Except that (according to these guys), Apple has told the publishers that if they want their books on iBooks, they must sell to all retailers at the same price and require all retailers to resell at a fixed price. Oh, and if that sale is on iOS, Apple is taking 30%. Oh, and the price difference dictated by Apple from publishers to OTHER retailers just happens to be 30%, too.
Apple does not say that anywhere, nor do they have ANY control over who much you pay to license content from others. This is just bellyaching and lies.
From the application developer's blog here discussing the issue, they say:
The agency model was created by Apple who made it a requirement for any publisher who wished to sell books through Apple’s iBooks app. The agency model has three key points: * The publisher is now the retailer of record. The company selling the eBook to the end user is an “agent” of the retailer who receives a commission on the sale. * All sales agents are required to sell books at the same retail price, which is set by the publisher. No one can sell at a different price. * All sales agents get a 30% commission on the sale of a book. No one gets a different deal. Prior to the agency model, publishers typically offered retailers a 50% discount.
I'd be happy to read any articles or discussions about the "Agent Model" that show these guys are lying, as you say they are. They very well may be, I don't know. But according to what they say, Apple has fixed prices such that a competitor can not make money through the iOS platform.
Oh, I don't blame the publisher, either. Now they get 70% all the time, even though the non-Apple seller makes zero profit. I'm sure publishers could care less.
>> And I can't quite see what the advantage of this app is for the customer.
Competition? They could offer books for a lower price than Apple (if they're willing and able to reduce profit per book). Or they could charge more per book and offer a superior application, thus justifying the higher price to users. These other retailers could offer books by publishers that can't or won't deal with Apple. I guess they can still do that, but they can only offer "big name" publisher's books if they're willing to make no profit on them.
So Apple fixed the price they buy and sell books at, took all of their margin and ended up shutting out a competitor on their platform and you're okay with that? They're "whiny bitches"?
This isn't WAL*MART coming in and selling shoes for less than your business. This is WAL*MART coming in, telling your suppliers how much they can charge you for shoes, telling you how much you can sell shoes for and taking 30% of your revenue (which is all of it).
This isn't about the price of the application. Apple can take their 30% of the application sale price as a cost of all the things you list. I'm okay with that.
In this case, however, Apple has fixed the wholesale AND retail price of a product sold through your application. All retailers have to buy books at the same price and sell at the same price, as dictated by Apple (if the publisher wants to be distributed through Apple's ebook service, of course). The margin you buy at is the same margin Apple demands just because the user is on an iOS device.
Can you imagine MS doing the same with "Games for Windows" and everyone being okay with it?
Not only did Apple dictate how much these retailers could sell for, they fixed the price they bought at. They're forced to buy books from publishers to "resell" with a 30% margin. ALL OF THAT is now required to go to Apple just because the user that bought the book just happened to be on an iOS device. Even though Apple had nothing to do with the development of the application.
Before Apple fixing the price these retailers paid for books, they could buy at a 50% margin, keep 20% of that, still pay Apple their 30% (right or wrong) and have a successful business. Now there's no way.
I think the business was more than just ebook reader application. There were also pricing deals with publishers in order to sell their books. Storage and distribution costs. Advertising. Other things I'm not aware of, I'm sure.
This isn't capitalism. If I'm understanding this right, these guys developed their own application to distribute and read ebooks and before Apple's influence, made their own pricing deals with the publishers. This allowed them to buy books at a 50% margin, $10 book for $5 and make a $5 profit on non-iOS devices and a $2 profit ($3/30% to Apple). Under this model, the business was surviving.
Now Apple is forcing publishers to sell to everyone at the same 30% margin. So now a $10 book costs these guys $7 and they make a $3 profit on non-iOS devices but make NO MONEY when the book is sold on an iOS device. So because of Apple's hand in agreements between publishers and OTHER retailers, these guys are basically forced to give books away for free. On an application, distribution model and business they developed themselves.
How is this not anti-competitive? Why is Apple able to dictate the wholesale price of books to retailers other than Apple?
I don't want to make a stupid car or computer analogy here, but this just doesn't seem right.
There is one icon per Application with indicators next to the icon showing how many windows are open. You can Alt-Tab between Apps as normal. if your viewing one window of Firefox (for example) and you click the Firefox icon, you get an expose-like interface to choose the window you want. If I'm viewing another App and click on the Firefox icon, all the windows pop up with the last one I viewed on top.
In that case, I imagine they'd be typing "media" and then Banshee pops up.
You can also click the Applications icon in the launcher and expand Installed to see everything installed. Its not sorted by category, though, so that little bit is lost.
