Well, if I have a well written app that serves a particular niche that isn't too crowded, then potentially a lot of people. If I have a 99 cent fart app or a tip calculator, then not probably not many.
Oh, and because it "smells like price fixing to you" it must be. Not really: "Price fixing requires a conspiracy between two or more sellers or buyers;"
The point is that the analysis that is lacking from his post is, will a lowering of the price to $1.99 while at the same time making the app available in another large marketplace net him more money. I don't know the answer to that, and apparently neither does he.
Your example is not that relevant to the point. In the stock market, the price is (supposed) to be set solely by the people buying ans selling stocks - the price finds its own level. In retail the seller decides the price and may adjust it as they see fit. So it's similar but not the same.
Amazon and Apple shouldn't be involved in driving the price anywhere.
So would you further suggest that Safeway, Sears, etc, should let the producers of the products set the retail prices? That's basically what you are suggesting. iTunes and Amazon are retail stores. They have the absolute ability to set whatever price they want until and unless Jobs and Bezos have a call to fix the price in both stores.
I've worked for a large software company and we used to analyze this all the time. It is exceedingly difficult to account for all the variables. Did he, for example control for seasonality? Did he try to calculate if the potential additional sales from another marketplace would offset or erase the potential loss?
Obviously if he simply lowered the price in the Amazon store (my assumption) he would leave money on the table based on the information provided. But that is not the case we are discussing. I am suggesting that a simultaneous lowering of price and availability in another large marketplace might offset the price reduction and even net him more revenue. just a thought, hence my use of the word might above.
Regardless, you'd think that would be an analysis he would perform before posting.
OK. You write an app and put it on a webserver set up to take credit cards, pay-pal,etc, and charge $1.99 for it (as in you have to charge their card before they download it). I'll write a similar app and put it in the App store for $1.99. I guarantee you I'll make way more money than you even with the 30%.
I don't think this situation meets the definition of third-line forcing.
Third line forcing occurs when a supplier places a condition on the supply of its goods or services that the customer must acquire goods or services of a particular type from a third person nominated by the supplier.http://www.mallesons.com/publications/2005/Nov/8201946w.htm
Anyway Amazon and Apple will need to answer those questions.
which means the developer would get $700,000 without the requirements of setting up distribution and to a large extent marketing. Clearly you've never run a business and had to pay for sales, marketing, advertising and distribution expenses.
30% for built in exposure to 80 million potential customer and application distribution is actually pretty cheap. Plus it's a flat pay-as-you-go situation. Generally you have to pay for marketing sales and distribution channels up from and hope you make enough to cover your costs.
Personally I don't like Apple's schizophrenic approval process, but the model is brilliant.
No, it's not. It would be price fixing if Amazon, Apple et al got together and set the minimum price to ensure profits, but this is more like a low price guarantee, and besides the publishers set the prices for the most part anyway.
I think the premise of the article is wrong and I don't think the author understands economics that well. I think that while we might see higher prices on specific or new e-books, having Apple and Amazon competing will drive the prices down as they compete for market share.
Except you might make more money if you drop the price to $1.99 and now sell in 2 marketplaces instead of one. Who says that the price adjustments have to be positive?
If Amazon really wants to fuck with Apple they'll force their pricing to end in.98 which would mean that books on iTunes would be $1.01 more (until Apple adjusted their pricing to.97)
Whatever. I'm heading down to the Apple store to get a new 3g iPad and hit In-n-Out for a Double Double. Cheers.
A 30% flat rate is really cheap, considering you don't have so set up and maintain distribution yourself, and that you are going to reach 80 million potential customers.
I'm sorry, but as a heavy Photoshop user I've tried to get stuff done with the GIMP that it just won't do. I'd have to say that GIMP is NOT a strong competitor to Photoshop unless you only use a very small small portion of Photoshop's features. Yes, PS is bloated and expensive, but I couldn't do my job without it.
Microsoft has yet to figure out that putting a desktop OS on a touchscreen device without fundamentally changing the way the OS works leads to a bad and muddled experience.
