is what they specify in their shareholder agreement (their so-called list of objectives). Their list of objectives can be any (legal) objective at all. Obviously most for-profit corporations do seek to maximize shareholder value because it they don't, their management will get canned by the shareholders. However, that's not even the reason for my objection. There are many ways corporations can go about pursuing the goal of increasing shareholder value. There is no legal requirement that Apple screw indy developers and squeeze them to the point where there is no profit to be made, simply because the app store already has enough apps to push their hardware, they don't really give a damn it there are any more. There are intangible items such as good will toward the developers that create the apps that make people want to purchase your product.

Second, if I perceive a corporation is abusing it's position or just being a dick by implementing draconian policies, I have the right (maybe even obligation) to speak out as loud as I can in hopes that enough people will see it, agree with it and raise enough hell it so the corporation changes their position. Maybe you're OK with their policies and that's fine. I'm not, and I intend to make that known as loudly as I can.

If Apple added the following to their EULA, I suppose you'd be just fine with it.

• "By using this service, you agree that all future purchases of any kind will be conducted through the Apple App Store and that you agree to the terms and conditions therein. Any attempt to purchase goods or services through any other means, electronic or otherwise, is a violation of this agreement which could result in termination of this agreement, criminal prosecution, or euthanasia by suitable means as determined by management.
• The act of reading this agreement is sufficient indication that you are using the device and are thereby legally bound to this agreement. Apple has already collected your device location and will use whatever means necessary to protect its interests up to and including euthanasia as outlined above. This legal remedy may also be extended to others within your vicinity at the sole discretion of Apple Corporation.

Re:Cave?

[intheshelter]

Aside from the fact that your assertion is false that every article claims every apple product is running at break even levels, let's look at your next stupid statement, that you "don't care what your citation states". Why bother to discuss the topic with you if you insist on staying on your mountain of ignorance?

Re:Cave?

[intheshelter]

$189 million over 4 years? That's a far cry from the 30% profit my doom and gloom was espousing. Hence the term "near" break even levels. While that seems like a ton of money to most people, it is not the cash cow the haters make it out to be. The App store generates some income, but it's main purpose is being part of the ecosystem that sells the hardware.

Re:Cave?

[intheshelter]

You might want to revisit your numbers and see how healthy Dell is nowadays. It's a sinking ship.

And spare me your fanboi rhetoric about how OS X being better than Win 7 is a pile of steaming BS. And spare me your fanboi rhetoric about how you prefer the Win 7 UI or Ubuntu. That's a pile of steaming BS too!

Re:Cave?

[Trillan]

Let's look at Amazon/Kindle.

The price in the store of the app is $0. That makes Apple's share of the app revenue also $0. Further, purchases for the Kindle are outside of the App Store. That means Apple's share of any purchase is also $0. Yet Apple reviews and hosts the app.

Why should Amazon be able to duck any form of paying Apple for the hosting? Why is Apple the only one being greedy here, and not Amazon as well?

Exactly what share of the money was Amazon offering?

I think letting them continue without a link is actually pretty generous on Apple's part. It isn't like Apple's seeing a penny out of this app. No more people are buying an iPad for reading Amazon books than, say, web surfing or Angry Birds HD.

Re:Cave?

[Trillan]

Because Apple does allow purchases outside of the App Store, just as long as the developer also allows purchases inside the App Store. I've got several applications that do this. (Very consumer friendly, too: Content I bought years ago for Palm OS was available to me on my iPhone.)

Re:Cave?

[Toonol]

Hmm. They don't have a monopoly on app stores, but they're trying to legally enforce a monopoly on App Store (tm).

Re:Cave?

[mswhippingboy]

I hate to keep pointing out the obvious, but you Apple fanbois just don't get it. Apple makes tons of money off their hardware (otherwise they wouldn't be in the #1 technology company position now would they?). Part of the reason they are successful in doing so is because there are so many apps for their devices. If I'm a customer trying to decide whether to buy an Android or iOS device, a large part of my criteria is what apps are available it. If the Android device has an app to let me purchase and read Amazon/Kindle books (and I happen to really enjoy that service) but iOS doesn't have that app, I might be inclined to go with Android rather that iOS. It's not about being generous, it's about encouraging app developers (including the big guys like Google and Amazon) to create an app for the iOS platform so customers will purchase more Apple devices. I have no doubt at all that Apple has actually done more damage to their bottom line by adopting these types of policies than they can ever hope to make up by squeezing developer or content providers for a piece of their action. In fact, Apple's policies are probably one of the main reasons for the success of Android.

Re:Cave?

[Trillan]

So, we've moved on to the personal insult stage? Thanks, but I'll keep above that line.

The Kindle app is all but meaningless to Apple sales. Nobody buys an iPad for Kindle. They buy an iPad for dozens of apps they want. Kindle app? Bonus to customer. But fewer iBooks sales. Loss to Apple.

If customers care about the Kindle, they buy a Kindle.

Apple doesn't care if you buy an iPad and a Kindle. The Kindle app adds not a penny to Apple's revenue.

Re:Cave?

[SleazyRidr]

Paying for advertising is completely different than paying for the right to sell from a program that you wrote.

Re:Cave?

[Fjandr]

That's not "bringing customers to the app" though. That's a purchase despite the app. My question is specifically how a publisher can get an app and a customer together without the app store or jailbreaking.

Maybe I'm missing something in what you're saying.

Re:Cave?

[RockDoctor]

It's not Apple's product after it's sold to a customer.

If that is sufficiently true across a sufficiently large number of jurisdictions, then things will gradually (say, overnight) change so that you'll not be able to buy an iPhone 4 (or whatever the next generation will be ; I stopped counting when they started putting numbers on the things), but you'll only be able to lease them.

Which would you, as Jobs, prefer? $450 once and not having the heart and soul of your customer for ever and eternity, or $35/month for 15 months, the heart and soul of the lessor for those 15 months, plus the ability to (legally) brick the phone at the end of the 15 months (in the process fucking them over for daring to think un-iThoughts). Unless the lessor has already signed up for an iPhone 4.5 on an 18 month contract.

It's got to stop somewhere--and it ought to be at the first-sale doctrine.

I don't know which countries that ruling applies, but it's easy to circumvent: don't sell your device to anyone, just lease the machines via leasing agents. If the agent gives their customer the mistaken impression that the customer has brought, say, an iLeash, then that's a matter between the agent and the lessor-under-the-misapprehension-that-he's-a-purchaser.

Re:Cave?

[Duradin]

Would there be anything left on /. with that filter?

Re:Cave?

[Trillan]

I think it's likely we're not quite understanding each other, yeah.

Yes, excluding jailbreaks apps come through Apple's App Store. However, they can be free. Apple will approve free applications. And you can purchase content from within or without the App Store. This "greed" question comes down to purchase of content in free apps. (Presumably, it would come up in paid apps offering content outside of the App Store, too, but there's been little gnashing of teeth over that)

Apple doesn't consider use of the app "bringing the customer." Let's pretend there's a newspaper Xyz with an app. Apple doesn't consider just downloading and using the app to be Apple bringing the customer to the deal. Apple considers using in-app purchase to be Apple bringing the customer to the purchase. By the same token, Apple would consider the customer purchasing the paper from Xyz's web site to be Xyz bringing the customer to the purchase.

What Apple doesn't want is for the Xyz iPhone app to provide a link in the iPhone app in lieu of in-app purchase. Apple would view that as Xyz taking Apple's share for customers Apple is bringing to the deal. In app purchase and on-site purchase? Fine. On-site purchase from the website, even on the iPhone, so long as the app didn't send them to the site for the purchase? Fine. On-site purchase with a link from the app and no in-app purchase? Not fine.

Re:Cave?

[amicusNYCL]

I haven't signed up with Apple to be an iOS developer, so I can't answer most of those questions. From what I understand it, the only legitimate way to distribute your application to the public is through Apple's store and, yes, you need their approval to do so. I believe the Apple development kit includes a simulator to test it on the various platforms, rather than a way to load it to your device directly. That's complete speculation on my part though.

Re:Cave?

[Fjandr]

I get all that. It's pretty much inline with my perceptions about how Apple operates regarding in-app purchasing.

My point was, how does a seller bring "a customer to the app" in any meaningful sense in terms of Apple's analogy to Apple bringing a customer and getting a 30% cut. They're talking about an app transaction in their case specifically, and in the same breath describing the alternative of a company bringing a customer to the app. That seems to implicitly mean a transaction could occur in the latter case without the 30% Apple tax while also involving the app for the purchase. I don't get the mechanics of that, unless it's a lie of omission.

Re:Cave?

[toriver]

It's not Apple's product after it's sold to a customer.

Apple aren't selling the store to anyone. The App Store remains Apple's. The iOS device is the user's, free to do with as they please. The consumer cannot expect Apple to help them using it in other ways than what Apple prefers though. Heck, for the first months after the iPhone was released there was no App Store, Apple telling developers they should make HTML5 webapps.

Android? You mean the 99% pirated app platform? Made by Google, whose customers are the advertisers? Modified by vendors and operators to add distinct features since every sale of an Android device is a lost sale for the other vendors?

And since Microsoft are busy copying Apple's practices for their WP7 platform I guess "accepted norm" is the right answer.

Re:Cave?

[toriver]

They make 30% profit on apps sold through the app store. Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck?

Where do you get that 30% figure from? They take a 30% cut from paid apps, but that does not in any way shape or form relate to any profit percentage.
(As does Goole's Android Marketplace by the way - Amazon only charges 10% but then they get to set the price.)

You seem to be in the "companies should be non-profit" camp, but fact is that most are in it for the money. If you do not like it you are free to pick a different platform to develop for, instead of acting like Wal-Mart has a duty to let you open a stall in their supermarkets.

Re:Cave?

[toriver]

To the general public? Yes. To other developers? No, you can just zip the project and they can unpack, change an identifier value and use it with their wildcard provisioning profile. There are also options open to businesses to have "inhouse" distribution to known devices, and mass-purchase of apps (this latter is recent). And you can install provisioning profiles on your friends' devices to let them use your apps as well (but they need to let you install the apps for them IIRC).

Re:Cave?

