You're comparing apples and oranges. Amazon takes a cut of 30% or 65% to sell your book, makes it searchable as part of their listings, and distributes your book. Apple takes a cut of 30% for merely allowing you to sell content using an app that you wrote, solely because that app is running on their hardware platform.
Again, no it's not just because it's on their platform. Apple are providing many things I already mentioned. You still aren't including them because most of them are lumped in with the original app for which Apple has usually supplied all services FREE. I've already covered that.
And of course you're missing the fact that every business charges what the market will bear, not their costs plus a minimal profit. And in general the market is quite happy with the market they are offered for a mere 30% charge.
But as with any other service purchased by a major corporation, once purchased, consumers would expect it to be integrated under Amazon's brand, which means integrating their billing system into Amazon's.
Actually, if you read Twitter and the blogs, you'll find 95% against Amazon. No one wanted this changed except for Amazon.
Second, the reason the free-to-download, fee-to-play model works is that Apple makes the in-app purchases nearly transparent to the user. If the user is forced to enter a credit card number on an outside site, that ceases to be true, and the model breaks very badly for the game developer.
It breaks for everyone. The user doesn't want different billing models for different apps.
I can't imagine how awful that would be to integrate multiple in-app purchase systems into such a giant behemoth of a billing system.:-)
It's pretty easy. They get a cheque from Apple once a month.
Because smaller companies almost certainly need Apple to provide the infrastructure for handling payment and distribution, whereas larger companies already have that infrastructure. To small companies, Apple's offerings are awesome, and make their lives easier. To larger companies, Apple is a leech. It's not a question of whether big corporations should get better terms. Everyone should get better terms.
You've already accepted that users don\'t want to enter their credit card details over and over for different apps. Your proposal just made users lives worse. Ergo Apple's solution is better than yours.
Amazon will either return to Apple\s IAP system, or they will slowly kill Comixology. The users don't like the change that has made the app far less useful to them.
It's not even good advice for individuals. On the basis that very few people who are overweight manage to make any lasting change to their weight with that advice.
For small publishers, they pay either 35% or 70% to the publisher, depending on what countries you're selling in
So what you're saying is that Android take a cut of either 30% or 65% to list the comic on their market. Without any criticism. Yet others here are arguing that Apple is charging too much at a fixed 30%.
As to them not being able to make it work... it appears Comixology were making it work before Amazon bought them. So I'm not so sure you are right there. To me this looks more like Amazon just refusing to let another player have the marketplace, because they feel that Amazon should be THE marketplace for everything.
Your comments that this is all about Apple having a trusted one stop shop for purchases, rather than the riskiness of typing credit card details in to some unknown on the internet is right. That is part of the reason. And the other part is that apps with in-app purchase are typically free to download and install, so Apple HAS to charge at in-app purchase time, or provide services for a loss, that others are making money from.
For sure Amazon is a name as trusted as Apple itself for purchases, but there might be bigger legal problems should Apple make an exception for them. Why should big corporations get better terms than smaller companies?
All in all I quite like Amazon as a company. They bring me books that would otherwise not always be easy to get, at low prices. But lets not forget it's rapidly killing other businesses in an ever increasing number of categories. So one shouldn't feel sorry for them in the rare cases such as this when they don't have the upper hand.
But given that apps with in-app purchase are typically free to initially download, your claim that none of it is needed is pure crap. Apple hasn't got any money for all the services it's provided prior to the in-app purchase, so of course they deserve a cut of the in-app purchase.
The amount of the cut is certainly debatable. But the fact that they take one is not controversial in the slightest. Well not with actual developers. Idiots on Slashdot that aren't developers, is a slightly different story.
More to the point, Amazon have a business plan that means they aim to make no profit, instead they reinvest or subsidise loss making lines with profitable ones, so they can kill other on-line markets and grow towards monopoly on-line market for everything.
They won't care if comixology is unprofitable for years. For them it's better than letting another on-line market take a cut.
If Google is automatically creating a Google+ account, its only because you are using other Google services that are basically being funded by their search and advertising money.
Right. And so I may be willing to agree to that trade off with some of their services and not others. They are pushing other services on me. It's a land grab and it's a shyster move.
And if you are being tracked by 3rd party adverts that is because you are visiting sites that are funded by Google adverts revenue, so you are still taking advantage of their "free" services.
Wrong. Third party sites have their arrangement with Google. FOR ADVERTS. That does not mean Google have any call on my data. I've made no arrangement with them. Google should only get something out of it if I respond to their advert.
OK, well I'll take your word on that one. I parted company with Microsoft's products more than a decade ago, and use a Mac now. So I don't know what they are up to at that level. My comment was just giving them credit for finally getting rid of Ballmer, and having a new CEO that seems willing to play better with others.
