Slashdot Mirror
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."
They have a choice. Pull the app.
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?
Oh wait......my mistake. Carry on.......
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
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.
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?
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
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).
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
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?
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.
shut up steve, we're on to you
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.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
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/
Jim Lynch
Tech Analyst and Community Manager
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'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?
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
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.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
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.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
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.
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
wish I had bought an Android.
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.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Amazon, google, et al should make apps for the jail-broken market -- they can keep the buttons.
Can't hear you. Can you please take Steve Job's dick out of your mouth first?
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.
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.
...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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The fact that you apparently only develop for Mac and/or Apple devices speaks volumes. You're breadth of experience is duly noted.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
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.
Sapere aude!
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.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
...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.
> 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.
Imagine all the people...
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.
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.
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.
Sapere aude!