I really fail to understand why people can't seem to get it. The big problem with tablets to date is that they run a version of a desktop OS that turns your finger or a stylus into a mouse and you still have to deal with various windows on the desktop, etc. Microsoft doesn't seem to get the point that the standard desktop OS does not translate well to a touchscreen device - there needs to be a complete re-factoring of the OS for the device, something that Apple seems to get. IMO windows tablets are annoying to use after awhile - I had a tablet PC for awhile and after the novelty wore off, I went back to my Thinkpad for anything other than casual web browsing.
The whole "getting more work done" argument really doesn't make sense in the context of the iPad. Of course you're not getting "work" done on an iPad, or any touchscreen only device for that matter. You're not writing code, doing graphic design or doing serious number crunching on a touchscreen. (and really, you're not getting serious work done on a netbook with a 9" screen and a cramped keyboard either - you CAN get stuff done, but I wouldn't use one and I don't think a lot of people would either). That's not the point of the iPad. It is however the point of Windows powered tablets, but short of using them to drive a power point or a specialized application, like in a doctor's office, you're not getting serious work done with the majority of applications without a keyboard.
Can an iPad replace a computer? Yes, if all you do is browse the internet, answer short e-mails, give a keynote presentation (that you developed on your desktop), play the occasional game, watch movies, and read books with it. I do not get the impression that Apple is selling the iPad as a computer replacement. Having said that I would much rather have an iPad than a netbook computer. I have a laptop and a desktop - I will use the iPad for the stuff I mentioned above, and I much prefer the form factor of a tablet for watching a movie, reading, etc. To me the $200-$300 premium over a netbook with a similar sized screen is definitely worth it.
The iPad isn't for you - we get that. Once Apple release iPhone OS 4.0, the iPad is EXACTLY the device and OS I want for the intended purpose, and I'm perfectly willing to pay $600 for it, and if according to you that makes me stupid, so be it. I wear a nice watch too, but my $40 Timex ironman actually keeps better time. I guess that makes me stupider.
Right, because selling an unhealthy meal with a toy vs. selling the unhealthy meal without a toy is EXACTLY the same as painting your wals with toxic heavy metals.
I'm not on my hobbyhorse, however thanks for generalizing.
No. This is EXACTLY about personal and parental responsibility. Where the fuck does the government get off telling any parent they can't buy their kid a happy meal with a toy in it. Fuck Santa Clara. Just another entry on my list of places to avoid.
Whatever happened to "presumed innocent until proven guilty"?
Has anyone else noticed that laws seem to be slowly changing to produce a presumption of guilt (requiring a proof of innocence) these days?
Has anyone even bothered to read the bill? Or is everyone knee-jerking to CNN and other media outlets? Here is the bill (PDF). I suggest you read it. I've read it twice, and while I am not a lawyer, in a nutshell, all it says regarding "checking papers" is that if a cop had a lawful contact with someone, ie. they are pulled over, or being arrested for something else, if the cop has a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegal, (the cops in Arizona have a pretty good idea of who is illegal based on a number of factors including no ID at all and being evasive, and yes, not speaking English, but not speaking English is simply another factor) but the law absolutely does not allow a cop to simple approach someone that think is illegal. It requires some other contact first. If the cop thinks that the person is illegal, the law tells the cop to enforce the already existing for many years immigration laws. The cops aren't going to be stopping people on the street who are "brown" to check for "papers". In face the law specifically states: "This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens."
I fail to understand what the problem with a law that tells the cops to enforce the already existing immigration laws are. If you have a problem with that, then you should talk to your congressman about repealing the federal immigration laws...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if I have a well written app that serves a particular niche that isn't too crowded, then potentially a lot of people. If I have a 99 cent fart app or a tip calculator, then not probably not many.
Oh, and because it "smells like price fixing to you" it must be. Not really: "Price fixing requires a conspiracy between two or more sellers or buyers;"
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=price+fixing
Wow, who shit in your cheerios?