He DID demonstrate such a thing. However he also demonstrated what you describe.
Below the height at which two barometer columns form, the siphon works.
You can't pull on one end of a column of liquid and drag the whole column up.
But you can have a column of liquid higher than the pool is comes from, without any atmospheric effect. It's called capillary action. My reference to surface tension should have given you the hint.
Who said anything about water? I didn't, the person I responded to didn't, and the scientist in the story DID perform a siphoning experiment in a vacuum.
But Google and Facebook provide best in class services to me for free and all I have to do in return is use them.
If only that were the case. I never wanted a Google+ account, and never used it. But Google created one anyway when I signed up for another service.
Not only that, but Google collect data on you even of you don't sign up for any of their services. They spy on you via adverts on third party websites.
There's nothing wrong with you choosing to exchange your privacy in return for "free" services. The problem is them collecting data from people who haven't agreed to that arrangement.
BTW, I note that my comment is +5 with 100% positive mods. Yours is -1 with 100% negative mods. And all the replies you have agree with me and not you.
Of course that's no absolute guarantee of who's right and who's wrong. Especially as it's opinion. But it does show that your feeling that it's just me being anti-theman, and not a widespread view is very wrong. Most people are pissed off with Google's enforced sign up to services you don't want.
And... G+ isn't required for any of the things you've listed so go delete your G+ profile and be happy.
That's not true. Sign up for one you sign up to all. And there's no such thing as delete. They might send you a message saying it's deleted. But then you can reactivate it, so it's gone nowhere.
Why?
Because at one time everybody loved Google. Increasing numbers are starting to hate them. And people hating you is not good business.
All you're saying is 'I don't like unified logins!
There would be nothing wrong with Google offering the option to link accounts. The problem is them forcing creation of accounts in services you don't want, using them to collect data, nag you over and over to use linking features, etc. It's a fucking pain in the arse. And if you don't see why it pisses many poeple off, that's your lack of insight. Because there's a lot of people that have the same feeling.
I want 20 accounts instead of one, even though my behavior makes it easy for Google to identify me across all services anyway!'
No I don't want 20 accounts. I don't want an account in any service that I don't want. It's not hard to understand. If I sign up to a certain service that's because I've decided to make the trade off between privacy and utility for that service. I don't want unasked for services and tracking.
You really don't know what you want it, you're just anti-theman
I know precisely what I want. You're the one who lacks the insight to see why. I'm certainly anti-Google. But that wasn't always the case. I use to love Google. They earned the hatred I now have for them.
Much as Microsoft earned the hatred people had for them. With Microsoft now on the path back to being a well behaved company, Google is taking their place.
You sum it up quite well. All those things that are good for the advertisers because they are given out private information is bad for users.
From Google's point of view, whilst the public is their product and not their customer, they do need to keep the people on their side, and not hating and boycotting them.
It's funny, from the early days of search, and then into maps, everybody loved Google. Most even felt good about their "don't be evil" mantra. But then with the purchase of YouTube, and it's integration with all the other G-products, with Google+, and Google Glass, people have started hating Google. It's quite a turn around. One that mirrors Microsoft's fall from grace.
Hell, Android was released just so Google wouldn't be locked out of iOS ad sales.
Google announced purchase of Android in 2005. Apple announced iPhone 2007. iAd wasn't announced till 2010.
So Android certainly wasn't an answer to iAd. And if it was an answer to iPhone, then Eric Schmidt is in a lot of trouble. He was working for Google and also on the Apple board. If he informed Google about Apple's early iPhone developments, then he's broken his contract, and the damages payable would be huge.
But it's pretty obvious that's not the case. Early Android prototypes were very much Blackberry copies rather than anything like the iPhone. And Blackberry wasn't really an advertising platform.
ACs generally annoy me too, but there are good reasons to post as AC, such as inside info on some current event that is on its way to court.
For those purposes a non-de-plume is just as good as an AC. The problem with AC is not that we don't know who they are, but that it's impossible to know whether 2 posts are from the same AC or from different ones. Slashdot would be far better without them.
It's pretty obvious why. It looks like a phone till you crack it open. It's primary use would have been as a phone. It comes from a phone manufacturer. And it was sold through phone outlets.
Any chance this means Google is going to back-pedal on Google+ ?
I'd welcome Google splitting it's products such that you can subscribe to YouTube without also being signed up to Google+ and GMail and Maps and the kitchen sink. Or vice versa.
Printer manufacturers make cheap printers at little or no profit because they make the money on ink. Although most these days include a scanner, they aren't really interested in you using it as a scanner as that doesn't directly translate to using ink. It's there so you photocopy stuff and use up ink that way.
Dedicated scanners like the ScanSnap are good because you pay money up front for the scanning capability.
