Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Turns Off In-App Purchases In iOS Comixology
whisper_jeff writes: "Under the bold assumption that, since they were able to do it with books, they must be able to do it with comics, Amazon has decided to avoid Apple's 30% cut of in app purchases by removing the option from digital comic book platform Comixology for iOS users. It will be interesting to see if digital comic readers leap through the extra hoops to read digital comics on their iOS device or if Amazon has just signed the death knell for their new purchase. Readers may decide that buying a book and buying a comic aren't the same thing — that the extra hoops they're being forced to leap through simply aren't worth it for a comic that takes five minutes to read."
"signed the death knell"...?
Honestly, one of the great things about comixology was being able to quickly buy/download the next comic in the series when I was binge-reading. I have *hundreds* of comics through them, but I'm not sure if I will be buying any more with this new system. The kindle thing was enough of a pain, but at least a book takes a little longer to read.
I think they've shot themselves in teh foot on this one.
I thought that any bolt-ons for apps had to be sold through the Apple Store so they could collect their 30% cut.
Not that I've paid much attention to Apple stuff in general, but I did get that impression from somewhere.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
I thought that any bolt-ons for apps had to be sold through the Apple Store so they could collect their 30% cut.
You can sell things externally to unlock features - for instance there are many applications for websites that require a paid subscription to work.
What you can't do is provide a link in the app that takes you directly to a purchasing page to work wrounf the in-app thing.
Honestly tough, I've always thought it was a pretty fair trade-off to pay 30% to gan access to many millions of people who already have payment details entered and ready to go at the press of a button.
I'm pretty sure Comixology will lose far more in sales than they would gain by not giving away 30%, I've bought a number of things in the app but if I can't I simply will not bother to figure out how I can get them.
I do think it's a precursor to Amazon folding Comixology into the Kindle application, then it would be easier for people to make use of to buy comics as they already do books for the Kindle app. In that case I don't think they will lose many sales (though that's long term and I've not heard they plan to do so yet).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you're mafia, or Apple.
Anything that keeps down Apple's extortion, even a bit, is a win in my book. And you can tell that Amazon is doing this _explicitly_ to keep the unearned profits out of Apple's pockets rather than to optimize their own revenue. If all they were concerned about was their bottom line they would offer the in-app purchases at an additional mark-up that covers Apple's 30% and let any customers who value that convenience over the extra cost have at it, while still offering external purchases at current prices. Amazon is by no means a saint either, but a little healthy sibling rivalry and competition can often (though not always) benefit consumers in the long run.
To just let people buy it in store but make it 10% cheaper if bought directly on Amazon? People would instantly feel very smart if they jumped the hoops because it's CHEAPER and they're SAVING.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You don't really have any idea how much traditionally publishers have taken from authors, do you? The author has generally been lucky to get something like 10%.
Similarly, lots of things sold in stores are taking more than 30% of wholesale. Usually a LOT more.
Can you really place no value on tens of millions (probably hundreds of millions at this point) of people not having to enter any payment details to buy something from you, requiring only a few button presses to agree to buy? That is a HUGE benefit.
If there's a minimum amount of profit you must make from each sale, the answer is simple - when selling through Apple increase your prices to compensate for Apple's cut. Pass along the costs directly to the customer if you think they are unfair.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just because I'm using your device doesn't mean anyone owes you fucking money. Imagine if our non-mobile devices had to work that way.
Just make the mobile web site work well, and it's hardly jumping through hoops. Someone mentioned how easy it used to be to buy the next issue in-app. Just make is so when you go on the web site, the next issue is right there waiting for you to buy it (the app can report back which issues you've finished). It would add all of 15 seconds to the purchase process.
I understand there's still a hoop there, but they don't have to be holding it very far off the ground, and it's certainly not on fire. They could easily make it a little hop, not a huge jump.
Makes perfect sense to me. Good for Amazon for making MY purchase work for my benefit, not some US.Calif. company. MC/V is bad enough at 3 pct. Apple costing me 30% is highway robbery.
If a Comic BOOK is indeed a BOOK it falls under the terms of the DOJ vs. Apple ruling which forbids MFN treatment of books.
That's a VAST oversimplification with a huge "axe to grind against Amazon" and/or "fanboyism of Apple" slant at best.
Not to mention the whole "setting the workplace back 100 years" is 100% pure BS.
You're forgetting Wal-Mart already existed long before Amazon even made any significant inroads into anything beyond selling physical books online at good prices and with an unmatched selection and good, though impersonal, service.
I happen to LIKE seeing companies like Amazon help keep things in check to some degree.
Face reality, developed countries will never return to the mom & pop corner store days, so if there are at least three or four big companies vying for each market, that's a heck of a lot better than only one or two since neither monopolies nor duopolies tend to work out very well for consumers. I don't want Amazon to rule the world, but I sure as heck don't want Apple or Facebook or Google or Wal-Mart to either. It's good for someone to put Apple in their place from time to time.
Honestly tough, I've always thought it was a pretty fair trade-off to pay 30% to gan access to many millions of people who already have payment details entered and ready to go at the press of a button.
Depends on your volume. Imagine if apple wanted a 30% cut of your ebay or amazon (regular purchases not e-books) purchases made using ebay/amazon app. I spend a lot on amazon.com, and I would consider that insane. If every middleman wanted a 30% cut, supply chains will completely collapse. Apple should honestly consider having a tired pricing based on volume. Apple is too stubborn to do that (so is google, so they dont have to worry about the competing mobile platforms doing better either), or they would rather have people use iBooks.
I'm pretty sure Comixology will lose far more in sales than they would gain by not giving away 30%
Again depends on their volume and how much amazon pays the content owners.
You forgot to mention that the other walled gardens charge so much, almost entirely _because_ Apple did first, and continues to. If others charged less, shareholders would want their heads, for leaving so much money on the table. If moves like this eventually cause the app stores to reconsider and drop their ridiculously high rates, that's a big win for consumers AND for developers and content creators. I'm all for it. If it doesn't change anything then Apple still takes less of our money even if Amazon takes about the same amount, so it's still at least a small win.