[toriver]

No, because the customers can register and purchase subscriptions at a website (for instance). Case in point: I can log in to Zinio.com, start a subscription, and the iPad Zinio app will download the subscribed magazine. It is just more convenient to do it through the app and Apple's payment system instead of having yet another place where I have a credit card on file (or having to re-enter that info on every purchase).

Registering at Zinio.com, marvel.com etc. and then using the iOS apps means Apple did not bring the customer for the rule's purposes.

Re:Cave?

[toriver]

Well, it is your hardware, to do with as you please. You did not buy the App Store or the other Apple services.

Re:Cave?

[MachineShedFred]

Well, you really knocked the hell out of that straw man you constructed. Good job.

What I said: Apple is using every legal avenue they have to increase profits
What you seem to think I said: Apple is under a legal obligation to increase profits in every conceivable way

To reiterate, I never said that Apple has some legal obligation to chisel as much money from everyone as possible, rather that it's just in their best interests to do so under all legal avenues available to them, with an eye towards the future to make sure they don't piss off all their repeat business.

This lesson in english comprehension has been brought to you by Slashdot.

Re:Cave?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Then they dramatically slashed prices for their own software that they sell through the app store. What's so bad about that?

Gee, that gives them an unfair advantage over its competitors. Apple raise your prices! Apple is too cheap! Just like when they had to fight of those iPad scalpers - those iPads were much too cheap! It's time the government stepped in and forced Apple to raise their prices!

Re:Cave?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

As long as Google earns revenue by selling ads to me, then yes, they are the antichrist.

If that was the only thing they sold: http://scripting.com/stories/2011/07/25/whyGoogleCaresIfYouUseYour.html

"There's a very simple business reason why Google cares if they have your real name. It means it's possible to cross-relate your account with your buying behavior with their partners, who might be banks, retailers, supermarkets, hospitals, airlines. To connect with your use of cell phones that might be running their mobile operating system. To provide identity in a commerce-ready way. And to give them information about what you do on the Internet, without obfuscation of pseudonyms.

Simply put, a real name is worth more than a fake one. "

Re:Cave?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

I don't own any Apple devices. Is there a way to buy apps that doesn't go through the Apple app store? If not, I don't see how the following is possible:

When the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100% and Apple earns nothing.

If you can only get the application through Apple (jailbreaking aside), then only Apple can bring new subscribers according to their logic. The above then becomes a sort of red herring.

That's about existing services an app gives access to, like a newspaper site, or Hulu. It makes sense once you think about it - which rules out Apple haters, but there you go.

Re:Cave?

[Fjandr]

I'm not an Apple hater, - simply have no reason to purchase any of their products. I am truly puzzled how Apple can claim there is a method to purchase in-app wherein the publisher retains all revenue from a customer brought to the app by a publisher.

The topic is about purchasing through an app, either by linking (which is now banned) or by direct purchase through the app. Ergo, the statement is meant to imply the publisher has some method to retain 100% revenue through in-app purchasing if they bring the customer. How is this accomplished without jailbreaking? That's the beginning and end of my question, which has yet to be answered by anyone.

Re:Cave?

[Graff]

Returning something you bought over a month ago is generally not that easy. And with Apple changing its conditions like this, I doubt anyone really knew in advance what was coming.

Considering the fact that Apple said the conditions were changing back in February and 5 months later these app makers are changing their apps, I'd say there was plenty of advance warning.

Besides, you can always sell off the device if you are past the grace period.

Anyways, like I said: caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. If you don't do your research before you buy anything then you're stuck with what you've bought. Apple has been pretty open about the direction they are going in regards to how stuff is billed in their stores, a modicum of research would have informed a person as to what type of device they were buying.

Re:Cave?

[Trillan]

I think calling it a lie of omission might be reaching a bit, but sure. The app purchase itself is 70-30. That's why so many companies make the app free and try to charge for things the app needs or uses outside of the store, so they don't need to share a penny of it with Apple.

Re:Cave?

[Fjandr]

The comment wasn't about purchasing apps though. It was about purchasing through apps. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense in the context of an article about removing links in apps that circumvent direct in-app purchasing.

Apple said if they direct a consumer to purchase through an app, they deserve a 30% commission, but if publishers get a person to the app without Apple's help, the publisher gets 100% revenue from the purchase. Given Apple's walled-garden approach, I don't see how the latter is possible without jailbreaking, hence my question.

Actually, even if it was about directly purchasing apps, you still have to jailbreak or go through Apple's "Apple brings the customer process." I'm really trying to find out if there is a mechanism for installing and purchasing through apps that does not require either jailbreaking or using Apple's app store. If there's not a mainstream process for that, the statement really is a lie of omission, since you wouldn't be able to do app purchasing without Apple claiming to bring the customer. I want to know if there's actually a method that exists to allow purchasing through the publisher's direction, without being subject to the Apple tax. The statement by Apple clearly implies there is a method to do so, otherwise there would be no case in which a developer is not subject to their tax. If the latter is true the statement is clearly misleading. If not, what method other than jailbreaking allows the installation and in-app purchasing that is not subject to Apple's control.

Hopefully I've stated the thing enough different ways to get across what I'm trying to find out. I know the above is full of redundancies. :)

Re:Cave?

[Trillan]

No, that helped. What you mean has clicked now. :)

Yes, developers can avoid sharing by making the purchases available on their web site and having the iOS app use the purchase. They're just not allowed to provide a link in the application to that web site.

If the developer provides both In App Purchase and off website purchase, Apple would get a 30% split of the In App Purchase only, and nothing of the off website purchase. Of course, all other things most users would probably do In App Purchase. Kindle's probably an exception, since one of Apple's rules is (was?) that In App Purchase can only handle things on iOS. If you want to make that resource available to a user's account on other devices, it's got to be off a website.

Disclaimer: I'm an app developer that uses this loophole, though our last update was long enough ago that we still have a link. (Possibly also because we're too small to worry about, I don't really know.) I still don't like it. :)

In other news...

[wsxyz]

Customers bowed on Monday to Apple's newest App Store rules, and removed iPhone and iPad from their shopping lists. The move was required to comply with new rules designed to block Apple's competitors from making iDevices worth having.

Re:In other news...

[The Dawn Of Time]

Yeah, you keep waiting on that. Hold your breath even.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you keep waiting on that. Hold your breath even.

You're HOLDING it wrong!

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

As an employee of an Apple Specialists and as a Apple user for the past 20 years I'm glad to say that my next mobile devices will NOT be Apple products because of Apple's practices such as these.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

As an actual iPhone Owner and as a Apple user for the past 30 years I'm glad to say that my next mobile devices will be Apple products because of Apple's practices such as these.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

As an independent developer who:

1) Makes a modest amount of money on the iPhone App store.
and
2) Sold a few Mac apps before the iPhone and has dealt with other third-party services that do the hosting, fulfillment, and billing.
and therefore:
3) Knows, from first hand experience, that Apple's 30% cut is not only perfectly reasonable; but a damn good deal.

I shall continue to ignore ignorant people like you, who have probably never successfully sold a software product in your life, and go on distributing through the iPhone app store and (soon) the Mac app store.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot to mention - you are apple's bitch too.

Re:In other news...

[mswhippingboy]

The fact that you apparently only develop for Mac and/or Apple devices speaks volumes. You're breadth of experience is duly noted.

Re:In other news...

[Fjandr]

Were your apps used to sell products linked through the app? Otherwise, the percentage is taken on a product with different economics from your app, and hence your experience does not apply.

Even if you did sell products through your apps, they don't necessarily have the same margins as other products. Products with a margin less than 30% would not sell profitably through an Apple app, regardless of your personal experience.

Your products may do fine. Others may not. Mileage may vary; not everyone gets the same gas mileage as you, and it's arrogant in the extreme to claim otherwise.

Re:In other news...

[stasike]

I believe that for a developer, that has to deal with "third-party services that do the hosting, fulfillment, and billing" the 30% cut is a reasonable deal.

But Amazon, Kobo, Google Books, New York Times, etc ... have their own services that do the hosting, fulfillment, and billing. Those subjects often have less than 30% profit on books, thanks to the agency deal that Apple helped to enforce. So for those subject, the 30% Apple cut is unrealistically high.

Re:In other news...

[Dhalka226]

As somebody who:

1) Has been on Slashdot a long time.
and
2) Has a modest level of reading comprehension.
and therefore:
3) Knows a self-important twat when he sees one.

Why can't you simply not be snarky and give us the information of what other third-party services that do hosting, fulfillment and billing you have used, and what their costs/rates and terms were, and we can judge for ourselves whether it is not only perfectly reasonable but a damn good deal? If it's that simple, how is it that this debate goes on endlessly -- and not only endlessly, but endlessly without any such information being presented? There's an awful lot of self-appointed experts out there who have the time to stop by and point out (anonymously of course) how expert they are and how important their opinions are and yet somehow lack the time to back them up with anything more like, for examples, facts. It's strange right?

I don't know if you're simply a liar trying to sound important or an asshole who can only be bothered to cut other people down instead of actually provide useful information that may help people out, but the sad reality is that it's one or the other. You claim to have relevant facts, so let's hear them. We're all waiting with bated breath I am sure.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I just don't understand why anyone even considers continuing to develop any software whatsoever for Apple. They crap all over their developers every chance they get and have been doing this since the beginning. What other company forces you to buy their PCs to begin developing for their other platform then makes you pay to open a development account and after all of that when you publish anything they take 30% of every cent you make... It wont be long until they start banning links to any page from a site that doesn't pay them 30% of their ad revenues because the page wads visited by an iDiot using his iDevice.

Re:In other news...

[coinreturn]

I just don't understand why anyone even considers continuing to develop any software whatsoever for Apple. They crap all over their developers every chance they get and have been doing this since the beginning. What other company forces you to buy their PCs to begin developing for their other platform then makes you pay to open a development account and after all of that when you publish anything they take 30% of every cent you make... It wont be long until they start banning links to any page from a site that doesn't pay them 30% of their ad revenues because the page wads visited by an iDiot using his iDevice.