Slashdot Mirror
You're comparing apples and oranges. Amazon takes a cut of 30% or 65% to sell your book, makes it searchable as part of their listings, and distributes your book. Apple takes a cut of 30% for merely allowing you to sell content using an app that you wrote, solely because that app is running on their hardware platform.
Again, no it's not just because it's on their platform. Apple are providing many things I already mentioned. You still aren't including them because most of them are lumped in with the original app for which Apple has usually supplied all services FREE. I've already covered that.
And of course you're missing the fact that every business charges what the market will bear, not their costs plus a minimal profit. And in general the market is quite happy with the market they are offered for a mere 30% charge.
But as with any other service purchased by a major corporation, once purchased, consumers would expect it to be integrated under Amazon's brand, which means integrating their billing system into Amazon's.
Actually, if you read Twitter and the blogs, you'll find 95% against Amazon. No one wanted this changed except for Amazon.
Second, the reason the free-to-download, fee-to-play model works is that Apple makes the in-app purchases nearly transparent to the user. If the user is forced to enter a credit card number on an outside site, that ceases to be true, and the model breaks very badly for the game developer.
It breaks for everyone. The user doesn't want different billing models for different apps.
I can't imagine how awful that would be to integrate multiple in-app purchase systems into such a giant behemoth of a billing system. :-)
It's pretty easy. They get a cheque from Apple once a month.
Because smaller companies almost certainly need Apple to provide the infrastructure for handling payment and distribution, whereas larger companies already have that infrastructure. To small companies, Apple's offerings are awesome, and make their lives easier. To larger companies, Apple is a leech. It's not a question of whether big corporations should get better terms. Everyone should get better terms.
You've already accepted that users don\'t want to enter their credit card details over and over for different apps. Your proposal just made users lives worse. Ergo Apple's solution is better than yours.
Amazon will either return to Apple\s IAP system, or they will slowly kill Comixology. The users don't like the change that has made the app far less useful to them.
Not for Apple and not for the Comixology user, and not for the comics authors. But it'd resolve itself for Amazon.
It's not even good advice for individuals. On the basis that very few people who are overweight manage to make any lasting change to their weight with that advice.
For small publishers, they pay either 35% or 70% to the publisher, depending on what countries you're selling in
So what you're saying is that Android take a cut of either 30% or 65% to list the comic on their market. Without any criticism. Yet others here are arguing that Apple is charging too much at a fixed 30%.
As to them not being able to make it work... it appears Comixology were making it work before Amazon bought them. So I'm not so sure you are right there. To me this looks more like Amazon just refusing to let another player have the marketplace, because they feel that Amazon should be THE marketplace for everything.
Your comments that this is all about Apple having a trusted one stop shop for purchases, rather than the riskiness of typing credit card details in to some unknown on the internet is right. That is part of the reason. And the other part is that apps with in-app purchase are typically free to download and install, so Apple HAS to charge at in-app purchase time, or provide services for a loss, that others are making money from.
For sure Amazon is a name as trusted as Apple itself for purchases, but there might be bigger legal problems should Apple make an exception for them. Why should big corporations get better terms than smaller companies?
All in all I quite like Amazon as a company. They bring me books that would otherwise not always be easy to get, at low prices. But lets not forget it's rapidly killing other businesses in an ever increasing number of categories. So one shouldn't feel sorry for them in the rare cases such as this when they don't have the upper hand.
But given that apps with in-app purchase are typically free to initially download, your claim that none of it is needed is pure crap. Apple hasn't got any money for all the services it's provided prior to the in-app purchase, so of course they deserve a cut of the in-app purchase.
The amount of the cut is certainly debatable. But the fact that they take one is not controversial in the slightest. Well not with actual developers. Idiots on Slashdot that aren't developers, is a slightly different story.
More to the point, Amazon have a business plan that means they aim to make no profit, instead they reinvest or subsidise loss making lines with profitable ones, so they can kill other on-line markets and grow towards monopoly on-line market for everything.
They won't care if comixology is unprofitable for years. For them it's better than letting another on-line market take a cut.
Finally! A hybrid vehicle that conservatives can believe in!
If Google is automatically creating a Google+ account, its only because you are using other Google services that are basically being funded by their search and advertising money.
Right. And so I may be willing to agree to that trade off with some of their services and not others. They are pushing other services on me. It's a land grab and it's a shyster move.
And if you are being tracked by 3rd party adverts that is because you are visiting sites that are funded by Google adverts revenue, so you are still taking advantage of their "free" services.
Wrong. Third party sites have their arrangement with Google. FOR ADVERTS. That does not mean Google have any call on my data. I've made no arrangement with them. Google should only get something out of it if I respond to their advert.