Just sell points or coins or tokens or credits, which don't necessarily have a direct or static relationship to cash prices.
Set the price in the Apple walled garden to cash, with a markup to pay for Apple's highway robbery, and set the external price to something roughly equivalent in "coins" to 30% less.
Alternately, make a "special web-edition" of the content, and it's no longer the same item and not subject to Apple's crap. Throw in a wallpaper or something or offer slightly enhanced resolution, or something if necessary.
The possibilities are endless.
Can you add items to a wishlist for purchase later? Or buy credits externally then redeem them in-app?
I'm not a user so I don't know, but if you're are my question is will it be easier to pirate it now over legitimate options?
In-App purchases for Comixology haven't worked properly for me for ages, so I've always tended to buy via the website anyway.
What I'd really like them to do is automatically download subscriptions when my iPad is plugged in and on WiFi. And also keep downloading when the screen turns itself off, under the same conditions.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
Amazon already has the infamous 1 click patent. With this change in how to buy comics, by using a wish list in the app and buying in a web page, will Amazon apply for a "2 click" patent? I think it is pretty cleaver in how Amazon is bypassing Apple's 30% take.
What you can't do is provide a link in the app that takes you directly to a purchasing page to work wrounf the in-app thing. Honestly tough, I've always thought it was a pretty fair trade-off to pay 30% to gan access to many millions of people who already have payment details entered and ready to go at the press of a button.
So basically you're saying it's such a good offer we have to ban them from not taking advantage of it, Stockholm syndrome much? They can go to any website and buy any non-app item they want, the app store doesn't give you access to the market. The app store is the only remaining way to sell apps after all other ways have been taken away from you, it's what keeps the market hostage and enables them to get a 30% shakedown of all transactions. Why do you think there's no such thing in the PC world, here's millions of people ready to one-click shop for only 30% of your gross? Because no sane business would use it if they had a choice.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
For all current customers on iOS, here's the fix: 1: Install the new ComiXology app. 2: Leave a one star review in the App Store. 3: Launch the app, go to Purchases and hit Restore in the purchases tab to sync Apple purchases with the web 3: Log into comixology website to use the $5 voucher they gave you. 4: Download Marvel https://itunes.apple.com/en/ap..., Image https://itunes.apple.com/jp/ap... and DC https://itunes.apple.com/en/ap... apps. Check purchases have synced to those. 6: Delete both ComiXology apps and Use Image / Marvel / DC instead.
Imagine if apple wanted a 30% cut of your ebay or amazon (regular purchases not e-books) purchases made using ebay/amazon app.
Have you ever sold anything on eBay? Between eBay and PayPal (pretty much required to sell on eBay) and sometimes shipping fees, you are looking at not that far off 30% gone from the sale price.
If every middleman wanted a 30% cut, supply chains will completely collapse
Plainly they have not.
Again depends on their volume and how much amazon pays the content owners.
It depends on the NEW volume, which inherently will be far lower. Where do you even GO to buy a Comixology comic? I don't know, and I don't care - even though I have about 20 comics I purchased through the app.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Can you add items to a wishlist for purchase later? Or buy credits externally then redeem them in-app?
I think you can do both of those things, they just have restrictions on direct purchases that you consume on the spot. Apple is only charging for the convenience factor of a user being able to buy on the spot, so mechanisms that are more delayed or convoluted they don't really care about.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Holy Shit, never heard of this service before.
Who cares - I've just subscribed to all my favourite comics, this is fantastic.
Imagine if apple wanted a 30% cut of your ebay or amazon (regular purchases not e-books) purchases made using ebay/amazon app.
I meant additional 30% fee for buying using the ebay app on an ipad/iphone. I do shop and I sell items on ebay often, the paypal fees I pay is 2.9% + 30 cents. eBay final value fee is 10% (more importantly the fee is capped at $250, unlike apple store) and the listing fee is free for first 50 per month (again volume matters). eBay+Paypal fees is much lower compared to Apple, which doesnt happen often.
if eBay where to sell items on their iphone app, they would have to increase their fees by 30%. Making the final value fee as 40% instead of 10%. I for one would not be pleased.
The 30% "tax" that Apple charges at the App Store is immune to market forces. It makes no difference what sells or how much, Apple gets a phenomenal markup. It's all reward, no risk. When this happens at a large scale it means that capitalism is dead, and all the remains is monopoly.
And before the ideological right zombies start chanting "free market" in unison, remember that there is a duopoly: Android and IOS. Now that Blackberry is toast (pun intended), there is only a choice between a closed overly priced ecosystem and an anarchistic platform that is known to be insecure. I don't have the reference at hand, but someone at Google recently stated that security is not guaranteed for Android. Google washes their hands, and the phone providers (another tribe of monopolists) see no need to put any money into customer protection. The big cellular providers want it to be a felony to jailbreak your smartphone. They literally want to threaten users in jail for doing their own patches, so good luck on fixing that security breach on your own. Capitalism at it's best. A real "free market".
Amazon is also a real piece of work. Their business model is all about not paying any tax to anybody anywhere anytime. See post that proceeds this about them owing the French government $1 Billion.
The inequality between the taxation of brick and mortar stores and Amazon gives them a huge competitive advantage. The playing field is a level as a cliff. Amazon is at the top, their competitors are at the bottom and Amazon getd rocks for free to drop off the cliff.
Amazon also has the publishers in a headlock. They dictate how much the publishers can charge before the Amazon markup. They also demand, and get, exclusivity on Kindle over other platforms.
Both Amazon and Apple engage in the kind of "free market capitalism" that made the Soprano's famous: pay us or you won't be around very much longer. They have the same relationship with the market that a pig farmer has to his pigs. The pigs have very little say in the matter.
Why is Snark Required?
Really? 30% is an insanely large percentage just for that access. Would you think it's reasonable for Mastercard or Visa to charge merchants 30% for access to the "many millions of people" on their books?. Single digit percentages (eg in the realm of merchant credit card fees plus a bit of margin) would seem reasonable to me.
30% might seem reasonable if you wanted Apple to take a significant role in fulfillment (eg with apps/music/video where Apple are serving the content) but if you have your own fulfillment infrastructure (or payment infrastructure) the 30% figure is nuts.