Wow, you are a troll. So you think Apple should be forced to port their development platform to PC's? The development tools are FREE if you own a Mac. I have apps in the app store and am happy to pay 30% since Apple is doing all the marketing and distribution.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and your inability to discern the difference between "your" and "you're" marks you as just another dim bulb in the room. Learn the language, kiddo.

Re:In other news...

[StuartHankins]

Really?

If you don't understand the benefits of the Apple App Store, a couple of people from the Internet probably aren't going to catch you up. No one else is responsible for your lack of information or lack of study, and you alone can remedy that.

So far as attitude is concerned, you're coming up short on patience and long on criticism -- overly harsh and haughty as if someone owed you something. WTF?

I'll give you a synopsis: Do your own research, asshole.

Damn you Ballmer!!!!!

[Vinegar Joe]

Oh wait......my mistake. Carry on.......

More evidence of Apple's perfidy

[TimHunter]

The only question is, is this the worst thing that Steve Jobs has ever done, or just the worst thing lately?

Re:More evidence of Apple's perfidy

[oritpro]

Consumer point of view: The more I read about Steve Jobs lately the happier I am that I never became an Apple customer.

Investor point of view: Go Steve Jobs!

Re:More evidence of Apple's perfidy

[Anonymous Coward]

You got 1 out of 4.

And i'm not sure about easy to use somedays

Re:More evidence of Apple's perfidy

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how channelling funds from the users destined for the app-makers into Apple's account makes it higher quality, more trusted, easier to use, or more secure. In fact, it has nothing to do with any of those things.

Re:More evidence of Apple's perfidy

[Anonymous Coward]

High quality: Compared to what? I just got an IS11CA and it's amazing. I'd easily call it higher quality than the iPhone 4 because it doesn't break as easy, it's noticeably faster, has a better camera, etc.
Trusted: What? What does "trusted" even mean in this context?
Easy to Use: Sure. Easier than Android for sure, out of design rules and simplicity. Unfortunately me and many others find that "over simplified" and "too restrictive". I mean come on, do you really want to constantly go back to the main screen click and app icon to switch between them? What do you have against widgets?
Secure: Granted the app-review process does weed out malicious code, though at the cost of freedom for developer and consumer. Other than that Android offers many more encryption and high-level security options. So I guess it all depends on what kind of security you are talking about.

Mods: Feel free to mod me "Flamebait". For this post I'll take it because to many this would easily be flamebait. Honestly though, it annoys the hell out of me that people like the parent poster make baseless and non-comparative claims. Certainly all the parents claims could be considered true within a context and from a particular viewpoint, both of which I assume the parent is operating in.

Re:More evidence of Apple's perfidy

[E IS mC(Square)]

That's how capitalism works. Sociopathic salesmen raise to the top, fucks users in the ass, steals livers and gets worshipped by millions who can not wait to suck his dick.

There, I said it.

Re:More evidence of Apple's perfidy

[E IS mC(Square)]

Can't hear you. Can you please take Steve Job's dick out of your mouth first?

Re:More evidence of Apple's perfidy

[Totenglocke]

No, it's not. Those with fully functioning brains will change and purchase products from other companies - those who are dumb enough to put up with Apple's shit deserve every extra penny that they lose (this applies to all industries). I bought an iPhone 3GS when they came out because at the time it was the best smartphone - a year later I canceled my AT&T contract, sold the iPhone on ebay, and bought an Evo 4G on Sprint (now upgraded to an Evo 3D) and I'm continually happier and happier that I switched OS's.

Re:More evidence of Apple's perfidy

[flimflammer]

+1 Insightful.

Re:More evidence of Apple's perfidy

[drinkypoo]

No, node 3 can not possibly do that, he is a well known apple whore. (Well, maybe just a slut, but he sure does SEEM like he's getting paid; why else spend so much time and effort ignorantly defending Apple?)

Re:More evidence of Apple's perfidy

[Anonymous Coward]

Can hear you or can't understand you? In a rush to be clever, you cocked it up.

Re:More evidence of Apple's perfidy

[emuls]

I did a similar thing except it wouldn't have been cost effective for me to switch carriers due to the family plan that I am on. I have had an iPhone 3g since release because it WAS the best smartphone at the time. Since then, I've been waiting for ATT to finally get a good Android phone at a good price. Saturday I upgraded to the Infuse 4g for $50 on sale. In a couple of hours I had all the functionality of my iphone including syncing with itunes plus a bunch of other stuff I didn't even know the android could do. I don't understand why people bitch and moan all day about how evil apple is. If it bothers someone so much, they should just buy a different product and get over it.

Re:More evidence of Apple's perfidy

[Anonymous Coward]

Demanding 30% of all revenue from in app purchases is excessive. Imagine if Microsoft demanded 30% of all in application purchases made on Windows computers. It would be crazy, so why is it any different for iOS?

Holy crap

[Dyinobal]

They get a 30% share? that's nuts. It's a shame that their hardware is such a social status symbol for so many people. Dictator Jobs certainly has a nice scam going on.

Re:Holy crap

[Vinegar Joe]

Livers procured from 16 year old Chinese virgins are expensive.

Re:Holy crap

[Anonymous Coward]

The go great with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

Re:Holy crap

[PRMan]

So, can Amazon just raise all Kindle prices by 30% when accessed by an iPad? Seems like the only fair thing to do. I'd be happy to get a 30% discount on my Android tablet.

Re:Holy crap

[schwit1]

Apple would get 30% or THAT 30%

Re:Holy crap

[Anonymous Coward]

This is already happening with other software publishers.

I have a Macbook Pro, I installed the App Store for Mac OS, I browsed the app's, went to some of the developer websites, and it was cheaper - easily 20-30% across the board, it is nuts...

Re:Holy crap

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think 30% is nuts, you should look into the costs and problems associated with selling retail software in stores like Best Buy. 30% is a great deal unless your customer base is already well-developed, which I think includes Amazon.

Re:Holy crap

[Microlith]

That would simply give Apple's iBooks a 30% advantage. This is just Apple fucking with people they see as competitors, and abusing their lock on the iProduct userbase to do so.

Re:Holy crap

[Sancho]

It's a shame that their hardware is such a social status symbol for so many people.

That is a shame. It's also a shame that the device and OS are really quite nice. Or to direct our negative emotions more appropriately, it's a shame that Apple is so heavy-handed with their App Store policies and policy against letting the user install things from outside of said store.

The iPad is the most responsive tablet device I've used. Its browser is fantastic (though there are aspects of the Android browser that I prefer.) The email client is light-years ahead of Android's (though that's a relatively recent development.)

Re:Holy crap

[amicusNYCL]

30% is a great deal unless your customer base is already well-developed, which I think includes Amazon.

When your profit margins are already 30% or less, then giving that 30% to Apple is no longer a "great deal".

Re:Holy crap

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

They get a 30% share? that's nuts.

Yeah, the good people at Google and Amazon only get 30%!!

Re:Holy crap

[Excelsior]

No, you have to charge 43% extra to break even when Apple takes a 30% cut. For instance, if a book is 1.00 normally, you need to charge 1.43 because 1.43 * .3 = .429. This means the margin is so high it's not even close to competitive with Apple's own products.

Re:Holy crap

[node 3]

That would simply give Apple's iBooks a 30% advantage. This is just Apple fucking with people they see as competitors, and abusing their lock on the iProduct userbase to do so.

How, exactly, is this abuse? What stores are you aware of that don't put some sort of mark up on the products they sell?

If you want to use the In App system, you pay Apple, if you don't, you don't. That's fair. The ban on links isn't about "fucking" with anyone, it's about maintaining the user experience of iOS. It's jarring to have an app kick you out to Safari. That's one of the points Apple made when they introduced iAds.

Re:Holy crap

[smoot123]

And IIRC, that was the other part of the license agreement: you had to charge the same amount for in-app and out-of-app purchases. So no, you can't mark up the in-app purchase price to cover the Apple tax.

I'm grudgingly willing to allow that Apple can set whatever rules they want about what apps running in their ecosystem must and must not do. I'm much more pissed off that they're setting pricing policies for third parties, especially for purchases that don't go through any part of the Apple store.

Re:Holy crap

[reason]

It's not as straightforward as that. Apple now won't allow app vendors to include a link to their website in their apps, which they have done in the past to avoid using the In App system. And by all reports (http://cnet.co/apple-app-no-buy-link-cnet), "Aside from not having any links to an e-bookstore, you can't even mention your Web site or explain to readers from within the app how to purchase books and get them onto the device."

Re:Holy crap

[Anonymous Coward]

"How, exactly, is this abuse? What stores are you aware of that don't put some sort of mark up on the products they sell?"

Every store I visit offers their product at or very near the MSRP. In the instances where it's a different price it's because it's lower due to sale or clearance. I've yet to visit any store that sells goods for above the MSRP, and I'd imaging they wouldn't be in business very long.

"If you want to use the In App system, you pay Apple, if you don't, you don't. That's fair."

Except for the fact that I have to use it. No that's not fair, to me or my customers. There's a reason why we don't make apps for any i products, and why more developers are moving away. Apple does NOT deserve 30% of MY profits, and my customers don't deserve to pay higher just to use their shitty plat form.

"The ban on links isn't about "fucking" with anyone, it's about maintaining the user experience of iOS. It's jarring to have an app kick you out to Safari. That's one of the points Apple made when they introduced iAds."

No, what's jarring is have a product tell me I can't use it how I wish. That's jarring, and out right fucking scary.

Re:Holy crap

[Ziwcam]

IIRC, there's already terms in the agreement to prevent this behavior.

Re:Holy crap

[cgenman]

No, actually. By Apple decree, you must keep the same or lower prices on all in-app purchases that users could purchase on other platforms. Amazon could raise ALL of their prices by 30%, or they can attempt to eat the difference, or they can hide the in-app purchase option on some hideously obscure menu option. Or, as is the american way, they can sue.

I suspect the response will be a combination of things, but especially the suing.

Re:Holy crap

[cgenman]

Google and Amazon take about 30% of apps that are purchased directly on their stores. They don't get a 30% cut of in-app purchase transactions that don't involve them. They also both allow other stores / marketplaces onto their devices... The Amazon marketplace is available from WITHIN the Google marketplace, for example.