The point is that the analysis that is lacking from his post is, will a lowering of the price to $1.99 while at the same time making the app available in another large marketplace net him more money. I don't know the answer to that, and apparently neither does he.
Your example is not that relevant to the point. In the stock market, the price is (supposed) to be set solely by the people buying ans selling stocks - the price finds its own level. In retail the seller decides the price and may adjust it as they see fit. So it's similar but not the same.
Amazon and Apple shouldn't be involved in driving the price anywhere.
So would you further suggest that Safeway, Sears, etc, should let the producers of the products set the retail prices? That's basically what you are suggesting. iTunes and Amazon are retail stores. They have the absolute ability to set whatever price they want until and unless Jobs and Bezos have a call to fix the price in both stores.
So selling at $1.99 means forgoing revenue...
selling at $1.99 in one market place.
I've worked for a large software company and we used to analyze this all the time. It is exceedingly difficult to account for all the variables. Did he, for example control for seasonality? Did he try to calculate if the potential additional sales from another marketplace would offset or erase the potential loss?
Obviously if he simply lowered the price in the Amazon store (my assumption) he would leave money on the table based on the information provided. But that is not the case we are discussing. I am suggesting that a simultaneous lowering of price and availability in another large marketplace might offset the price reduction and even net him more revenue. just a thought, hence my use of the word might above.
Regardless, you'd think that would be an analysis he would perform before posting.
OK. You write an app and put it on a webserver set up to take credit cards, pay-pal,etc, and charge $1.99 for it (as in you have to charge their card before they download it). I'll write a similar app and put it in the App store for $1.99. I guarantee you I'll make way more money than you even with the 30%.
I don't think this situation meets the definition of third-line forcing.
Third line forcing occurs when a supplier places a condition on the supply of its goods or services that the customer must acquire goods or services of a particular type from a third person nominated by the supplier. http://www.mallesons.com/publications/2005/Nov/8201946w.htm
Anyway Amazon and Apple will need to answer those questions.
which means the developer would get $700,000 without the requirements of setting up distribution and to a large extent marketing. Clearly you've never run a business and had to pay for sales, marketing, advertising and distribution expenses.
30% for built in exposure to 80 million potential customer and application distribution is actually pretty cheap. Plus it's a flat pay-as-you-go situation. Generally you have to pay for marketing sales and distribution channels up from and hope you make enough to cover your costs.
Personally I don't like Apple's schizophrenic approval process, but the model is brilliant.
No, it's not. It would be price fixing if Amazon, Apple et al got together and set the minimum price to ensure profits, but this is more like a low price guarantee, and besides the publishers set the prices for the most part anyway.
I think the premise of the article is wrong and I don't think the author understands economics that well. I think that while we might see higher prices on specific or new e-books, having Apple and Amazon competing will drive the prices down as they compete for market share.
Except you might make more money if you drop the price to $1.99 and now sell in 2 marketplaces instead of one. Who says that the price adjustments have to be positive?
If Amazon really wants to fuck with Apple they'll force their pricing to end in .98 which would mean that books on iTunes would be $1.01 more (until Apple adjusted their pricing to .97)
Whatever. I'm heading down to the Apple store to get a new 3g iPad and hit In-n-Out for a Double Double. Cheers.
A 30% flat rate is really cheap, considering you don't have so set up and maintain distribution yourself, and that you are going to reach 80 million potential customers.
Except the higher quality DRM free iTunes files are $1.29? Or they were...
I think reason #2 is spot on.
The single-handedly saved the world from the Exxon spill. I saw it on TV so it must be true!
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a lobbyist.
I'm sorry, but as a heavy Photoshop user I've tried to get stuff done with the GIMP that it just won't do. I'd have to say that GIMP is NOT a strong competitor to Photoshop unless you only use a very small small portion of Photoshop's features. Yes, PS is bloated and expensive, but I couldn't do my job without it.
That's highly likely I think. I fear that IE9 will become the new IE6.
Yep, it's just you.