30% to gan access to many millions of people who already have payment details entered and ready to go at the press of a button.
30% of your gross revenue? For transaction management? Whether you need it or not? Are you high?
Visa charges what? Around 3% to gain access to many millions of people who are carrying around a piece of plastic with the Visa emblem painted on it; for transactions under $50 they don't even have to push a button they can just tap the card on your payment terminal. 3% to access millions of customers, so they don't have to carry cash or write you cheques. But you think 30% its a good deal?
30% is a good deal if you sell a few thousand copies of a 1$ app. Its ludicrous money for other business models.
Want to know why, for example, the Steam Mobile app doesn't allow you to buy Windows games for your PC and add them to your steam library right from the mobile app?
30% gross to Apple is why
Its also why you can use MS Office if you have an office 360 subscription, but you cannot actually subscribe via the app. No way microsoft is handing apple 30% gross revenue to run a Visa. It would be ludicrous.
I could imagine that a flat-fee per month could serve them and theirs customers well.
The app store is the only remaining way to sell apps after all other ways have been taken away from you, it's what keeps the market hostage and enables them to get a 30% shakedown of all transactions. Why do you think there's no such thing in the PC world, here's millions of people ready to one-click shop for only 30% of your gross?
For gaming on the PC, there's Steam. Google searches tell me they take 30% as well.
Because no sane business would use it if they had a choice.
Steam is popular with gamers, so game companies take the hit and publish through Steam. They have a choice, and not every game is on Steam, but many are.
Honestly tough, I've always thought it was a pretty fair trade-off to pay 30% to gan access to many millions of people who already have payment details entered and ready to go at the press of a button.
Amazon already has half of the planet's payment details already entered and ready to go at the press of the button. Heck, they even claim ownership of the "one click buy" idea.
They could easily do their own in-app purchases without any help from Apple if it weren't for the fact that Apple would ban them from iOS if they did so (and since iOS does not support alternative markets/sideloading/etc that would be it for Amazon).
I have to take Amazon's side on this one, but I'd gladly side against them if somebody were complaining about the fact that Amazon does the exact same thing on the Kindle/etc platforms. Everybody's hands are dirty, but that doesn't change the fact that this practice is very anti-consumer no matter who is doing it.
Want to know why, for example, the Steam Mobile app doesn't allow you to buy Windows games for your PC and add them to your steam library right from the mobile app?
30% gross to Apple is why
Look up what percentage Valve charges other game companies to publish on Steam. Valve tries to hide this number, but it's been reported at 30%.
Says the guy with no retail experience what so ever.
30% is pretty much standard everywhere in retail. Buy office from bestbuy, bestbuy takes ATLEAST 30%. If your smaller, they charge more like requiring you rent the shelf space as well.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Look up what percentage Valve charges other game companies to publish on Steam. Valve tries to hide this number, but it's been reported at 30%.
Developers wishing to reach the PC, Mac, or Linux game markets do not have to go through Valve. Observe multiple competing app stores, direct sales, physical retail sales, and so forth. If your business model isn't compatible with steam you can reach those customers any number of other ways. There is lots of software not on steam after all.
Magic the Gathering: Online as an example. Evidently Wizards (Hasbro iirc) are happy to run their own patch manager and store. They release some simpler fixed deck titles to steam effectively as tutorials and advertising for the "real thing", but the big cash cow they run entirely themselves. And I can't imagine what advantage they would get by giving up 30% of their revenue to valve and selling the boosters etc there.
The point is Steam is great for most developers in the same way that the apple app store is great for most developers. The store provides a lot of the infrastructure, patch management, community management, and transaction tools along with an opportunity to get exposure to a lot of gamers. This is a pretty good deal overall. I think Arcen games once said around 90% of its revenue is through steam vs 3% from direct sales. Clearly, for them, the 30% paid to steam appears to be money very well spent. And the same goes for Apple's app store.
But in apple's case for example, take Microsoft Office. Microsoft doesn't need the app store to generate demand for its product. If they released office for the ipad they could sell it directly without any trouble at all. They certainly don't need apple to provide them infrastructure, exposure, or process Visa cards. But they couldn't. So for the longest time there was no office for ipad.
Now there finally is Office for iOS... but most of the key functionality is tied to a subscription to office 365. That's the "loophole" with Apple (if your business model can be contorted to work with a subscription service that your customers obtain [primarily] externally to apple).
Surely you live in the US, which to you must be "the planet." Amazon is irrelevant to most of the world.
I used to have books on bookstore shelves. The publisher generally sold the book to stores for 50% of list.
Which makes sense - the bookstore has to have the property to sell the books, the staff to sell them, the rest of the infrastructure to get the books from a distributor to them along with all the accounting required, and make a profit on top of all that.
All Apple really needs are some hard drives and an Ethernet cable. I realize it's not that simple and maybe that's why they're taking 30% and not 50%, but there's no requirement that companies use Apple's in-app purchases in this manner.
If my app includes a link to a web page that opens with Safari, is that okay?
No. Apps that let the user reach the payment process from the app in any way will be rejected. Please see the previous Slashdot story Apple Blocks iOS Apps Using Dropbox SDK.
Have you ever sold anything on eBay? Between eBay and PayPal (pretty much required to sell on eBay) and sometimes shipping fees, you are looking at not that far off 30% gone from the sale price.
My employer sells things on eBay, and eBay and PayPal combined take 15 percent. So does Amazon. Shipping will be the same no matter which storefront and payment processor the seller uses.
Google only takes the 30% if you use Google Checkout. They don't block you from running your own in-app purchasing (at least for music, movies, ebooks etc, I'm not sure about smurfberries). So yes, Apple does have to worry about the competing mobile platform doing better, though so far they are still in their superiority bubble.
As I understand it, Apple allows and in fact requires the use of non-Apple payment processors for physical goods. Because eBay requires all goods sold by sellers outside the classifieds section to be physical, this causes no problem for eBay. Part of Apple's 30% margin goes to recovering the cost of operating a gift card infrastructure where retail stores get a commission on each iTunes gift card sold.