OK, well I'll take your word on that one. I parted company with Microsoft's products more than a decade ago, and use a Mac now. So I don't know what they are up to at that level. My comment was just giving them credit for finally getting rid of Ballmer, and having a new CEO that seems willing to play better with others.
Gravity pulls the liquid down on the back end, but the front end needs to be pulled up by something.
For low heights that can be surface tension.
Pessimism.
He DID demonstrate such a thing. However he also demonstrated what you describe.
Below the height at which two barometer columns form, the siphon works.
You can't pull on one end of a column of liquid and drag the whole column up.
But you can have a column of liquid higher than the pool is comes from, without any atmospheric effect. It's called capillary action. My reference to surface tension should have given you the hint.
Who said anything about water? I didn't, the person I responded to didn't, and the scientist in the story DID perform a siphoning experiment in a vacuum.
It's perfectly possible with mercury.
A straw with a hole in it cannot siphon.
It cannot be atmospheric pressure, given that he demonstrated that a syphon works in a vacuum.
It seems to me that surface tension is enough to keep the liquid in the tube, even when the equipment is in a vacuum.
But Google and Facebook provide best in class services to me for free and all I have to do in return is use them.
If only that were the case. I never wanted a Google+ account, and never used it. But Google created one anyway when I signed up for another service.
Not only that, but Google collect data on you even of you don't sign up for any of their services. They spy on you via adverts on third party websites.
There's nothing wrong with you choosing to exchange your privacy in return for "free" services. The problem is them collecting data from people who haven't agreed to that arrangement.
Great! I wonder how long before Google Glass gets killed off too.
BTW, I note that my comment is +5 with 100% positive mods. Yours is -1 with 100% negative mods. And all the replies you have agree with me and not you.
Of course that's no absolute guarantee of who's right and who's wrong. Especially as it's opinion. But it does show that your feeling that it's just me being anti-theman, and not a widespread view is very wrong. Most people are pissed off with Google's enforced sign up to services you don't want.
And ... G+ isn't required for any of the things you've listed so go delete your G+ profile and be happy.
That's not true. Sign up for one you sign up to all. And there's no such thing as delete. They might send you a message saying it's deleted. But then you can reactivate it, so it's gone nowhere.
Why?
Because at one time everybody loved Google. Increasing numbers are starting to hate them. And people hating you is not good business.
All you're saying is 'I don't like unified logins!
There would be nothing wrong with Google offering the option to link accounts. The problem is them forcing creation of accounts in services you don't want, using them to collect data, nag you over and over to use linking features, etc. It's a fucking pain in the arse. And if you don't see why it pisses many poeple off, that's your lack of insight. Because there's a lot of people that have the same feeling.
I want 20 accounts instead of one, even though my behavior makes it easy for Google to identify me across all services anyway!'
No I don't want 20 accounts. I don't want an account in any service that I don't want. It's not hard to understand. If I sign up to a certain service that's because I've decided to make the trade off between privacy and utility for that service. I don't want unasked for services and tracking.
You really don't know what you want it, you're just anti-theman
I know precisely what I want. You're the one who lacks the insight to see why. I'm certainly anti-Google. But that wasn't always the case. I use to love Google. They earned the hatred I now have for them.
Much as Microsoft earned the hatred people had for them. With Microsoft now on the path back to being a well behaved company, Google is taking their place.
Right. But not very realistic to have you fighting on.
But being realistic in this scenario would mean looking at a static picture of the sky, or the mud, or a black screen because you are unconscious.
The America's Army solution of switching you to impotent god mode, so you can at least watch the rest of the battle is slightly preferable to that.
ACs generally annoy me too, but there are good reasons to post as AC, such as inside info on some current event that is on its way to court.
For those purposes a non-de-plume is just as good as an AC. The problem with AC is not that we don't know who they are, but that it's impossible to know whether 2 posts are from the same AC or from different ones.
Slashdot would be far better without them.
This was the first device described as a smartphone (Or "Smart Phone"). Ericsson's answer to the Nokia "Communicator".
http://smartphoneblitz.com/wp-...
It's pretty obvious why. It looks like a phone till you crack it open. It's primary use would have been as a phone. It comes from a phone manufacturer. And it was sold through phone outlets.
Calling it a PDA would have sold it short.
Any chance this means Google is going to back-pedal on Google+ ?
I'd welcome Google splitting it's products such that you can subscribe to YouTube without also being signed up to Google+ and GMail and Maps and the kitchen sink. Or vice versa.
Printer manufacturers make cheap printers at little or no profit because they make the money on ink. Although most these days include a scanner, they aren't really interested in you using it as a scanner as that doesn't directly translate to using ink. It's there so you photocopy stuff and use up ink that way.
Dedicated scanners like the ScanSnap are good because you pay money up front for the scanning capability.
I'd rather have UPS deliver a properly moulded item. Better finish and stronger.