Now, a lot of what is in the Android Marketplace is ad-supported, with ads being Google's specialty. But that's an optional thing.

Re:Holy crap

[cgenman]

Actually, if you want to use Apple's system, you pay Apple. If you don't want to use Apple's system, you can't sell digital items through your app. These vendors were only kicking you out to Safari because they had to in order to avoid Apple's 30% credit card processing fee (most processing fees are on the order of 1.5 - 2%). Before Apple launched their system, there were apps that accepted credit cards just fine. You can buy with a credit card in Amazon's integrated shopping app, just like any other Amazon service, because they sell physical goods. The experience is fine. But digital goods Apple takes a cut of (and doesn't even provide download hosting).

The worst abuse comes from iBooks specifically. Say that a publisher offers an ebook version of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows wholesale for 10 dollars. And don't think you can argue them down: all of the major ebook retailers have clauses in their contracts that specify that publishers can't sell to other people for less than they're selling to them. So that's 10$. Say that a company needs to make 1$ per transaction to survive as a business.

Apple is charged the usual credit card processing rate of 2%. Therefore, they sell their copies of Harry Potter at $11.25. You, on the other hand, have to pay Apple (your competitor) a credit card processing fee of 30%. Therefore, you have to sell your copy of Harry Potter at $14.30. Even if you squeezed your 10% margin down to nothing, you couldn't come close to competing with Apple's prices. And if you did, you'd just be sending money off to your competitor, who could plow that back into improving their ebook store.

The same is true of iTunes, and anything else that Apple decides they might like to sell on their phones. They already have the built-in advantages of being able to pre-load whatever they'd like onto your phone, and being able to tailor the OS to suit their apps. Any e-market that Apple enters on the iPhone is basically owned by Apple.

It's not Apple's phone. It's your customer's phones. They buy them, pay for them. Apple isn't pre-loading your app or anything like that, they're just making it available on the customer's request. And they ban your customers from getting your app any other way. They even have the legal power to arrest people for getting your app in other ways, though they have yet to do this.

Re:Holy crap

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's Apple's fault you have a shitty business model?

Re:Holy crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to reiterate, for Apple to get its 30% cut, Amazon would have to raise all of their prices by 43%.

Re:Holy crap

[shutdown -p now]

They took out the part about uniform pricing.

Re:Holy crap

[shutdown -p now]

Apple has removed the price restrictions. Now this is only about strangling competition on their own platforms, not across the board.

Re:Holy crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they? OK, then this is less bad. They already enforce all sorts of look&feel things, not having a "Buy" button that's just a link to a web site falls in that category. It's still annoying.

Re:Holy crap

[Microlith]

They even have the legal power to arrest people for getting your app in other ways, though they have yet to do this.

Not yet. They wanted desperately the ability to slap down anyone distributing a jailbreak, but the Library of Congress exempted jailbreaking, temporarily at least.

So you're close, they want that power. They don't have it, yet.

Re:Holy crap

[Aydsman]

And IIRC, that was the other part of the license agreement: you had to charge the same amount for in-app and out-of-app purchases. So no, you can't mark up the in-app purchase price to cover the Apple tax.

I'm grudgingly willing to allow that Apple can set whatever rules they want about what apps running in their ecosystem must and must not do. I'm much more pissed off that they're setting pricing policies for third parties, especially for purchases that don't go through any part of the Apple store.

That was the case, yes. However Apple backed down on the requirement to have the same amount for in-app and out-of-app purchases. If I charge a subscription fee outside my application for content as long as I don't have a direct "Buy" button or link to my store Apple will let it pass. If, however, I want to sell content within the app I must pay the 30% to Apple and use their API. (Source: Steve Jobs Blinks! Apple Backs Down On App Subscription Rules)

Re:Holy crap

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Amazon also gets at least 30% of everything you download for your Kindle, be it eBooks or Blog subscriptions they sell at whatever price they set. Before the broo-hah Apple their share was even larger. And if they didn't lock their devices down in a way that makes Apple look like Amnesty International, they'd surely ask 30% for everything you buy from any apps on them too. Funny how that is obviously unknown on Slashdot - how else could it be explained that nobody ever mentions it?

Re:Holy crap

[thunderclap]

evil is always more poised and beautiful than good.

Re:Holy crap

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I'm not happy about this, I must admit. However, I do own 4 devices (2 Android, 2 iOS) that are attached to Amazon account. I search for stuff I want through my browser, buy it with 1Click, and it is available immediately on ALL devices. Amazon are great - Apple, well, they won't be getting their 30% from me due to my shopping habits.

Re:Holy crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for your obviously unbiased viewpoint, CheerfulMacFanboy.

Re:Holy crap

[MikeBabcock]

You really prefer the iPad E-mail client over k-9 for example? Or do you just mean the built-in client on most devices?

Re:Holy crap

[Sancho]

It's definitely better than any of the built-in clients I've seen. It's better than K-9 if for no other reason than the fact that it has threading.

I like K-9 Mail's handling of folders pretty well, but it's a heck of a lot of micromanagement. Once it's set up, it's pretty nice, but I've never had an Android upgrade go smoothly and have always had to wipe my device and restore. I've never successfully restored K-9's settings, so I eventually stopped configuring K-9 more than necessary to just get my mail. An unused feature is a useless one.

Nothing else in K-9 has struck me as amazing--though I'll grant that it's a huge step over the stock clients. It's also possible that there are features I've missed.

Re:Holy crap

[cgenman]

Actually, you can use other bookstores with the Kindle. It's fully endorsed by Amazon, and won't violate your TOS. No cracking / hacking / jailbreaking required. Just buy an ebook from wherever, and copy them over using USB. You can also use Amazon's own Whispernet, but there are potential data charges.

http://www.geardiary.com/2010/02/06/alternative-ebook-sources-for-your-kindle-plus-bonus-book-review/

Re:Holy crap

[Graff]

Every store I visit offers their product at or very near the MSRP. In the instances where it's a different price it's because it's lower due to sale or clearance. I've yet to visit any store that sells goods for above the MSRP, and I'd imaging they wouldn't be in business very long.

MSRP is NOT the actual cost of the item, it's the cost of the item to the retailer plus a certain amount of profit. For quite a lot of stores out there the actual price is 50% that of the MSRP - that's 100% "profit".

Now what's the price of something sold through the Apple stores? The MSRP is the price listed for the item and the original cost is 70% of that. It's that simple, the Apple stores work just like every other store out there: items in them have a markup to cover distribution, hardware, software development, labor costs, and - hopefully - a profit!

Nothing evil here, it's business as it's been operating for millions (at least!) of companies for thousands of years...

Re:Holy crap

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't sue, as they are on hostile territory Apple's perfectly legit reply would be "don't like our rules — GTFO". Personally, I'd like to see that happen, seeing as that would be a nice hit to a platform in whole, losing some of it's appeal to the end user and turning out in losing more than was to be gained from that 30%.

Re:Holy crap

[mcvos]

Back when I had an iPhone 3G, its email client sucked. The stock email client on Android 2.0 was far superior. Or maybe it just seemed that way because I had a different email app for every mail account, which made checking different mail accounts a lot easier.

Android's stock email client does have a few issues, though: it doesn't cache headers properly, often throwing them out just when I found the one I wanted to read, which is starting to really annoy me lately.

Unfortunately, K-9 doesn't work at all on the Motorola Milestone, and neither does Maildroid. There seems to be an surprising shortage of good mail clients for Android, to the point that I'm considering writing one myself.

Re:Holy crap

[mcvos]

Note that the Amazon app store (or whatever it's called) is reportedly an extremely poor choice: Amazon can change prices, screwing the developer, allows users to install apps that won't work on their device, and doesn't give developers a good way to communicate with or reimburse users.

Re:Holy crap

[JAlexoi]

No. Apple explicitly states that you can't add shift those 30% to the customer.

Re:Holy crap

[jimicus]

They get a 30% share? that's nuts. It's a shame that their hardware is such a social status symbol for so many people. Dictator Jobs certainly has a nice scam going on.

Not really. Computer hardware (which frequently has something like a 5% gross profit margin for the retailer) is the anomaly; most retail simply does not work with margins like that. There's a reason so many smaller bricks & mortar computer shops have closed down and the remaining big stores push things like extended warranties and ludicrously overpriced cables - it's the only way they can make any money.

The issue is when things like the following happen:

- You set up a company which sells some sort of product (let's say it's eBooks) for use on smartphones and tablets. 70% of your customers use the iPhone or the iPad so you put together an app which such customers can use; this app hooks into your website to sell further ebooks. Your agreement with the publishers gives you, say, 25-30% margin on that based on a typical retail price.

- 6-12 months later, Apple announce a few changes:

    1. With effect from the end of the month, you're not allowed to have your app hook into your website to sell products. It will be dropped from the app store and won't be reinstated until such time as you remove the link to your website.
    2. You are allowed to sell your product through Apple's store, which will allow you to sell eBooks. Apple will take a 30% cut. (This means you now have to raise your prices by 43% in order to make the same amount of money. But you can't because of point 3 which I'm coming to).
    3. Those publishers you negotiated with to sell eBooks? Apple's also been negotiating with them. Not only that, Apple don't have to care about Apple taking a 30% cut. Your eBook is going to appear on the iPhone right next to the exact same thing sold by Apple directly only your version's going to be 43% more expensive.

This has already happened to at least one business.

Re:Holy crap

[91degrees]

Buying goods for a dollar a time and selling them for $1.42 is not a shitty business model. It only becomes so if Apple demands that 42 cents profit.

So yes, it's Apple's fault that you ahve a shitty business model.

Re:Holy crap

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean their marketing and OS

Re:Holy crap

[Anonymous Coward]

I still prefer gmail's mobile webpage to the iphone/ipad mail.app

And mail.app on Mac is a fucking joke.

Re:Holy crap

[elashish14]

Only on /. can you get +5 Insightful for doing grade school algebra... but that's namely because grade schools just give A's and B's instead.

Re:Holy crap

[coinreturn]

It is not a 30% credit-card processing fee. You are omitting the distribution and marketing aspects of what Apple does. Try selling your book in a store and calling the store's take a "credit-card processing fee."