Would you think it's reasonable for Mastercard or Visa to charge merchants 30% for access to the "many millions of people" on their books?
Remember that one can walk into a physical retail store and exchange cash for an iTunes gift card. If you include the price of buying a Visa gift card with cash, it's already close to the double digits. Apple has to give stores a cut of the iTunes gift cards.
Parents won't want to jump through those hoops either so their children can read the latest whatever. With an in app purchase they could just buy a iTunes card and the kid can get them on their own. No credit card required.
Last night I got an update and you can no longer use google wallet to pay with. My initial reaction is to be pretty annoyed, however after thinking about it this is probably for the best... I'll stop binge buying comics through it now.
Surely you live in the US, which to you must be "the planet." Amazon is irrelevant to most of the world.
Sure, but I imagine they have virtually all the credit card numbers Apple has, which was the point...
Ebay fees + paypal fees are about 13% of total purchase price.
supply chains only exist BECAUSE of the 30% markup at each step. In manufacturing business the "rule of thumb" is that items manufactured follow a rule of 3's. If I dig up $10 of iron ore and make it into metal bars then I would expect to sell those for $30. If I have a company that takes the metal bars for $30 and makes widgets I would expect to sell those for $90. Finally somebody would paint the widgets and assemble them into a finished product for $270. That's why Auto parts are so expensive individually versus assembled into a finished car.
That is just about what you see in the retail market. If you go to Home Depot or your local Metal Bar shop and start buying metal bits, you will see the prices marked up the same as if they were included in a retail product so assembling a finished product from Retail parts ends up being almost as much as finished furniture from a furniture store.
Either way you go at it, the world goes around from people that get their 30% moving things from raw materials to your door. Anybody saying something else is trying to monopolize one layer of the chain and take somebody's 30% for themselves.
We keep getting basic tech terms defined in summaries as if we're idiots, but this summary lacks background.
"Under the bold assumption that, since they were able to do it with books"
Do WHAT with books?
I've seen iTunes gift cards in more places than Amazon.com gift cards. They're handy for buying things with cash if you happen to live closer to a grocery store than to a deposit-friendly ATM.
Most credit card transaction fees require a minimum purchase (usually around $20). Many merchants will except smaller transactions if they know they can make it up on larger purchases, but most merchants could not process large volumes of small transactions affordably — they simply make it not possible to buy at those small prices.
Apple is generally dealing with 30% of $.99-3.99.
Doesn't seem to me like 30% (!!!) is the end of the world, rather standard for a distributor/marketplace. Apple's probably the most successful company at enabling (if not micro-transactions) very, very small transactions without passing those costs on to the consumer since the start of the iTunes Music Store in 2003.
Most things sub-dollar can't be purchased by cc for a reason.
Kill yourselves. The world doesn't need any more profit-seeking psychopaths.
Honestly tough, I've always thought it was a pretty fair trade-off to pay 30% to gan access to many millions of people who already have payment details entered and ready to go at the press of a button.
It's a fair trade-off for some (probably most), not so fair for many others, especially those with small margins that are made up by large volumes. And, of course, a company like Amazon likely already has millions of people who already have payment details entered etc - all they need is their Amazon login...
The deal-breaker here, IMO, is rather the fact that this is forced on you. People wouldn't complain nearly as much if it was an option, like it for Android or Windows Store apps. It would also make for a market where the actual fair market price of providing such a service would be determined.
And advertise all the prices as "$7 + $3 Apple Tax"
Microsoft allows the subscription to be purchased both through their site (where they keep it all) and in-app where they give Apple their 30%.
What was your point about Office again?
Six months ago, someone wrote Amazon and got this form letter that Amazon had no plans to bring Amazon Instant Video to any Android devices other than Kindle Fire. When exactly did that change? Or are you using a hacked version of Flash Player (because Flash Player depends on APIs no longer present in Android 4.4) on a browser with a hacked user agent and likely violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?
Microsoft allows the subscription to be purchased both through their site (where they keep it all) and in-app where they give Apple their 30%.
Yes, I knew that.
What was your point about Office again?
Supporting the (small minority of?) users that subscribe "in-app" is a nod to ease-of-use and helps expand the market. They can drop the feature in the future once the market is established, just as amazon did.
Plus Microsoft knows the vast majority of people will get their office 365 subscription elsewhere anyway. (Primarily through work - ie enterprise volume licensing)
Says the guy with no retail experience what so ever.
Quite the contrary.
The apple app store is pretty reasonable for selling apps. It provides exposure, hosting, reviews, etc. But in-app purchases? The app itself is the store. The ONLY thing Apple does for them is provide the transaction processing.
bestbuy takes ATLEAST 30%
Off the initial purchase yes. But afterwards?
Lets take it one step backwards from in-app purchase revenue going to the app store. Why not have the app purchases go to the physical store. Its the same damned thing.
Suppose you buy your ipad from bestbuy, should best buy get to require that they get 30% of all the apps you buy on that ipad for the lifetime of the device?
Because that's what apple's app store is doing. You buy the app, and pay 30% to the store you bought it from and that's perfectly fine. But the app itself contains a store for its own in-app stuff... and Apple gets 30% that why?
Because they gave you access to the 'market' that bought the app? So then bestbuy can make the same argument... i minght not have my ipad if i didn't buy it at bestbuy, so best buy gave apple access to me, and therefore best buy should get 30% of everything i buy in the ipad right?
That's just standard retail practice? LMAO :p
Please do not try to make sense here. We're in the middle of a good bit of Apple hatin' and making sense is just senseless.
Because you have short term memory of a goldfish. When Apple first established the appstore, their 30% was considered *VERY* reasonable, and in fact other cell phone company appstores or RIM was charging way way above that, between 50% to 75%.
Developers wishing to reach the PC, Mac, or Linux game markets do not have to go through Valve.
True enough, but the fact that they "voluntarily" do so undermines your initial argument:
Original poster:
30% to gan access to many millions of people who already have payment details entered and ready to go at the press of a button
Your reply:
30% of your gross revenue? For transaction management? Whether you need it or not? Are you high?
Of course, it's not just about the payment transaction, it's very much the exposure to the userbase.