You can use a stylus with them - Apple uses the Pogo Sketch stylus in the Apple Stores... http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/11/03/exclusive_look_at_apples_new_ipod_touch_based_easypay_checkout.html http://tenonedesign.com/sketch.php
Microsoft has yet to figure out that putting a desktop OS on a touchscreen device without fundamentally changing the way the OS works leads to a bad and muddled experience.
I really fail to understand why people can't seem to get it. The big problem with tablets to date is that they run a version of a desktop OS that turns your finger or a stylus into a mouse and you still have to deal with various windows on the desktop, etc. Microsoft doesn't seem to get the point that the standard desktop OS does not translate well to a touchscreen device - there needs to be a complete re-factoring of the OS for the device, something that Apple seems to get. IMO windows tablets are annoying to use after awhile - I had a tablet PC for awhile and after the novelty wore off, I went back to my Thinkpad for anything other than casual web browsing.
The whole "getting more work done" argument really doesn't make sense in the context of the iPad. Of course you're not getting "work" done on an iPad, or any touchscreen only device for that matter. You're not writing code, doing graphic design or doing serious number crunching on a touchscreen. (and really, you're not getting serious work done on a netbook with a 9" screen and a cramped keyboard either - you CAN get stuff done, but I wouldn't use one and I don't think a lot of people would either). That's not the point of the iPad. It is however the point of Windows powered tablets, but short of using them to drive a power point or a specialized application, like in a doctor's office, you're not getting serious work done with the majority of applications without a keyboard.
Can an iPad replace a computer? Yes, if all you do is browse the internet, answer short e-mails, give a keynote presentation (that you developed on your desktop), play the occasional game, watch movies, and read books with it. I do not get the impression that Apple is selling the iPad as a computer replacement. Having said that I would much rather have an iPad than a netbook computer. I have a laptop and a desktop - I will use the iPad for the stuff I mentioned above, and I much prefer the form factor of a tablet for watching a movie, reading, etc. To me the $200-$300 premium over a netbook with a similar sized screen is definitely worth it.
The iPad isn't for you - we get that. Once Apple release iPhone OS 4.0, the iPad is EXACTLY the device and OS I want for the intended purpose, and I'm perfectly willing to pay $600 for it, and if according to you that makes me stupid, so be it. I wear a nice watch too, but my $40 Timex ironman actually keeps better time. I guess that makes me stupider.
Right, because selling an unhealthy meal with a toy vs. selling the unhealthy meal without a toy is EXACTLY the same as painting your wals with toxic heavy metals.
I'm not on my hobbyhorse, however thanks for generalizing.
Here's your problem: "when I gave them a choice of restaurants for dinner". When I was a kid there was one choice - wherever my parents want to go.
No. This is EXACTLY about personal and parental responsibility. Where the fuck does the government get off telling any parent they can't buy their kid a happy meal with a toy in it. Fuck Santa Clara. Just another entry on my list of places to avoid.
Sounds like you have a problem with the federal immigration system, just like Arizona does.
Whatever happened to "presumed innocent until proven guilty"?
Has anyone else noticed that laws seem to be slowly changing to produce a presumption of guilt (requiring a proof of innocence) these days?
Has anyone even bothered to read the bill? Or is everyone knee-jerking to CNN and other media outlets? Here is the bill (PDF). I suggest you read it. I've read it twice, and while I am not a lawyer, in a nutshell, all it says regarding "checking papers" is that if a cop had a lawful contact with someone, ie. they are pulled over, or being arrested for something else, if the cop has a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegal, (the cops in Arizona have a pretty good idea of who is illegal based on a number of factors including no ID at all and being evasive, and yes, not speaking English, but not speaking English is simply another factor) but the law absolutely does not allow a cop to simple approach someone that think is illegal. It requires some other contact first. If the cop thinks that the person is illegal, the law tells the cop to enforce the already existing for many years immigration laws. The cops aren't going to be stopping people on the street who are "brown" to check for "papers". In face the law specifically states: "This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens."
I fail to understand what the problem with a law that tells the cops to enforce the already existing immigration laws are. If you have a problem with that, then you should talk to your congressman about repealing the federal immigration laws...
and no lube...