Re:Holy crap

[geekoid]

No.

They get nothing of in app purchases.

Re:Holy crap

[geekoid]

This isn't a mark up on thing they sell. It's a mark up on things other people sell through Apps.

This s not about the percentage they collect for buying an app from the app store.

Re:Holy crap

[geekoid]

ahhh, ZING!

Re:Holy crap

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Actually, you can use other bookstores with the Kindle. It's fully endorsed by Amazon, and won't violate your TOS. No cracking / hacking / jailbreaking required. Just buy an ebook from wherever, and copy them over using USB. You can also use Amazon's own Whispernet, but there are potential data charges.

http://www.geardiary.com/2010/02/06/alternative-ebook-sources-for-your-kindle-plus-bonus-book-review/

Actually, you can use other bookstores with the iPhone. It's fully endorsed by Apple, and won't violate your TOS. No cracking / hacking / jailbreaking required. Just buy an ebook from wherever, and copy them over using USB. Stop pretending it isn't so.

This is only about in-App purchases. Even for the Kindle App you can still buy your eBooks at Amazon and give them and only them their 30% - there just isn't a direct link to the website anymore.

Re:Holy crap

[ideaz]

And this is penalizing the consumer something which I highly doubt Amazon would ever do.

Re:Holy crap

[JustSomeProgrammer]

but they aren't selling their book through the apple store... they're selling it through their own store hosted on an apple phone...

Saying apple deserves 30% of that is like saying comcast deserves 30% of all profits of any website distributing digital products to their customers.

I really can't see any justification if all apple is doing is providing a way to distribute an app that allows someone to download a book.

Re:Holy crap

[Dunega]

So? Is there a relevant point somewhere in there?

Re:Holy crap

[Excelsior]

For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to get +5. I was just responding to the comment. The sad thing is the +5 has more to do with my comment being high on the thread. Try to get +5 by adding a comment near the bottom of a long thread; it's almost impossible. That's why so many people reply to early comments when their reply isn't at all related to what they are replying to.

Re:Holy crap

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Yes. Figures you can't tell.

Re:Holy crap

[coinreturn]

but they aren't selling their book through the apple store... they're selling it through their own store hosted on an apple phone... Saying apple deserves 30% of that is like saying comcast deserves 30% of all profits of any website distributing digital products to their customers. I really can't see any justification if all apple is doing is providing a way to distribute an app that allows someone to download a book.

And they can still do that through a web site. Why should Apple allow them to distribute their app for FREE through the app store and then have all sales be external - that is lose-lose for Apple. The hosting of apps and marketing through iTunes is a cost which must be made up somehow.

Re:Holy crap

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

http://www.amazon.com/forum/kindle/ref=cm_cd_ttp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdThread=TxFSUR2H7D8D9W

We wanted to let you know that we've updated our Kindle app for iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch. The big change is that you can now use the Kindle app to read over 100 Kindle newspapers and magazines including the Economist, as well as share favorite passages from your reading via Facebook and Twitter. In order to comply with recent policy changes by Apple, we've also removed the "Kindle Store" link from within the app that opened Safari and took you to the Kindle Store. You can still shop as you always have - just open Safari and go to www.amazon.com/kindlestore. If you want, you can bookmark that URL. Your Kindle books will be delivered automatically to your iPad, iPhone or iPod touch, just as before.

So there were exactly two changes made: one link deleted & "over 100 Kindle newspapers and magazines" + other stuff added. Evil Apple.

Re:Holy crap

[JustSomeProgrammer]

I'm pretty sure no app is distributed for free on apple app store even if the person who wrote it wants to give it away, they still pay a $99 yearly fee to apple.

Even disregarding that, what is apple doing to earn that huge margin of 30% on sales they aren't generating except through a downloaded app? Shipping companies don't demand 30% margin per book they deliver. They don't deserve 30% of all revenue just for the amount of service they are providing. Maybe they deserve something... 1 or 2% maybe. But 30% is outrageous.

Re:Holy crap

[coinreturn]

They deserve whatever the market will bear. And 15 billion downloads say they deserve 30%. I have two apps on the app store and I have no problem with their 30% cut. They are distributors and marketers. I have global sales that I could never have achieved without them.

Re:Holy crap

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you have to charge 43% extra to break even when Apple takes a 30% cut. For instance, if a book is 1.00 normally, you need to charge 1.43 because 1.43 * .3 = .429. This means the margin is so high it's not even close to competitive with Apple's own products.

Never, NEVER compete with an Apple product in the Apple arena. They have God Mode turned on and if that's not enough they will kick you from the game.

Re:Holy crap

[wholesale1]

Hi, my friends. This is DVDwholesale,our website is http://www.dvd4wholesale.com/ Welcom friends.

Re:Holy crap

[wholesale1]

Hi, my friends. This is DVDwholesale,our website is http://www.dvd4wholesale.com/ Welcom friends.

Re:Holy crap

[MikeBabcock]

Totally off topic, but I really wish K-9 and others would take advantage of the newish Google online backup option for settings. I enable it in all the software that offers the option; much nicer than having to restore settings.

PS with Titanium backup I've had about 90% success on restoring data.

30%!

[Locq]

this must inhibit new stores like amazon in submitting an app. dose this apply to all app purchases, not just store apps?

Re:30%!

[amicusNYCL]

Correct, all in-app purchases are taxed. Vendors are not allowed to link to their websites, all purchases inside the app must go through the app.

Why isn't this...

[hsmyers]

restraint of trade? Could someone more sec/lawyered up than I explain this to me?

Re:Why isn't this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Apple a monopoly?

Re:Why isn't this...

[Anonymous Coward]

How would it be? Amazon, Google and such aren't being restrained from their respective trades. Apple wants 30% for creating the installed base and distribution network that enables a sale made from within an iOS app.

Now, 30% is probably more than these people want to share, specifically because they don't need Apple's network to make a sale. But Amazon certainly can do so, if it chooses. It chooses not to. That isn't a contractual restraint of trade.

Re:Why isn't this...

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't create the installed user base or distribution network. The e-books were being downloaded from Amazon's servers, by Amazon users.

Apple has no expenses and doesn't contribute to the transaction in any way. The only connection Apple has to the process is that Amazon's client happens to be using an Apple phone.

I'm not the least bit surprised by this move, to be honest. Steve Jobs would win the greedy douchebag award even if he was playing alone against Microsoft's and Sony's entire exec team.

In the end, this is a shot in the foot. People using iOS will be forced to get out of the apps to buy through the web browser, while the same apps in Android will have a "buy" button that Just Works (TM). And what developer will bother with iOS when the same DLC can be sold for Android (at the same price) with a 43% higher profit margin?

In a way, I think Jobs wants Apple to crash and burn after he dies, just to secure his place as the mythical salesman.

Re:Why isn't this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they allow 3rd party developers to sell their applications directly to customers? If not, then yes, they have a monopoly on iOS software sales.

Re:Why isn't this...

[cbope]

Because Apple's lobby is well paid by this 30%, you don't need to worry about any investigation. You may return to work now, citizen.

Re:Why isn't this...

[lwriemen]

That isn't the same as a monopoly on the whole, personal-computer market. They don't even have a monopoly on the portion that is smartphones and tablets. iOS is Apple's to do with as they please. Microsoft didn't get into trouble for anything they did within the Window's market; it was due to their adverse effects on the whole, personal-computer market.

Re:Why isn't this...

[toriver]

In the same way Sony have a monopoly on GameOS (PS3) software sales, and Microsoft have a monopoly on whatever-it-is-called (XBox 360) software sales. The way can be shortened as: BFD.

I know we are all supposed to be against this but

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this like Best Buy putting an escape tunnel in a Walmart that leads to a Best Buy store? It's sole intent was to keep all the profits for itself and stiff Apple. Do they allow an iTunes button on the Kindle?

Defiition of "brings"

[Anonymous Coward]

So when I use an application created by Amazon to buy books from Amazon, it's Apple that is "bringing the subscriber"...? I guess the definition of the word "bring" must be different inside the Apple Reality Distortion Field.

I hope Google and Amazon increase the price for iOS users by 30%. Failing to do that would mean that people using other platforms would effectively be subsidizing Apple. I for one won't be buying any e-books from Google or Amazon as long as their prices aren't adjusted to reflect this.

Re:Defiition of "brings"

[node 3]

And what do you do when you go into a bookstore? Do you not buy books unless the store doesn't add any mark up? How much did you pay for your computer parts at Fry's? I bet you paid more than Fry's paid the manufacturers.

Or what about the Android Market? Do you think Google runs it for free? Or Amazon itself?

And all this whining about Apple, Amazon's pricing policies for books and music have always been as bad, or worse, than Apple's.

Re:Defiition of "brings"

[Anonymous Coward]

The bookstore provides a service. If I'm buying an e-book from Amazon, using the Amazon app, what service is Apple providing? They're trying to add a 30% tax simply because you're buying the e-book using an Apple device. Maybe your car manufacturer should charge you 30% of the cost of every song you listen to while you're driving...

If iOS users want to keep getting milked and locked in, that's their business. But the extra costs of doing business with Apple are going to end up being paid by consumers, and Amazon (and Google, and everyone else) should make it very clear to iOS users that they will be the ones paying that extra cost, not everyone else.

Re:Defiition of "brings"

[toriver]

Since company A (Amazon) obviously sees a business benefit from using the market of company B (Apple), company A should reimburse company B for the benefit. Do you think companies are in it for the profit of others?

Re:Defiition of "brings"

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

The bookstore provides a service. If I'm buying an e-book from Amazon, using the Amazon app, what service is Apple providing?

They provided the iPhone, the App store, and the APIs Amazon used to create an app for which they have paid Apple nothing but the $99 a year, and make millions of. They have made the iPhone open, so Amazon could do all this - unlike Amazon with the Kindle, try buying an app for that. Heck, they created the whole app thingy - try to imagine a Kindle Java Application for your Nokia Nxyz.

Rewritten Title that makes sense...