But in apple's case for example, take Microsoft Office. Microsoft doesn't need the app store to generate demand for its product. If they released office for the ipad they could sell it directly without any trouble at all. They certainly don't need apple to provide them infrastructure, exposure, or process Visa cards. But they couldn't. So for the longest time there was no office for ipad.
So what? Apple is a walled garden. If you want in, Apple wants their cut, just like Microsoft does with Xbox. If it isn't worth 30%, Microsoft won't pay. If it is, they will.
And since the original article is about Comixology, 30% to gain access to millions of users ready to purchase doesn't sound all that unreasonable, just like many, many developers publish on Steam, even though they aren't all selling $1 mobile games and can handle their own payments via their own website.
No to poo-poo any of you speed readers out there (or authors of VERY short comics), but I don't remember enjoying any comics that took "5 minutes to read", as the original post implies. Maybe I'm out of touch, and all current comics are a mere 5-7 pages long? If so, I'm not missing anything.
11.13 Apps that link to external mechanisms for purchases or subscriptions to be used in the App, such as a "buy" button that goes to a web site to purchase a digital book, will be rejected
Of course, it's not just about the payment transaction, it's very much the exposure to the userbase.
You completely missed the point.
This isn't about initial purchases, its about in-app purchases. 30% for the initial app purchase is quite fair.
30% for in-app purchases is, in many (but not all) cases, ludicrous. Because at that point its just transaction processing. You aren't paying for a userbase with in app purchases -- these are already your customers, and you app is the "store".
Paying apple 30% for in app purchases is exactly as reasonable as apple paying bestbuy 30% for apple app store purchases since the customer bought the ipad from bestbuy.
30% for in-app purchases is, in many (but not all) cases, ludicrous. Because at that point its just transaction processing. You aren't paying for a userbase with in app purchases -- these are already your customers, and you app is the "store".
Paying apple 30% for in app purchases is exactly as reasonable as apple paying bestbuy 30% for apple app store purchases since the customer bought the ipad from bestbuy.
The difference is that an app like Comixology can be given away for free while making money on all the in-app purchases. It's just another revenue model. Why shouldn't Apple continue to take their cut? The Best Buy analogy is broken, because they are a store, not a platform. You buy a console and leave the store. You can "leave" the iDevice too to another platform, but when you're on it Apple wants their cut, just like Microsoft does with the Xbox.
Microsoft allows the subscription to be purchased both through their site (where they keep it all) and in-app where they give Apple their 30%.
Yes, I knew that.
What was your point about Office again?
Supporting the (small minority of?) users that subscribe "in-app" is a nod to ease-of-use and helps expand the market. They can drop the feature in the future once the market is established, just as amazon did.
Plus Microsoft knows the vast majority of people will get their office 365 subscription elsewhere anyway. (Primarily through work - ie enterprise volume licensing)
Sure they could. But even if they did, selling a subscription on a webpage will be far less bothersome to impulse buyers than selling single comics. Comics the people can get in the iBook Store without problem.
But hey, now that Comixology belongs to Amazon, they don't have to care about money anymore.
Of course, it's not just about the payment transaction, it's very much the exposure to the userbase.
You completely missed the point.
This isn't about initial purchases, its about in-app purchases. 30% for the initial app purchase is quite fair.
30% for in-app purchases is, in many (but not all) cases, ludicrous. Because at that point its just transaction processing. You aren't paying for a userbase with in app purchases -- these are already your customers, and you app is the "store".
Paying apple 30% for in app purchases is exactly as reasonable as apple paying bestbuy 30% for apple app store purchases since the customer bought the ipad from bestbuy.
So Google and Amazon taking the same 30% is always in the few rare cases where this is reasonable. And why the hell wouldn't you pay for the user base - it's the iOS user base that actually is willing to buy stuff. If you don't want that, develop for Android.
The difference is that an app like Comixology can be given away for free while making money on all the in-app purchases. It's just another revenue model.
Right. I agree with that. Why would Bestbuy carry the ipad if they were free and apple made all their money from the app store and best buy made nothing. I get that.
On the other hand, the solution there is simple, best buy just won't carry the ipad unless they can sell it for something. Problem solved.
The Best Buy analogy is broken, because they are a store, not a platform.
That's really no difference at all.
You buy a console and leave the store.
And once you've bought comixology you never have to visit the apple app store again. The dependency on the store is artificial and arbitrary.
You can "leave" the iDevice too to another platform, but when you're on it Apple wants their cut, just like Microsoft does with the Xbox.
The only reason Apple (or Microsoft) get 30% of all purchases for iPads or Xboxes is they are effectively able to force you to. This should be illegal.
Do you really think if Best Buy could get 30% of all your after purchase sales they wouldn't? There is no techical reason they couldn't. (And in fact, for example, historically, when you bought a cell phone from a cell phone dealer a percentage percentage of your monthly bills went back to the dealer as a "residual" payment for signing and servicing the customer.)
We absolutely have meatspace examples of the same sort of systems.
On the other hand, the solution there is simple, best buy just won't carry the ipad unless they can sell it for something. Problem solved.
The Apple solution is simple too. They want 30% of the purchases made through apps on their platform, whether it is upfront or in-app.
The only reason Apple (or Microsoft) get 30% of all purchases for iPads or Xboxes is they are effectively able to force you to. This should be illegal.
I disagree. They invested all the money building and selling their device and platform. They should be able to sell software on it as they see fit.
Do you really think if Best Buy could get 30% of all your after purchase sales they wouldn't?
Of course they would, but they can't. They could try and demand it as a condition for selling items in their store, but manufacturers would balk.
I disagree. They invested all the money building and selling their device and platform. They should be able to sell software on it as they see fit.
Just like car manufacturers should be allowed to dictate that you must get all your service at the dealer, and buy gas from their gas stations right, and only install oem parts?
I mean, they spent all that money on the designing and building cars, building dealer networks, and now some 'minute-lube' is trying to make a buck doing an oil change -- and they can't even void the owners warranty nor install a lock preventing the customer from opening the hood to service the engine themselves!