There are also Shortcuts on the search interface to Media Apps, Internet Apps, Browse Pictures, etc., that can guide a new user.
I don't have Chrome installed, but say I heard people talking about it and searched, its shown as an App available for download. Similar available Apps are shown in other categories or they can use the launcher icon to the Software Center.
I missed the hierarchical menu for a couple hours until I realized its all still there, just in a little different format. I think a true search interface that works on keywords for Apps, instead of just the name, would be more intuitive to a new user (always with the option to list all Apps, though).
The launcher/taskbar/whatever shows if there is more than one window of an application open. Each running icon has a white triangle marker on the left side to indicate it's running. If there's more than one window, there's two triangle markets. A triangle marker on the right side of the icon indicates the active application.
If there is more than one window of an application running, then when you click on the icon in the launcher, it does an expose-like thing showing you the open windows and allowing you to pick which one you want.
Is that what you were asking about or did I misunderstand?
I click on an icon on the side panel to start an application. Before I clicked on an icon in Docky or on a panel. Wow... big change with Unity. Sometimes I have to type a name to search/start an app, but generally only the first time as I have it stay in the launcher if I need it frequently.
The only "difference" I've found is that I have to use File -> Open Terminal to get a second Terminal window open instead of right clicking in the launcher to open a new Terminal. You can do that with Firefox (right click in launcher -> New Window), though.
I like it just fine. Upgrading to 11.04 on three of my laptops today after checking it out on my desktop. Even though 11.04 screwed up wireless on my desktop, I like the interface enough to upgrade everything else.
It's just an interface. I click on an icon to start an application. Before I clicked on an icon in Docky to start an application or an icon on a panel. No big change. It's got little quirks, sure, but so did the old interface when I started using and learning it.
I hadn't heard of a camera like that, so that is interesting. I think if the CSI show was playing that angle, they would have explained it, though. They always like to do the smart tech explaining to the dumb boss scene.
In some CSI type show I was watching the other day, they were able to "enhance" the footage from a security camera in order to "widen the field of view" and see someone "off camera".
I have to think writers just chuckle to themselves when they add something so silly.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that (according to these guys), Apple has told the publishers that if they want their books on iBooks, they must sell to all retailers at the same price and require all retailers to resell at a fixed price. Oh, and if that sale is on iOS, Apple is taking 30%. Oh, and the price difference dictated by Apple from publishers to OTHER retailers just happens to be 30%, too.
So is what Apple's doing anti-competitive or not?
So Apple uses their market power with publishers to restrict competitors from selling in-App and you're okay with that?
From the application developer's blog here discussing the issue, they say:
I'd be happy to read any articles or discussions about the "Agent Model" that show these guys are lying, as you say they are. They very well may be, I don't know. But according to what they say, Apple has fixed prices such that a competitor can not make money through the iOS platform.
Oh, I don't blame the publisher, either. Now they get 70% all the time, even though the non-Apple seller makes zero profit. I'm sure publishers could care less.
>> And I can't quite see what the advantage of this app is for the customer.
Competition? They could offer books for a lower price than Apple (if they're willing and able to reduce profit per book). Or they could charge more per book and offer a superior application, thus justifying the higher price to users. These other retailers could offer books by publishers that can't or won't deal with Apple. I guess they can still do that, but they can only offer "big name" publisher's books if they're willing to make no profit on them.
So Apple fixed the price they buy and sell books at, took all of their margin and ended up shutting out a competitor on their platform and you're okay with that? They're "whiny bitches"?
This isn't WAL*MART coming in and selling shoes for less than your business. This is WAL*MART coming in, telling your suppliers how much they can charge you for shoes, telling you how much you can sell shoes for and taking 30% of your revenue (which is all of it).
I read the whole thing. How is what Apple's doing not just as anti-competitive as what you say MS is possible of doing?
This isn't about the price of the application. Apple can take their 30% of the application sale price as a cost of all the things you list. I'm okay with that.
In this case, however, Apple has fixed the wholesale AND retail price of a product sold through your application. All retailers have to buy books at the same price and sell at the same price, as dictated by Apple (if the publisher wants to be distributed through Apple's ebook service, of course). The margin you buy at is the same margin Apple demands just because the user is on an iOS device.
Can you imagine MS doing the same with "Games for Windows" and everyone being okay with it?
Not only did Apple dictate how much these retailers could sell for, they fixed the price they bought at. They're forced to buy books from publishers to "resell" with a 30% margin. ALL OF THAT is now required to go to Apple just because the user that bought the book just happened to be on an iOS device. Even though Apple had nothing to do with the development of the application.