[UCFFool]

"Amazon and Google Give Into Apple's Demands; Drop In-App Purchase Buttons"

The only winning move...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is not to play with Apple.

Apple the soon to be wealthiest corp. in the world

[Flector]

Can kiss my ass.

Re:I know we are all supposed to be against this b

[0123456]

Isn't this like Best Buy putting an escape tunnel in a Walmart that leads to a Best Buy store?

Uh, no. It's like Walmart demanding a 30% cut of anything that you buy online from Best-Buy using the computer you bought from Walmart.

Ok, so....

[roc97007]

...correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that I can make 30% more per sale if I develop for some platform other than Apple?

Re:Ok, so....

[amicusNYCL]

Assuming your prices are the same on every device. Or, you could raise prices appropriately for people on iOS devices and make the same amount for any purchase. Just the people using iOS devices would pay more for the same thing (which apparently is not a problem for them anyway, since they already bought the Apple hardware).

Re:Ok, so....

[hibiki_r]

If I understand it correctly though, Apple doesn't just want 30% off of your purchases made through something you downloaded in the app store: If you create an account through your app downloading in the app store, Apple wants to claim 30% of what that customer pays for, ever. Charging someone 30% more than the rest because he happened to sign up to your service originally though an Appstore app doesn't seem to make much sense from a retailer POV.

Re:Ok, so....

[roc97007]

Good point.

Re:Ok, so....

[node 3]

...correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that I can make 30% more per sale if I develop for some platform other than Apple?

That depends. Are you going to use an established store? Because they all take commission. And if you aren't going to use a store, you'll have overhead involved with billing and sales and support.

The next question is how many sales you can expect to make developing for some other platform. 70% of a large number is better than 84% of a small number.

Re:Ok, so....

[Anonymous Coward]

No because you will get sued by Lodsys for violating their valid patent. Those apps that use Apples in app purchase will be protected by Apples license.

Re:Ok, so....

[Anonymous Coward]

Charging someone 30% more...

IIRC Apple also forbids merchants from having Apple customers pay more than other customers so it's the merchant the one who has to eat the price difference.

Re:Ok, so....

[crackspackle]

If I understand it correctly though, Apple doesn't just want 30% off of your purchases made through something you downloaded in the app store: If you create an account through your app downloading in the app store, Apple wants to claim 30% of what that customer pays for, ever. Charging someone 30% more than the rest because he happened to sign up to your service originally though an Appstore app doesn't seem to make much sense from a retailer POV.

No, Apple wants any application based link to content for sale to go through their app store from which they get 30%. Users can still be inconvenienced to close the application, go to Safari, browse to the content providers web site and buy the content without Apple getting a cut. It's a needless PITA for a lot of users and very hard for some less technically savvy. I assume Apple's hope is that application developers will choose the former route, but in reality, the bigger names are just redirecting users to the second option. I would too were I Google or Amazon but ultimately it will only hurt the end user, some more than others.

Re:Ok, so....

[Anonymous Coward]

But the Apple's rules also prohibit you to add this 30% to the people registering through app store: the prices must be equal to other places. Therefore you must raise the prices everywhere to be able to keep your margins.

Re:Ok, so....

[Serious Callers Only]

...correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that I can make 30% more per sale if I develop for some platform other than Apple?

No, you can make probably around 20% more per sale if you handle credit card processing yourself, and you are selling online - you'd pay 5-15% for credit card processing probably. If you're selling product in a brick and mortar store you can expect the store to take more than 30%.

No idea why Apple think being user-hostile is a good idea - it's going to generate a lot of hostility towards them from their customers, and eventually they'll end up in Microsoft's situation, where everyone distrusts them no matter what they do. Not a good long-term strategy, but then hubris has never been in short supply in Cupertino.

Re:Ok, so....

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, are they kidding? Come on Google. Knock off youtube, google maps from the iOS platform.

Re:Ok, so....

[Rosy At Random]

How about a website that examines what apps you have, and shows you a nice user-friendly set of links to any that have independent web-based stores? Do it right and it could be as easy and pretty as any app. (I have no idea what kind of privileges you need to see your installed apps, but even if it can't be done automatically, there should still be a way of exporting a list or entering them manually in a painless fashion.)

Re:Ok, so....

[toriver]

Depends on whether you have in-app purchases/subscriptions/registrations. If you do not there is no difference really, and if you have it really depends on whether you can do all the management of said subscriptions at zero cost.

Re:Ok, so....

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

...correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that I can make 30% more per sale if I develop for some platform other than Apple?

Exactly. That's why Amazon has removed the Kindle App from the App Store. Oh, wait...

Now think a little why they didn't. Think about why they will gladly give 30% to Apple (for those who will buy in-app instead of just buying from the webstore). It's quite obvious if you actually do - think that is.

All your money...

[Anonymous Coward]

... belong to us!!! Or at least 30%... ;-)

What Google Books??

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean the books that Google copied and distributes without permission?

Disappointing comments in here

[Anonymous Coward]

The comments here are really uneducated and sad. This summary is terrible as well.

None of these companies are using Apple's in-app purchasing system so there is no 30% cut. At all.

FYI Google charges 30% on their store and for Android in-app purchases as well.

Re:Apple the soon to be wealthiest corp. in the wo

[JimboFBX]

ever notice that the recession has been more or less tied to the rise of apple and its iphone?

Protested by deleting iBooks

[Anonymous Coward]

Also I've just created a Facebook page at http://on.fb.me/pWHRaW . Please like it and share it with your friends. If enough of us delete iBooks, it might make Apple change its mind.

Re:Protested by deleting iBooks

[Anonymous Coward]

Link that works: http://on.fb.me/pWHRaW

Re:Apple the soon to be wealthiest corp. in the wo

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the stupidest comments I've seen on Slashdot. Imagine that.

Re:I know we are all supposed to be against this b

[lgarner]

Not using the computer you bought there, but using the catalog. Best Buy can't put an ad in Walmart's circular advertising the product at Best Buy. Amazon can't put an app in Apple's store that leads customers away from Apple.

apple earns nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

'When the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100% and Apple earns nothing.'

You know, except for the cost of the device.

Re:Apple the soon to be wealthiest corp. in the wo

[JimboFBX]

shut up steve, we're on to you

Re:I know we are all supposed to be against this b

[node 3]

Um, what? You can buy Kindle books directly from Amazon on iOS, without using In App purchases.

google, amazon should remove all links to apple

[Anonymous Coward]

or same rules, 30% from each apple product sold due google seach.

Re:I know we are all supposed to be against this b

[reason]

Yes, but Amazon aren't allowed to tell people that in their iOS app.

The best part

[Anonymous Coward]

is watching geeks foam at the mouth. Despite the fact that most of you don't use Apple products. But I guess ya'll need something to rage at the machine about.

Re:Apple the soon to be wealthiest corp. in the wo

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is one of the most obvious/least funny comments I've seen on Slashdot. Keep 'em coming.

Apple's Greed Knows No Bounds

[JimLynch]

Here's my take on it. Apple's greed is amazing to behold. And you have to love the conflict of interest between being owning the platform and also competing with Amazon via iBooks. How is it one company gets to take 30% of the sales of their competitor? Apple, Greed and the Amazon Kindle App http://jimlynch.com/2011/07/25/apple-greed-and-the-amazon-kindle-app/

Re:Apple's Greed Knows No Bounds

[farnsworth]

Here's my take on it. Apple's greed is amazing to behold.

It's not clear that it's about greed. Far more likely is that it's about control, control over the experience of their users. Apple has a direct motive to fully support the Kindle app on iOS, because the users of their devices want it there. iBooks just exists for users who can't be bothered to dive into the Kindle ecosystem. But also, Apple has a direct motive to prevent sketchy financial transactions from originating from within iOS apps. A couple of errant games that redirect users to a Russian mafia site to steal credit cards can very quickly remove any trust that people have in the App Store. Apple is mitigating this, at the very public cost to a handful of apps (Kindle, Google Books (or whatever), Netflix, etc.) But the bottom line is that in this capacity, Amazon, Google, and Netflix are all middlemen. Middlemen are going the way of the dodo in general, although today these three behemoths obviously provide a great deal of value to the end-user.

I don't use Kindle or Google Books or Netflix on my phone, so I'm not certain what the big deal is. If you have a Kindle account, is it really that hard to buy books at amazon.com rather than from within the Kindle app? Maybe it is, but the only effect this policy has had on me is to elevate the amount of trust I have with in-app purchases -- Only Apple will ever get the transaction details, and Apple has a pretty good track record with processing purchases.

I have a hard time finding fault with Apple's policy on this.

Re:Apple's Greed Knows No Bounds

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon also takes a 30% cut from their Android Appstore developers.

Re:Apple's Greed Knows No Bounds

[Anonymous Coward]

If I ran, say, a physical book shop (remember those?), and you wanted to open a branch of your competing physical bookshop within my store, you can be damn sure you'd be paying rent on the floorspace you're using.

How is it different when the physical component is IT infrastructure rather than real estate?

Re:Apple's Greed Knows No Bounds

[Anonymous Coward]

so its apple's greed? Or amazons? Because the amazon kindle app is free, free for you, free for me and goes what free for amazon too.
So its okay for amazon to have a free app, which deflects possible sales where apple is hosting, credit card processing, and delivering the product?
So let me get the comments of the above down so I understand it in an analogy: it is okay for amazon to put up a kiosk in a retail store, not pay the store a dime of rent / floor space for the kiosk, and have people order electronic books via the kiosk (but using the retail stores credit card processing equipment, and the retail store will pay all those fees too), use the retail stores internet and bandwidth, offer free delivery (so no in-store purchase is necessary), the retail store doesn't get a dime, and you expect the retail store to just allow it? This isn't apples "greed" its common business sense NOT to allow it.

Re:Apple's Greed Knows No Bounds

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, you're not only drinking the kool aid but swimming in it too.

This is about greed pure and simple. If what you say is true, they the hell is apple mandating 30%? think about it - 30% is an insane amount to take off of the REVENUE, not profit. Which means this will literally force them to sell at a loss on anything that they make less than a 30% profit margin on. In case you're wondering, 30% is greater than the profit margin for many book sellers out there. This move essentially forces them out of business if they continue to sell on apple. Even credit card companies - the great evil in the minds of many people - only take a 2-3% fee on merchants.