Apple has done all of these things with its platform. They locked it down so the customer can't install their own software, can't shop at a different store. But its all artificial and could be swept away with a software patch.
Perhaps the force of law should force that door open, just like it did with the car dealers.
They could try and demand it as a condition for selling items in their store, but manufacturers would balk.
Which is exactly what amazon is now doing: "balking"
And a lot more manufacturers should "balk". And customers should balk. All in all a lot more balking should be taking place.
Just like car manufacturers should be allowed to dictate that you must get all your service at the dealer, and buy gas from their gas stations right, and only install oem parts?
Arguably, yes.
Apple has done all of these things with its platform. They locked it down so the customer can't install their own software, can't shop at a different store. But its all artificial and could be swept away with a software patch.
Or you can just buy an Android that allows sideloading.
Obviously they don't, as Apple has a much more worldwide presence. So I don't see how that is your "point."
Arguably, yes.
You ever wonder why they don't?
Its not because they haven't thought of it. Its because they tried and society gave them a giant smack down.
Or you can just buy an Android that allows sideloading.
Just because Chevy lets you tinker with the engine and get oil changes where you like doesn't mean its ok for Ford to bolt your hood shut and only give dealers the keys.
Its still illegal for Ford, and it should be illegal for Apple.
You ever wonder why they don't?
I know why they don't. That doesn't mean it's the right answer.
Just because Chevy lets you tinker with the engine and get oil changes where you like doesn't mean its ok for Ford to bolt your hood shut and only give dealers the keys.
Its still illegal for Ford, and it should be illegal for Apple.
Then why don't you apply the same logic to Valve? Don't you think they also take a percentage of in-app purchases? You really made a poor choice by bringing in Steam as a victim of Apple.
I know why they don't. That doesn't mean it's the right answer.
Because you sincerely think consumers shouldn't have the right to do what they want with the cars they bought?
Then why don't you apply the same logic to Valve?
I did.
Don't you think they also take a percentage of in-app purchases?
Everquest 2, for example, is available on steam. In-app purchases don't appear to go through valve's transaction processing at all, and you can even link and unlink the game to steam at will since Sony provides its own download, hosting, patching, and payment infrastructure. You can even buy the game from another store entirely, or direct from Sony.
Sure, other smaller games from smaller publishers are wholly dependent on valves infrastructure, but its their choice.
You really made a poor choice by bringing in Steam as a victim of Apple.
Steam's not really the victim of apple. We the consumer are. We can't shop from steam's app because of apple. We can however login to the steam website and shop from that though even on an apple device. That's how pointless and fucked up it is.
Because you sincerely think consumers shouldn't have the right to do what they want with the cars they bought?
That's a strawman argument. There's a huge difference between voiding the warranty and not being allowed to do what you want to your car.
Everquest 2, for example, is available on steam. In-app purchases don't appear to go through valve's transaction processing at all
How do you know? I'm pretty sure Valve takes a cut of in-app purchases on free-to-play games.
Steam's not really the victim of apple. We the consumer are. We can't shop from steam's app because of apple.
First, I'm not a victim of Apple because I don't buy their products. I don't like their walled garden, so I don't give them my money. Second, Valve chooses not to pay the gatekeeper, just like many game companies don't want to pay Valve, though many do because of Valve's market dominance on the PC. Third, there are alternatives to Apple, just like there are alternatives to Valve.
We can however login to the steam website and shop from that though even on an apple device. That's how pointless and fucked up it is.
*shrug* So there's an alternative, even on the iDevice.
There's a huge difference between voiding the warranty and not being allowed to do what you want to your car.
And Apple lets you do neither.
How do you know?
Because your transaction goes through with the payment options you have on file with Sony, not with Steam, through Sony's infrastruture. I've seen games that do in-app through valves system and its COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
Hell, you can even just buy the game currency at walmart, enter a code. EQ2 is very very loosely coupled with steam and while I'm sure steam gets a cut of any transactions that do go through steams infrastructure; most transactions don't.
I'm pretty sure Valve takes a cut of in-app purchases on free-to-play games.
Any that use steams infrastructure, for sure. The others? I'm not so sure. Free2Play is a special category though... unless there was kickback to steam thered be no incentive for them to even carry the title. But EQ2 isn't really F2P... the base game is but the current expansions are paid, and pretty much everyone that plays plays the current expansions. So Steam can make its money off the annual xpac.
First, I'm not a victim of Apple because I don't buy their products.
So it doesn't affect you. This is a bigger issue than you.
Second, Valve chooses not to pay the gatekeeper, just like many game companies don't want to pay Valve, though many do because of Valve's market dominance on the PC. Third, there are alternatives to Apple, just like there are alternatives to Valve.
With the PC you can choose to use steam or not. As the developer you can reach the customers without it. As the customer you can reach developers with out it. Some customers choose to use steam, and some developers choose to use steam. With a Mac same thing. With Linux same thing.
With IOS you can't. If you OWN an iphone you are not allowed to shop for apps outside the app store. If you are a developer you cannot sell apps to users without using the apple app store. That is the difference. And it should be illegal.
All the things that make steam similiar to apples app store are accurate. But the lock in is different. And the fact that one can buy an android to avoid it is entirely beside the point.
If I am a developer and you are a customer that owns a device, I should NOT have to use the manufacturers "store" to sell you something.
*shrug* So there's an alternative, even on the iDevice.
The point is the customers experience is artificially degraded.
All the things that make steam similiar to apples app store are accurate.
Which makes it a hypocritical choice to use as your poster boy for a degraded app on Apple's app store.
But the lock in is different.
Different, yet remarkably similar. Build a walled garden and force 30% of revenue to get in.
And the fact that one can buy an android to avoid it is entirely beside the point.
The cognitive dissonance is strong within this one... There are alternatives to Valve, and there are alternatives to Apple. That Valve runs on a PC doesn't change the reality that they have become a platform to themselves, and game companies have to make painful decisions because Valve has carved out such a strong marketplace, just like Apple has in the mobile world.
Which makes it a hypocritical choice to use as your poster boy for a degraded app on Apple's app store.
Its the differences that count here.
Build a walled garden and force 30% of revenue to get in.