Before Apple fixing the price these retailers paid for books, they could buy at a 50% margin, keep 20% of that, still pay Apple their 30% (right or wrong) and have a successful business. Now there's no way.
So you think developing a Windows only game is a bad business model, too?
I think the business was more than just ebook reader application. There were also pricing deals with publishers in order to sell their books. Storage and distribution costs. Advertising. Other things I'm not aware of, I'm sure.
This isn't capitalism. If I'm understanding this right, these guys developed their own application to distribute and read ebooks and before Apple's influence, made their own pricing deals with the publishers. This allowed them to buy books at a 50% margin, $10 book for $5 and make a $5 profit on non-iOS devices and a $2 profit ($3/30% to Apple). Under this model, the business was surviving.
Now Apple is forcing publishers to sell to everyone at the same 30% margin. So now a $10 book costs these guys $7 and they make a $3 profit on non-iOS devices but make NO MONEY when the book is sold on an iOS device. So because of Apple's hand in agreements between publishers and OTHER retailers, these guys are basically forced to give books away for free. On an application, distribution model and business they developed themselves.
How is this not anti-competitive? Why is Apple able to dictate the wholesale price of books to retailers other than Apple?
I don't want to make a stupid car or computer analogy here, but this just doesn't seem right.
There is one icon per Application with indicators next to the icon showing how many windows are open. You can Alt-Tab between Apps as normal. if your viewing one window of Firefox (for example) and you click the Firefox icon, you get an expose-like interface to choose the window you want. If I'm viewing another App and click on the Firefox icon, all the windows pop up with the last one I viewed on top.
In that case, I imagine they'd be typing "media" and then Banshee pops up.
You can also click the Applications icon in the launcher and expand Installed to see everything installed. Its not sorted by category, though, so that little bit is lost.
There are also Shortcuts on the search interface to Media Apps, Internet Apps, Browse Pictures, etc., that can guide a new user.
I don't have Chrome installed, but say I heard people talking about it and searched, its shown as an App available for download. Similar available Apps are shown in other categories or they can use the launcher icon to the Software Center.
I missed the hierarchical menu for a couple hours until I realized its all still there, just in a little different format. I think a true search interface that works on keywords for Apps, instead of just the name, would be more intuitive to a new user (always with the option to list all Apps, though).
The launcher/taskbar/whatever shows if there is more than one window of an application open. Each running icon has a white triangle marker on the left side to indicate it's running. If there's more than one window, there's two triangle markets. A triangle marker on the right side of the icon indicates the active application.
If there is more than one window of an application running, then when you click on the icon in the launcher, it does an expose-like thing showing you the open windows and allowing you to pick which one you want.
Is that what you were asking about or did I misunderstand?
I click on an icon on the side panel to start an application. Before I clicked on an icon in Docky or on a panel. Wow... big change with Unity. Sometimes I have to type a name to search/start an app, but generally only the first time as I have it stay in the launcher if I need it frequently.
The only "difference" I've found is that I have to use File -> Open Terminal to get a second Terminal window open instead of right clicking in the launcher to open a new Terminal. You can do that with Firefox (right click in launcher -> New Window), though.
I like it just fine. Upgrading to 11.04 on three of my laptops today after checking it out on my desktop. Even though 11.04 screwed up wireless on my desktop, I like the interface enough to upgrade everything else.
It's just an interface. I click on an icon to start an application. Before I clicked on an icon in Docky to start an application or an icon on a panel. No big change. It's got little quirks, sure, but so did the old interface when I started using and learning it.
Low frequency as compared to 2.4/5 GHz used with WiFi. "Lower" would have been more appropriate, though, I guess.
It's low frequency when compared to 2.4/5 GHz used in 802.11 now. I think thats what they mean.
I hadn't heard of a camera like that, so that is interesting. I think if the CSI show was playing that angle, they would have explained it, though. They always like to do the smart tech explaining to the dumb boss scene.
In some CSI type show I was watching the other day, they were able to "enhance" the footage from a security camera in order to "widen the field of view" and see someone "off camera".
I have to think writers just chuckle to themselves when they add something so silly.
Yeah, it's just a pain. Alt-O is print (ok), so I just use that.
Yeah, I'm looking at you Adobe Reader print dialog! >:-|
Thanks. I'll check that out, too.
Thank you. Some interesting stuff on SomaFM. I'll be losing Pandora when I move to Europe*, so I'm on the lookout for other options. Thanks for these.
* Can probably set up a proxy or something, but I doubt I'll bother.