If what you say is true, that this is about control and ensuring a safe environment, why the hell charge a fee at all if not for greed? Ok, argue that they got an infrastructure to maintain. Why the hell would apple take a 30% margin? A greater cut than the profit the actual merchants make off a product, before apple takes a giant bite out of it?

Frankly, reporting just the sales figures wouldn't get merchants up in arms about this move. What they're pissed off at is Apple is essentially making it impossible for them to make any money from apps.

Re:Apple's Greed Knows No Bounds

[JustSomeProgrammer]

I'm sorry.. but punishing everyone to prevent something that might happen sounds a lot like TSA security theater. I don't buy that it is necessary. I don't think that people associate bad apps with the app market. They associate bad apps with the app. People haven't stopped using google app store because a couple apps have been bad.

And I don't think it is that it is difficult to navigate to the store, but it is so much easier to just provide a button in app to take you there.

Re:Apple's Greed Knows No Bounds

[dannys42]

Keep in mind that Apple's rules are there largely to deal with software. Yes people are trying to figure out ways to sell other things like books and so forth, and Apple needs to figure out how to make that work. But Farnsworth made a number of great points about the trust level that consumers can expect. Take shareware authors for example... I'm always wary about purchasing random software from places out on the net... even if I find some decent reviews and such on the site, I'm never quite sure how "real" the product is. The Apple's App store, I don't have that problem anymore. Yes, some apps may be crap, but I have a certain level of legitimacy that I'll get something that's even half-way reasonable (and not a complete scam) by purchasing from the App store.

In addition, as a software developer, I look at Apple's 30% take, and I'm perfectly glad to take it. Yes it's true, you can get credit card processing at 1-2%. But any sites that support more for software distribution, shopping carts, etc. can easily take anywhere from 1-10%. In addition if I want to package my product or even get it into a store at some point, I think I can easily surpass this 30% in addition to a whole lot of hassle I have to deal with. In short, I'm happy to give Apple 30% to take on the ENTIRE publishing and distribution of my product, in addition to giving me instant world-wide exposure. They even deal with the software licensing hassles (even if your options as a developer are quite limited, it works in many cases and is quite fair to both the developer and end-user). If you don't want that, fine, you can keep selling your stuff on your own website and just not buy into the Apple eco-system. But you should recognize the eco-system has it's advantages... and yes it gets those advantages by enforcing certain rules. Also from what I've been hearing the reason many shareware authors have loved the App store because they've gotten quite a bit more sales from it.

Re:Apple's Greed Knows No Bounds

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're perfectly fine with paying (at BEST) twice (at worst 3-4 times) as much as any other platform? Don't forget you're not just excluding Kindle, Netflix, Google Books. You're including EVERYTHING that has an in-app payment: Games with purchasable items. Internet Radio / Video. Add-ons. Some of these do NOT have an online equivalent, nor should they.

Android's got support for trusted in-app payment, but you don't see Google abusing their monopoly - and all the benefits you mentioned also apply here -- but they charge a fair market rate.

Re:Apple's Greed Knows No Bounds

[Anonymous Coward]

But the bottom line is that in this capacity, Amazon, Google, and Netflix are all middlemen. Middlemen are going the way of the dodo in general, although today these three behemoths obviously provide a great deal of value to the end-user.

You missed something out here, that is the role Apple play with their app store, the role being a middleman.

Give in?

[Thinine]

How does this give in to Apple's demands? By eliminating the in app subscription/purchase capability, they've actually denied Apple any income from their sales. Seems like they refused Apple's demands, not gave into them.

Re:Give in?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this give in to Apple's demands? By eliminating the in app subscription/purchase capability, they've actually denied Apple any income from their sales. Seems like they refused Apple's demands, not gave into them.

 
It only seems that way because your reading comprehension is equivalent to that of a drowned, then electrocuted ferret.*
 
Go back and read it again.
 
*Oh, and a werewolf dingo zombie ate the ferret.

Re:Give in?

[Anonymous Coward]

They've cut their noses off to spite their faces, because that is the preferable option!
If Apple wished for 30% of the gross profits, I'm sure that wouldn't be so unreasonable, but they want 30% of revenues! Most businesses would kill for that kind of margin. Hahahaha, I guess Apple is!

lol at amazon and google getting slapped around

[Anonymous Coward]

Apples bitch. iBooks ftw.

Re:I know we are all supposed to be against this b

[oldhack]

Once I buy something from Walmart, is that yours or Walmart's?

Once you bought an iPhone, is that yours or Apple's?

Re:I know we are all supposed to be against this b

[im_thatoneguy]

That would be true if you could buy a computer at Wal-mart that only let you shop Wal-Mart's catalog.

Milking pristine brand till it sours

[levander]

The only reason they're doing this is because they can. But neither their dominance in design nor their trendy fashionabilityy is going to last forever. There's going to come a time in the next 5 years when Apple's going to have to compete more on price. And, people are going to remember how Apple treated people back when..

Apple is milking their pristine brand for all its worth and with a step like this, it's going to sour.

I bought $6K of $AAPL over 10 years ago that's now worth over $150K. Moves like this by AAPL just remind me there's going to come a time in the next 5 years, that I need to sell and get the hell out.

Re:Milking pristine brand till it sours

[BradleyUffner]

And, people are going to remember how Apple treated people back when..

No they won't. The will yell "oooo SHINY!", and buy it with out a second thought.

Re:Milking pristine brand till it sours

[levander]

You sound like the guys I used to argue with when I first got into software in the mid nineties who were convinced Microsoft will never fall. Consumer is stupid enough, Microsoft can tie whatever the hell they want to the operating system, it doesn't matter. Then most of the web servers were Linux servers, then smartphones where Microsoft's already tried once and failed and are trying again. And now these days, I've been reading about mutual funds and it's the value managers buying Microsoft because it's so cheaply priced, not the growth managers who buy good companies expecting it to grow.

American consumerism is filled with stories of "SHINY" brands that dominate and then recede. Quickly coming to mind, Hilfiger clothing, Compaq computers, Playboy, Blackberry phones... Meanwhile at home, the brand Microsoft has become synonymous with a broken computer. Even my Mom hates Microsoft.

With this decision Apple has made, it's clear to me they're not trying to build a brand that America will trust and will endure. They're just milking it for all its worth while the going is good.

Re:Milking pristine brand till it sours

[BradleyUffner]

Even my Mom hates Microsoft.

Do you think she might hate Microsoft because she is around her Son who constantly says bad stuff about "Microsoft"? Parents tend to pick of the view of their children, especially if it is in a "magical" area they know nothing about, like computers.

I don't think Apple is "too big to fail", but it isn't going to happen suddenly. There is still a lot of inertia left in their hype machine, and people are still buying them because they are popular fashion accessories.

Re:Milking pristine brand till it sours

[BradleyUffner]

I present this story as evidence: http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/07/26/1440246/35-Consumers-Want-iPhone-5-Sight-Unseen

Re:I know we are all supposed to be against this b

[spottedkangaroo]

Seems they just have to mark up a little for in app purchases. The free market will do the rest. My landline bill shows the something like 30% cut the government gets. Well, your amazon receipt should show that too imo.

Android looking more and more appealing

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me crazy but I've always preferred iOS's simpler interface over that of Android. And for a good long while it was easy to overlook the stupidity of the various workings of the app store. But it's finally getting to the point where I'm forced to take notice. Come upgrade time, I'm headed to Android town.

Why is iPhone so valuable? Apps or platform?

[TrekCycling]

Apple is pushing people in so many directions that someday soon they will find out the answer to this question. Do the apps being on iPhone give Apple power or does Apple owning the iPhone give them power over the apps? In the early days of the iPhone it struggled as simply an iPod with a ton of bugs and lacking features other smartphones had. The creativity of app developers started to create value on the iPhone. Apple's walled garden, on the other hand, has provided app developers a safe place where they are guaranteed to make money on the customers who sign up. But something has to give. I hope it's that Microsoft or Google catch up enough that their offerings become more enticing. Every day Apple becomes more and more demanding of controlling revenue streams is a day they dig their future grave.

Anti-competitive?

[guspasho]

I don't understand. Why is there no legal opposition to this sort of behavior? When Microsoft did this sort of thing with IE, they got slapped with some really major anti-monopolistic lawsuits.

Re:Anti-competitive?

[Anonymous Coward]

MS never tried anything remotely like this. They just tried to get people used to MSIE so they wouldn't try competing products. Apple is effectively adding a 30% tax to any purchase made through their platform. Steve Jobs pushed the concept of greed to a level that Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer never thought was possible.

Anyway, MS had over 90% of the desktop OS market. Apple has between 5 and 25% of the mobile OS market (depending on how you measure it - it's around 25% of current sales but only 5% of actual active devices, in the US, and much lower in Europe or Asia). That means they're not a monopoly.

However, the fact that the iOS platform depends so heavily on 3rd party developers, and that Apple doesn't allow apps to be sold anywhere besides Apple's own store (while taking a cut of the developers' profits) might still be seen as monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior. At least in countries where the regulators can't be bribed as easily as in the US.

You can write to your local market regulators with a complaint (maybe they'll read it after checking the value of their Apple stock), but it's probably simpler to "vote with your wallet" and simply not buy or recommend Apple products.

Friends don't let friends get locked into iOS.

Re:Anti-competitive?

[Asic Eng]

Well Apple isn't really in a monopoly position. You can use e.g. Android products instead. It's legal to leverage your market position as long as you are not a monopoly.

Before Apple, Amazon kept 70%, paid 30%

[Anonymous Coward]

Before agency, Amazon raped publishers. Apple reversed the numbers when they announced iBooks. Seems everyone forgets this fact. If you are an independent author, you are very happy Apple changed the e-book world.

Re:Before Apple, Amazon kept 70%, paid 30%

[shutdown -p now]

You didn't have to sell through Amazon. Even with Kindle, I can shop in any web ebook store that sells books in .mobi (and, indeed I do just that) - directly from the device.