With Steam its just a garden. There is no wall. You can leave the garden.
The cognitive dissonance is strong within this one...
No. Its just you have particularly thick skull.
There are alternatives to Valve, and there are alternatives to Apple.
Only if you put your head up your ass and pretend that someone owning a PC and deciding to shop at GoG.com by just going there instead of instead of Steam that day represents the same class as "having alternatives" as someone owning an ipad and deciding to shop at at another store by buying a whole new device first.
I see a pretty massive difference there.
The difference between "monopoloy control" over access to millions of customers vs "not monopoly control".
That Valve runs on a PC doesn't change the reality that they have become a platform to themselves,
Nor does it change the reality that the majority of the games on steam are available for the PC elsewhere too. Steam may be dominant but it is far from monopoly.
and game companies have to make painful decisions because Valve has carved out such a strong marketplace,
Business is a series of painful decisions.
This is about bunch of users that only have one store, and nobody is allowed to sell direct or open a new store.
Its not right when Apple does it. (ios), and its not right when microsoft does it (xbox, windows RT).
But steam, whether you like it or hate it isn't the only store that can sell games for PCs, Macs, or Linux.
Its the differences that count here.
No, it's the similarities that count. Glad we have that settled.
With Steam its just a garden. There is no wall. You can leave the garden.
The walled garden is also very much about entering.
Only if you put your head up your ass and pretend that someone owning a PC and deciding to shop at GoG.com by just going there instead of instead of Steam that day represents the same class as "having alternatives" as someone owning an ipad and deciding to shop at at another store by buying a whole new device first.
You've got to have your head up your ass to ignore the market dominance that Valve has with gamers. Users don't have to be Steam sheep, but they are. They don't have to be Apple sheep, but they are. Apple wants their cut, Valve wants their cut. You're just hypocritical in your stance because you're part of Valve's herd, so much so that it bothers you that you can't be part of the Valve herd on an Apple farm.
No, it's the similarities that count. Glad we have that settled.
Monopolostic vs non-monopolistic is the bit that counts.
The walled garden is also very much about entering.
What does that even mean? Valve's not a walled garden. Its just a garden. Or more accurately its just a store.
Apple wants their cut, Valve wants their cut.
And I guess Valve should count itself lucky that Microsoft hasn't neutered them by taking 30% of all valves sales... you know... for "access" to windows users?
Oh wait... that *IS* Valves great fear... and the reason why they flipped out over the windows 8 app store, and its part of the impetus for steambox OS.
But it shouldn't be their fear. Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to charge 30% for everything anyone does with the OS. That ought to be illegal.
You're just hypocritical in your stance because you're part of Valve's herd, so much so that it bothers you that you can't be part of the Valve herd on an Apple farm.
Give it a rest.
I'm bothered that multiplatform games I buy on humblebundle don't (and can't) come with the ios version because of Apple.
I'm bothered that amazon can't sell comic books through its reader app.
I think its ridiculous that I can't buy steam games from the steam app. And equally ridiculous that I can't buy ios games from the steam store both because of apple.
But 'valve herd'? Hardly, I buy from GoG first. And if GoG had an ios "community" app (since apple won't let them run a store) I'd have mentioned that instead of Valve's. If I could buy games from GoG and run them on my ios devices in addition to mac, pc, (and soon linux) I'd be even happier, but that won't happen either because of apple.
Monopolostic vs non-monopolistic is the bit that counts.
Except you haven't shown Apple to be a monopoly. You don't have to buy an iPhone to get smartphone service. You don't have to buy an iPad to get a tablet computer. They have a "monopoly" on the users that bought their iDevice, just like Valve does on users who only buy games through Steam.
The walled garden is also very much about entering.
What does that even mean? Valve's not a walled garden. Its just a garden. Or more accurately its just a store.
Are you really that obtuse? They decide what games they will sell and under what terms. They are more than a store, they are a platform unto themselves for delivering games. That's why they can make their own console, because gamers have bought into their platform. It's also why there's always the occasional murmurings about what would happen if Steam went out of business. If a normal store goes out of business, there's not even a possibility I lose access to my games.
But it shouldn't be their fear. Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to charge 30% for everything anyone does with the OS. That ought to be illegal.
Uh huh, and you're going to make the same argument that Valve shouldn't be able to charge 30% on their "Steam Machines"?
Except you haven't shown Apple to be a monopoly. You don't have to buy an iPhone to get smartphone service. You don't have to buy an iPad to get a tablet computer.
Complete control over what people do with their idevice is monopolistic. If walmart was the only store you were allowed to shop at if you lived in New York then walmart has a monopoly there. The fact that you don't have to live in New York, and can shop somewhere else if you first moved to a new city doesn't change that fact. Likewise, being able to abandon your idevice and buy a whole new device doesn't change the fact that Apple's practice of control over idevices is monopolistic.
They have a "monopoly" on the users that bought their iDevice, just like Valve does on users who only buy games through Steam.
That is a ridiculous comparison. Those two aren't just like eachother at all. What do steam and apple have control over?
Steam Answer: The contents of your steam account and the steam store. That's it.
Apple Answer: The contents of your apple account and the apple app store. AND you are prevented from obtaining software for your idevice anywhere else. AND you are prevented from using software you acquire on non-idevices.
What do I have to do if I'm using $provider$ and now want to buy a program somewhere else for my $device that I own$?
Steam Answer: Buy a program from another store that supports $device that you own$. There are MANY to choose from. Regardless of what steam supported device you currently have. You are free to shop elsewhere for it.
Apple Answer: First buy another device. Now you can visit another store. Note that no matter what device you buy, you will not be able to use any of your apple app store purchases on it.
That, my dense friend, is the difference between apple's WALLED garden and valves garden. Steam only controls the stuff in the store. Apple controls the stuff in its store, but also prevents you from using another store. (And NO, being able to use another store by buying an entirely new device doesn't change that fact.)
So what's your argument? That having control over what is on your steam account inside the steam store is the same thing as controlling where you can buy apps for an entire range of physical devices? Are you high?
Are you really that obtuse? They decide what games they will sell and under what terms.
That is EXACTLY what a store does.Walmart does this. 7-11 does this. What you are describing is a "store".
That's why they can make their own console, because gamers have bought into their platform.
They could make SteamOS or SteamBox or whatever it is regardless of steam. GoG could make one too if they wanted. Hell, as it stands most games Valve carries are windows games, and that's not going to change anytime soon. At worst, steambox is about as evil as walmart deciding to add car dealerships and selling walmart cars, so you can now drive your walmart purchases home in a walmart car, and they'll have automatic parking lots to automatically park your walmart cars when you pull up or something. Of course, you can still use the cars to go to other places that aren't walmart, and even carry purchases around that you made at other stores. Likewise buying a steambox doesn't lock you into steam and out of other stores at all.
Uh huh, and you're going to make the same argument that Valve shouldn't be able to charge 30% on their "Steam Machines"?
I already said Xbox etc was just as bad as Apple. Steam's Steam OS so far however is just a tweaked linux distro... you have access to the desktop, to the command line, and you can install on it whatever you like including using games that were not acquired from valve through steam.
Sure its POSSIBLE valve goes down the 'evil' path at some point, but the reason they are dominant right now is because they haven't. And if they do, there are other stores ready to take up torch and cater to PC hardware gamers. But comparing what Valve migh
Complete control over what people do with their idevice is monopolistic. If walmart was the only store you were allowed to shop at if you lived in New York then walmart has a monopoly there. The fact that you don't have to live in New York, and can shop somewhere else if you first moved to a new city doesn't change that fact. Likewise, being able to abandon your idevice and buy a whole new device doesn't change the fact that Apple's practice of control over idevices is monopolistic
Except users never had to buy iDevice in the first place, which makes your Walmart analogy inept. And they most certainly don't have to keep buying it, especially given the amount of churn in the mobile industry. Apple's policy regarding apps is well-known.
What do steam and apple have control over?
Steam Answer: The contents of your steam account and the steam store. That's it.
Apple Answer: The contents of your apple account and the apple app store. AND you are prevented from obtaining software for your idevice anywhere else. AND you are prevented from using software you acquire on non-idevices.
Sure, Apple has more tightfisted control. But both Valve and Apple are gatekeepers to a large userbase, and they both take 30%. That was the basic principle being argued over initially before this topic became faceted into just how Evil(TM) Apple really is. That one has control over a device and one is just a dominant "store" (that also hosts achievements, "cloud" saves, and matchmaking) for PC gaming doesn't make that principle go away.
I think we've exhausted this topic, so last reply for me.
Obviously they don't, as Apple has a much more worldwide presence. So I don't see how that is your "point."
Have any actual numbers on that? I suspect that the vast majority of Apple's customers are in the US. They're not nearly as popular in Asia/etc as they are in the US. In Europe they are moderately popular, but then again so is Amazon.
In any case, Amazon's actions clearly indicate that at least they don't find value in paying a 30% markup on every transaction just to have access to that "exclusive" Apple customer base.
No, it's the similarities that count. Glad we have that settled.
Monopolostic vs non-monopolistic is the bit that counts.
So suddenly you say Amazon is wrong here. Because they are the only one involved that has a monopoly.
Obviously they don't, as Apple has a much more worldwide presence. So I don't see how that is your "point."
Have any actual numbers on that? I suspect that the vast majority of Apple's customers are in the US. They're not nearly as popular in Asia/etc as they are in the US.
https://twitter.com/asymco/status/460724885120380929/photo/1 - Apple has almost four times as many (iTunes) accounts as Amazon, most of them with a credit card connected.
https://twitter.com/asymco/status/460724885120380929/photo/1 - Apple has almost four times as many (iTunes) accounts as Amazon, most of them with a credit card connected.
What evidence do you have that most iTunes account have a non-expired credit card connected? The comparison is between "active" Amazon accounts, and any iTunes account. That doesn't really seem like apples-to-apples. I have an iTunes account and I don't think I've used it in years, and it certainly does have valid payment info, unlike my Amazon Prime account. I'd hardly consider that one data point evidence of anything, but you need to compare like things.
Also, I doubt that many people who would actually buy something from Amazon don't already have Amazon accounts. The only reason Amazon isn't selling directly in their application is that Apple forbids it.
Except users never had to buy iDevice in the first place, which makes your Walmart analogy inept.
People never have to move to New York either. The walmart analogy seems reasonable to me.
Apple's policy regarding apps is well-known.
Not really. Or perhaps its known but not well understood.
People are on the gog and steam forums asking for ios shopping apps, with no conception of why it will not happen despite owning an idevice and thinking they understand the policy.
Or people will ask on humblebundle.com for future mobile bundles to include the ios version of the game alongside the pc, mac, linux, and android version; again not realizing that humblebundle simply cannot do this.
People understand they can't just go willy nilly downloading apps for ios... but they are largely not aware of the full implications of how locked in they are.
Sure, Apple has more tightfisted control.
Thank you.
But both Valve and Apple are gatekeepers to a large userbase, and they both take 30%.
That's fair. But the difference in how tightfisted the control is can't be just brushed aside. It affects the real impact of the policies.
. That was the basic principle being argued over initially before this topic became faceted into just how Evil(TM) Apple really is. That one has control over a device and one is just a dominant "store" (that also hosts achievements, "cloud" saves, and matchmaking) for PC gaming doesn't make that principle go away.
Even if the policies in the two stores are the same. the freedom to step outside the store and use a different one at-will with the same device changes the real world impact of the policies inside the store immensely.
I think we've exhausted this topic, so last reply for me.
Agreed. I don't think there is much new left to argue.
https://twitter.com/asymco/status/460724885120380929/photo/1 - Apple has almost four times as many (iTunes) accounts as Amazon, most of them with a credit card connected.
What evidence do you have that most iTunes account have a non-expired credit card connected? The comparison is between "active" Amazon accounts, and any iTunes account. That doesn't really seem like apples-to-apples. I have an iTunes account and I don't think I've used it in years, and it certainly does have valid payment info, unlike my Amazon Prime account.
Apart from Apple saying so? None. But Amazon isn't even saying that.