Re:Before Apple, Amazon kept 70%, paid 30%

[thunderclap]

As an independent author, no I am not. I am actually rather pissed. Amazon while bad (my book cost $30 I make 25 cents on each purchase. I am not joking, I'll email you a shot of the royalty sheet) at least has the back of booksellers and bowkers. Apple is just being greedy and controlling. Its getting to the point where I am going from respect of apple products to just sheer disgust for their policies.

Re:Before Apple, Amazon kept 70%, paid 30%

[MBoffin]

Before agency, Amazon [sold to customers at a price they were happy with]. Apple [screwed over Amazon's ability to do that] when they announced iBooks. Seems [you] forget this fact. If you are [a consumer], you are very [pissed off] Apple changed the e-book world.

I'm happy Google and Amazon took this route. The less money given to Apple from this market, the better. Apple's actions were not pro-consumer with regard to e-books and the agency model, and they shouldn't be rewarded for those actions.

Re:Apple the soon to be wealthiest corp. in the wo

[shutdown -p now]

IIRC, the only companies that make more money than Apple today are oil companies.

Do you own Apple stock, or...?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how do you install the Amazon app without going through Apple's store? If you can't, then your analogy has a fundamental flaw. Apple is effectively adding a 30% tax to any item bought while using an iOS app, even if the item isn't made or hosted by them, and even if the app wasn't developed by them.

At least the state builds some roads, pays the police, etc.. Apple is trying to charge a 30% tax on other people's work without giving anything in return. The only people who could possibly defend that are Apple shareholders or terminal fanboys.

Maybe Google should charge Apple 30% of any sales of Apple products found through a Google search (and Google doesn't even have a monopoly on search, unlike Apple, which does have a monopoly on iOS app sales).

People who think Microsoft is greedy obviously never met Steve Jobs.

the longer I have an iphone the more i regret it

[Dan667]

wish I had bought an Android.

Re:I know we are all supposed to be against this b

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems they just have to mark up a little for in app purchases. The free market will do the rest.

Except that is also against the App Store TOS. They aren't allowed to charge more in app than they do elsewhere.

Jailbreak apps

[uwes98]

Amazon, google, et al should make apps for the jail-broken market -- they can keep the buttons.

That's not how it works, Steve...

[D-OveRMinD]

Apple didn't bring a new subscriber to the app. The user was already a subscriber that just so happened to have owned an iPhone. They then went and searched out the app, again, because they were already interested, and downloaded it to the phone. The phone is/was a medium. That's like saying Intel/Geil/Seagate/ATI/Asus/Gigabyte all get a cut of my Amazon order because they "brought" me to Amazon today. This would only hold true MAYBE if the app was already on the phone when you bought it, so you tried it out and because hooked. Even then, you got the whole causation/correlation debate.

30% of zero is what again?

[SuperKendall]

...correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that I can make 30% more per sale if I develop for some platform other than Apple?

Of course. You are free to crawl off to some untravelled corner of the internet to die any day you choose.

For Amazon or Netflix obviously they will easily acquire customers through other means. For smaller players 30% is nothing given the HUGE number of iOS users (hundreds of millions now) all with registered credit cards that can buy on a whim.

30% seems excessive but Apple is giving you a huge reach on its platform so it's not like you get nothing in return. Heck, you could grow on Apple and then drop in-app subscriptions when you became large enough to drive traffic to yourself.

Re:30% of zero is what again?

[Anonymous Coward]

> the HUGE number of iOS users (hundreds of millions now)

Now you're just being silly.

Re:30% of zero is what again?

[roc97007]

> Of course. You are free to crawl off to some untravelled corner of the internet to die any day you choose.

Fanboi...

Cave?

[Anonymous Coward]

They didnt cave, caving would have been to make everything happen through in-app purchases and let apple keep their 30%. Instead, they complied with the new app store rules by removing the link (as they had to) *without* adding the in-store purchase button, a big fuck you to apple.

Re:Apple the soon to be wealthiest corp. in the wo

[Totenglocke]

IIRC, the only companies that make more money than Apple today are governments.

FTFY

No thanks Steve

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I will never purchase an apple product.

Sure glad GM isn't Apple...

[ibsteve2u]

I'd hate for GM to not only tell me who was allowed to ride in my car but also that any burger joint I drove my GM product to had to give Apple a 30% cut of any orders I or my passengers made at their drive-in window.

Re:Sure glad GM isn't Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

A better analogy would be if you bought a GM car that comes with a built-in way to order/pay food from any Burger join. Then driving to any Burger joint to pick up the food through the drive-through window without having to speak your order or paying the cashier. For that, GM would charge the Burger Joint 30% of the cost of your order. Sounds like win win to me, if you don't want to support the economics then you can do:

1) don't buy the GM car
2) if you do by the GM car, don't buy the built in add-on that allows you to pre-order burgers
3) If you do buy the GM car with the add-on, then don't use the add on.

Re:Sure glad GM isn't Apple...

[Kielistic]

Actually, only 1) would be a solution because for this to be a proper analogy GM would be forbidding use of any other means of buying.

Re:Sure glad GM isn't Apple...

[toriver]

But Apple are NOT forbidding the use of any other means of buying. I can log in to amazon.com, buy a Kindle book, and it will be downloaded to my Kindle app, and Apple get zilch.

Re:Sure glad GM isn't Apple...

[Kielistic]

But they are forbidding letting the user know they can do that. They are forbidding the user a nice, integrated with the application means of buying a book. So, yes, they are forbidding many means of buying a book. All that they possibly can, in fact.

Re:Sure glad GM isn't Apple...

[toriver]

I am sure 90% of Kindle app downloaders know how to get books at Amazon. They are simply forbidding ONE mean: That the app directly links there.

Re:Sure glad GM isn't Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd hate for GM to not only tell me who was allowed to ride in my car but also that any burger joint I drove my GM product to had to give Apple a 30% cut of any orders I or my passengers made at their drive-in window.

If you was driving on their factories with a burger cafe,you`ll have to comply won`t you?

Re:Sure glad GM isn't Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd hate it too, and I'd also be a bit confused by GM insistence on my giving money to Apple instead of them. :-)

Re:the longer I have an iphone the more i regret i

[Anonymous Coward]

iPhones retain their '(money) value' like nobody's business. I'm sure you could sell the iphone and get an anroid if you wanted to.

over exagerated

[Anonymous Coward]

kinda a retarded post and over exaggerated title. For once this apple policy is fair.

Did any of you look at apple's process?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're missing is that Apple is providing the entire retail, distribution, subscription mechanism and card services interface via their App Store. The software author/content provider pays a 99 dollar buy in to Apple, which includes dev support. That 30% is actually a decent deal, when compared to traditional software retail, and even more so when compared to shareware and small retail models.

Look at the costs involved in designing, manufacturing, distributing/wholesaling and retailing a boxed software product, and you'll find that either the price goes up very quickly, or the product simply disappears from the market. Typically, the *originator" of a product collecting 30% of the retail price of a product is a good deal.
Apple cuts you a check for 70% of your sales - that's small developer heaven.

Apple extends this model to content purchasing or subscription management. If you give away the app for free, in order to sell content, Apple still gets it's cut because your using their retailing system. Consider this- a typical $10.00 print magazine sale - at the newsstand - nets the publisher $0.00 or a net loss most of the time, since a large portion of the run will be remaindered, stripped, and destroyed. Newsstand sales IRW are a loss leader. What the publisher want is subscribers, which they can sell to advertisers, which is where the publishing revenue stream really is anyhow.

What we have is a case where Apple is asking a 30% cut for helping provide a profitable ecosystem for products which traditionally sell near or at a loss.

The fact that Amazon and Google have to play by the same rules as smaller companies on the e-book actually evens the playing field a bit.

And that attitude

[geekoid]

is why I don't own an iPhone.

It's like Samsung getting 30% of my purchase when I call in to purchase a RonCo product I saw on TV.

They control what you can do in all aspects except making basic phone calls. They would control that but their are regulation in place to prevent that type of behavior. Fucking digital robber barons.

Cave or protest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this caving, or is it a protest? I would think caving would be keeping the buttons and paying Apple the 30% they requested. By removing the buttons they're denying Apple the 30% and setting up other platforms as being superior for their increased convenience. What do you think Apple is going to do if developers keep cutting the functionality from their iPhone versions in protest of the 30%?

Yep, you better believe Apple will change their policy.

or..

[Anonymous Coward]

OK - pull the apps off the store then, problem solved.

Same old story

[jriding]

This has always been Apple's business model. In the past they did the same thing with their computer business. If you want to make an application to run on our computers you owe us a cut. So all programmers went over to pc / dos. No cut. Fast forward and pc / windows has major market share of the business. They lost the computer war doing this business practice. Why do they think its going to work again this time? I expect we will be seeing history repeating its self.

Re:I know we are all supposed to be against this b

[toriver]

Yours. But Apple's services and the rules laid out for developers are unrelated to your device.

Re:Apple the soon to be wealthiest corp. in the wo

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

ever notice that the recession has been more or less tied to the rise of apple and its iphone?

Did you write this gem? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2015720742_brier25.html

Ok, ALMOST hundreds of millions (devices)

[SuperKendall]

http://www.tipb.com/2011/04/19/apple-sold-187-million-ios-devices/

187 million devices. I agree that I said "Users", that was not quite right... but the user base is probably approaching 100 million as not many people would have more than two iOS devices.

Re:I know we are all supposed to be against this b

[spottedkangaroo]

I can't believe they backed down on that then. You can't install the kindle software except through the app store (or by being a nerd); so in return apple gets a 30% cut of your revenue if you have the nerve to sell the next book in the app itself? Fuck Apple.

Customers will have to pay additional amount

[rexertea]

30% Apple cut will have to be paid out of the Customer's pocket, and that shows how middle men or agents in the market squeeze percentage and make the price higher. In a way Apple may be right as the manufacturer, but ultimately, the customers suffer for all this.

Apple didn't bring the new customer

[dave87656]

From the article: " when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app"

Eh, the way I see it, Apple didn't bring a new subscriber, the app brought a new subscriber, which Apple had nothing to do with.

Apple thinks it owns you and your phone which is why I use android!